god?

anladmór

do you believe in a god?

Holsten

No, of course not.

cautioner

Gotta have a friend in Jesus.

Adam

no, and i expect this poll to confirm my belief that god does not exist in our generation for the most part, and it's only going to get better* from now on


*please note that by "better" i mean less and less people are going to be brought up as believers of a religion they were born into, and hopefully catholicism, or at least it's form at present, will die out. however, i am not against religion, each to their own, and i'm not interested in a theological debate.

challengemaster

Logic > fairytales

That's a No.

cocoa

wait, you didn't specify the rules of this referendum. What happens when we refuse to pass your so-called god treaty? Will he stop bothering us or just ask for another poll? =P

JC 2K3

Nope. The concept just makes no sense to me.

cautioner

Catholicism = no.

Biology, however = there is something...

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Nightwish

Growing up in a house with 2 religions, how could I believe in a god!

So its a no from me too.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Fad

Adam wrote: »

no, and i expect this poll to confirm my belief that god does not exist in our generation for the most part, and it's only going to get better* from now on


*please note that by "better" i mean less and less people are going to be brought up as believers of a religion they were born into, and hopefully catholicism, or at least it's form at present, will die out. however, i am not against religion, each to their own, and i'm not interested in a theological debate.

Oh yes, a small collective of computer nerds will confirm our generation religious affiliation!

A surprising number of my year are quite religious, I however am not.

I dont however dislike religion, I just think theists are a little mis-guided, and im sure they think the same about me!

anladmór

yeah you have to remember we're a different demographic. in ireland just because teens have access to internet does not make them really aware.

Adam

Fad wrote: »

Oh yes, a small collective of computer nerds will confirm our generation religious affiliation!

A surprising number of my year are quite religious, I however am not.

I dont however dislike religion, I just think theists are a little mis-guided, and im sure they think the same about me!

i think you're a little misguided if you consider the majority of boards.ie users to be "computer nerds"

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Awful lot of heathens up in this joint....


I said no

mardybumbum

May I ask what a "higher force" is?????

anladmór

who is the non-conformist who voted ''yes''?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The question is phrased pretty loosely but I believe the OP was asking do you believe in a god as defined by an organised religion-ie do you believe in the literal existence of Jesus Christ, Allah, Vishnu, Thor, Whateveryou'rehavingyourself (one of the lesser known gods there); or do you reject the idea of those gods but believe that the world and the human race was created by or is observed by a being which occupies a different plane of existence to us-ie are you "spiritual" but not religious; or do you believe in diddly-squat.

Amazing the ****e I'll type when I'm supposed to be doing something else

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

anladmór wrote: »

who is the non-conformist who voted ''yes''?

Emomatt15, has to be!

Fad

Adam wrote: »

i think you're a little misguided if you consider the majority of boards.ie users to be "computer nerds"

I think you're a little misguided taking me seriously.

Adam

Fad wrote: »

I think you're a little misguided taking me seriously.

oh i'm sorry, was there a part of your post that was intended as humour? hmm, i must have missed that part...

Crumble Froo

i know the australian census has showed that today's generation are more likely to be better educated, and to not be religious.

hopefully those trends are true for ireland as well, i'd imagine so. i know a hell of a lot more of my peers are atheist as opposed to what my parent's peers would have been.

KnifeWRENCH

I believe that there is a higher power.
I don't follow any organised religion but I am not an atheist.

takola

square_igloo wrote: »

I believe that there is a higher power.
I don't follow any organised religion but I am not an atheist.

What he said.

Piste

I'm nothing really...I'm definitely not religious, but I'm not an atheist who worships at the altar of Richard Dawkins either...I think it's incredibly arrogant to say you *know* if there is a higher power/deity or not so I go with agnosticism and don't let the question of religion bother me much. I'd be leaning on the side of atheism though.

Fad

Leaving Cert Religion has made me think about things like this alot, my actual belief has shifted quite a bit in the last two years, due to a variety of factors. But RE kinda got me thinking about things. I like the course quite alot, which I didnt expect.........

cocoa

Piste wrote: »

I'm nothing really...I'm definitely not religious, but I'm not an atheist who worships at the altar of Richard Dawkins either...I think it's incredibly arrogant to say you *know* if there is a higher power/deity or not so I go with agnosticism and don't let the question of religion bother me much. I'd be leaning on the side of atheism though.

Actually Richard Dawkins agrees that we cannot know for sure, but thinks it's highly unlikely. It is rather unfortunate and sad the way he's turned into something of an anti-preacher and people end up taking his word as fact instead of thinking for themselves.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Yeah, there's many times more zealous, evangelical-style Atheists around than believers. I think religion has taken such flak over the past few decades, plus different religious communities have been forced to interact, plus scientific advances have undermined so many of organised religions' previous certainties, that religious people are more likely to take a more relativist, humble attitude to the whole thing than atheists are, because science is currently accepted as fact by the vast majority of the population.

Yeah you still meet the odd religious nut, and it's irritating when someone starts quoting Leviticus at you instead of having a rational debate, but somebody having faith really doesn't bother me as much as it seems to do a LOT of atheists. Dawkins, or more specifically his fanboys, piss me off something rotten.

cocoa

Agreed, you can get annoying people / idiots on both sides It seems generalisations will fail every time

Thomas_S_Hunterson

cocoa wrote: »

Agreed, you can get annoying people / idiots on both sides It seems generalisations will fail every time

666th post

JC 2K3

Amelia Hot Survivor wrote: »

Yeah, there's many times more zealous, evangelical-style Atheists around than believers.

Lol, maybe on the internet.

Dawkins doesn't really annoy me. His manner gives off an air of arrogance, but I think what he's doing is great. Interpreting what he does as a smug attack on religion is missing the bigger picture. The point is that he provokes the ordinary, unthinkingly religious person to reconsider their faith, shows those who've been struggling with their faith that it's ok to be an atheist, and generally presents atheism as a valid world view.

Adam

Amelia Hot Survivor wrote: »

Yeah, there's many times more zealous, evangelical-style Atheists around than believers. I think religion has taken such flak over the past few decades, plus different religious communities have been forced to interact, plus scientific advances have undermined so many of organised religions' previous certainties, that religious people are more likely to take a more relativist, humble attitude to the whole thing than atheists are, because science is currently accepted as fact by the vast majority of the population.

i actually lol'd when i read that ^ bit. there are no certainties in religious beliefs. and it is not up to science to disprove religion or the existance of gods.

Adam

Adam wrote: »

i actually lol'd when i read that ^ bit. there are no certainties in religious beliefs. and it is not up to science to disprove religion or the existance of gods.

It's not up to science to do so - as science doesn't have an agenda to disprove a religion or a god (as science doesn't prove or disprove anything). But, if science does so inadvertantly, then, sobeit.

And no, I don't believe that any god exists. I'm an atheist.

Edit: There are no certainties in religious beliefs? You don't frequent the Christianity or A&A forums, do you?

ANarcho-Munk

challengemaster wrote: »

Logic > fairytales

That's a No.

Logic > suppression



tbh

Jesus Juice

cautioner wrote: »

Gotta have a friend in Jesus.

Always there for you...and no i dont believe in God because its all way of controlling people tbh!!i mean look how much trouble religion has caused over the past 1000 years or so...and look at the catholic church in ireland in the 60's and 70's...

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Adam wrote: »

i actually lol'd when i read that ^ bit. there are no certainties in religious beliefs. and it is not up to science to disprove religion or the existance of gods.

Thanks, I'm here all week. Things that previously would have been held to be certainties so-the 6,000 year old earth etc. And some people are pretty certain still. And no, it's not science's job to disprove religion or the existence of gods, but in the opinion of many many people it kinda does anyway

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Lol, maybe on the internet.

Dawkins doesn't really annoy me. His manner gives off an air of arrogance, but I think what he's doing is great. Interpreting what he does as a smug attack on religion is missing the bigger picture. The point is that he provokes the ordinary, unthinkingly religious person to reconsider their faith, shows those who've been struggling with their faith that it's ok to be an atheist, and generally presents atheism as a valid world view.

M'eh, in my experience they're there in force in the real world as well, though admittedly a lot more vocal on t'internet :pac: And I respectfully disagree about Dawkins as well, atheism was a valid world view when he was in nappies, and at the very least in stuff like The Root of All Evil he's courting controversy and publicity by dissing religion. He knows his stuff, he is good, it's the 'tude I have issue with, his work gets quoted by people to just bash people who aren't atheists, which I don't see the point in (and I voted no in the poll).

Anyways, this is a discussion I've had many times and it tends to get vert agressive and repetitive (not that the good citizens of this forum would do that ) so I'll leave it there

Stev_o

I said yes! Im not ridiculously religious in the whole going to mass every week but i do believe in God and i believe in the Catholic faith.

Diabhal Beag

I don't believe that there is a God watching every single thing we do but there are moments when something amazing happens and you know that it cannot be just pure chance.

I believe in life outside the Earth that are more intelligent than us. Everything is so perfect in this world just for the world to be a pure fluke ceation.

norwegianwood

well, yeah, i think i do anyway:)

however, nothing bugs the crap out of me more than those 'holier than thou' people thinking that going to mass automatically builds their stairway to heaven, and they're better than everyone else, you know the type....

JC 2K3

Amelia Hot Survivor wrote: »

M'eh, in my experience they're there in force in the real world as well

Moreso than theists? When's the last time an atheist stopped you in the street and tried to convert you to their way of thinking? I can't say I've ever seen or felt much of an atheist/anti-theist presence in the real world, whereas religious activists can be seen and heard every day in Dublin City (I presume it's the same in other towns/cities), not to mention that Catholicism is still a prominent part of Irish society, although it might seem a bit behind-the-scenes these days.

Amelia Hot Survivor wrote: »

I respectfully disagree about Dawkins as well, atheism was a valid world view when he was in nappies

Valid in the sense that it wasn't illegal and wasn't something likely to get you much hassle, but mainstream acceptance? Not by any means, especially in a very religious society like Ireland. And a study a year or two showed Atheists to be the most hated minority in the US.

He's not ideal, but it's nice to have some figure promoting atheism in the mainstream media IMO.

JC 2K3

Little Shyte wrote: »

I don't believe that there is a God watching every single thing we do but there are moments when something amazing happens and you know that it cannot be just pure chance.

How do you know? Coincidences happen all the time and their occurrence is perfectly logical, and indeed, should be expected.

Little Shyte wrote: »

I believe in life outside the Earth that are more intelligent than us. Everything is so perfect in this world just for the world to be a pure fluke ceation.

But who created this more intelligent life? There has to be a "fluke" somewhere along the line or else your reasoning is flawed.


(And it begins.....)

cocoa

yay! Here's my favourite improbable things do happen analogy:

Many people don't realise, in terms of playlists, the difference between shuffle and random. Random, means it is possible (though unlikely) for the same song to be played twice in a row. It's one of my weird / nerd hobbies to test this on new mp3 players or new software players I get So far it's happened twice, in all the time I've been playing on random, which is to be expected as it's a fairly improbable event (dependant on the size of your playlist), but the point is it signifies a fully functioning random engine, not (as many people might assume) a broken one. For any pattern to emerge is not impossible, merely improbable, and the fact that they can and do, shows true random -ness

</weird speech>

edit: argh!!! I had intended on staying with 666 posts for a while... woops...

towel401

cocoa wrote: »

yay! Here's my favourite improbable things do happen analogy:

Many people don't realise, in terms of playlists, the difference between shuffle and random. Random, means it is possible (though unlikely) for the same song to be played twice in a row. It's one of my weird / nerd hobbies to test this on new mp3 players or new software players I get So far it's happened twice, in all the time I've been playing on random, which is to be expected as it's a fairly improbable event (dependant on the size of your playlist), but the point is it signifies a fully functioning random engine, not (as many people might assume) a broken one. For any pattern to emerge is not impossible, merely improbable, and the fact that they can and do, shows true random -ness

</weird speech>

edit: argh!!! I had intended on staying with 666 posts for a while... woops...

you'd think they'd code it not to play the same song twice, keep a list of which ones have been played and not to play those for another while. really simple to implement really

also the random number generators on a mp3 player don't generate true random numbers. they use some formula to come up with something that looks random and use the time or date as a seed. even with hardware random number generators a lot of them will have something that strips out 2 consecutive 1's or 2 consecutive 0's to make sure the numbers are good and random

cocoa

towel401 wrote: »

you'd think they'd code it not to play the same song twice, keep a list of which ones have been played and not to play those for another while. really simple to implement really

also the random number generators on a mp3 player don't generate true random numbers. they use some formula to come up with something that looks random and use the time or date as a seed. even with hardware random number generators a lot of them will have something that strips out 2 consecutive 1's or 2 consecutive 0's to make sure the numbers are good and random

ermm, that would be good if you wanted shuffle, but not random...

I'm aware the random number generators aren't perfect, but my little tests proves they're still doing pretty damn good

towel401

cocoa wrote: »

ermm, that would be good if you wanted shuffle, but not random...

I'm aware the random number generators aren't perfect, but my little tests proves they're still doing pretty damn good

because they test them to make sure the numbers are statistically random. which is good enough if you're using it to play songs but not for encryption (generating one-time pads and the like)

at the end of the day there is no such thing as random. just a lot of confusing unrelated numbers

deleriumtremens

Those poll results are extremely unindicative of the true statistics for the teenage age group in this country!! Typical computer nerds with your "oh look at me, I'm an intellectual elitist" attitudes!! :pac:

cocoa

deleriumtremens wrote: »

Those poll results are extremely unindicative of the true statistics for the teenage age group in this country!! Typical computer nerds with your "oh look at me, I'm an intellectual elitist" attitudes!! :pac:

but now you're just generalising and labeling us all as computer nerds and...

...

*looks at last few posts*

...

never mind...

deleriumtremens

Hmm..the poll result kind of looks like the middle finger most of us point at the catholic church and organised religion!

Davidius

I believe in a God.

Sure 'tis the safer bet.

cocoa

deleriumtremens wrote: »

Hmm..the poll result kind of looks like the middle finger most of us point at the catholic church and organised religion!

I'm waiting for it to reveal a statistically significant, but random, phone number... Of course I need for at least one of the options to break a 100 votes for that, so here's hoping.... :pac: