Quick Poll - Do you believe in God?

[jstrodel]

There are liberals like Bill Maher who use the term in a different sense but it originates from issues surrounding the left, Stalinism and feminism and other issues in the 70s and 80s.

You have never heard a conservative get pissed off about political correctness? I think that liberals have appropriate the term somewhat but it is really a conservative idea.

It is certainly related to the debate about God's existence as it related to the sufficiency of 21st century political culture as an absolute expression of morality, without having any other ground than the acceptance of the norms through dishonest political techniques on both sides.

[Garuda]

no. No evidence to support it

[Atheist(KM)]

A belief in a god has no proof thereby, seems as likely to me as an invisible, immaterial, pink unicorn.

[Ucaslog1]

No.

I believe god DOES NOT EXIST in any shape or form.
There is no reason for a god to exist in my humble opinion. If you want to believe in god, then by all means do so. But do not involve religion in politics, do not teach a single religion in school and do not publicise it. It is you personal journey to believe in god, so keep it that way.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Haha we English are actually polite people, we don't go around insulting others. I don't know where this forum is based, I'm guessing American? It shows. I guess we have to go along to get along

Are we?

Sure we queue and have some of the safest roads in Europe, but at the same time, we excel in telling people with silly religious beliefs where to go and fuck themselves (just wish our MPs would do as the majority of the people do in this regard).

[Snaghobaa]

A simple no. I have no belief.

[whatever76]

This seems like a good place to put up my first post. I consider myself agnostic. I voted "no" to keep things simple.

[Sal]

I got the 4 A's:

Apathetic agnostic atheist apostate.

[pgardner31]

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point).
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:...

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1. Omnipotent and
2. Omniscient and
3. Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

[pocaracas]

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.

Not on this thread. Go do it somewhere else.
And it's abiogenesis, not evolution...