The definitive SL religion poll.

I am seeing comments suggesting that you can see who voted which way, but I don't seem to be able to see them.

I believe that "God" and "Universe" are exactly the same thing. The Universe/God is the creator and motivator of all things. This is as certain as your being the motivator of your hand or your heart. When you are born, you come from God. When you die, you return to God - body and soul.

It may even seem like you never left God when you were born. Actually, you don't leave God until you learn to separate yourself from the world, and learn to be alone.

I think it’s important to note that God can never leave YOU, and that He is always wherever you are, ready to be heard, as soon as you become quiet enough to hear Him.

I didn't mean to imply that I anthropomorphize the universe. I am not trying to solidify God into a very large being who happens to be as big as the universe. I do feel that we are part of God - and He us - as a neuron is part of a brain. But I do not believe God has a brain, or cells, or eyes, or hands. I'm not a panentheist, who believes that God is present IN everything and also extends beyond and is GREATER than the universe. I believe that "God" and "Universe" are exactly the same thing. The Universe/God is the creator and motivator of all things. This is as certain as your being the motivator of your hand or your heart. When you are born, you come from God. When you die, you return to God - body and soul.

It may even seem like you never left God when you were born. Actually, you don't leave God until you learn to separate yourself from the world, and learn to be alone.

I think it’s important to note that God can never leave YOU, and that He is always wherever you are, ready to be heard, as soon as you become quiet enough to hear Him.

The fact that I walked into my living room and caught my plants singing the ensemble number "Down on Skid Row" from Little Shop of Horrors and screaming "Feed Me, Feed Me" is probably more related to mushrooms from the sixties than it is to my skills at plant observation or my ability to meld into the universe.

Also I can't see anything advising one that the poll is public, is that because the display changes after you vote?

My understanding is that atheists deny the possibility of the existence of any god-like being. My feeling runs more along the lines that there might be a god, or gods, or goddesses, or some other supreme being; I just have no way of knowing for sure.

Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.

Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.

Because knowledge claims are involved, strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims. This narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself.

Because strong and weak atheism are often called “types” of atheism, some people develop the mistaken idea that these are somehow akin to “denominations” of atheism, not unlike denominations of Christianity. This serves the bolster the myth that atheism is a religion or a belief system. This is unfortunate, in particular because the label of “types” is not entirely accurate; rather, it is simply used due to a lack of better terminology.

To call them different types is to imply on some level that they are separate — a person is either a strong atheist or a weak atheist. If we look more closely, however, we will note that almost all atheists are both on various levels. The primary indication of that can be seen in that the definition of weak atheism, lacking belief in the existence of any gods, is in fact that basic definition of atheism itself.

What this means is that all atheists are weak atheists. The difference, then, between weak and strong atheism is not that some people belong to one instead of the other, but rather that some people belong to one in addition to the other. All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists, by definition, lack belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods.

Technically, saying that “some” atheists do this isn’t entirely accurate. Most, if not all, atheists are willing to deny the existence of some gods if asked — few only “lack belief” in the existence of Zeus or Apollo, for example. Thus, while all atheists are weak atheists, pretty much all atheists are also strong atheists with respect to at least some gods.

So is there any value at all in the terms? Yes — which label a person uses will tell you something about their general inclination when it comes to debates about gods. A person who uses the label “weak atheist” may deny the existence of some gods, but as a general rule isn’t going to take the step of asserting the nonexistence a particular god. Instead, they are more likely to wait for the theist to make their case and then examine whether that case is credible or not.

A strong atheist, on the other hand, may be a weak atheist by definition, but by adopting that label the person is in effect communicating a willingness and interest to take a much more proactive role in theological debates. They are more likely to assert right up front that a particular god does not or cannot exist and then make a case for that, even if the theist doesn’t do much to defend the position of belief.

Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?

Unfortunately, no — agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable.

Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

I think that most people who claim agnosticism acutally fall into the category of "weak atheism."

Agnosticism is a well-accepted and entrenched notion in the history of theology, no matter what some atheists apparently contend. I'm not sure it's fair to dissect exactly why I want to call myself an agnostic and not an atheist, when my definition of agnosticism fits within widely accepted guidelines of the term. I'm not just making this stuff up, Chip.

You are correct. Misuse of the terms agnostic and atheist are well-accepted and entrenched

Pagan would have covered Wiccan, but believe me.... Wiccan does not cover Pagan. And the public poll part tends to make a lot of ppl shy off on contraversial topics.

Sorry, Chip, no matter how much you seem to want to (uncharacteristically) denigrate the validity of agnosticism

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

It's interesting that you use the word denigrate while bristling at the notion that the term atheist could possibly apply to you (as if it would be a slight for the term to be applicable).

If you allow for the possibility of there being a god or gods but do not currently have a theistic belief then you are an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism means without knowledge. Atheism means without belief. They are not in any way mutually exclusive, despite people's desire to run screaming from the stigma attached to the word atheist.

I put Wiccan instead of Pagan because in some senses Pagan doesn't refer to a specific religion or type of religion but instead means not-Christian or Heathen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism I understand that there are people who refer to themselves as Pagans and do so in a very positive and speific sense but I felt that as this definition is not universal it was best to avoid the word and instead include the most prominent nature-oriented religion that I could think of.

I wanted to included 'other religion - pantheist' and 'other religion - monotheist' but that would have meant bumping one of the named major world religions as only 10 options are allowed. While Hinduism nearly lost out as I felt it unlikely that there were any Hindus on the SL forums I felt that a religion with 900 million followers could not be ignored.

As for not making the poll anonymous, well tough, I was curious and it's my poll.

Nicely put Kathy, but I remain slightly confused. Isn't attributing a lifeforce (and even a sex) to the universe anthropomorphizing it?

Ya this sounds much closer to what I believe but I still never heard the term "atheist" thrown in there.

I can't say I ever felt a stigma from the word "atheist". Quite the contrary, in my neck of the woods (yay blue states).

hehe. Well 99% of people use the terms agnsotic and atheist as if they're different spots on the same scale. They actually denote different things entirely