Do you trust yahweh?

[Šñøü†ê®]

Do you think yahweh is GOD, as in being a creative force in the universe, or just some crazy ass middle eastern deity?

[the incredible b]

in the question you give four options which are not in the poll...i dont know how to anwser this...

[Šñøü†ê®]

I always present several layers of complexity to force the brains of the humanoids should they have any to use their reasoning abilities!

[Šñøü†ê®]

Let me dumb it down for the incredible one. Yahweh is NOT a CREATOR of ANYTHING, therefore the answer is NO!

[trgfbv]

Yahweh is man made.

[SivVulk]

not much complexity here.. it would take the interference of a legit deity to get Ron Paul elected as president. I admit I'm cynical... I don't believe in any omnipotent being.

It's time he lowers his expectations... just not to this degree:

[the incredible b]

Let me dumb it down for the incredible one. Yahweh is NOT a CREATOR of ANYTHING, therefore the answer is NO!

the question you posted was 'is he the creator or a fake'; by anwsering 'no' you say he is neither. you mean to anwser he's a fake. if so you should anwser 'yes' to the question 'is he the creator or a fake'. 'yes' as in "yes, he is one of those".

ooookay?

[Charles]

I answered "Don't Know" because I don't know. I doubt a god exists but it is possible. Anything that hasn't been proven impossible is possible.

[josephdphillips]

Anything that hasn't been proven impossible is possible.

Which means everything is possible, including Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

That there is no god is obvious to anyone open to reason and critical thinking.

[Charles]

Which means everything is possible, including Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

That there is no god is obvious to anyone open to reason and critical thinking.

It is possible a god exists, though so far it appears very unlikely. I'd assign a probability of maybe 0.0001 percent.

As far as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, they have been proven to not exist to the extent they are represented. That is, Santa doesn't come down every chimney - it is impossible to fly a sleigh and land on every roof, etc and the Easter Bunny couldn't get into my house to deliver eggs (Is that what the EB does? Deliver Eggs? I forgot.)

Now, to categorically state that god doesn't exist requires faith and as Richard Dawkins says, Faith is the process of non-thinking.

[josephdphillips]

It is possible a god exists, though so far it appears very unlikely. I'd assign a probability of maybe 0.0001 percent.

Let's say that's the probability that any god exists.

What is the probability within that probability that a god worthy of worship exists?

Perhaps 0.0001 percent of 0.0001 percent? That equals 0.00000001 percent.

If that is remotely accurate, agnosticism has no reasonable foundation.

As far as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, they have been proven to not exist to the extent they are represented. That is, Santa doesn't come down every chimney - it is impossible to fly a sleigh and land on every roof, etc and the Easter Bunny couldn't get into my house to deliver eggs (Is that what the EB does? Deliver Eggs? I forgot.)

Yet the non-existence of either cannot be proven.

Given modern quantum physics, non-existence itself is impossible. Given any moment in space-time, something is there.

Now, to categorically state that god doesn't exist requires faith and as Richard Dawkins says, Faith is the process of non-thinking.

That wasn't what I read in The God Delusion.

It is correct and supportable to state the non-existence of "god" for all intents and purposes. That was his point.

It does no one any good to posit the possible existence of a deity remotely concerned for human affairs or about the human condition. There has never been evidence of such and a reasonable person may assume that none is ever forthcoming.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Is yahweh THE CREATOR or a FAKE, PHONY, FRAUD

The poll question isn't a yes or no question. I love ya Snouter, but WTF?

[Charles]

That wasn't what I read in The God Delusion.

You must have missed it. But, for your convenience, he repeats it here at 1:15 of this video:

[Charles]

Yet the non-existence of either cannot be proven.

You have to define what each means. We can prove Santa Claus didn't come down my chimney. We can't prove Santa Claus doesn't sit in a chair at the mall holding kids listening to their xmas wishes. Which one defines Santa Clause?

[josephdphillips]

You have to define what each means. We can prove Santa Claus didn't come down my chimney. We can't prove Santa Claus doesn't sit in a chair at the mall holding kids listening to their xmas wishes. Which one defines Santa Clause?

The lie becomes reality to those who need to believe. Haven't you seen Miracle on 42nd Street?

It is intellectually dishonest, or at least cowardly, for an agnostic to leave open the possibility that some kind of god exists, even if such an entity is completely detached from human experience.

The agnostic is a person who cannot make up his mind, when he emphatically should.

[Charles]

It is intellectually dishonest, or at least cowardly, for an agnostic to leave open the possibility that some kind of god exists, even if such an entity is completely detached from human experience.

The agnostic is a person who cannot make up his mind, when he emphatically should.

Not sure if I get this.

[josephdphillips]

The question for me, Charles, isn't whether or not there is a supernatural force of some kind. That is not a theological question. That is a cosmological question. And the answer to that question doesn't pay the rent, if you know what I mean. It really makes no difference to us.

The question is whether or not a god exists that is (a) supernatural and (b) concerned with the survival and well-being of the human race.

The paucity of evidence, going back since the beginning of human history, must lead us to the answer -- "No, such a being does not exist."

That's what Dawkins is saying.

If "god" exists, he doesn't give a sh#t. If he doesn't give a sh#t, he's unworthy of worship. If he's unworthy of worship, our moral obligations are to ourselves and to no one, and to nothing, else.

Agnostics, to me, are intellectually on the fence. They want to show respect to irrational and dangerous beliefs on the one hand, and still feel themselves to be rational. It doesn't work.

[Charles]

The question for me, Charles, isn't whether or not there is a supernatural force of some kind. That is not a theological question. That is a cosmological question. And the answer to that question doesn't pay the rent, if you know what I mean. It really makes no difference to us.

The question is whether or not a god exists that is (a) supernatural and (b) concerned with the survival and well-being of the human race.

The paucity of evidence, going back since the beginning of human history, must lead us to the answer -- "No, such a being does not exist."

That's what Dawkins is saying.

If "god" exists, he doesn't give a sh#t. If he doesn't give a sh#t, he's unworthy of worship. If he's unworthy of worship, our moral obligations are to ourselves and to no one, and to nothing, else.

Agnostics, to me, are intellectually on the fence. They want to show respect to irrational and dangerous beliefs on the one hand, and still feel themselves to be rational. It doesn't work.

What happens if you decouple "worthy of worship" and god? Does a god necessarily have to be worthy of worship? If not, then there can exist a god who can be omnipotent and still be a jerk. If so, then (based on our human definitions or acceptance of good and evil), then there is no god (because a "good" god wouldn't have permitted the Holocaust for example.)

[queenlillian1962]

Voted yes because I have no problem believing a being with more intelligence than humans could have created us. If WE can make test tube babies and travel to the moon, I'm thinking there could very well be a creator who could have created everything we see and a few things we don't see as well.

[Charles]

Voted yes because I have no problem believing a being with more intelligence than humans could have created us. If WE can make test tube babies and travel to the moon, I'm thinking there could very well be a creator who could have created everything we see and a few things we don't see as well.

I have a problem "believing" but otherwise, most of what you wrote seems possible. Why is it necessary to "believe"? Why not say "It's possible."?

I don't "believe" in anything. I either know something or I assign a probability. "Believing" is unnecessary and it requires faith. Faith is unnecessary.