Poll: do you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We can't tell anything, one way or another, about the results of OP's poll. This is because it's statistically flawed in many ways, as described above.

If I were an atheist, I'd be jumping in the "OP's poll is unrepresentative" bandwagon, precisely because it undermines OP' theory. As it is, this all deserves a big shrug.

As OP said on the first page: "Not trying to draw any conclusions about society. Just trying to see who we have here on DCUM, as I posted in OP."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't tell anything, one way or another, about the results of OP's poll. This is because it's statistically flawed in many ways, as described above.

If I were an atheist, I'd be jumping in the "OP's poll is unrepresentative" bandwagon, precisely because it undermines OP' theory. As it is, this all deserves a big shrug.

As OP said on the first page: "Not trying to draw any conclusions about society. Just trying to see who we have here on DCUM, as I posted in OP."

OP also said in the first page that she thinks atheism is inderreported and thinks this poll could help shed some light on that. It did the opposite, although agree as a poll it's flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What should we conclude from the fact that most people don't pick up the phone? I don't. I'm religious, fwiw. This doesn't tell me anything in particular, absent hard evidence.

We don't even have a home phone so we're certainly not represented in any telephone polls.

So who DOES pick up the phone? Does Pew have any data on the people who respond to their polls?

Out of curiosity, I poked around the Pew website. Looks like they have some data from people who did respond to the poll about religion:
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ (click on anything for more detail)

And I found a few articles that discuss the polling methods -- landlines, cell phones, internet polls -- but nothing that addresses "people who just don't pick up the phone" (or not respond to online poll) and how that might account for any differences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't tell anything, one way or another, about the results of OP's poll. This is because it's statistically flawed in many ways, as described above.

If I were an atheist, I'd be jumping in the "OP's poll is unrepresentative" bandwagon, precisely because it undermines OP' theory. As it is, this all deserves a big shrug.

As OP said on the first page: "Not trying to draw any conclusions about society. Just trying to see who we have here on DCUM, as I posted in OP."

OP also said in the first page that she thinks atheism is inderreported and thinks this poll could help shed some light on that. It did the opposite, although agree as a poll it's flawed.

Could you please copy that comment and paste it here? I couldn't find it rereading the first page. I would say, though, that the opposite of "shedding light" would be something like "removing light".

Shedding light simply means seeing more and doesn't imply a positive or negative answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't tell anything, one way or another, about the results of OP's poll. This is because it's statistically flawed in many ways, as described above.

If I were an atheist, I'd be jumping in the "OP's poll is unrepresentative" bandwagon, precisely because it undermines OP' theory. As it is, this all deserves a big shrug.

As OP said on the first page: "Not trying to draw any conclusions about society. Just trying to see who we have here on DCUM, as I posted in OP."

OP also said in the first page that she thinks atheism is inderreported and thinks this poll could help shed some light on that. It did the opposite, although agree as a poll it's flawed.

Could you please copy that comment and paste it here? I couldn't find it rereading the first page. I would say, though, that the opposite of "shedding light" would be something like "removing light".

Shedding light simply means seeing more and doesn't imply a positive or negative answer.

The very first two lines of OP's very first post:

"Sounds like some people aren't comfortable sharing their beliefs about God so current polls may be inaccurate.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58f67e31e4b0de5bac41d3eb

So let's do a little informal poll to see who we have here in DCUMland...."

Seriously, you're splitting hairs over the meaning of "shedding light"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What should we conclude from the fact that most people don't pick up the phone? I don't. I'm religious, fwiw. This doesn't tell me anything in particular, absent hard evidence.

We don't even have a home phone so we're certainly not represented in any telephone polls.

So who DOES pick up the phone? Does Pew have any data on the people who respond to their polls?

Out of curiosity, I poked around the Pew website. Looks like they have some data from people who did respond to the poll about religion:
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ (click on anything for more detail)

And I found a few articles that discuss the polling methods -- landlines, cell phones, internet polls -- but nothing that addresses "people who just don't pick up the phone" (or not respond to online poll) and how that might account for any differences.

The internet polls might get at people who don't pick up the phone. But the problem here is that people without internet (or only their cells) tend to be poorer. These lower-income, internet-less people would also, according to DCUM, be more religious. So the internet part of the poll would actually be biased in the opposite direction from OP's theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What should we conclude from the fact that most people don't pick up the phone? I don't. I'm religious, fwiw. This doesn't tell me anything in particular, absent hard evidence.

We don't even have a home phone so we're certainly not represented in any telephone polls.

So who DOES pick up the phone? Does Pew have any data on the people who respond to their polls?

Out of curiosity, I poked around the Pew website. Looks like they have some data from people who did respond to the poll about religion:
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ (click on anything for more detail)

And I found a few articles that discuss the polling methods -- landlines, cell phones, internet polls -- but nothing that addresses "people who just don't pick up the phone" (or not respond to online poll) and how that might account for any differences.

The internet polls might get at people who don't pick up the phone. But the problem here is that people without internet (or only their cells) tend to be poorer. These lower-income, internet-less people would also, according to DCUM, be more religious. So the internet part of the poll would actually be biased in the opposite direction from OP's theory.

What about people who wouldn't answer the phone OR respond to an online poll? And I'm not trying to tie this back to the original post, just trying to understand how Pew (and others) might take this into account.

Think about people in your life - are some more likely to respond than others? Any trends?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't tell anything, one way or another, about the results of OP's poll. This is because it's statistically flawed in many ways, as described above.

If I were an atheist, I'd be jumping in the "OP's poll is unrepresentative" bandwagon, precisely because it undermines OP' theory. As it is, this all deserves a big shrug.

As OP said on the first page: "Not trying to draw any conclusions about society. Just trying to see who we have here on DCUM, as I posted in OP."

OP also said in the first page that she thinks atheism is inderreported and thinks this poll could help shed some light on that. It did the opposite, although agree as a poll it's flawed.

Could you please copy that comment and paste it here? I couldn't find it rereading the first page. I would say, though, that the opposite of "shedding light" would be something like "removing light".

Shedding light simply means seeing more and doesn't imply a positive or negative answer.

The very first two lines of OP's very first post:

"Sounds like some people aren't comfortable sharing their beliefs about God so current polls may be inaccurate.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58f67e31e4b0de5bac41d3eb

So let's do a little informal poll to see who we have here in DCUMland...."

Seriously, you're splitting hairs over the meaning of "shedding light"?

I read that first line and it does not say OP thinks atheism is under-reported -- it could mean a lot of things and maybe that's what OP was curious about, but it's your interpretation, not OP's words.

And regarding "shedding light" you're making an assumption, based on no facts, that OP is disappointed in the outcome of this informal poll. The only way to find that out is for OP to weigh in.

[Anonymous]

OP here.

I was not disappointed when people were actually answering the "poll" questions. Learned something new about at least one religion. Learned that most people don't answer the phone. There were a lot more "no" responses than I expected - maybe because believers were turned off.

I was very disappointed by the name calling and insults. Not productive at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP makes it pretty clear that she is not a fundamentalist (like you?) who believes there is only one path to God. In the past, she has said she respects the atheist "path" as well, but it seems to go unmentioned here as a legitimate way to live.

In fairness, that wasn't really part of the OP's survey. The questions were specifically about religious faith. If you ask me if I believe the atheists path to be "legitimate", of course I would agree that it is. I believe in God the same way I believe in gravity. I can't see it, but I can certainly see the effect. I strongly believe that all beings eventually find "God" whatever the word means to them. I don't need to worry about the atheist's path. God has that covered. He/She doesn't need my help.

The poster questioning my Christianity is concerned about my statement that I do not believe humans need to be "saved". I probably should have phrased it more clearly. I believe every person is born good. I reject the concept of original sin completely. God is good and therefore incapable of creating evil. We have free will. We screw up over and over again. That's the nature of ego. But every single being on this planet is inherently good. There is a light in each person. Some just hide it really, really well. I believe that when Christ spoke of salvation, he was speaking metaphysically. Salvation comes when we begin to let go of ego and move towards enlightenment. I believe we all get there. It may take many lifetimes. I believe we are literally "born again" and again and again until we are finally capable of being born into eternal communion with God. We all eventually join the creative consciousness of our creator. We return to our beginning when our soul journey is complete.

Jesus the Christ is my way-shower. I follow Christ therefore, I Am a Christian. Others follow different paths with different way-showers. All are manifestations of the same God.

Just MY personal beliefs. I enjoy discussions about religion and spirituality. I do not appreciate being told I am "not a Christian". To the poster who said that - May I gently suggest you spend a little time thinking about what it means to be Christ-like?

I don't appreciate being told different paths are all "manifestations of the same God." And atheists might not appreciate being told that God had their path covered.

Just sayin'.

In all fairness, the UU minister didn't attack your beliefs, so she didn't "tell" you anything - unlike you, who decided to attack her beliefs by telling her she couldn't self-identify as Christian. Someone is more Christ-like than someone else in this conversation.

God didn't create evil. Man did, by not following him. For someone who claims to be a Christian minister, you really need read up on the basics.

And you don't believe that we are all sinners, in need of redemption and salvation. Nice that you think so highly of yourself. I KNOW that I am a sinner. I am weak, I am a coward, I am capable of indescribably hurtful acts, when left to my own devices. (Fortunately, I am not left to my own devices, however.)

The Bible states very plainly that we are all sinners. Any truly self-examined person knows that about himself. You, however, claim that we are not. Let's see... who am I going to follow... the Bible... or your twisted view of "Christianity"...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP makes it pretty clear that she is not a fundamentalist (like you?) who believes there is only one path to God. In the past, she has said she respects the atheist "path" as well, but it seems to go unmentioned here as a legitimate way to live.

In fairness, that wasn't really part of the OP's survey. The questions were specifically about religious faith. If you ask me if I believe the atheists path to be "legitimate", of course I would agree that it is. I believe in God the same way I believe in gravity. I can't see it, but I can certainly see the effect. I strongly believe that all beings eventually find "God" whatever the word means to them. I don't need to worry about the atheist's path. God has that covered. He/She doesn't need my help.

The poster questioning my Christianity is concerned about my statement that I do not believe humans need to be "saved". I probably should have phrased it more clearly. I believe every person is born good. I reject the concept of original sin completely. God is good and therefore incapable of creating evil. We have free will. We screw up over and over again. That's the nature of ego. But every single being on this planet is inherently good. There is a light in each person. Some just hide it really, really well. I believe that when Christ spoke of salvation, he was speaking metaphysically. Salvation comes when we begin to let go of ego and move towards enlightenment. I believe we all get there. It may take many lifetimes. I believe we are literally "born again" and again and again until we are finally capable of being born into eternal communion with God. We all eventually join the creative consciousness of our creator. We return to our beginning when our soul journey is complete.

Jesus the Christ is my way-shower. I follow Christ therefore, I Am a Christian. Others follow different paths with different way-showers. All are manifestations of the same God.

Just MY personal beliefs. I enjoy discussions about religion and spirituality. I do not appreciate being told I am "not a Christian". To the poster who said that - May I gently suggest you spend a little time thinking about what it means to be Christ-like?

I don't appreciate being told different paths are all "manifestations of the same God." And atheists might not appreciate being told that God had their path covered.

Just sayin'.

In all fairness, the UU minister didn't attack your beliefs, so she didn't "tell" you anything - unlike you, who decided to attack her beliefs by telling her she couldn't self-identify as Christian. Someone is more Christ-like than someone else in this conversation.

God didn't create evil. Man did, by not following him. For someone who claims to be a Christian minister, you really need read up on the basics.

And you don't believe that we are all sinners, in need of redemption and salvation. Nice that you think so highly of yourself. I KNOW that I am a sinner. I am weak, I am a coward, I am capable of indescribably hurtful acts, when left to my own devices. (Fortunately, I am not left to my own devices, however.)

The Bible states very plainly that we are all sinners. Any truly self-examined person knows that about himself. You, however, claim that we are not. Let's see... who am I going to follow... the Bible... or your twisted view of "Christianity"...?

Based on your contribution to this thread, at least the bolded area above seems accurate. What does the Bible say about supercilious behavior? or false humility?

Then again, maybe you're a wily atheist trying to make Christians look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In all fairness, the UU minister didn't attack your beliefs, so she didn't "tell" you anything - unlike you, who decided to attack her beliefs by telling her she couldn't self-identify as Christian. Someone is more Christ-like than someone else in this conversation.

God didn't create evil. Man did, by not following him. For someone who claims to be a Christian minister, you really need read up on the basics.

And you don't believe that we are all sinners, in need of redemption and salvation. Nice that you think so highly of yourself. I KNOW that I am a sinner. I am weak, I am a coward, I am capable of indescribably hurtful acts, when left to my own devices. (Fortunately, I am not left to my own devices, however.)

The Bible states very plainly that we are all sinners. Any truly self-examined person knows that about himself. You, however, claim that we are not. Let's see... who am I going to follow... the Bible... or your twisted view of "Christianity"...?

1. I'm the PP you're directly responding to - the one who wrote: "In all fairness, the UU minister didn't attack your beliefs, so she didn't "tell" you anything - unlike you, who decided to attack her beliefs by telling her she couldn't self-identify as Christian. Someone is more Christ-like than someone else in this conversation."

2. I am not the UU minister you originally attacked and continued to attack in this post, thinking that I was the UU minister (even though my post makes it pretty clear that I'm not). Reading comprehension - it even helps you read the Bible!

3. I'm not Christian myself, I'm just defending a self-identified Christian from a fundamentalist.

4. You have serious self-esteem issues, and ironically may need the UU ministry more than you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In all fairness, the UU minister didn't attack your beliefs, so she didn't "tell" you anything - unlike you, who decided to attack her beliefs by telling her she couldn't self-identify as Christian. Someone is more Christ-like than someone else in this conversation.

God didn't create evil. Man did, by not following him. For someone who claims to be a Christian minister, you really need read up on the basics.

And you don't believe that we are all sinners, in need of redemption and salvation. Nice that you think so highly of yourself. I KNOW that I am a sinner. I am weak, I am a coward, I am capable of indescribably hurtful acts, when left to my own devices. (Fortunately, I am not left to my own devices, however.)

The Bible states very plainly that we are all sinners. Any truly self-examined person knows that about himself. You, however, claim that we are not. Let's see... who am I going to follow... the Bible... or your twisted view of "Christianity"...?

1. I'm the PP you're directly responding to - the one who wrote: "In all fairness, the UU minister didn't attack your beliefs, so she didn't "tell" you anything - unlike you, who decided to attack her beliefs by telling her she couldn't self-identify as Christian. Someone is more Christ-like than someone else in this conversation."

2. I am not the UU minister you originally attacked and continued to attack in this post, thinking that I was the UU minister (even though my post makes it pretty clear that I'm not). Reading comprehension - it even helps you read the Bible!

3. I'm not Christian myself, I'm just defending a self-identified Christian from a fundamentalist.

4. You have serious self-esteem issues, and ironically may need the UU ministry more than you think.

FYI -- The minister in question self-identified as Unity - not UU (unitarian universalist). They are two different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In all fairness, the UU minister didn't attack your beliefs, so she didn't "tell" you anything - unlike you, who decided to attack her beliefs by telling her she couldn't self-identify as Christian. Someone is more Christ-like than someone else in this conversation.

God didn't create evil. Man did, by not following him. For someone who claims to be a Christian minister, you really need read up on the basics.

And you don't believe that we are all sinners, in need of redemption and salvation. Nice that you think so highly of yourself. I KNOW that I am a sinner. I am weak, I am a coward, I am capable of indescribably hurtful acts, when left to my own devices. (Fortunately, I am not left to my own devices, however.)

The Bible states very plainly that we are all sinners. Any truly self-examined person knows that about himself. You, however, claim that we are not. Let's see... who am I going to follow... the Bible... or your twisted view of "Christianity"...?

1. I'm the PP you're directly responding to - the one who wrote: "In all fairness, the UU minister didn't attack your beliefs, so she didn't "tell" you anything - unlike you, who decided to attack her beliefs by telling her she couldn't self-identify as Christian. Someone is more Christ-like than someone else in this conversation."

2. I am not the UU minister you originally attacked and continued to attack in this post, thinking that I was the UU minister (even though my post makes it pretty clear that I'm not). Reading comprehension - it even helps you read the Bible!

3. I'm not Christian myself, I'm just defending a self-identified Christian from a fundamentalist.

4. You have serious self-esteem issues, and ironically may need the UU ministry more than you think.

I have anything BUT self-esteem issues. That is yet another reason why I need the redemption of Christ.

[Anonymous]

At this moment, no. But i wish there were someone up there looking out for us. Just dont believe it. For me it's troubling how much bad stuffhappems to inncocent people. So i couldnt believe in an altruistic god. I might believe at times in a life force that connects us, but i think of it more as metaphysics. Not something to worship or fight about. Innocent pure children die every day, whether in Syria from being hassed, or in America from cancer or horrific abuse. To praise god at the same time to me feels sick or at least completely disconnected from reality.