Hi! :mrgreen:

One of our fellow members has worked out some statistics about religiosity and irreligiosity in this Forum. I'd like to put her figures to the test. This thread is not intended to spark a debate but feel free to elaborate on your beliefs, or disbelief, here. (My stance has been trenchantly evinced in Dream Science; "Lucid Dreamers and God.") 8-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3fOXIY3D1Y

I think this would answer your question.

I could be wrong about the 85%, BTW. There may be more than that. It was only an estimate

Secular/agnostic/atheist. :ugeek: :mrgreen:

Anti-theist too! :mrgreen:

@ nesgirl:

Human beings are so nice. That canine has no manners! It must be an atheist! :-D

I'm a devout Quir.

I always feel rather sad when I see some survey which only address the opposite poles - "Religious" versus "Secular" in regards to a person's philosophical approach to deep questions about the ultimate nature of reality and awareness.

"Religious" usually seems to be associated with some form of organized religion with a set statement of beliefs to be accepted without question by the members of that particular group. And "Secular" beliefs are usually though of as being based totally on rational though, with a likely suspicion of intuitive ways of exploring the nature of consciousness.

I wish these surveys would include a 3rd category, such as - "Spiritual - Non-affiliated". Perhaps other forum members could suggest another term for people who do not attend church, but who are interested in independently exploring the inner nature of consciousness through meditation, dream work, the study of cross-cultural metaphorical themes in mythology, enjoyment of close communion with nature, etc.

Some resources which tend to blend religious/secular boundaries.

• Book - "Lucid Dreaming: Gateway To The Inner Self". In chapters 7, 8 and 9, Robert Waggoner discusses various deeply intuitive, abstract, numinous lucid dreaming experiences, such as awareness of the hidden observer behind dreaming and self-less experiences of inner light.

• Search - "Perennial Wisdom - theosociety.org Scroll down to Science category and see some very intuitive, spiritual-sounding commentary by Albert Einstein - "A Mysterious, A Cosmic Religious Feeling" or Itzhak Bentov - "The Ground Of All Being".

• Also - YouTube _ "Stanislav Grof - Revision And Re-Enchantment of Psychology"

jasmine2

jasmine2 wrote: I always feel rather sad when I see some survey which only address the opposite poles - "Religious" versus "Secular" in regards to a person's philosophical approach to deep questions about the ultimate nature of reality and awareness.

"Religious" usually seems to be associated with some form of organized religion with a set statement of beliefs to be accepted without question by the members of that particular group. And "Secular" beliefs are usually though of as being based totally on rational though, with a likely suspicion of intuitive ways of exploring the nature of consciousness.

I wish these surveys would include a 3rd category, such as - "Spiritual - Non-affiliated". Perhaps other forum members could suggest another term for people who do not attend church, but who are interested in independently exploring the inner nature of consciousness through meditation, dream work, the study of cross-cultural metaphorical themes in mythology, enjoyment of close communion with nature, etc.

Some resources which tend to blend religious/secular boundaries.

• Book - "Lucid Dreaming: Gateway To The Inner Self". In chapters 7, 8 and 9, Robert Waggoner discusses various deeply intuitive, abstract, numinous lucid dreaming experiences, such as awareness of the hidden observer behind dreaming and self-less experiences of inner light.

• Search - "Perennial Wisdom - theosociety.org Scroll down to Science category and see some very intuitive, spiritual-sounding commentary by Albert Einstein - "A Mysterious, A Cosmic Religious Feeling" or Itzhak Bentov - "The Ground Of All Being".

• Also - YouTube _ "Stanislav Grof - Revision And Re-Enchantment of Psychology"

jasmine2+1

Jasmine, most deists don't attend any places of worship. If you want, you can identify yourself as a pantheist, in the sense that you are in awe of the universe (something many scientists experience anyway), and that you are curious about the nature of consciousness -- one of life's greatest mysteries -- and wish to explore it.

One can be spiritual without being religious. In this case, you are certainly not religious in the sense that I meant here (someone adhering to the precepts of a particular faith). There are many secular people who meditate and seek numinous experiences. If you suspect there might be a Creator but are not sure, you might prefer to be identified as an agnostic. (Many an agnostic snub places of worship, too.)

You might even be a Jewish atheist who is making preparations to celebrate Purim -- which is today, by the way -- but you don't believe in any of the stories in the Old Testament. Purim might just be a good excuse for a family get-together or a party! Is this position religious or secular? It is certainly atheist.

Conversely, atheist priests exist. Even the Pope could be a private atheist! This is why I encourage people to elaborate here. Feel free to exposit your grey areas but you must cast your vote. You know what I mean by my dichotomy above. The question is, which one do you relate to the most?

If your pantheism is Spinozaesque (is this even a word? :mrgreen:) or even Einsteinian, then perhaps you should opt for "secular/atheist/agnostic." If it's more Waggoneresque, then you should go for the other. I've read Robert Waggoner's book. Some of what he espouses is valid, but his suspicions and conclusions belong somewhere between the New Age and Existentialism categories. He entertains the supernatural. Sorry. :-)

And, of course, if you follow crackpot Thomas Campbell, you are in a cult and should go for "religious/theist/deist." Your god is the collective consciousness -- alive and intelligently evolving towards a goal. Buddhism (even its atheistic factions) espouses metaphysics, karma, and realms beyond the physical. Religion. :mrgreen:

Summerlander wrote: @ nesgirl:

Human beings are so nice. That canine has no manners! It must be an atheist! :-D Yeah right. Why not watch this video?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EisZTB4ZQxY

Well there are 3 supposed beliefs I do have: Anti-romance, Animal Activism, and Anti-bullying. The world would be a much better place if we didn't have romance cluttering up society, if we treated animals like our equal companions, stopped killing them for sport, and stopped turning them into furniture, and if we stopped persecuting or bullying others, regardless of religion/non-religion, gender, race disability, etc.

What is Quir, Hagart? :-D

Summerlander wrote: Hi! :mrgreen:

One of our fellow members has worked out some statistics about religiosity and irreligiosity in this Forum. I'd like to put her figures to the test. This thread is not intended to spark a debate but feel free to elaborate on your beliefs, or disbelief, here. (My stance has been trenchantly evinced in Dream Science; "Lucid Dreamers and God.") 8-)

I do not know precisely what you mean by the word "religious." I believe it can be resolved to actually three categories in regard to human will. As the human mind can only produce human will, or human behavior, I would take it one believes that one either has a function or not. If one has a function is that function an expression of self or of not self. In the category of not self, is a realm of the environment from fact to fiction. In the category of self is biology and physical fact.

One can use the logical component to make associations, or the analog. However, since language starts by learning how to say what we see, the analog component takes precedence. What one abstracts, if anything, for an analog component is determined by functionality of that mind. If one rests an argument on the logical component, one still can only acquire associations derived from the original analogs.

So, one cannot determine if one is religious or not in regard to the words used, but the analog component of them. For example, to many God means some either undefined mystical power, or an anthropomorphic being with magical power. To me it simply means that Cause and Effect is just another example of the Law of Identity, A = A, or again an image. And we know by the image, or perception. I.e. what we know, we learn by experience. The wisdom is not in the words, but is a function of personal ability.

So, I would interpret the major components of the JCS in terms of a single idea, others cannot, their mind will always be divided against itself. So, in regard to source material such as the JCS (Judeo-Christian Scripture) I can see the truth of it, that someday there would be no one teaching about God, no one teaching mysticism, but that all shall know, i.e. that someday mankind will know in truth and the mind of man will be functional.

So, it is highly unlikely that any so call statistics can be gathered when one is wholly unaware of the analog component which must be associated with the logical in any language. One cannot even count a thing if they do not know what a thing is. So, to me the question resolves to is one asleep, or awake or somewhere in-between? This makes me believe, we are all somewhere in-between or in a mental institution.

@ Desert:

Do try and read everything if you get the time. It is already quite a rich thread. ;-)

@ Philosopher:

So I take it that you didn't vote. Let me help you with that by being more specific. Take a look at humansarefree.com. Do you believe in most, if not all, of its content. Do you believe in an intervening god or deity? Do you believe in divine purpose and intelligent design? Or perhaps just a Creator that just watches it all unfold and never manipulates the fabric of the universe. You might even be a pantheist (not in the Einsteinian or Spinozaesque sense, more like Thomas Campbell).

If so, then you should pick the "religious/theist/deist" option. 8-)

Summerlander wrote: @ Desert:

Do try and read everything if you get the time. It is already quite a rich thread. ;-)

@ Philosopher:

So I take it that you didn't vote. Let me help you with that by being more specific. Take a look at humansarefree.com. Do you believe in most, if not all, of its content. Do you believe in an intervening god or deity? Do you believe in divine purpose and intelligent design? Or perhaps just a Creator that just watches it all unfold and never manipulates the fabric of the universe. You might even be a pantheist (not in the Einsteinian or Spinozaesque sense, more like Thomas Campbell).

If so, then you should pick the "religious/theist/deist" option. 8-)

I already know that you don't understand what I have been saying. May I suggest surrender? That website is not exactly what I focused.

I have worked in electronic repair, to engine rebuilding to multi skilled trades areas, and even washing dishes. And one thing I have learned, it don't matter what a thing may think or believe it is, what matters, is that it either has a function or not. If it functions, that is why it is.

Everything that has a function, exists for that function. Aristotle. Notice that this is just another way of saying, A = A.

The function of the human brain, which produces mind, has a well defined biological function, to maintain and promote the life of the body. It does so through language, both branches.

So, language or not, a thing is not different from itself, A = A. One can say this a great variety of ways, such as I AM THAT I AM. Which means, what? No matter how may ways I say it, it seems to escape you.

Show me, if you can, any religion, or social structure based on the identity of a thing with itself in regard to human behavior. You cannot do so. All you see is the denial of it. Maybe that is why you are unfamiliar with my words.

There is a use of the Law if Identity in regard to what is called "closed systems" For example, take any number in arithmetic, and manipulate it from sun up till sun down, what do you get? Just another number. Do the same with common grammar, what do you get? Just more words.

Add to that a complementary relationship. The Mind and Language. If one does not know what their purpose or function is, can they be said to be linguistically competent? If the mind is wholly linguistic by function, and it is, is it functional if it cannot answer the most basic question in regard to a closed system, or the Law of Identity?

Take for example the saying, Judge not unless you would be judged, for whatever judgment you give will be rendered unto you again. That is nothing more than an application of the Law of Identity, and means the same as do unto others as you would have them do unto you, yet how many supposedly bright people take it to be don't judge, when in fact, judgment is the function of the mind? Remarkable? not really, simply dysfunctional.

Judgment is of the Lord. People take it to mean some supernatural being, when in fact, the first principle of language, of law, of creation, is no more than the Law if Identity, which means Judgment is of equality. So, how in the world can anyone claim human equality, when in fact they deny it by their simplicity? How can they claim a belief in anything, when they deny their own function? Your very question demanded a self-referential fallacy. The image, and perception, etc, are biological functions. The reason the JCS is sealed to man's understanding, is the same as the cornerstone that is rejected, perception, which is a biological identity. Someday the eyes of man will be opened, if he survives. There is one point that bothers me, are we sure we are lucid dreaming, when we are not lucid when awake?

Yep. Definately religious and unable to answer, like the majority here, the topic's question. A lengthy reply using atrocious language, and, as usual, casuistry. The world of metaphors is his palpable reality. ^^ :-D

Earth calling Philosopher! :mrgreen:

Summerlander wrote: Yep. Definately religious and unable to answer, like the majority here, the topic's question. A lengthy reply using atrocious language, and, as usual, casuistry. The world of metaphors is his palpable reality. ^^ :-D

Earth calling Philosopher! :mrgreen:

Well, when you grow up, maybe you will be not only able to comprehend the simple sentence, but learn some manners as well.

Maybe when you grow up and learn to construct sentences you will be able to understand what I mean by the word "religious." Then you can take baby steps to comprehend my trenchant argument in "Lucid Dreamers and God." ;-)

While you didn't understand the OP, I discerned this much from your glib statements: you support a teleological model and have developed your own delusional map of an exegesis that only makes sense in your head. And while you accuse all of mankind of being protolinguistic, you are really describing yourself.

Just curious: How many here understood what I meant by "religious" and how many fully understood the confusing non-language of Philosopher? :-D

Summerlander wrote: Science discovers the root cause of problems as well as solutions. It can also expose the noxious nature of certain cultures, such as the one that insists on covering girls with burqas for the sake of expressing modesty. Such mores cause a decrease in the vital vitamin supply, narrowing the pelvis of many Asian girls. Because of this, the poor souls find it harder to give birth. (Not that you care much, right nesgirl? They shouldn't even be having sex in the first place even though -- the hypocrisy (!) -- you are the product of such.) And, of course, some of those girls don't even have to wait long to be impregnated -- after all, what was the prophet Muhammad, with his prepubescent concubines, if not a groomer and a paedophile? The pious certainly look up to him. Good grief, I'm being Islamophobic! :mrgreen: Most Asian girls shouldn't even become pregnant in the first place. Do you realize how many abortions there are in China, and how many innocent baby girls are mercilessly slaughtered each year? Also I don't ever recall there

Perhaps you would now like to know that cloudy places such as Britain show higher rates of lung and bowel cancer. Where is the solar radiation we need? Summerlander could be at risk but hopefully the rats will be safe. Is that fair now, nesgirl? Am I foregrounding facts, or have I, like you just admitted to me in replying to my question about your equivocal position on religion, decided to "find reasons to argue against them"? And who has control over their moods anyway?
I am not discussing religion anymore, because I got caught discussing it and I don't want to get expelled. However I will discuss history with you if you wish. The reason why females were treated like that in ancient history was this: females were inferior back in history, and were often treated almost as inferior as your race was. Females were considered property by many countries (including the USA), and oftentimes, guys could purchase them, and age wasn't an issue back then. Some countries did practice in polygamy, while some people themselves practiced in it, and there was nothing that could stop them....unless they stole those females from the government, which could gain custody of a female once their husband died, and they could sell that female and her children at an auction. Females were not allowed to go to school, not allowed to do almost anything in public, and their only purpose of even existing in history was to be the house slave for a guy. The guy was free to do what he wanted with her, and most often, she would serve on him hand and foot, do all the chores, bring food to him (sometimes bringing food to the mouth), massage him, and take care of the kids. The guy in return could beat her if he wanted to like a poor animal, and he could do all sorts of mean things to her. While not all guys were that mean, many were. If a female ever rebelled against her husband or against the community, usually the penalty was capital punishment.

[quote[As for selective breeding and the preservation of genes: nothing nature hasn't done before on its own. Poor lions when a pack of hienas steal the carcass of the antelope they just killed, right? All that hunting energy...[/quote] Quite often the opposite can happen. Also if their cubs are around when they are trying to eat, they won't just be defending the meal, as if they lose the meal, sometimes in the process, the hyenas will also eat their cubs. However, if there are several male lions in the area, they will often kill some of these hyenas, and they will retreat (many predators know not to mess with these guys, it only takes 2 of them to take down a buffalo, whereas it takes about 5 female lions to take down a buffalo, and sometimes a female gets killed in the process), although to the dismay of the females and cubs, they will probably hog the entire antelope to themselves (yes that really happens, usually the first kill, the males hog to themselves).

You may have autism in common with some of the greats, by the way, but do you have their ingenuity? Because some of the greats were not autistic and thus it can be logically inferred that such behavioural absorptions do not necessarily make a genius. This is the difference between me and you, nesgirl: you look up to people afflicted with the same scourges as yourself; I admire people who have something to teach, something other than what I already know. Did I ever mention I have autism? I only mentioned I respect him because he because something great despite having a mental weakness. Many people with different mental afflictions look up to him because of it. I really want to do something great despite the fact I have problems with my mood. I don't want to let my mood issues stop me from doing something great in the future. This is why I look up to him, because I want to believe I can accomplish something despite having a weakness. Beethoven and Mozart would be more among my lines of doing something really great with their talents and having my weakness (mood swings), although they aren't quite as popular as Einstein.

And kindness isn't something that can only be taught by religion either. This is the ultimate insult to secularists and atheists alike. Confucius thought of rules of thumb and propriety way before the monotheisms were even thought about and formed to hijack them. Morality (minus psychosis) is innate in all of us. People shouldn't have to be taught (like little brats) to be kind and respect one another. It should happen by their own accord -- and it does, as many well-behaved atheists and secularists can attest to -- because we are social beings who have long worked out that our survival odds are greater if we stick together. Evolution has led us down the path of, generally speaking, empathy, cooperation, and camaraderie. We've had this even when we endured our tribal wars, and world wars, and our experience will hopefully lead us to be wiser and more cosmopolitan. Now...

I know this, but I don't see it happen nearly as often as it should. I have only seen a few religions pitch in for the fact of the matter anyways. Besides the fact, most of the world has the attitude of survival of the fittest, and unfortunately did you know if a poor person has an emergency, like if someone is hurt, sometimes they are hung up on, because they don't want to deal with someone who is poor? It makes me feel bad most of the community out there doesn't want to feed the starving people out there, doesn't care about people who are homeless, doesn't care about abusive behaviors (75% of various assault attacks despite being illegal people get away with) and most of all, allows all sorts of animal abusive behavior to go on (they used to be really good about that and really care for the animals and animal abuse used to be illegal, now the humane society and Peta really struggle against all forms of animal abuse, because it is happening WAY more often than necessary. Fur stores and collecting are becoming a huge trend which we are desperately trying to have shut down, which is why I referred to you earlier as disgusting, because wearing fur is gross).

I know of a few scientific studies that were cruel and horrific, but it gives me hope in humanity when I know that an overwhelming percent of the population are against it. They just need to be exposed. Religion too has a few bad apples, but an overwhelming number of the population are actually nice, considerate people when you get to know them.

I know this as well, and I wish some people would actually come to realize that some forms of science are very cruel if done in the wrong way. Some of these animals have gone through extreme amounts of suffering, and they have done some of these experiments on people as well.

Well, I think this poll has served its purpose. Congrats, nesgirl. The result is close enough to your estimation. 8-)

Summerlander wrote: Well, I think this poll has served its purpose. Congrats, nesgirl. The result is close enough to your estimation. 8-) See and what did I tell you? I am actually very good at average and estimation, and judging by the users who left, and the users who were remaining, I calculated my results using my math skills, and was able to come up with an exact estimation. Did you know that 65% of the world's population is Agnostic/Atheist/Says religion is none of your business? I calculated my own numbers, and this is what I found. You probably didn't know this, did you.

No, I didn't. Well done. 8-)

I am Muslim :)

Salam Pika

Walaikum-assalam :D

Brought up as a Muslim or convert, Pika? Nesgirl, you are statistically wrong after all! :-D

Brought up :)

Would it be fair to say that if you had been brought up to be a Christian you'd probably be one today?

I think so. Probably the reason why I consider myself lucky to be Muslim :D

Pika, nice to meet you.

Hold tight..

what?!

Pika? wrote: what?!

I said "nice to meet you".

what did u mean by ''hold tight''?

Btw nice to meet you too!!!!

Pika? wrote: what did u mean by ''hold tight''?

Btw nice to meet you too!!!!

You will find out, don't be impatient. Just make sure that you spend enough time here.

why is being Muslim lucky? What do you perceive to be a privilege in Islam? :-)

He probably means that he is lucky in that he will enjoy the Elysian afterlife for having been born to the one true religion.

Here it comes.. :D

Ok, I smell a religious argument coming.....:(

To be honest, I am ill equipped with knowledge for a religious debate. I know the bad image of Islam in the modern times. But I do believe in the fundamentals of Islam which is to believe in Allah, strive to be a better person and help others. Basically, the Islamic lifestyle is peaceful and virtuous, thats why I consider myself lucky to be a Muslim and try to be a better one every way possible.

I know very well you guys dont agree with me. Im only 18, i hardly have enough knowledge to argue, my big exam starts from april and I am seeing myself being doomed. So im not really in a position to defend.

Nice input, as ever, DesertExplorer. :D

I find myself unable to do that, Pika?, hold an uninformed and indefensible opinion. I myself have only existed for sixteen years, and I believe that informing oneself is one of the only noble things we can do, as consciousnesses graced with ratiocination. Ignorance is something to be raged at, not succumbed to. ;)

Rage is a bad thing, Deschain. Be careful with that..

deschainXIX wrote: Nice input, as ever, DesertExplorer. :D

I find myself unable to do that, Pika?, hold an uninformed and indefensible opinion. I myself have only existed for sixteen years, and I believe that informing oneself is one of the only noble things we can do, as consciousnesses graced with ratiocination. Ignorance is something to be raged at, not succumbed to. ;)

Ok i didn't say that my religion is indefensible, its just that I cant defend it. I try to acquire knowledge as much as possible, be it religion, science or other things. Its true that I don't have enough knowledge to defend, but I do have enough knowledge to practice, apply the religion in my life.

I just learnt that most of the people here are atheists therefore pro at bashing religions, so I'm just gonna walk away......I have neither the intention nor the capability to argue with you guys. So lets just drop it, eh? Its a lucid dreaming site after all, we have the same goals, we shouldn't create differences among us just because we hold different religious views, should we???

Btw if you really want to flex your arguing muscles, then email Zakir Naik or William Campbell or whatever..........unlike me they do have the experience! :D

I hope you stay, Pika. You seem like a nice person. :)

Don't get us unbelievers wrong, Pika. We understand you very well. Many of us have been there. But those who go one step further, ask questions, explore scripture, value evidence, and try to make sense of things end up renouncing faith and become sceptical.

We are only trying to raise awareness of the excellent reasons why we don't believe and have adopted the secular life. One can find happiness, fulfilment and virtue in secularism, too. And we do all of this without having to worry about what food to eat, the right way to make love, and praying several times a day. We don't worry about a god watching let alone trying to appease him. Why? Because we have seen no evidence that there is such an entity.

But that's just us... :-)

Np summerland. You guys actually deserve creds for atleast questioning that if your belief is right or wrong, not like the rest of the people who blindly follow the religion of their ancestors (kinda like me xD) without judging them from a neutral stance.

Well, I don't know if we really deserve credit for disbelieving. Atheism or agnosticism isn't anything new. Disbelief in God doesn't even equate with Darwinism or Marxism as some people think (not you). There are people who accept Darwinian evolution but still believe in a Creator. There are religious communists, too.

Atheism probably precedes the Vedas in the Orient. I would also contend that characters such as Socrates, Lucretius and Epicurus were already doubting Thomases for many of the conventional ideas of their time. Demanding evidence isn't anything new.

And believe me when I say that if you provided me with concrete evidence that the Quran is the unalterable word of God, and that Islam is the final solution/revelation, I would have no choice but to accept it. (Although I wonder what kind of evidence that would be...)

And if it was proved, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that there really is a God, I wouldn't deem it worthy of worship considering that no theodicy in the world can justify an infinitely merciful and benevolent divinity in the face of evil or even the concept of eternal damnation. For a self-proclaimed omnipotent lord, God seems powerless to fix the psychopath or to persuade the sceptic - opting to condemn them, instead, for all eternity according to the text.

I'd soon be discussing with a revolutionary Satan on the most effective way to overthrow the celestial dictatorship. God would be the Czar, Satan Lenin, and we would be the Bolsheviks. :mrgreen:

Agnosticism has not anything to do with disbelieving and Atheism. So, nothing to do with some of you guys, too. I'm just saying..

It was wrong from the start to make only two choices in the poll, Summer.

There is a schism, though, however much we would like to deny it (we don't like to think of ourselves as simple and definable with a single word). There is a fundamental dichotomy between the faithful and the pragmatic.

deschainXIX wrote: There is a schism, though, however much we would like to deny it (we don't like to think of ourselves as simple and definable with a single word). There is a fundamental dichotomy between the faithful and the pragmatic. That's why I can easily understand you. You use words with Greek origin all the time.. :P

Actually, agnosticism has two things in common with atheism: the recognition of the absence of evidence for the existence of God and a stance quite apart from organised religion. ;-)

The atheist will say God is as probable as folkloric or mythical beings such as fairies and unicorns, therefore the atheistic argument questions the need for one to believe in that which has not been demonstrated to exist. 8-)

The agnostic takes a softer approach by saying that he or she is not sure. Typically, agnostics are neutral in that they claim to neither believe nor disbelieve (sometimes stating that the answer is unknowable), and are thus liable to fall for the ridiculous Pascal's wager in a bid to cover themselves in case it's true. :-)

So I really don't see why it was wrong to have only two choices in this poll when the goal was to test nesgirl's statistics anyway. It's very simple: one option covers religious traditions and belief in supernatural beings such as gods, deities, angels and demons; the other is secular and includes doubt, uncertainty, disbelief, and scepticism.

No, that is incorrect. Atheism supports the idea that there is no God, while Agnosticism supports the idea that we have not the means to prove the theory of a deity's existence or nonexistence. They have nothing in common, except what you said secondly. So, it's not about a safe bet in the case Agnostics are wrong. It's just that they admit that they cannot know, while Atheists declare that they know, which they cannot back up with evidence other than saying that there is no evidence in the opposite field (religion).

That's why I didn't vote. But, your purpose was more personal, so I cannot complain.

I'm going to make a poll "Are you crazy?" Hehehehe.... That should be real FUN! Prepare yourselves. :D

But tomorrow now.

I feel really sleepy..

Atheism doesn't "declare" anything. It's not a declaration, it is the negation of a declaration. It has no tenets, no systems, nothing to say about anything. Atheism is merely this: Those who claim that there are deities have no ground or right to such a claim. It is merely a negation.