Dawkins' Spectrum of God's Existence

[Chimera]

I was just reading another thread where a poster is making assumptions about atheist beliefs. I would like to get a better reading on how forumites think about God. This is stolen from Dawkins' "God Delusion"; sorry if this poll happened before.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know there is no god with the same conviction I know there are no invisible pink unicorns in my backyard. I have no clue what Jung's god beliefs are.

The evidence is overwhelming that god beliefs originate from human superstitions.

There is no evidence of gods.

The only god one cannot test for (IE the one you cannot disprove) is the one defined specifically to fit outside the realm of scientific inquiry. No humans believed in such a god until evidence began to mount against the existence of gods.

Virtually all theists are atheistic about at least some god beliefs and usually they are atheistic about everyone's god beliefs that are substantially different from their own.

Most or maybe even all agnostics have no trouble being atheistic about at least some god beliefs. I doubt many agnostics include Zeus and Pele in their "you cannot disprove god" declaration. If you can disprove one, why not two? If you can disprove 2 why not 10? There are a finite number of people on the planet, there must be a finite number of god beliefs. We should be able to disprove a finite number of god beliefs.

Are god beliefs the thing to disprove, or are we to disprove some purposefully defined version of a god no culture actually described until very late in the history of our specie's existence? Original gods supposedly made their presence known to ancient peoples. Now we have people claiming the evidence of gods' existence is a visitation via their thoughts and/or exist only outside of a Universe the gods supposedly initiated.

Seems about the same as belief in invisible pink unicorns if you ask me.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

As I said in the other thread, I don't think the continuum or spectrum model is the most reliable way to categorize people, but that's beside the point. I voted for "de facto atheist" which seems to be the position of most of the self-identified atheists here on JREF.

Regarding the possibility of a god or gods existing, I should clarify my stance. I believe there are far greater things out there to be discovered or devote one's sense of wonder towards than some ancient tribal war deity. People use God to refer to vastly different things, as do I, and my take on it is so radically different from the commonly accepted ideas that I technically qualify as an atheist. Similar to the way scientists like Hawking or Einstein have done, I use the term "God" as a broad abstract metaphor.

(Also, yeah I admit it. I haven't read Dawkins' book.)

 

[Alric]

There is no evidence for the existence of any god. Why make one up?

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Agnostic atheist here. I'm also pretty well apatheistic. The concept of gods has no real value to me in my daily life. I don't claim to know for sure that there are no gods at all ever anywhere ... but the possibility of their existance is useless to me. Kinda like the invisible dragon in my garage.

 

[X]

I am a 6.

But, in all honesty, the more I learn about the history and development of religion(s) and the concept of god(s), the more I lean towards it(them) being entirely human in origin.

I am willing to say "there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn", and there is no "Flying Spaghetti Monster" (I'm probably going to catch some flak for saying such things...). I do not know whether "god" should be any different. The only thing god has that FSM and IPU do not is a long history. And yet, stating the negative is inherently unprovable.

In the end, however, regardless of whether or not I would say "God doesn't exist", I still don't believe in the deity. So it's 6 for me. And I shall continue to define myself as such until I have learned enough to confidently say otherwise. I doubt that'll happen in my lifetime, but that's what I say now, and the future is hazy...

 

[KarlG]

I am willing to say "there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn", and there is no "Flying Spaghetti Monster"

Unbeliver!! !11eleventy!!1! You shal burn in Noodley Hell!!!



KarlG

 

[MRC_Hans]

I vote 5, but I must add that this is for a very wide definition of the term "God". For, say, the Christian definition of God, I'm a hard atheist.

Hans

 

[PixyMisa]

I vote 5, but I must add that this is for a very wide definition of the term "God". For, say, the Christian definition of God, I'm a hard atheist.

I voted 7 for that reason.

I can't be deductively certain that there is no god... Except when - as is usually the case - the definition is logically inconsistent or even incoherent.

So it's a case of "I don't know for sure that God doesn't exist, but I know that your God doesn't exist."

 

[EHLO]

Yep, definition is the problem I have with all such questions. I'd vote 6 generally but as soon as a believer starts to define their particular God I switch to 7. (He says not knowing what Jung had to say about anything, let alone what his convictions were)

 

[Big Les]

Yes, seems to me there's a missing link there (arf!). I went for "de facto", but for the vast majority of god definitions, I'm a strong atheist. But imagining, say, some sort of extra-dimensional alien thingamy, plus countless others I can't even conceive of, I'm forced to go with that option.

 

[Alric]

I can't be deductively certain that there is no god...

That however does not add probability to the supposition.

 

[Beerina]

I voted strong athiest. While we can't know for certain this universe isn't some scientist (or kid's) simulation, the standard God proposed by Western theology cannot possibly exist since omnipotence + benevolence cannot simultaneously be properties of the creator of a universe where babies are soddomized to death.

Oh, one could propose that "god" got the baby's permission before birth, making it OK ethically, since they "knew" the risk, but at that point you've got nothing that resembles standard religion.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Without a definition I see no way to answer.

For virtually all gods, I am atheist. For Spinoza's God I am not. Most folks don't consider that God, though.

 

[Kiosk]

I doubt many agnostics include Zeus and Pele in their "you cannot disprove god" declaration.

Pele? I've seen the videos. World Cup Finals, 1970.

No doubt about it. That guy was definitely God.




Seriously, I went with the crowd here. Was not surprised to see how the results are stacking up.

 

[Wowbagger]

Any probability you place for God's existence, is only going to be subjective opinion. There is no way to test that probability. Though, I am inclined to think it is mighty low, given the fact that science seems to benefit society a LOT more than religion.

In fact, I started a thread on just that topic:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106464

 

[Irony]

Plenty of people have already mentioned my main beef with this. I'm a de facto atheist with regards to a Deistic god, but a strong atheist with regards to gods who are logically self-disproving.

I have another problem with it though. It equates confidence with belief. If someone is 99% certain that some god does exist and yet chooses to withhold belief until they encounter concrete evidence, they are an atheist. If a person is 99% certain there is no god and yet chooses to believe in one against the odds, they are a theist.

 

[latent aaaack]

A spectrum of the definition of 'God' is at least as important as probability. There are some very reasonable definitions like those used by some scientists and philosophers. I believe in the God part of the brain and think beliefs in dieties are a societally useful misinterpretation of the feelings that it causes.

 

[CFLarsen]

I know there is no god with the same conviction I know there are no invisible pink unicorns in my backyard. I have no clue what Jung's god beliefs are.

The evidence is overwhelming that god beliefs originate from human superstitions.

There is no evidence of gods.

The only god one cannot test for (IE the one you cannot disprove) is the one defined specifically to fit outside the realm of scientific inquiry. No humans believed in such a god until evidence began to mount against the existence of gods.

Virtually all theists are atheistic about at least some god beliefs and usually they are atheistic about everyone's god beliefs that are substantially different from their own.

Most or maybe even all agnostics have no trouble being atheistic about at least some god beliefs. I doubt many agnostics include Zeus and Pele in their "you cannot disprove god" declaration. If you can disprove one, why not two? If you can disprove 2 why not 10? There are a finite number of people on the planet, there must be a finite number of god beliefs. We should be able to disprove a finite number of god beliefs.

Are god beliefs the thing to disprove, or are we to disprove some purposefully defined version of a god no culture actually described until very late in the history of our specie's existence? Original gods supposedly made their presence known to ancient peoples. Now we have people claiming the evidence of gods' existence is a visitation via their thoughts and/or exist only outside of a Universe the gods supposedly initiated.

Seems about the same as belief in invisible pink unicorns if you ask me.

What did you vote for, then? "Very low probability, but short of zero" or "strong atheist"? Or something else?

 

[biomorph]

CFL , if you click on the figures that represent the number of voters, all is revealed..........