Dawkins' Spectrum of God's Existence

[CFLarsen]

I can, because I have set a limit to what I will consider plausible. Pencils as transport is not a possibility.

After thousands of years of close study there is no useful data for real existence of imaginary characters. With no useful data you seem to consider it possible. How odd.

What little useful data there is would indicate there is nothing there other than imagination.
With useful data suggesting it's imaginary you seem to consider it possible. How odd.

There is no useful data to suggest gods are real. There are no gods.

There is useful data to suggest gods are imaginary. There are no gods.

I have set a limit to what I will consider plausible. There are no gods.

Then, you're a 7. But not a skeptic.

 

[Tricky]

I have set a limit to what I will consider plausible.

For your own personal convenience, this is fine. I think most atheists here do this. But recognize that it is a limit, not an actual value.

I set a limit on what I require to represent pi. Four decimals is good enough. I do not pretend that this is the actual value of pi, but close enough for my personal convenience.

 

[H3LL]

Then, you're a 7. But not a skeptic.

I doubt that.


When all imaginings are possible it doesn't seem that far from woo-woo even at its most extreme.

ETA: What am I saying... It's the same.
.

 

[H3LL]

For your own personal convenience, this is fine. I think most atheists here do this. But recognize that it is a limit, not an actual value.

Agreed.

 

[CFLarsen]

I doubt that.

It takes more than that to be a skeptic.

When all imaginings are possible it doesn't seem that far from woo-woo even at its most extreme.

ETA: What am I saying... It's the same.

A skeptic doesn't say that all imaginings are equally possible.

 

[H3LL]

It takes more than that to be a skeptic.

I doubt that too.

This thread is about atheism and not skepticism

A skeptic doesn't say that all imaginings are equally possible.

Nor did I.

Leaving a dark little corner at the limits of possibility to hide imaginary characters to placate the woo and keep one safe in case a god jumps up and says "Boo!", is a funny type of atheism IMHO.

.

 

[Robin]

Atheism only exists in context of theism.

Strong or weak atheism is dependent on the strength or weakness of the theist argument.

Without a definition there is nothing to comment on.

Well put - that should have been one of the options.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Is this like a competition of who's the most skeptical of all skeptics?

Why does this begin to stink a little bit of narcicism to me?

 

[CFLarsen]

I doubt that too.

This thread is about atheism and not skepticism

It's both, actually: When people point to critical thinking and skeptical methods as to why they are atheists, it also becomes about skepticism.

Nor did I.

Leaving a dark little corner at the limits of possibility to hide imaginary characters to placate the woo and keep one safe in case a god jumps up and says "Boo!", is a funny type of atheism IMHO.

That would be "weak atheism". Are you saying that only "No! No! Never!" atheism is true atheism?

Is this like a competition of who's the most skeptical of all skeptics?

Why does this begin to stink a little bit of narcicism to me?

It's not a competition. It's about how people got to be atheists.

 

[H3LL]

[derail]This is going down a route that neither I nor perhaps the OP intended. There are several threads on atheism and its interpretation.

For me, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods and/or deities. It doesn't leave a little corner where they may exist.

Absence is 'not there'... not 'nearly not there'.

So-called weak atheism, for want of a better phrase, seems to be very strong agnostic. Adherents may lead their life as if they were atheist, but they are not IMHO.

Claus' interpretation may be different (who can tell) but he is entitled to any opinion he wishes.



As for a link between atheism and scepticism - They are not always linked. A family member has the sceptical thinking capability of DOC but is atheist because the alternative is "silly" and won't bother with thinking beyond that. Evidence for and/or against are irrelevant to him. Theism is just silly... end of discussion.

If Claus wants to make another thread on the topic(s)...I'll pop over.

Sorry Chimera for diverting away from the OP.

[/derail]


.

 

[linusrichard]

I have been, in my life, a 2, a 3, a 5, and maybe a 4 and a 7.

Now I'm a 6. If I am allowed another level of precision, I'm a 6.9. If I'm allowed yet another, I'm a 6.99. If another, 6.999. I am a 6 followed by an arbitrarily large number of 9s, which is not the same as a 6 followed by infinite 9s, because that would be a 7, and I'm not a 7.

I'm not sure which position is better/worse: 7 or 1. I consider a 2 far better than either.

 

[Michael C]

I'm not sure which position is better/worse: 7 or 1. I consider a 2 far better than either.

Why?

 

[Hokulele]

I guess I viewed the OP differently (no surprise). I answered "Strong Atheist" simply because I do feel I know that there are no gods with the certainty of a Carl Jung. The reason I feel comfortable making this statement is that I also know I can be wrong and being shown to be wrong doesn't really bother me. If evidence regarding some sort of god or gods should appear, I would be willing to accept it.

There are many things I used to know that later turned out to be incorrect, and I am sure there are things I know now that will turn out to be incorrect. Being wrong isn't a character flaw, refusing to accept the fact that you are wrong, is.

And as a cheap shot to some of the people in this world, trying to word any statement such that there will never be any chance that you would ever possibly be wrong is annoying to anyone trying to find out what you really think.

 

[linusrichard]

Why?

A 2 (like all of the choices 2, 3, 5, and 6) allows for the possibility that you might be wrong. A 1 and a 7 do not - they are unskeptical, and, I don't want to be too harsh here, but I think they're dishonest.

I believe that there is only one truly skeptical number on the chart: 6 (well, maybe 5). However, I feel that 2-5 are at least somewhat skeptical. There is no evidence supporting the existence of a god, but it is possible to make the mistake of thinking there is, which is I guess one way you could arrive at a 2 or 3. A 7 makes the statement that you can prove the negative of an existential -- not only beyond a reasonable doubt, not only beyond a shadow of a doubt, but beyond all doubt. I consider that to be an abandonment of critical thinking and skepticism. A 1 has a different problem. A 1 states that you can prove an existential, which is actually fine. The problem with a 1 is that you have no evidence supporting your position, and you haven't allowed for even the possibility that you're making a mistake with respect to what you mistakenly think is evidence.

I have heard atheists ask the rhetorical question similar to "What would be the difference between a universe with a God and one without?" I might be wording it wrong. I think this rhetorical question is an excellent argument against being a 1, 2, or 3. But if you look at it closely, I think it's an even better argument against being a 7.

I do have one caveat, though. If you are a 7 because you define God in such a way as to be a logical impossibility, that is honest. For example, if you define God as being able to create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, and also as being able to lift that rock, then you ought to be a 7. I would be a 7, defining God that way. Or, if you define God in such a way as to be a logical necessity, then you ought to be a 1 (I would call such a definition dishonest, but I think given such a definition, it is not dishonest to be a 1).

In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.

 

[Alric]

A 7 makes the statement that you can prove the negative of an existential

Not true. A 7 just does not allows for a probability in the absence of evidence or mechanism.

 

[finalmessenger]

Hve any of you seen the images of "things" in the dust and debris of the collapsing WTC buildings? Optical illusions, I'm sure.

If this forum is intended for the critical thinking, why move my recent post?

 

[Furi]

I had to put a 6 because we cannot know,

however I put the probability of a divine existance or creator as 0 not >0 or even remotely close to 0 I have the probability is exactly Zero, zip, zilch, nowt, nix, nada, **** All,

So I would have been a 7 aside from the fact of the Statement "I know there isn't a god" I Believe there is no god and zero probability of one

but no-one cannot prove to any theists that there is no God because we are looking for something that doesn't exist and no theist would ever accept that there is not one as they would just redefine the proof criteria.

 

[Georg]

Another 6 here. Zero belief in god(s). Knowledge? If knowledge means 100 % without the possibility to err, then no, I can´t claim that because I can´t prove it.
If knowledge meant "provisional knowledge" in this context, I´d be a 7, but that´s not how I understood the scale. I´d be a 7 as well regarding the sort of deities described in the religions I know about.

 

[Alric]

Again. That you don't know if something exists or not does not add probability to it existence, specially when all the evidence so far points to the contrary. If enough people allege ignorance about something, does it make it true?

Wait a minute...

 

[Georg]

Again. That you don't know if something exists or not does not add probability to it existence, specially when all the evidence so far points to the contrary.

Why are you putting the probability to 0? You are equalling the absence of evidence with evidence of absence. I don´t. I agree that there is no evidence for god(s). That´s why I am a 6. To be a 7, I´d need the 100 % proof that (god)s don´t exist. Got some?