Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale

Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #30 - December 16, 2010, 09:58 PM

Quote from: Telomeme on December 16, 2010, 09:48 PM
When you talk about a God beyond your imagination, would such an entity include a personal god (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god) or only the non-personal Einsteinium god?

As I say I am unable to discount the possibility of something that is beyond my conception and definition. I can only say - "I don't know" and avoid any speculation - since that is what it would be - speculation.
- Telomeme
- Member
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #31 - December 16, 2010, 10:04 PM

I'm not able to discount such possibilities either which I why I don't choose the last option. Nevertheless I do currently lean towards the lack of belief in a personal god - not to say that my beliefs wouldn't change if I were presented with something extraordinary.
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #32 - December 16, 2010, 10:38 PM

Quote from: mighty_cats on December 16, 2010, 08:39 PM

On a side note, I tend to find it humorous how alot of non-believers in the world will say:
'Religion is nonsense, its made by man, its to control people, its nothing but fairytales and inflated archaic garbage that can easily be disproven'
then when you ask them about the being which is the entire foundation of the religion, its:
'God?....well.....you never know..'

You find it humorous that it is impossible to rationally prove or disprove that which doesn't conform to the rules of rationality?

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- Winna
- Agnostic
- Member
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #33 - December 16, 2010, 11:03 PM

Quote from: arX on December 16, 2010, 09:12 PM
Which God? If a god hypothesis was put forward claiming that man was created by such an entity as he is today (and woman an offshoot from man's rib), then doesn't our knowledge have something relevant to say about it?

Of course, our very use of a word implies some concept (albeit not well defined), but we humans seem to have the ability of characterizing the concept further by negation.
If I say something (i.e. "the concept of a entity which is outside (=negation) the sphere of my experience - as far as human intellect possibility goes") then: if you understand me in some way, or are capable to follow a bit my phrase, then the phrase still means something for you, even if the concept is still not defined as (well as) you wanted to.

That said, I agree that assigning a concept some meaning, and further claiming that the meaning is outside my experience/possibility of knowledge, means, in a way, that the object of my concept is ... empty, or the equivalent of empty (= empty inside the sphere of my possible knowledge/experience).

Then again, if we use the word "exists" with the meaning "potentially within my possibility of knowledge/experience" then the concept "exists" does not apply to [whatever] outside my possibility of knowledge/experience.
That doesn't mean that for a [being? species? something?] not constraint to (current?) human species limitations, it might not apply as well. Maybe it does. I don't know.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
- arX
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #34 - December 16, 2010, 11:06 PM

So proper agnostics are postmodernists.

Against the ruin of the world, there
is only one defense: the creative act.

-- Kenneth Rexroth
- Winna
- Agnostic
- Member
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #35 - December 16, 2010, 11:10 PM

No?
Rather, postmodernism is just a possible route to go from pure agnosticism.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
- Winna
- Agnostic
- Member
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #36 - December 17, 2010, 03:48 AM

Quote from: arX on December 16, 2010, 09:12 PM
Which God? If a god hypothesis was put forward claiming that man was created by such an entity as he is today (and woman an offshoot from man's rib), then doesn't our knowledge have something relevant to say about it?

For the sake of the argument, I could answer a bit differently. Not really... The concept of God can "mean" only the cause of our universe. Without further personalization and stuff, which is added by different religions.
If by definition you consider it the cause of our universe (as it has been done in the past, God as primordial cause), and accept that we cannot really go beyond our own thinking limitations - like, we're bound to think and imagine things in time, in a linear time - and the primordial cause might be the cause of an universe which expands and changes within this time as we know it - then PERHAPS this entity, which is the beginning of the timeline of our universe, is beyond time as we know it, if that has a meaning. Or perhaps not. Same for other attributes. It would be interesting to see if any may be acceptable.

Still, perhaps the most I can do (but I can do it) is to point to it. It's a limit, the primordial cause of the universe, it's not within my realm of possible experience, but I can think about a limit, and stop there.
Can't describe it further, but I do seem to have a concept. Not well defined and likely not well definable, sure.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
- arX
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #37 - December 17, 2010, 09:30 AM

Thank you for clarifying a bit further as you've now identified a hypothesis (cosmological argument), albeit vague, relevant to our discussion of "god" as a possible entity for your agnosticism.

I say vague because you don't identify whether this "primordial cause" is a supernatural god in the deistic sense, or just a pantheistic metaphor for whatever natural explanation science can/may provide (in which agnosticism or atheism essentially become meaningless).

Quote
If by definition you consider it the cause of our universe (as it has been done in the past, God as primordial cause), and accept that we cannot really go beyond our own thinking limitations - like, we're bound to think and imagine things in time, in a linear time - and the primordial cause might be the cause of an universe which expands and changes within this time as we know it

This could just as well be describing the Big Bang - the start of both space and time - where asking "what happened before it?" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.

However, you continue on...

Quote
then PERHAPS this entity, which is the beginning of the timeline of our universe, is beyond time as we know it, if that has a meaning. Or perhaps not. Same for other attributes. It would be interesting to see if any may be acceptable.

... by making a big 'what if', seemingly for the sake of ambiguity.

If it is the claim of a supernatural (outside the realm of science) "primordial cause" that you were referring to, then that opens it up to both scientific and logical scrutiny in which I believe that "pure agnosticism" (the lack of assigning any probability) becomes obsolete.

Against the ruin of the world, there
is only one defense: the creative act.

-- Kenneth Rexroth
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #38 - December 17, 2010, 09:43 AM

I don't believe in <insert random desert spectre/sky phantom/demon snakecharmer/transcendent superhero/superstitionist fabrication here>

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- Bardhi_i_zi
- Ex-Muslim
- funkyzeit
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #39 - December 17, 2010, 10:36 AM

option nr 7 for me ...

Quote from: FreeSoul007 on January 14, 2011, 05:00 AM
Just look at the sun and the moon, rotating around the earth perfectly! Out of all the never ending space in the universe, the sun and moon ended up close to earth rotating around it perfectly.!!
- RIBS
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #40 - December 17, 2010, 11:24 AM

Quote from: arX on December 16, 2010, 08:25 PM
"I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

-- Dawkins

This, untill he moves his almighty ass and shows up!

...
- mighty_cats
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #41 - December 17, 2010, 12:39 PM

Quote from: z10 on December 16, 2010, 10:38 PM
You find it humorous that it is impossible to rationally prove or disprove that which doesn't conform to the rules of rationality?

I find it humorous how people will give special credibility to the 'god' concept, whilst disregarding all information, claims,origins and 'knowledge' of the claimed being in question which is the entirety of how the 'god' concept showed up as an idea to them in the first place.

Essentially claiming that someone is completely blind in all aspects, but then willing to go 50-50 or change their position about the possibility of the blind mans ability to see one particular object.
It seems to be an argument from fear of god that people just can't shake off.
- luftazure
- The Ex-atheist/The Muslim :)
- Pub Regular
- On The Truth's Side
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #42 - December 17, 2010, 01:09 PM

I believe that God(s) probably exists.
I wouldn't like to say gods. Monotheism has affected me greatly but... I'm new here and all that

I'm open for debate (of why we should re-/embrace Islam), but I will no longer participate in this forum. Message me if you need anything. Good luck and may you all find your way... again...
- Winna
- Agnostic
- Member
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #43 - December 17, 2010, 05:28 PM

Quote from: arX on December 17, 2010, 09:30 AM
Thank you for clarifying a bit further as you've now identified a hypothesis (cosmological argument), albeit vague, relevant to our discussion of "god" as a possible entity for your agnosticism.

I say vague because you don't identify whether this "primordial cause" is a supernatural god in the deistic sense, or just a pantheistic metaphor for whatever natural explanation science can/may provide (in which agnosticism or atheism essentially become meaningless).
This could just as well be describing the Big Bang - the start of both space and time - where asking "what happened before it?" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.

However, you continue on...

... by making a big 'what if', seemingly for the sake of ambiguity.

If it is the claim of a supernatural (outside the realm of science) "primordial cause" that you were referring to, then that opens it up to both scientific and logical scrutiny in which I believe that "pure agnosticism" (the lack of assigning any probability) becomes obsolete.

If I say that: from my human perspective, everything must have a cause, and as such, I have to admit that the universe itself has one, I didn't say anything yet about the nature of such cause.
First, I am opposing to the personalized concept of God, as it appears in (institutionalized) religions, a philosophical God.
Second, agnosticism means staying there. You can't say anything more. You can't say if this cause you're capable of imagining has "existence", even, or any attribute at all, since by definition you put outside the realm of your possible knowledge.

Yet, I am saying that *IF* there is a way to get out of agnosticism, to find something you can conceptualize/imagine, or be able to conceptualize/imagine further, about God, including to negate it, then, while there are many ways to try to do that, still I am proposing that this concept of God may be a better starting point than the God as presented in (institutionalized) religions.

Note: I'm not sure it can be identified as Big Bang. As far as I know (correct me if it's not the case), Big Bang assumes there was something, call it energy and not matter, still something open to science (in principle, even though not yet practical) which started to expand.
If so, I'm not sure that the concept of primordial cause is exactly that... It's "what causes the apparition of something out of nothing". That could mean the cause of that energy itself. I don't know. (I don't know enough about the Big Bang theory actually).

Second note: yes, "what happened before" is not meaningful within the accepted limitation of the human intellect as:
1 - conceptualizing everything
2 - in (seemingly linear) time,
3 - obeying bivalent logic.
But then again, is that all we can do? I'd start by saying yes (and that keeps me in agnosticism), and am open to ideas as to "then again, maybe not". Also, of course, if you apply Occam's razor strictly, you can get out by considering invalid any statement whatsoever (including the vaguest "there could be something else outside the realm of science as we know it"), thus getting out of agnosticism (on God) towards atheism.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #44 - December 17, 2010, 05:42 PM

Quote from: mighty_cats on December 17, 2010, 12:39 PM
I find it humorous how people will give special credibility to the 'god' concept, whilst disregarding all information, claims,origins and 'knowledge' of the claimed being in question which is the entirety of how the 'god' concept showed up as an idea to them in the first place.

Essentially claiming that someone is completely blind in all aspects, but then willing to go 50-50 or change their position about the possibility of the blind mans ability to see one particular object.
It seems to be an argument from fear of god that people just can't shake off.

What about those that conceptualised god as the absolute transcendent foundation of everything (such as Hegel and other idealists) and have nothing whatsoever to do with religion?
There is no argument here, just an admission that human reasoning capacity is limited and the universe is far beyond our ability to grasp completely - in that discrepancy there are all kinds of things that we must be agnostic about if we are to be honest.

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- Winna
- Agnostic
- Member
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #45 - December 17, 2010, 05:45 PM

Or to work to change our underlying assumptions/theories about how limited exactly our ability to understand is, and/or our instruments for understanding.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
- Teetertotter
- Member
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #46 - December 17, 2010, 08:03 PM

Quote from: mighty_cats on December 16, 2010, 08:39 PM
I'm as strong an atheist as practicality and intellectual honesty allows.

+1
- Logical_Mind44
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #47 - December 18, 2010, 12:15 PM

1) I proclaim, that God exists, regardless of whether or not there is anything else to affirm His existence

2) what I can speak of and think of, of this Being, the extent of that which I can, is according to that of my own nature, which ultimately is due to this Being

3) I take the word "existence" being used for the Supreme Being unlike that of anything else

4) I do not consider my proclamation of this Being as a "belief" but a testimony of what I "know"

5) nothing anything or anyone can ever say to me, can prevent me from speaking and thinking that which I speak and think of this Being except unless this Being Himself wills so

6) I consider that to truly deny/neglect/forget by myself any of what I know of this Being, to be even more difficult and painful than for my heart to stop beating

How strong a theist does that make me?
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #48 - December 18, 2010, 12:24 PM

Well I don't know, but IMO it makes you a theist who has trouble constructing lucid sentences. Perhaps you could rephrase?

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #49 - December 18, 2010, 12:25 PM

Quote from: luftazure on December 17, 2010, 01:09 PM
I believe that God(s) probably exists.

i guess it depends on what you define as God. Some form of creator is definitely a possibility, although I am just sure she/he/it didnt create those books that some men decided to call divine.

My Book
My Blog
- arX
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #50 - December 18, 2010, 12:27 PM

Quote
5) nothing that anything or anyone can ever say to me can prevent me from speaking and thinking that which I speak and think of this Being except unless this Being wills so

Quote
How strong a theist does that make me?

On a scale of 1 to Batshit Insane? Hopelessly deluded, but leaning towards schizophrenic.

Against the ruin of the world, there
is only one defense: the creative act.

-- Kenneth Rexroth
- Heyjustlooking
- Ex-Muslim
- You know what time it is
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #51 - December 18, 2010, 12:34 PM

Quote from: Logical_Mind44 on December 18, 2010, 12:15 PM
1) I proclaim that God exists regardless of whether there is anything else to affirm His existence.

2) what I can speak of and think of, of this Being, the extent of that which I can, is that which is according to that of my own nature, which ultimately is due to this Being

3) I take the word "existence" being used for the Supreme Being unlike that of anything else

4) I do not consider my proclamation of this Being as a "belief" but a testimony of what I "know"

5) nothing that anything or anyone can ever say to me can prevent me from speaking and thinking that which I speak and think of this Being except unless this Being wills so

6) I consider that which I know of this Being to truly deny/neglect/forget by myself even more difficult and painful than to stop my heart from beating

How strong a theist does that make me?

So in other words you know God exists through your personal experience of this being and the universe around you?

I would say quite strong but as Os said, you should probably sum up your views more clearly.

I'm an atheist of the Abrahamic gods but agnostic (50/50) about the deistic concept of god.

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
- Winna
- Agnostic
- Member
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #52 - December 18, 2010, 07:15 PM

Quote from: IsLame on December 18, 2010, 12:25 PM
i guess it depends on what you define as God. Some form of creator is definitely a possibility, although I am just sure she/he/it didnt create those books that some men decided to call divine.

Some Christians will say "they are inspired by God", it's a "reveled truth". That can be interpreted by a very comfortable perspective: God "inspired" the men who wrote them, but they couldn't really understand the entire truth, due to their own limitations/mentality, so when they put it on paper, the "reveled truth" was already interpreted or distorted by their own beliefs.
That allows one to get around any problem in the scriptures by claiming it's one of those added by men, or seen through the eyes of people at that point in history. (or, how a muslim put somewhere on this forum "it's one of the weak hadiths")
And live comfortably with the rest.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
- Logical_Mind44
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #53 - December 18, 2010, 07:41 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on December 18, 2010, 12:24 PM
Well I don't know, but IMO it makes you a theist who has trouble constructing lucid sentences. Perhaps you could rephrase?

Pardon me.

I tend to think of religion in a Sanskritic manner.

Theological thoughts are highly rapid for me. I struggle to grasp onto them myself...

I'd have to consciously calm down and put them to words if I were to do in a coherent manner according to the grammar of the language because languages are human constructs.
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #54 - December 18, 2010, 07:49 PM

@Telomeme

No offence, but the scale is incomplete.

There should be another option:

- complete atehist. god is irrelevant
- Logical_Mind44
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #55 - December 18, 2010, 08:26 PM

Quote from: Heyjustlooking on December 18, 2010, 12:34 PM
and the universe around you?

I'm a Monotheist who believes in "a single" "God". However I can't describe my "religious views" as Monotheism because much of the definition of "Monotheism" is influenced by Abrahamism.

You can't realize the nature of God by looking at the universe... Well its extremely tedious...

Except the relationship between the two, which would help you understand the nature of the universe better.
This perhaps might require taking a Polytheistic approach... in which case you still would have to involve God.

The universe alone has no reason for you to know about God. For a person who does not "believe" in God, there is no way that by looking at the universe around him alone is he to conclude God exists. (In otherwords from being an Atheist to a "slight Theist" who thinks "there is a something" due to Teleology.) Unless maybe you choose to believe in God due to "scientific miracles" within scriptures. Which I personally don't accept/like/care for.

Quote
I'm an atheist of the Abrahamic gods but agnostic (50/50) about the deistic concept of god.

I firmly reject Intelligent Design / Creationism.

I think its theologically and scientifically plain pussy.

Quote
Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism.

Sorry to sound rude. But as far as I'm concerned thats nonsense.
- Logical_Mind44
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #56 - December 18, 2010, 08:36 PM

Quote from: arX on December 18, 2010, 12:27 PM
On a scale of 1 to Batshit Insane? Hopelessly deluded, but leaning towards schizophrenic.

You may be right.
- Heyjustlooking
- Ex-Muslim
- You know what time it is
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #57 - December 18, 2010, 08:42 PM

Quote from: Logical_Mind44 on December 18, 2010, 08:26 PM
I'm a Monotheist who believes in "a single" "God". However I can't describe my "religious views" as Monotheism because much of the definition of "Monotheism" is influenced by Abrahamism.

You can't realize the nature of God by looking at the universe... Well its extremely tedious...

Except the relationship between the two, which would help you understand the nature of the universe better.
This perhaps might require taking a Polytheistic approach... in which case you still would have to involve God.

The universe alone has no reason for you to know about God. For a person who does not "believe" in God, there is no way that by looking at the universe around him alone is he to conclude God exists. (In otherwords from being an Atheist to a "slight Theist" who thinks "there is a something" due to Teleology.) Unless maybe you choose to believe in God due to "scientific miracles" within scriptures. Which I personally don't accept/like/care for.

I firmly reject Intelligent Design / Creationism.

I think its theologically and scientifically plain pussy.

Sorry to sound rude. But as far as I'm concerned thats nonsense.

^^^ I don't understand where you're coming from.

So you believe in one 'God' but neither theistic or deistic?

Please elaborate more clearly on what type of god you believe there to exist. Do you just think there is 'something' out there or do you have a more concrete idea of 'god'.

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
- Logical_Mind44
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #58 - December 18, 2010, 09:24 PM

Quote from: Heyjustlooking on December 18, 2010, 08:42 PM
So you believe in one 'God' but neither theistic or deistic?

How do you define Theism?

Quote from: wikipedia
Theology is the study of God or, more generally, the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, or of spirituality.

Theology = knowledge regarding the nature of God to me.

When a person is asking someone about God. Now the 'someone' he is asking from becomes his Guru and he is a student. The Guru can only generate a hitherto unknown to cause the recipient of Divine Knowledge to think by himself. Enlightenment of an individual rests on himself.

Some don't require a Guru of any sort. Events in life may shape and be the crucial moment of the spiritual process.

As for you asking me about my own understanding of God. I think already explained it.
- Heyjustlooking
- Ex-Muslim
- You know what time it is
- offline
Re: Your belief in God(s) on the Dawkin's Scale
Reply #59 - December 18, 2010, 09:35 PM

Okay, a theistic God is one that intervenes in human affairs.

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »