Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dawkin's Scale

Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 2:43:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I came across this in another forum and thought it would be interesting somewhat.
Use the Dawkins scale:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

So where do you rank yourself on the Dawkin's scale?
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 2:45:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think this has been posted before, but still good. I am a six, defacto atheist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 2:46:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 2:43:33 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I came across this in another forum and thought it would be interesting somewhat.
Use the Dawkins scale:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

So where do you rank yourself on the Dawkin's scale?

It entirely depends upon the definition of God being used. I don't have a personal definition of God. But based on the conventional definition in most major religions I would be a 7 because I see the characteristics describing it to be contradictory and paradoxical.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 2:47:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
De-facto, leaning towards strong.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 2:47:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 2:46:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/27/2010 2:43:33 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I came across this in another forum and thought it would be interesting somewhat.
Use the Dawkins scale:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

So where do you rank yourself on the Dawkin's scale?

It entirely depends upon the definition of God being used. I don't have a personal definition of God. But based on the conventional definition in most major religions I would be a 7 because I see the characteristics describing it to be contradictory and paradoxical.

If I were proved wrong I would immediately become a 4.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 2:48:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 2:47:33 PM, Korashk wrote:
De-facto, leaning towards strong.

Woops, atheist
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:02:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think its a little too vague.

Whether or not you are an atheist, can be solved with a simple question. Do you believe that God exists? Yes, or not yes.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:05:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why is everybody neglecting that it depends on what religion's definition of God we're going by?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:15:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:05:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Why is everybody neglecting that it depends on what religion's definition of God we're going by?

Because we don't have to over analyse everything to the point of foolishness. Language is a consensus, sometimes we can wing it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:17:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:05:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Why is everybody neglecting that it depends on what religion's definition of God we're going by?

Would there be an alternate definition, or your own personal understanding of God, that would change your number?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:18:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:05:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Why is everybody neglecting that it depends on what religion's definition of God we're going by?

That wouldn't seem to matter. I assume that since it's just general 'theism', the person answering the question decides the religion. A Christian and a Jew could both be number two.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:19:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:15:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/27/2010 3:05:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Why is everybody neglecting that it depends on what religion's definition of God we're going by?

Because we don't have to over analyse everything to the point of foolishness. Language is a consensus, sometimes we can wing it.

Usually you would be right. But the definition of God has very little consensus.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:19:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:17:35 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/27/2010 3:05:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Why is everybody neglecting that it depends on what religion's definition of God we're going by?

Would there be an alternate definition, or your own personal understanding of God, that would change your number?

Possibly. If not for me, than for someone else certainly.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:22:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:11:31 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Exactly 5.8.

He he. Haven't calculated to such an extensive degree myself but I reckon I'm in a similar area.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:22:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:18:12 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/27/2010 3:05:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Why is everybody neglecting that it depends on what religion's definition of God we're going by?

That wouldn't seem to matter. I assume that since it's just general 'theism', the person answering the question decides the religion. A Christian and a Jew could both be number two.

But that makes the whole thing fall apart. We need a definition that's relatively the same. If your definition of toast is..well, toast..and mine is a unicorn, we have a huge problem there in deciphering whether or not we believe in toast.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 3:36:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:22:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/27/2010 3:18:12 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/27/2010 3:05:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Why is everybody neglecting that it depends on what religion's definition of God we're going by?

That wouldn't seem to matter. I assume that since it's just general 'theism', the person answering the question decides the religion. A Christian and a Jew could both be number two.

But that makes the whole thing fall apart. We need a definition that's relatively the same. If your definition of toast is..well, toast..and mine is a unicorn, we have a huge problem there in deciphering whether or not we believe in toast.

It doesn't. There are many religions and as such, different ideas of God. The scale just so happens to be about personal conviction about "God", whatever religion they may be a part of.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 4:57:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:22:02 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/27/2010 3:11:31 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Exactly 5.8.

He he. Haven't calculated to such an extensive degree myself but I reckon I'm in a similar area.

me too. i'd say even closer to 5.
signature
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 5:04:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 2:43:33 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I came across this in another forum and thought it would be interesting somewhat.
Use the Dawkins scale:

A "5" for me - Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
cjl
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 7:55:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 2:43:33 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I came across this in another forum and thought it would be interesting somewhat.
Use the Dawkins scale:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

So where do you rank yourself on the Dawkin's scale?

1.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 8:53:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm a 7.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 11:18:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ten.

OK I know the scale goes to seven but I am off the scale as far as this matter is concerned.

Seven is inappropriate in my opinion because it draws a comparison with one, for me there is no comparison needed or of any value because my conviction is absolute, whereas there is no irrefutable evidence that Jung was as firm in his mind as I am in mine.

What does rankle me is the use of percentages when expressing probabilities. It's an irritation similar to people speaking of a thing that is unusual being "quite unique".