Spectrum of belief. "God Delusion" page 50.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

This spectrum is taken straight from Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion on page 50. Based on this spectrum what number are you? The spectrum is continuous but it can be represented by these seven milestones.

  • 1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know."
  • 2. Very high probablity but short of 100%. 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% 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%. Completly impartial agnostic. "God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
  • 5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical."
  • 6. Very low probablility, 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 assuption that he is not there."
  • 7. Strong Atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as C.G. Jung ‘knows’ there is one."
0 voters

I am a 6.99

I can’t say 7 because that would require a leap of faith that I can not logically make. Just replace “God” with “vampire.” You cannot prove that vampires are non existent. However you can say that the probablitity of there not being a vampire is just short of 100. Same with “God”.[/i]

2

Another poll I can’t participate in, since you offered no choice of “the question as posed is fundamentally misleading,” or “so long as the term ‘God’ is undefined the question is impossible to answer,” or even simply, “none of the above.”

3

Well I can’t see how “none of the above” is a logical answer, but just go with the god that 95% of the population believes in: Yahweh

4

Well, in that case the question becomes easier, but then I’m not motivated to participate because I consider the question superlatively unimportant.

Ciao!

5

I don’t understand how initially you could not understand the poll, yet you are a 2.

6

I understood it perfectly, I just reject the categories.

And no, I’m not.

7

I’m a 2.

8

Oh. Sorry you were the only one who posted when i saw the other poll choice pop up.

9

If there was a category for “Don’t know/don’t care” I would choose.

10

Okay, I’ll play. :wink: Call me a 6.8795, give or take.

11

I’m a 2, but Dawkins clearly doesn’t know what Jung is talking about (Jung is talking about the psychological God archetype). I doubt he has read Jung.

12

I would choose #1, but the word Theist has me spooked, I don’t believe in general categories like this, too many negatives and lies go along with it so I cant select any of the choices.

BTW, I think Dawkins is a monumental idiot like all atheists; the evidence for a singularity to all things known is overwhelming yet somehow ignored by these defective thinkers.

13

What evidence is there?

14

Why does everybody ask this without even thinking on their own?

Do you not know that we have and do observe a regression of sources to everything we know about? Is it not logical that the first thing must be without a source? Does the big bang ring a bell, or quantum theory or anthropic principle or any theories about sources?

I am so sick of answering such pedestrian questions, why cant we skip the obvious and get to the meat or do we have to dance around the existentialist “nothing exists” crap every time? Or get into third grade debates where the other side just contradicts everything you say and never supports their position with any evidence.

15

Funny, I don’t think you or anyone has provided any evidence. If you had, then we wouldn’t be arguing about it would we?

What’s obvious? What meat?

Who brought that up? Non-sequitur!

My claims come from logic, reason, and what I have the ability to see with my own eyes. Yours come from a book that have no credible sources to back it up other that what feels good to you.

Please, enlighten us defective thinkers. What evidence do you speak of? Teach me how to be an effective thinker. I’d really like to know how, since you obviously have it nailed.

16

I’m a 7, but I think Navigator got it even better. I put 7 because ‘god’ as I’ve seen it defined is nonsensical.

Kingdaddy, I don’t know what you’re ranting about. Nothing about being an atheist implies a denial of a universal origin or universal order or a “singularity to all things”. However, a singularity to all things is quite a ways away from a thinking, talking, child-having, prayer-answering cosmic guardian.

17

What book?

Oops, did you just taste your own foot, what a shame.

18

I think he means “The God Delusion”.

19

Yes it does from what is represented by every Atheist I converse with. They all universally claim that there is no chance of any GOD. They don’t say the God of the bible, they plainly state any form of intelligent source, do you say otherwise? Because if you do you will be the first Atheist to do so that I know of, which would mean your not an Atheist by its very definition.

20

No he doesnt.