A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
I’m probably a 6, but not 100% sure. :)
A six like the majority of posts, I would imagine.
At minimum a 3, at most a 4, at this point.
If we can be a 7 when it comes to Zeus or the FSM, we can be a 7 when it comes to God. 7 for me.
Exactly. Since the chart says “God” and not “god,” Dawkins is presumably referring to the garden variety God of monotheism. This one can’t exist based on mutually incompatible properties. 7 for me, too.
You’ve convinced me. Put me in for a 7 too.
Exactly. For a sufficiently vague definition of “God,” I might come in as a 6, but for God of the Bible? Pfft! Not in this universe, buddy. I’m a solid 7 if that’s what’s referred to.
I should say: 7 for “God”; 6 for all other gods.
Amen, mark me down for 7 too. (sorry about the amen, I was raised southern baptist)
We forgive you, but as pennance you need to do 6 Hey Macarena’s and partake in a communion-Ravioli with your local pastafarian priest.
How can you be sure that Zeus or the FSM do not exist?
I’m a 6.
I’m a 6, but also know that “God” is only a word which relies solely on other words to bring “God” into existence by way of linguistic definition. In the absence of words, by not resorting to the “authority” of language, religion is impossible, hence the need for so-called ‘sacred books’ like the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), the Christian Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc.
In the beginning was the Word?
7. Every religion in the world has had ample time and opportunity to demonstrate divinity, and they’ve failed. So I’m a 7.
Have to go with 6-7. I can’t prove god(s) don’t exist of course, but I know we don’t know everything, either. Maybe a god exists, and it is a huge troll that just created everything we know of as a giant joke on humans on a dare or something. Still doesn’t say anything about any sort of afterlife for humans, though…
6.75. No evidence for any god (either one that we “know” about or one that we don’t), but he (she/it/they) doesn’t seem to care enough about us to be bothered to show up. Irrelevant to life in the the real world, anyway.
This is my stance. No god worth mentioning.
7. I’m not completely certain, but if I had to give a number for the probability, it would round to 100%.
Until I see compelling evidence that causes me to change my mind, I’m a 7.
6 with respect to the existence of protons and the inexistence of the Loch Ness monster. Science forbids number 7, doesn’t it?
Yes, but 6.99999~ is a good level of reliability.
I’m a #1 (One with God! John 14:20, 1 Cor 6:17, Jer 31:34, Heb 8:11, Col 1:27 ;)
‘Stop regarding man (his opinions, ie Dawkin’s dude) whose breath of life is in his nostrils; For why should he be esteemed’? (Is 2:22, why should his opinion be valued above the Truths, above Love’s?)
All da very best!!
It’s cool that you have a book to prove yourself, but it’s not very convincing to me. Do you have anything else? And what does love have to do with belief in your god?
What if I go with “Have no more to do with man, whose life is only a breath, for he is of no value.”
(Basic English Bible, Is 2:22). What’s the point of dealing with any person, from any random to a priest to the pope given that?
Dawkins has a dude? In what capacity; publishing agent, lab assistant???
7 for me. I’m not ruling out that this or some other universe may contain a being with abilities we’d consider godlike, but it still wouldn’t exist in some realm apart from nature, thus not supernatural.
Thanks, Richard Dawkins, for giving agnosticism it’s own place in the spectrum. I’ve been arguing with atheists for years about this. An agnostic is not an atheist!
You’re right to an extent. You can be 1 of 4 types.
1) Agnostic Atheist
2) Gnostic Atheist
3) Agnostic Theist
4) Gnostic Theist
Simply saying you’re an agnostic is a cop-out. I have more respect for Tim Tebow. You either believe or you don’t. You either believe in Zeus or you don’t. Same with all the other gods. Options 1 & 4 are both ridiculous. You can’t prove either way. You could believe that it is exactly equiprobable, but that means you don’t believe in that god. Saying you’re an atheist doesn’t imply that you are SURE there is no god, you just do not believe in any.
6.9. Replace “very improbable” with “ridiculously improbable” in the description.
I cannot iknow for certain, but I think me being anything but 6 is very improbable.
6 leaning toward 7. The more specifically a god is described the easier it is to prove false. However, we can’t possibly know everything, and I would be open to some evidence of a god.
If we can use ‘God’ as the euphemism for the Monster Under the Bed, I was once a 1, but I got better. MUtB was the only thing in my experience that exhibited the qualities that people describe as belonging to a personal ‘God’. Because MUtB has completely evaporated in my consciousness, and nothing has taken its place, I’m now a 7.
I’m at 2. I think this scale is a useful way of looking at things- you could make variations on it for other things besides theism vs atheism.
(And I’m a bit suspicious of anyone who puts themselves at 1 or 7. How can you be 100% of anything?)
I think it’s a yes/no question. Anything else is a sop to political correctness or hedging one’s bet.
From the rational perspective, the only effect God has is within the imagination. And imaginary things do not exist, no matter what Plantinga or WLC or any other storyteller might assert.
My answer would be:
I can’t be *completely* certain of anything. But I can have a certainty so close the 100% that the difference doesn’t really matter. For example I am for all practical purposes completely sure that China is in Asia, that Nazis aren’t hiding on the backside of the moon or that the ISS isn’t held up by strings. In a philosophical discussion I would have to admit that it’s technically possible that I’m wrong on any of those things, but for all practical purposes it would be silly to ever take the possibility of those things being false into account. So far, I haven’t seen any reason not to put “omniscient, omnipotent, basically anthropomorphic lifeforms do not appear fully formed out of nowhere” in that category of “so certain that it’s silly to quibble about the tiny fraction remaining before 100% certainty”.
I disagree. While I think you could be convinced that you are wrong if somebody provides you strong evidence, many religious believers openly say they can’t be convinced they are wrong. I consider you can discuss intelligently with 2s and 6s, 1s and true 7s aren’t open minded enough. A 2 would say something similar of what you say, a 1 would say : “I am right, I CAN’T be wrong. There is no way you can prove me wrong. I just fell it so strongly that I CAN’T be wrong”.
If something is self-contradictory by definition, then you can reliably determine that it does not, in fact, exist.
I’ll try to explain why, IMO, why people would put themselves in the extremes. First of all, I think the extremes are asymmetric, 7s aren’t the mirror opposites of 1s. When I was catholic, more that 15 years ago, “teachers” told me about the greatness of faith and the traps of doubt. Faith was advertised as the “most greatest fabulous” quality. While I was trained to believe, I doubted, then disbelieved. I think this training has been successful on many students. They have been trained to be SURE god exist, to dispel doubt. They think faith is a virtue. They learned to be 1s, to think anything less than 1 as a failure. The result is a lot of people brainwashed to be 1s, see faith as something precious, see non-faith as odd or worst and finally, may feel anxiety if they doubt too hard.
On the other hand, 7 seem to be synonymous to “as certain as possible”. Somehow, I found that intellectuals tend to have a dismal view on certainty (my work in a mental hospital made me think that people that are absolutely sure of anything are ether handicapped or mentally ill). Knowledge is never perfect, you learn by finding you are wrong. I am pretty sure that most of those who identify themselves as 7 would react to convincing evidence as 6s.
As I said upthread, if the proposal is restated, replacing belief with verifiable reliability, and there has never been any veraciously reliable information, or proof if you will, establishing the fact of the existence of any god (you’re welcome to dispute that) then the notion of any god(s) existing is 100% unreliable.
The question then becomes, is there any point in ascribing credence to a 100% unreliable notion?
Suppose I invent a concept for which I have absolutely no means of substantiation except under some claimed, but again ubsubstantiated, supernatural condition. I have not provided any verifiable facts, nor can I, but I declare that you can only discover the truth after you die. If I nevertheless insist it is fact, are you obliged to give some level of credibility, no matter how small, to my claim? Because that is exactly how the concept of supernatural god(s) came to be.
100% unreliable is 100%.
No one can prove that I am not a seven.
Not even you?
I think Mr Dawkins is playing a clever word trick to push the agnostics to self-identify as atheists. Equiprobable is a pretty narrow domain in which to reside. “Hey, actually I’m 50.1% sure God doesn’t exist. I must be a weak atheist”.
Perhaps a better definition of agnostic would be “I don’t give a damn about this question one way or the other”.
There is already a word for that: apatheism.
Agnosticism has a definition. Pure agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether god exists. Now I don’t think any actual person (aside from Blaise Pascal) would say they are exactly equiprobable, but that is what would be implied by agnosticism. No sufficient reason to believe. No sufficient reason to doubt. 50/50.
This scale worked well enough in context for Dawkins’ intended purpose (pointing out that atheism doesn’t necessarily mean complete certainty of no gods), but I don’t like the idea of it catching on as a general measurement. Degrees of belief and disbelief are a little more scattered than can be mapped on a straight line (even cartesian coordinates would not be perfect but that’s the best layout I can think of for something like this). And agnosticism would not be the midpoint between strong theism and strong atheism. As the strong disbelief in the existence of knowledge of god, agnosticism would be the 7 on the other axis. 0,0 would be apathetic deism.
I think unless you define the term ‘God’ – it is all fairly pointless
& if you can define the term – it is probably not ‘God’ – unless you are happy with a anthropomorphic projection.
6.9999…9999 for YHVE, 6.9 for a generic god.
A 1.5 for me.I see nothing but evidence for God everywhere I go,and like everything else has an opposite I believe in Satan as well and see his influence all around as well.
Interesting, it would seem you are influenced by the older dualistic religions.
There are plenty of things that don’t have opposites, in both the physical world and philosophy. Satan wouldn’t be god’s opposite in modern Christianity, anyway, his mythical relationship with god is much more complex.
6. There’s been a noticeable shift over the last few years.
I’ll have to go with 7, given that I believe that all we have is the natural world, and therefore a truly supernatural being is impossible. There may well be aspects of our natural world that we cannot detect, but just because we cannot detect it, that does not make it supernatural — it just means we’re limited.
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child’s belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
the ability to be relied on or depended on, as for accuracy, honesty, or achievement.
1. habitual observance of truth in speech or statement; truthfulness: He was not noted for his veracity.
2. conformity to truth or fact; accuracy: to question the veracity of his account.
3. correctness or accuracy, as of the senses or of a scientific instrument.
4. something veracious; a truth.
Dawkins has outlined his criteria by suggesting varience in strength of belief for or against the existence of God.
As belief is no more than opinion, conviction or confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, I think a more useful criterion is to consider the degree of veracious reliability of the evidence that (any) God exists.
To the extent that reasonable people conduct their lives, make decisions and choices based on reliable information, and, in view of the fact that no verifiable and reliable information establishing the fact of the existence of (any) God has ever been produced, I can only conclude that on any scale, the supposition or proposition of the existence of a god is 100% unreliable.
Based on that, if there’s a correlation to be drawn with Dawkins’ list, it can only be a 7 of course.
When it comes to any of the Gods or gods that man has created I, of course, am a 7. That said, there is a lot in the universe I don’t know and there may certainly be god-like creatures that exist.
6.9 for gods not conceived by religions. 6.999 (repeating) for gods made up by religions.
Not sure if you’re aware, but 6.999(repeating)=7 they are one in the same! I am also a 7 or a 6.9repeater, take your pick
This is actually untrue, infinitely close does not mean it is. The most common proof for it is flawed, as it omits the rule that whatever is increased by ten, the digits move up. It does not matter if they are infinite, some ‘infinities’ are larger than others.
If “God” equates with Creator Deity then I’m at a 1.
I’ve had the hand of Odin act, in a physical way, in my life hence my certainty.
For theistic claims I’m a 7, for deistic claims a 6.999999999999999->.
6.999999999999999-> is mathematically exactly equal to 7.
im a 6=)
Seven. Hitchens put is most succinctly for me. Paraphrasing here – Humans have been around for 150K years but only in the last 6,000 years did god decide to introduce himself to some random desert tribe? Nope.
7. I was a 5 due to my vague upbringing, gave any god a chance of being possible or probable and it just doesn’t add up. I am 100% certain god is a wholly invented concept; a real god could not be so poorly understood that understanding him takes on its own division of industry of inventing new ways to say the same thing and hope nobody notices. It must be really important to so many people for this to be true, but they can’t seem to agree, and just because an imaginary character is analyzed profusely doesn’t gain it any veracity, just running very hard in place. If any one of these people had a real god to explain, it would be inexplicable.
5 regarding Xtian God, 2.5 regarding certain other conceptions of deity I don’t wish to go into right now.
I’ve walked 1 to 7, and hit each point at some step in my life. Some I spent longer than others. I can’t go back to where I’ve been on this line. Put me down for 7.
Hard 7, and working dilgently to wake the rest of the world up to this truth.
1. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
2. You claim God absolutely does not exist.
3. You have limited and incomplete knowledge.
4. It’s possible God exists outside your knowledge.
5. Therefore you can ‘believe’ God does not exist, but cannot prove it.
6. Therefore your claim can be summarily dismissed for lack of evidence.
“To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge.” ― Ravi Zacharias
The general concept of a god cannot be conclusively disproved. Specific gods have specific traits and they can be disproved. If you say ‘there’s an unspecified being somewhere in the Universe’ this is unfalsifiable (which doesn’t mean the same thing as true). If you say ‘Zeus exists on Mount Olympus’ disproving this is as simple as looking at Mount Olympus to see Zeus isn’t there.
We have more than enough knowledge to know yhvh was made up. And while christian apologists are always happy to pretend their god is some ethereal force when they want to shield him from examination, the christian church has never claimed an ethereal god. They claim a specific, constantly intervening god who does miracles and issues commandments. They also claim a god who created the Universe in a manner which we now know does not match with how the Universe came about.
Definitely a 7
For all practical purposes I’m a 7, but I will allow that 6.9 would be my official number for all arguments. I agree with the idea that specific gods can easily be tossed into the rubbish and deserve a 7.
Probably a 6.5 because I don’t think you can disprove GOD completely and there’s definitely no proof for IT. The need for some people to believe that there are instructions on life (BIBLE) and a higher power to guide them is almost sickening. We can be good without the divine incentive of heaven.
6.5 but only in the interest of fairness, because I can’t prove there isn’t one.
6 – how can a god with all the superlative qualities attributed to him by believers arrange things so that there is doubt about his existance. If we are made in his likeness – whatever that means – then this god is just toying with us.
I think I’d go with 5, some days 6.
This is a funny chart but I don’t like that it further blurs the difference between agnosticism and theism. Two answers to two different questions. Being agnostic does not mean you aren’t atheist and vice versa
Six with occasional leanings to 5 when I’m feeling charitable (not often lately) and slight leanings toward 7 on other days (more often lately).
Can you credit me for that graphic? Here’s the original post: http://deityshmeity.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-hell-am-i.html
1! – I am also sure that RD is not a 7, for he has said, on film, that the world is the result of inteligent design! Its just a way of making money! God will make sure one day that everyone is a 1!
He actually said that he was a 6.9, agnostic in the way that he’d be agnostic about the fairies at the bottom of the ocean. He said no such thing about the world being a result of intelligent design.
Listening to humans discuss “God” is like listening to pissants discuss ornithology.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2013, Patheos. All rights reserved.