Dawkins’ Belief Scale

[Road Warrior]

If god existed we would suspeect to see simular attributes in all cultures reporting. The only thing they all have in common, is he remains hidden and never visible.

You are assuming a personal God. What about a pantheist "god" or a Deist God? Would you still expect to see "signs"? Other than the existence of the Universe, that is.

 

[outhouse]

You are assuming a personal God. What about a pantheist "god" or a Deist God? Would you still expect to see "signs"? Other than the existence of the Universe, that is.

oh you measn imagination with a different flavor? Pullease

 

[sojourner]

known history is all you need.

Its mountain of evidence showing exactly how man created deities as man always has.

The god concept started evolving befopre the people who become Israeli's ever moved there. All the deities used by polytheistic hebrews belong to previous civilizations. then when the hebrews formed and used these manmade previous deities, the deities seriously evolved within judaism, then christianity, then islam, then john smith.

started polytheism, with El, Yahweh, Baal and Asherah and a few others
switched to montheism in 622 BC and strict devotion to yahweh
switched to polythesim with worship of yahweh and jesus and later a ghost
switched to monotheism with the trinity concept
redifined with islam
redifined with john smith


this is all vague and not detailed, but it shows you some of the many ever changing concepts man has given to the concept.

Why shouldn't our concept of God change as we grow and develop?

 

[outhouse]

Why shouldn't our concept of God change as we grow and develop?

yours hasnt changed in 1613 years.

 

[sojourner]

yours hasnt changed in 1613 years.

:biglaugh:


How little you know me!

 

[outhouse]

:biglaugh:


How little you know me!

perfect

that is a classic example of using imagination to change deities at will to fill the gap in our knowledge.

 

[fallingblood]

Probablilities show this with a high degree of certainty to be imagination.

I admit to making it up, imagining it if you will


If god existed we would suspeect to see simular attributes in all cultures reporting. The only thing they all have in common, is he remains hidden and never visible.

I have a idea, call it whacky, that the hidden place, is within imagination.

I guess that is true if you don't actually do any research on the subject.

 

[outhouse]

when man knew little of the natural world around him.

There were rain gods



why are there no rain gods now?? because we understand all aspects of rain.







our understand has grown and gods have been pushed all the way back OUT of reality and into our imagination where they originated.

 

[outhouse]

I guess that is true if you don't actually do any research on the subject.

OH enlighten us mr wizard

 

[fallingblood]

OH enlighten us mr wizard

Why not, instead of derailing this thread, take it over here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/131057-when-did-humans-create-god.html

 

[outhouse]

Why not, instead of derailing this thread, take it over here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ebates/131057-when-did-humans-create-god.html

I was answering direct questons asked of me.

but sure i'll play.

 

[sojourner]

perfect

that is a classic example of using imagination to change deities at will to fill the gap in our knowledge.

No, it's a classic example of taking a certain stance in light of what we now know.

 

[sojourner]

when man knew little of the natural world around him.

There were rain gods



why are there no rain gods now?? because we understand all aspects of rain.







our understand has grown and gods have been pushed all the way back OUT of reality and into our imagination where they originated.

Or have they been pushed out of causation and into ontology?

 

[Road Warrior]

oh you measn imagination with a different flavor? Pullease

That's not an answer to the question, but considering your motives and viewpoint, I expect it's the best I will see in response. Thank you.

 

[Corkscrew]

The only thing that surly exists is the unknown.

 

[outhouse]

That's not an answer to the question, but considering your motives and viewpoint, I expect it's the best I will see in response. Thank you.

thats a weak rebuttle


show us then, how dieties are not imagination.

Where did they come from? You know, where did rain deities come from??


where did fire deities come from??


where did thunder deities come from??

 

[fantome profane]

You are assuming a personal God. What about a pantheist "god" or a Deist God? Would you still expect to see "signs"? Other than the existence of the Universe, that is.

I don't think the pantheistic "God" is what Dawkins had in mind with this scale. Dawkins is the one who coined the term "sexed up atheism" to describe Pantheism.

 

[Road Warrior]

I don't think the pantheistic "God" is what Dawkins had in mind with this scale. Dawkins is the one who coined the term "sexed up atheism" to describe Pantheism.

Agreed on both counts. Obviously it's easier to predict the results of an "experiment" if one sets the parameters in such a manner to achieve the desired results. I think it was no accident that Dawkins phrased his scale in a very specific manner. My point was to point out this flaw just as others have pointed out or alluded.

Besides "sexed up atheism", Dawkins is one of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism" and an advocate of militancy among his followers. Specific phrasing is a key to leading people to take a certain point of view. It doesn't matter the religious or the political philosophy, the strategy works the same. Unethical, maybe, but certainly effective.

 

[punkdbass]

I like the idea of this thread, hopefully we can get more people to vote and get a good idea of what the overall population here believes regarding the existence of God, cool thread.

 

[fantome profane]

Agreed on both counts. Obviously it's easier to predict the results of an "experiment" if one sets the parameters in such a manner to achieve the desired results. I think it was no accident that Dawkins phrased his scale in a very specific manner. My point was to point out this flaw just as others have pointed out or alluded.

Besides "sexed up atheism", Dawkins is one of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism" and an advocate of militancy among his followers. Specific phrasing is a key to leading people to take a certain point of view. It doesn't matter the religious or the political philosophy, the strategy works the same. Unethical, maybe, but certainly effective.

Define "militancy".