How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would. A person who doesn't even consider the term "god" to be meaningful necessarily believes in nothing they consider a god. An ignostic cannot be a theist, and therefore must be an atheist.

If you insist on defining 'atheist' as one who lacks a belief in God, you're correct.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you insist on defining 'atheist' as one who lacks a belief in God, you're correct.

I define "athiest" as "one who does not believe in any gods." The term isn't specific to God-with-a-capital-G.

And of course I define atheism that way. Definitions based on rejection of gods descend into irrationality very quickly, or end up implying absurd conclusions (e.g. that no atheists exist). More to the point, the definition I use reflects how people actually use the word.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I define "athiest" as "one who does not believe in any gods." The term isn't specific to God-with-a-capital-G.

OK.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The list is from Richard Dawkins, who considers himself a scholar. In scholarly and philosophical terms, it's refering to the Abrahamic God, i.e. Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest zoologists alive today. However, I will admit that his aptitude in philosophy is decidedly weaker (not that mine is particularly great either).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What nut-job came up with "Pure Agnostic"?

The same dude that invented True Neutral in Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I voted other. I'm an apatheist. I also find the scale used in the OP illogical. Use this instead.

I fully support the premise that a combination of hair style and facial hair informs your religious belief or lack thereof. This is why there a very few gnostic atheist ladies.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

One thing we can all learn from this thread is how Dawkins simplistic scale doesn't really take into account the wide variety of beliefs and world views.
Tom

Simplistic scales rarely do...

 

[Derek500]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

This is not true, at all. Why do some people keep on telling untruths? On the Dawkins scale, the classification is as follows:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't 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."

Why did you tell untruths in your OP, james bond?

 

[Derek500]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

james bond, you told untruths in your OP. Why did you do it?

 

[Derek500]

Richard Dawkins.

Nope. An untruth . You did, james bond. You are the nut who made it up.

Why do you tell so many untruths?

Why do you tell so many untruths and them blame those on others?

 

[viole]

I voted Strong Atheist. Belief or knowledge of god is depended on many factors we experience psychological, physiological, and by relationship with one experience and belief with another. There is a lot of natural superstition and other ways our minds try to fill in the gaps of not understanding why we are here whether on a theological level or just experiencing depression.

That and I believe souls exist because I experienced and seen them. They are the spirit/energy that does not "die" (energy doesn't disappear) of the human body. Whether one personifies this feeling from an outside source or reflection of it from the inside depends on the person. Though I don't understand god because there is no body. So....

May I ask what the entropic level of that soul energy is?

While it is true that energy is conserved, on average, the same cannot be said with its entropy. Which is what counts.

To make an example. The energy of a liter of milk is comparable with the energy of my soul/brain. Not sure about the different entropies, though.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

De facto atheist.

I am also de facto Swiss, for I am not 100% sure that I am not a brain in a vet fed by some aliens in the Andromeda galaxy, either.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

What nut-job came up with "Pure Agnostic"?

Such an agnostic would have some problems to justify his stance.

If lack of evidence entails 50% chance of being true or not, it is easy to show how he needs to assign very high probablity to the most absurd things.

For instance:

1) Invisible blue fairies exist
2) no blue fairies, Apollo exists, instead
3) none of the above exists

A pure agnostic would be forced to accept that the statement "either blue fairies or Apollo exist" has more than 66% chance of being true. Add mutually exclusive absurdities at will to make that probability getting arbitrarily high.

I apologize in advance to all believers in invisible blue fairies and Apollo for my arbitrary label of being absurd. Just mentally replace them with what you consider absurd

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

This is not true, at all. Why do some people keep on telling untruths? On the Dawkins scale, the classification is as follows:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't 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."

Why did you tell untruths in your OP, james bond?

Interesting you call these "untruths" and gleefully attribute them to me. Are you saying what I posted in the OP is not from Dawkins' book The God Delusion?

I got mine here -- Dawkins Belief Scale Images . I think they convey the point even if it's not "word for word" what Dawkins had.

 

[james bond]

De facto atheist.

I am also de facto Swiss, for I am not 100% sure that I am not a brain in a vet fed by some aliens in the Andromeda galaxy, either.

Ciao

- viole

De facto atheist seems like a good fit for you. I can accept the de facto Swiss part because not everyone knows of their roots (although by DNA testing we can know now).

However, I can't accept the aliens story. Just because something is material, doesn't mean it exists. Why couldn't unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters have you captive ?

 

[viole]

De facto atheist seems like a good fit for you. I can accept the de facto Swiss part because not everyone knows of their roots (although by DNA testing we can know now).

However, I can't accept the aliens story. Just because something is material, doesn't mean it exists. Why couldn't unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters have you captive ?

How do I know? And while it is true that being material does not entail existence, I hope you agree that it does not entail not existence, either.

BTW, Are you 100% sure that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist?

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

How do I know? And while it is true that being material does not entail existence, I hope you agree that it does not entail not existence, either.

BTW, Are you 100% sure that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist?

Ciao

- viole

I doubt the atheist scientists would believe the FSM, but who knows. The atheists tell me the FSM is similar to God existing. The FSM and unicorns exist in the imagination like aliens. There has been no evidence of aliens even though we have people looking for signs with multi-million dollar equipment even as we speak. Then, there is the fine tuning theory. Yet, atheist scientists claim we will find aliens within the next ten to fifteen years with zero evidence. They'll believe any science fairy tale. That's based on pure faith just like you're being held captive. Stockholm Syndrome?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

May I ask what the entropic level of that soul energy is?

A what???

While it is true that energy is conserved, on average, the same cannot be said with its entropy. Which is what counts.

Huh?

To make an example. The energy of a liter of milk is comparable with the energy of my soul/brain. Not sure about the different entropies, though.

Educate the savage.

I don't understand what you mean and how it relates to my post?

 

[Indian Iconoclast]

It makes no difference to you and the world whether you believe or do not believe in the existence of God, a god, a goddess, a pair of a God and a Goddess, many gods and goddesses OR NO GOD OR GODS OR GODDESSES AT ALL!

What makes the difference is what you think yourself to be. A worshipper, a master, none of these or a combination of any of these.

Further what makes any difference and becomes important is, if you consider yourself an intelligent living being who can make the difference in the natures mastery on the universe by helping it and conserve its qualities, keeping the environment green and unpolluted by the industrial all consuming progress, by prolonging the lives and habitats of wild and domestic animals in forests, seas and skies, educating and finding equal opportunities for the economically weak people, stay away from hatred, killings of innocent, and with whatever means you have found in life to contribute to charity and philanthropy, then you are what is described in all religious and spiritual tenets and dogmas and doctrines and scriptures as a God. Not liking this description? OK, you are a very rare person! YOU ARE AN INSPIRING HUMAN BEING! A LEADER!!

 

[james bond]

It makes no difference to you and the world whether you believe or do not believe in the existence of God, a god, a goddess, a pair of a God and a Goddess, many gods and goddesses OR NO GOD OR GODS OR GODDESSES AT ALL!

What makes the difference is what you think yourself to be. A worshipper, a master, none of these or a combination of any of these.

Further what makes any difference and becomes important is, if you consider yourself an intelligent living being who can make the difference in the natures mastery on the universe by helping it and conserve its qualities, keeping the environment green and unpolluted by the industrial all consuming progress, by prolonging the lives and habitats of wild and domestic animals in forests, seas and skies, educating and finding equal opportunities for the economically weak people, stay away from hatred, killings of innocent, and with whatever means you have found in life to contribute to charity and philanthropy, then you are what is described in all religious and spiritual tenets and dogmas and doctrines and scriptures as a God. Not liking this description? OK, you are a very rare person! YOU ARE AN INSPIRING HUMAN BEING! A LEADER!!

I like what you're saying except the first paragraph. Are you equating the second and third with personal values which we share or could it be due to religion? Many believers think humans are the highest order of animals and that we are the caretakers of those on earth.