Originally posted by googlefudge An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe that gods exist.
A definition Dawkins promotes.
He doesn't believe gods exist.
Therefore he is an atheist, and he calls himself such.
He may not claim to be a gnostic strong atheist, but that doesn't mean he is not an atheist.
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:
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 Agnosticism. 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."
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.
In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability ...[text shortened]... ed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate
.
[/b]there should be an eighth category,
8. rampant militant atheist - one who is convinced that religious belief is dangerous and who actively campaigns to have it suppressed.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie ther should be an eighth category,
8. rampant militant atheist - one who is convinced that religious belief is dangerous and who actively campaigns to have it suppressed.
I'm not sure that's a thing outside of the fevered imaginations of wannabe
persecuted theists.
What we campaign for, is not having theists views rammed down everyone/anyone
else's throats.
On the other hand there are quite a few theists who are convinced that both atheism,
and often anyone else's religion is dangerous, and who actively campaign to have it
suppressed and who go around trying to convert everyone else to their point of view...
Originally posted by googlefudge I'm not sure that's a thing outside of the fevered imaginations of wannabe
persecuted theists.
What we campaign for, is not having theists views rammed down everyone/anyone
else's throats.
On the other hand there are quite a few theists who are convinced that both atheism,
and often anyone else's religion is dangerous, and who actively campai ...[text shortened]... and who go around trying to convert everyone else to their point of view...
I call hypocrite.
oh look, here comes one now (cue the Bod theme tune)
Originally posted by robbie carrobie there should be an eighth category,
8. rampant militant atheist - one who is convinced that religious belief is dangerous and who actively campaigns to have it suppressed.
That's a completely different scale to the one on theistic probability. One could easily be a '4' on the theistic probability scale and also be "convinced that religious belief is dangerous"
Originally posted by robbie carrobie there should be an eighth category,
8. rampant militant atheist - one who is convinced that religious belief is dangerous and who actively campaigns to have it suppressed.
Why should that be number 8, and why should it be in the scale at all. The scale is that of belief in God (or lack thereof) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the behaviour of those believers or unbelievers.
I see no reason why there might not be members of 4,5,6 and 7 who believe religious belief is dangerous and actively campaign to have it suppressed. In fact I think even members of 1 may do so when it is not their religion in question.
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."
Is it a scientific hypothesis, though? The way I see it, because of the nature of god (probably any god) he can never be proven scientifically. Because he decides what the rules of nature are and because he decides when he wants to be proven or not. It's not like he's left the scientific door open for us to find him, if we push the right buttons and mix the right ingredients. "Ha, if those humans perform this scientific test, they'll look me right in the eyes and there's nothing I can do about it." It doesn't work like that, does it?
Originally posted by Rank outsider We have Aunt Flo, and PC Copper.
Is that snap?
Yes, because they are both atheists.
Da diddly di di di di di doo dah, dah diddy do do did do dah.
(No, that's not the Bod theme tune, but the standard answer to most questions we pose of theists.)
Hardly, but a catchy tune never the less, although I prefer an old sea shanty, Sally Brown, I have been singing it will I maraud the seas of the West Indies seeking out English Men o wars to plunder in the game Assassins creed 4, Black flag!
Originally posted by Great King Rat Is it a scientific hypothesis, though? The way I see it, because of the nature of god (probably any god) he can never be proven scientifically. Because he decides what the rules of nature are and because he decides when he wants to be proven or not. It's not like he's left the scientific door open for us to find him, if we push the right buttons and m ...[text shortened]... me right in the eyes and there's nothing I can do about it." It doesn't work like that, does it?
I think its the fact that the supernatural resides 'outside' of the natural world which makes any kind of scientific analysis difficult, if not impossible. One can of course offer a rational basis, but it relies upon inference rather than pure proof and one must decide what is more plausible.
Originally posted by twhitehead Why should that be number 8, and why should it be in the scale at all. The scale is that of belief in God (or lack thereof) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the behaviour of those believers or unbelievers.
I see no reason why there might not be members of 4,5,6 and 7 who believe religious belief is dangerous and actively campaign to have it suppressed. In fact I think even members of 1 may do so when it is not their religion in question.
you don't think a persons beliefs impacts on their behaviour? I say you are either seriously deluded or have not thought about what you are saying.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Hardly, but a catchy tune never the less, although I prefer an old sea shanty, Sally Brown, I have been singing it will I maraud the seas of the West Indies seeking out English Men o wars to plunder in the game Assassins creed 4, Black flag!
A pity you had to stop playing because of all the violence!
26 Nov '13 10:51
There is more atheists than...
Back to Top