Dawkins 7 milestones on the probabilty spectrum

[cyghost]

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. 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 per cent 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 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equi-probable."

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical."

6. Very low probability, 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 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."

Where on this list do you stand and why?

I am a 6 towards all possible God(s). If irrefutable proof is presented to me tomorrow I am sure I'll accept it. Unlike creationists who reject evolution despite the mountains of evidence. The God as depicted in the OT gets a solid 7 from me however, for that immoral, evil God is not possible.

[Bernie]

Yeah, I would say also a 6, maybe even is 6.5 :D - I have an open mind, so if there is scientific peer reviewed proof - I will then become a convert.

[Tux]

I'd give myself a 5 there

[ghoti]

Number 2. But I suppose it depends on your definition of God. By my definition of God, its possible and probable, though I dont think it cares all that much on how I live my life anymore than a game ranger cares for the animals at the kruger park.

[Pr⊕phet]

i don't list my self - you would be only limiting your self ;)

[Mr TB]

Before I list myself I look at this world from the view of Richard Dawkins.

What do I see?
Rumours of war.... of a third world war...
Murder,Rape,Fornication, Theft-excessive crime...
Ilnessess mental and physical, science and biology develop and the ilnessess become more brutal...
Some very wealthy people and then very poor people dying of hunger...

This is a very evil world in which Richard Dawkins live, not one that anyone will wish for a new born baby...

This is the evil world created by mankind... the proposition given to a newborn child by Richard Dawkins...

[cyghost]

You cannot see the world from Richard's point of view. You are incapable of that.

On top of that it kinda sounded like you describing reality there for a second... are you denying the things you mention are part of this world? And so where is God in this evil world?

You don't have to list yourself. You are clearly a number 1. Must be scary to be so bloody sure.

w1z4rd if I may? What makes you believe in God? (you may tell me to mind my own business ~ I won't be offended, I'll understand if its a private thing. Just curious)

[Mr TB]

Number one, because the proposition I receive from a holy , omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and benevolent God is not the same as the proposition reflected in the following post...

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1053411&postcount=6

[noxibox]

Agnostic atheist.

[TMoose]

Number 6 for me.

[cyghost]

A 5 for you then noxibox? :D

I am quite sure we won't see a 7 here. But we might encounter a few 1's :D

Mr TB why the drama mate. And shouldn't that be omni-benevolent at the least?

[Mr TB]

Oh sorry Cyghost, thanks for the upgrade omnibenevolent...

You cannot see the world from Richard's point of view. You are incapable of that.
Ai jai, jai, jai, ... you will indeed get a medal for bad manners... bronze

On top of that it kinda sounded like you describing reality there for a second... are you denying the things you mention are part of this world? And so where is God in this evil world?
No Dawkins don't believe their is a god correct? So this evil world is mankind's problem...
You don't have to list yourself. You are clearly a number 1. Must be scary to be so bloody sure.

Don't be so narsty!, then you should have mentioned it in your post...!
You hurt my feelings...but then I don't have any...Neanderthal...:D

w1z4rd if I may? What makes you believe in God? (you may tell me to mind my own business ~ I won't be offended, I'll understand if its a private thing. Just curious)
I will let you of the hook...

[Mr TB]

Number 2. But I suppose it depends on your definition of God. By my definition of God, its possible and probable, though I dont think it cares all that much on how I live my life anymore than a game ranger cares for the animals at the kruger park.
For once I am completely dumb struck...

Although the forumites may think I am high all the time...

[cyghost]

Ai jai, jai, jai, ... you will indeed get a medal for bad manners... bronze

And here I was aiming for gold... :rolleyes:


No Dawkins don't believe their is a god correct? So this evil world is mankind's problem...

Well I most certainly think this is mankind's problem. God hasn't done anything about anything since she send her kid to die 2000 years ago. Thats a bloody long time to wait for some kind of divine intervention mate. Bout time we take some responsibility I'd say.


Don't be so narsty! then you should have mentioned it in your post...!

It was kinda assumed :D


Kidding mate. Your input was of course open until you give it. Lets just say anything but 1 would have been highly suspect. :)

EDIT: I wouldn't be so dumbstruck mate. w1z4rd is a deist and not a theist. (unless I read it wrong that is) I can almost understand the deist tbh. Its the theist that leaves me speechless. (all evidence to the contrary of course ~ so lets just let it go as a figure of speech)

[Mr TB]

"Kidding mate. Your input was of course open until you give it. Lets just say anything but 1 would have been highly suspect."

I understand...making conversation... more kinda how it should be... not trying to stick your finger into the other guy's eye all the time...

Starting to like you if it possible through a keyboard actually...:)
Be good..., oh yes the gold goes to NEO...:D

[Highflyer_GP]

Came across that list in The God Delusion.

I'm Agnostic Atheist, so I would say number 5. It's arrogant to claim to be 100% certain, so I don't think we'd see any number 7's. There'll probably be a fair share of number 1's though :/

[BCO]

/me is a 6.

[cyghost]

Came across that list in The God Delusion.

Yeah, its from the God Delusion what an excellent book. Think I should send a copy to Mr TB??

:rolleyes:

[ghoti]

w1z4rd if I may? What makes you believe in God? (you may tell me to mind my own business ~ I won't be offended, I'll understand if its a private thing. Just curious)

Im a pantheist.

[cyghost]

I had to google that. :p

Thx mate.

[Highflyer_GP]

Pantheism is not an unreasonable stance, Einstein was one ;)

I just don't see a personal God who has nothing better to do than look down on who's jacking off in the shower or who sleeps with whose neighbour's wife.

The only downside to pantheism is that it makes use of the word God when referring to the universe and it's laws (as they are one and the same - but you don't pray to black holes or the laws of gravity so technically it's a misuse of the term 'God'). This is where theists can have a field day because they don't generally understand the belief system. To them, God == personal God.

[Mr TB]

Thought there was something wrong...

[cyghost]

Only thing wrong is your mind mate. How can you prove that w1z4rd is wrong and you right? You can't. Its as simple as that.

[ghoti]

Pantheism is not an unreasonable stance, Einstein was one ;)

I just don't see a personal God who has nothing better to do than look down on who's jacking off in the shower or who sleeps with whose neighbour's wife.

The only downside to pantheism is that it makes use of the word God when referring to the universe and it's laws (as they are one and the same - but you don't pray to black holes or the laws of gravity so technically it's a misuse of the term 'God'). This is where theists can have a field day because they don't generally understand the belief system. To them, God == personal God.

Yup, I do not have a personal God, and I do not believe God is as simple as what some texts make it out to be. I have a completely different interpretation of what God is to what bronze age tribesman thought up 3000 years ago. Some people cant get beyond the sky god tent people God :( My God does not require worship anymore than the game rangers in the kruger park need worship from the animals.

[BCO]

Dawkins describes pantheism as "sexed up atheism".

[ghoti]

Dawkins is a weak philosopher in my opinion. A really good genome biologist, but a piss poor philosopher.

[Mr TB]

Dawkins is a week philosopher in my opinion. A really good genome biologist, but a piss poor philosopher.
Someone explained it correctly...

[cyghost]

Well don't take him on in philosophy then, try to take him on in his field in which he reigns supreme.

If he is not a good philosopher (being in the eye of the beholder btw) he is still a brilliant biologist and well worth listening to.

[Claymore]

Dawkins is a weak philosopher in my opinion. A really good genome biologist, but a piss poor philosopher.

I get the feeling he is too practical about the matter; he's dealing largely with the very much more obvious issues.

The God Delusion was interesting, but I don't think it went into the detail it could have.

[ghoti]

Well don't take him on in philosophy then, try to take him on in his field in which he reigns supreme.

If he is not a good philosopher (being in the eye of the beholder btw) he is still a brilliant biologist and well worth listening to.

I do take him on what he is good at. Ive got all the other books such as the selfish gene and the extended phenotype. He is extremely accurate in his research on evolution and the genome. His latest book, the god delusion was his attempt at philosophy. A lot of his arguments are excellent in it, but a lot of them were inconclusive.

We dont know the answer to if there is a God or not. However when dealing with a multiverse of infinite probabilities and infinite possibilities everything is possible.

[cyghost]

His latest book, the god delusion was his attempt at philosophy. A lot of his arguments are excellent in it, but a lot of them were inconclusive.

Inconclusive is where its at at the moment. Leaves one to make up one's own mind. :)



We dont know the answer to if there is a God or not. However when dealing with a multiverse of infinite probabilities and infinite possibilities everything is possible.

Agreed. Isn't it wonderful though?

[ghoti]

Absolutely!

[Mr TB]

Richard Dawkins author of "The Selfish Gene" and
"The God Delution"...

http://www.whfreeman.com/generalreaders/book.asp?disc=&id_product=1149000076&compType=EXCER

Hailed by many as one of the three most intelligent men of our time... but
still at odds with fellow collegues... as we see in the above article...

[cyghost]

Yes. Isn't that wonderful? Scientists disagrees. So what is the result. Both parties try to prove their points. Experimentation results. And peer review shows which side is ultimately correct. Science in action. Pure Poetry.

What's the problem?

EDIT: did you actually read that article??

Before I go any further, I should point out that none of the participants in this controversy is questioning the idea of evolution. They are all well-known evolutionary biologists with the exception of Dennett, a philosopher who is the author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which was a finalist for the 1995 National Book Award. They all agree that the evidence that evolution has taken place is overwhelming, and they all oppose creationism, which they consider to be an attack on science. Furthermore, they all agree that Darwin's idea that natural selection is the main mechanism of evolutionary change is correct. And, of course, they all tend to view themselves as Darwin's intellectual heirs. What are they arguing about, then?

Darwin's theory of evolution is universally accepted among biologists. However, Darwin's "theory" is not a single idea; some scientists have broken it down into five or more subtheories. Thus it is possible for scientists to agree on many of the details of the theory while arguing about others. Furthermore, it is possible to agree that natural selection is the main cause of evolution, while debating the details of how evolution has happened.

How foolish to give us links that reinforce the truth of evolution. Would you in future please read links before you post them, you look silly with pie on your face.

[Mr TB]

Did you notice the Richard Dawkins.net site/forum or what you want to call it?

Many a non-christian has remarked "why did God not write down everything He wanted us to know all by Himself... That would be great!"
...mmmm... great argument don't you think?

Reading the magnificent Dawkins's he provides the reasons why it did not happen that way... it is actually very obvious...

The written word was not one of mankind's tools for the beginning... oral communication were seen as trustworthy in ancient times whilst in the modern era the written word is seen as more trustworthy.

Dawkins unintentionally agrees that the verbal line of communication from Adam to Noah was of high quality....

This site agrees that highly developed writng skills can be found since 750BCE, meaning he agrees with the trustworthy oral communication between the time of Noah up to Moses.... and from Moses up to Isaiah at least...

What I find so interesting however is the contradiction ancient people found oral communication to be trustworthy, the modern era not.
Ancient people found written communication not trustworthy, the modern era find it trustworthy...

Richard Dawkins discuss the fact that GOD wrote the 10 commandments on the tablets with his own hand...
Dawkins actually points out the fulfillment of a prophecy, the modern man will trust the written word more than oral communication, that is the reason God wrote it with His own hand...

[AntiThesis]

Where are you getting that from Mr TB?

As has been pointed out, "conflict" and/or disagreement in science is one of the most powerful things about science. It's something that religion could stand to learn from IMO.

[Mr TB]

Where are you getting that from Mr TB?

As has been pointed out, "conflict" and/or disagreement in science is one of the most powerful things about science. It's something that religion could stand to learn from IMO.
I don't find science in conflict or even in disagreement with the bible but the background used to interpret the facts causes the problem. It is intrigueing. I am not a scientist nor am I a biologist and neither a philosopher.

The fact is pressumptions are made before facts are interpreted and in the modern era there are 2 sets...

1)philisophical naturalism scientifically supported by evolution...
2)The biblical view ...with proper pressuppositions are supported by science...

For Dawkins?... well try and google Dawkins.net... I picked it up quite by accident last night...

[AntiThesis]

I don't find science in conflict or even in disagreement with the bible but the background used to interpret the facts causes the problem.

Science very often conflicts with the bible but also often not in a way that is intended to destroy but rather seek a mutually acceptable truth I think. It is interesting.

What background do you mean here?

[Mr TB]

Science very often conflicts with the bible but also often not in a way that is intended to destroy but rather seek a mutually acceptable truth I think. It is interesting.

What background do you mean here?
It seems that Richard Dawkins love to bash christianity, it is his hobby...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1499,Arrogance-dogma-and-why-science---not-faith---is-the-new-enemy-of-reason,Melanie-Phillips#61818

With background I refer to a set of pressuppositions...
The evolusionist can not prove how life came about, so they pressume life existed...
There is nothing wrong with the pressumption because does life exist or not?

The creationist pressume that God exist... (not an acceptable pressumption for many)
The Genesis account of creation agrees with science...

As you can see a matter of background, presuppossitions... that is all that I find in it...

[Claymore]

The creationist pressume that God exist... (not an acceptable pressumption for many)
The Genesis account of creation agrees with science...


It does not. Not unless you're not taking the Bible literally.

[AntiThesis]

It seems that Richard Dawkins love to bash christianity, it is his hobby...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1499,Arrogance-dogma-and-why-science---not-faith---is-the-new-enemy-of-reason,Melanie-Phillips#61818


It's not that Dawkins exists to bash Christianity. It may be an occasional side effect of his philosophy/debate/whatchercallit but I think his primary purpose is to find an explanation for pretty much everything. Much like the majority of scientists and for that matter humans.



With background I refer to a set of pressuppositions...
The evolusionist can not prove how life came about, so they pressume life existed...
There is nothing wrong with the pressumption because does life exist or not?

The creationist pressume that God exist... (not an acceptable pressumption for many)
The Genesis account of creation agrees with science...

To be fair on evolutionists and creationists both, it's unlikely that anything is ever going to be conclusively proven. Suggested yes, even found to be extremely probable but never proven.

This is one of the reasons IMO why science has seen such a surge of support over religion in recent years. Religion creates something like a self-contained answer that cannot be truly challenged (because of the basis of religion - faith) and provides a "definite" answer. This makes religion complacent and not readily subject to change.

In comparison, Science has grasped the fact that there is a continual need to find more proof, increase the probability of a theory being true so there's continual change and a reaching for excellence.

Religion often repeats the same catechisms and stories again and again and the world gets tired of it.

Something I do enjoy (and found while reading that link - thanks) is that believers in science are more often able to laugh at themselves and produce a sense of humour than many religious folk are. It's a failing in us.

[Moederloos]

6 for me

[Mr TB]

It does not. Not unless you're not taking the Bible literally.
Do you mean not as 24 hour periods, but as the end of stage ONE and the beginning of stage TWO? .... IMO that will not really disagree with the ancient hebrew as far as my knowledge goes...

[Mr TB]

6 for me
Although I created a negative world through the natural eyes of Richard Dawkins...
You need to look at this world with hope and through spiritual eyes and see the things to come...

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know."

With all my limitations I know it is 1

[Claymore]

Do you mean not as 24 hour periods, but as the end of stage ONE and the beginning of stage TWO? .... IMO that will not really disagree with the ancient hebrew as far as my knowledge goes...

Yes, and not being too exact about the order of some things.

[Moederloos]

Although I created a negative world through the natural eyes of Richard Dawkins...
You need to look at this world with hope and through spiritual eyes and see the things to come...

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know."

With all my limitations I know it is 1

why on earth did you quote me before that post?

[Mr TB]

Yes, and not being too exact about the order of some things.
Yip, but was the Bible in all honesty intended to be a scientific handbook?
No, I do not think so, although people have find via science all kinds of reasons not to believe the truth of the Bible...
The Bible was written giving an ancient people an idea of their routes.
On the site of Richard Dawkins there is a definite note that oral communication in ancient times were more trustworthy than the written word. He does this to make a fool of JP HOLDING in order to disprove the importance that God wrote the 10 Commands with his own hand. Inadvertantly by doing that the verbal records from Adam to Noah, and Noah to Moses should then be trustworthy... he can not have it both ways...

Anycase the Bible tends more to teach about God and is more like a historybook with an extra aspect prophecy...

[Mr TB]

why on earth did you quote me before that post?
Because you are on earth...

[Claymore]

Yip, but was the Bible in all honesty intended to be a scientific handbook?
No, I do not think so, although people have find via science all kinds of reasons not to believe the truth of the Bible...
The Bible was written giving an ancient people an idea of their routes.

Well, a lot of people do seem to believe the Bible completely literally...

[Moederloos]

The Bible was written giving an ancient people an idea of their routes.

lol - like a map?
surely you mean "roots".

[Mr TB]

lol - like a map?
surely you mean "roots".
Oh great- I messed up again... y r u moederloos?

[Mr TB]

Well, a lot of people do seem to believe the Bible completely literally...
Yes , plenty of people take the Bible literally and due to the stiff opposition and negative commentary on the Bible my own viewpoints changed quite a bit...

At a point if you asked who was the first children of Adam and Eve, the immediate answer would be Cain and Abel... but that of course is wrong...

Cain and Abel were the first children after the fall. The Bible says nothing concerning the children of Adam and Eve before the fall...

[arf9999]

I'm a 6...

but reading some of the tripe that TB posts is pushing me towards 7.

[Mr TB]

I'm a 6...

but reading some of the tripe that TB posts is pushing me towards 7.
I annoyed you the other day , did I not....?...:D

[arf9999]

I was annoyed because I thought you were being obtuse, I didn't realise that you really believed the cr@p that you post.

[Mr TB]

I was annoyed because I thought you were being obtuse, I didn't realise that you really believed the cr@p that you post.
You are forgiven... just another quote before I leave...


Scientific naturalists who think that Darwinism can be defended by waging ideological war against the critics are free to follow the example of Stephen Jay Gould. Others may prefer to take the path of Michael Ruse and the Darwinist scientists who participated in an academic symposium on Darwin on Trial in March 1992 at Southern Methodist University. These persons learned that it is possible to debate metaphysical differences in an academic setting in a fair-minded and mutually respectful manner. In the end the entire scientific community will have to acknowledge that honest discussion--with assumptions identified and terms precisely defined--is the only method for resolving disagreement that is consistent with the best traditions of science itself. When scientists defend a cherished doctrine by obscuring the issues and intimidating the critics, it is a sure sign that what they are defending isn't science.

:):)

[ToxicBunny]

Where is that quote from Mr TB?

Please provide the link

[arf9999]

You are forgiven... just another quote before I leave...



:):)

That's exactly the point. Darwinists are not waging war on their critics. As long as those critics are using scientific arguments to critique the Darwinist theories. The thing that scientists don't want to do is answer metaphysical arguments. Because they are not science and are thus moot.

[Mr TB]

The thing that scientists don't want to do is answer metaphysical arguments. Because they are not science and are thus moot.

In my personal view, unless Darwinism can not provide a satisfactory answer on how life came about it is not pure science, it is based on philosophic naturalism and therefor a metaphysical argument and thus a religion...

I stand on one fact, God created life and therefore Darwinism is BS.

[cyghost]

God created life, Darwin took it from there

You fail. Again.




*disclaimer, I still don't believe in any creator. Just a point.

[Mr TB]

God created life, Darwin took it from there

You fail. Again.

*disclaimer, I still don't believe in any creator. Just a point.

Your disclaimer gives me even more reason to believe that Darwinism is BS.

[Pr⊕phet]

Basically Super ?

[cyghost]

Because I don't believe in God, you don't believe in Darwin...

you got me, we're even


*disclaimer - one doesn't really believe in Darwin... but you got the point.

[Mr TB]

Basically Super ?
Bwahahaha...what have you been drinking M8....:D:D

[Mr TB]

Because I don't believe in God, you don't believe in Darwin...
you got me, we're even

*disclaimer - one doesn't really believe in Darwin... but you got the point.

Please do not feel offended... but I think you are actually a great fellow...

[cyghost]

Why thank you Mr TB, not offended at all. I am pretty sure should we have met in a bar as strangers I would have enjoyed a beer with you. I'm really a friendly kind of guy. I only take exception at your ideas and believes as presented.

Its clear you have the best intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions :p

[The Cosmos]

Number 2. But I suppose it depends on your definition of God. By my definition of God, its possible and probable, though I dont think it cares all that much on how I live my life anymore than a game ranger cares for the animals at the kruger park.

Are you a deist then ? Just curious.

[cyghost]

pantheist (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1055592&postcount=19)

[The Cosmos]

thanks

[Mr TB]

Why thank you Mr TB, not offended at all. I am pretty sure should we have met in a bar as strangers I would have enjoyed a beer with you. I'm really a friendly kind of guy. I only take exception at your ideas and believes as presented.

Its clear you have the best intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Its clear you have the best intentions. This is exactly what is wrong in my life ..best intentions.. I am passive, but with the new pastor at our church I am sure this will change soon...

[undesign]

6

[Claymore]

Where is that quote from Mr TB?

Please provide the link

He's plagiarising. :)

[ToxicBunny]

Oh no, he would never do that would he?... Thats just wrong and evil and casts huge aspersions on the integrity of his character :)

[Mr TB]

Oh no, he would never do that would he?... Thats just wrong and evil and casts huge aspersions on the integrity of his character

I like dreaming...

[cyghost]

dawkins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTZONIl546c&mode=related&search=)

one fundie, three atheists. Gotta love the odds.