The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 09:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  SO you know that God doesn't exist?

I know that no claim any theist has ever presented for their god claim is substantiated with actual evidence, and is instead of a figment of their imagination.

Spinoza's interpretation is pretty good. And it is supported not only by physics but also by the fact that the Jews excommunicated him.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 04:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 04:04 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You're right. The way I said that was very abrasive and I apologize to everyone who might have taken offense to that.

Regarding ignosticism, I suppose I could be describe my position as ignostic.

My main problem with Dawkin's scale is that positions 2-7 are consistent with atheism. I would argue that everyone is either a theist or an atheist. I think Dawkin's scale only serves to muddy the waters. You might ask why I think this way, or what my scale is. For me it's very simple. We can look at the claim "god exists." You either accept this claim, or you don't. You either think it's true that god exists or you don't. If you think you're uncertain as to whether or not god exists, then you don't hold the belief that god exists. Anyone who doesn't believe that god exists is an atheist.

We can ask one very simple question to find out if someone is a theist or an atheist.

Do you believe that god exists?

Anything but an "yes" indicates atheism.

But a 2-3 would say Yes... so I don't get what your objection is.

Number 2 and 3 both claim uncertainty. Perhaps they hypothesize that god exists, but seem to be in a state of rejection to the claim "god exists." If they didn't reject that claim, then they would be in category number 1. Anyone who rejects that claim is an atheist as far as I can tell. I guess I'm ultimately arguing than an atheist can hypothesize the existence of god.

You're either a theist or not. I don't see much utility in the scale.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 04:18 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 04:08 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It makes predictions. It tells us what kind of evidence we will find and where to look for it. If that evidence is not found, then the dark matter hypothesis will be discarded.
That's right, if it makes a claim of what observable evidence must exist for it to be true and you make the observation and don't find the evidence then you have falsified the claim. You can do this because the claim is stated in such a way that it is falsifiable.

Regarding the god claim, what falsifiable claim has been made? What observable evidence has been claimed and yet not found when looking in the correct place in the correct way at the correct time?


Oh, can you please fix up your post #111 in this thread, you have mis-quoted. I don't want that garbage appearing as if I said it. It was Free's thoughts, most definitely not mine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
6.666666

Remember, just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true. Yes, even if you have faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes microterf's post
18-08-2015, 04:20 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 04:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 04:06 PM)Free Wrote:  Not Stevil.

Me.

Thumbsup

oh shit i've been caught

[Image: mlfw10131-tumblr_mm1ctdG11W1s210hso1_500.gif]

And by the son of the FSM too.

Dude ... you're fucked now! I'm telling Dad!

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 04:20 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 04:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Regarding the god claim, what falsifiable claim has been made? What observable evidence has been claimed and yet not found when looking in the correct place in the correct way at the correct time?

In the case of specific gods, such as the Christian or Hindu, plenty. I don't think I need to repeat the arguments against their existence here.

In the case of more deific gods, I reiterate my previous points: there is no difference between the proposed "gods" existing within the bounds of this universe and sufficiently advanced aliens, which renders the term meaningless. Gods that exist "outside" of the universe are garage dragons, and define themselves out of existence.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
18-08-2015, 04:25 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 02:01 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, that's where you're getting down to the meat of it. Axioms, primitive notions, trying to analyze the validity of logic itself using logic itself - that's the point where it gets really complicated.

Validity of an argument is trivial to determine. Soundness of an argument is not.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 04:17 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 04:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  But a 2-3 would say Yes... so I don't get what your objection is.

Number 2 and 3 both claim uncertainty. Perhaps they hypothesize that god exists, but seem to be in a state of rejection to the claim "god exists." If they didn't reject that claim, then they would be in category number 1. Anyone who rejects that claim is an atheist as far as I can tell. I guess I'm ultimately arguing than an atheist can hypothesize the existence of god.

You're either a theist or not. I don't see much utility in the scale.

I don't get what draws you to these conclusions. Theism/Atheism is all about believe in their limited forms. It's not about certainty or knowledge but if they believe. 2-3 isn't just "hypothesizing" 4/5 are more "hypothesizing" the existence of God.

Like if someone asked me if I believed my girlfriend has cheated on me and I was paranoid of her actions at the time and said, Yes. Well say I don't actually know based on any evidence if she has or not so I'm not certain but I believe it. I'd be either a 2 or a 3 on this scale. I believe it but I'm not fully confident my belief is accurate. In relation, that's still belief in god. Believers still have doubts and having occasional doubt doesn't make them atheists.

And the scale is based on the Kinsey Scale of Sexuality to equate a better answer for "are you gay?" than simply yes or no.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:52 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 11:41 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No more so than it would be necessary to claim absolute knowledge when I say that Peter Pan does not exist.

Okay, prove it. Show me that Peter Pan does not exist.

Bad example. Peter Pan does exist. I haz teh proofz. ... Or at least he did exist before he hung himself by his belt.
[Image: pan.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 04:20 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In the case of more deific gods, I reiterate my previous points: there is no difference between the proposed "gods" existing within the bounds of this universe and sufficiently advanced aliens, which renders the term meaningless. Gods that exist "outside" of the universe are garage dragons, and define themselves out of existence.
They don't define themselves out of existence.

I mean, if a god did truly exist, you can't irradiate this god merely by coming up with a poorly defined claim for the god.
It would continue to exist despite your poor attempts to define it.

You can reject a claim without having to counter claim the exact opposite. You don't have to put yourself in a counter claim position in order to reject any possibility that the original claim could be true.

It is sufficient to reject the claim on the grounds that the claim is insufficiently defined and unverifiable. This isn't a soft position. It is an outright rejection of the validity of the claim without going to the extreme of making an equally ridiculous and unfounded counter claim.

If you claim that god does not exist then you need to provide a well defined definition for god including falsifiable criteria and show how that has been proven. Merely pointing to "garage dragon" does not support your case it actually also shows that your own case is also a "garage dragon" and should be also rejected.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: