The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 11:10 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
I'm tired of pedantics.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WillHopp's post
18-08-2015, 11:23 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 08:44 AM)jennybee Wrote:  A recent post referenced the (Richard) Dawkins Scale. I'm not sure if someone posted this before-so if it's a repeat thread, sorry Big Grin

Where are you on the Dawkins Scale? I was originally a 1, now a 6 (although, lean toward 7). I did make a pit stop at each of the points on my way to 6/7.

[Image: dawkins-scale.png]

Most people are about a 6. It would be very strange to find anyone who is delusional or ignorant enough to be the strongest on either side and be completely honest about it.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
18-08-2015, 11:59 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:23 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 08:44 AM)jennybee Wrote:  A recent post referenced the (Richard) Dawkins Scale. I'm not sure if someone posted this before-so if it's a repeat thread, sorry Big Grin

Where are you on the Dawkins Scale? I was originally a 1, now a 6 (although, lean toward 7). I did make a pit stop at each of the points on my way to 6/7.

[Image: dawkins-scale.png]

Most people are about a 6. It would be very strange to find anyone who is delusional or ignorant enough to be the strongest on either side and be completely honest about it.

*most people here are about a 6.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 12:00 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
6. I don't want that pesky burden of proof around my neck. Big Grin

(6000th post)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like pablo's post
19-08-2015, 12:04 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:23 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Most people are about a 6. It would be very strange to find anyone who is delusional or ignorant enough to be the strongest on either side and be completely honest about it.

[Image: mlfw10086-360693__safe_applejack_solo_an...ntense.gif]

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
19-08-2015, 12:10 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2015 12:19 AM by Stevil.)
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 09:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Either way, it's not a god.
Why can't an alien be a god? What is your definition of a god. What is your falsifiable criteria?

Is your definition universal in that all human's agree with your definition?

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Quote:the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
It's interesting, don't you think, that he says to "reject the dragon hypothesis" rather than to conclude that you have proof that dragons don't exist in the garage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 12:40 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 12:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Why can't an alien be a god?

That's rather my point. There isn't a distinction. "God" is just a term tacked on, without justification, in order to imply that the entity is worthy of worship or is somehow "better", on an undefined but somehow very grand scale, than we are.

Quite aside from the fact that I find such notions rather offensive and entirely baseless, I don't see the point. So I don't use the term.

(19-08-2015 12:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  What is your definition of a god. What is your falsifiable criteria?

I don't have a definition of "god", beyond the broad requirement that it be worthy of worship in some form or another, which I think most would agree is rather central to the position.

As above, I reject the idea of worship on its face, since it's rather silly, degrading, and paints the mental image of humans being worms groveling in the dirt.

(19-08-2015 12:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Is your definition universal in that all human's agree with your definition?

No. I never claimed it to be, because, again, I don't really have one. It's up to those who believe in gods to supply one.

(19-08-2015 12:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Quote:the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
It's interesting, don't you think, that he says to "reject the dragon hypothesis" rather than to conclude that you have proof that dragons don't exist in the garage.

It's also rather interesting, don't you think, that you quote-mined a passage from the latter half of the chapter rather than presenting the conclusion Sagan gives regarding the actual situation in hand.

The garage dragon is presented in two parts. The latter part - the one that you quote-mined from - regards a situation in which some tentative evidence is advanced, but is dismissed as possibly faked or otherwise untrustworthy.

The former part - and the one that applies to my argument - is one wherein no evidence is advanced in the favor of the garage dragon's existence:

Carl Sagan Wrote:"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

Claiming that a non-interactive entity - one that does not interact with anything, ever, under any circumstance - exists is, in Sagan's own words, a "veridically worthless" statement. There is no meaningful way in which it can be said to be true. The dragon does not exist by any functional definition of "existence". It is imaginary.

Now, if there was some evidence to support the garage dragon's existence, as in the part of the story that you quoted, that would be an entirely different situation. We might still reject the idea of the dragon's existence due to other issues, but at least it is an interactive entity. At least there can be some evidence of it. At least it is not by definition imaginary.

(18-08-2015 10:58 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Unbeliever - Nice reference to The Demon-Haunted World, by the way. I love the chapter on the invisible dragon in his garage.

Glad to hear I'm not the only person here who's read it. It's a wonderful book, and the garage dragon passage in particular is a perfect illustration of one of the most fundamental, yet often-overlooked, principles of logic.

"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
19-08-2015, 01:19 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 12:40 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 12:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
It's interesting, don't you think, that he says to "reject the dragon hypothesis" rather than to conclude that you have proof that dragons don't exist in the garage.


The former part - and the one that applies to my argument - is one wherein no evidence is advanced in the favor of the garage dragon's existence:

Carl Sagan Wrote:"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

So, sorry, I'm missing the bit where he says that he has proof that the dragon doesn't exist.

He clearly states that the claim should be rejected.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 01:35 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 01:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 12:40 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The former part - and the one that applies to my argument - is one wherein no evidence is advanced in the favor of the garage dragon's existence:

So, sorry, I'm missing the bit where he says that he has proof that the dragon doesn't exist.

He's saying that it's a meaningless statement to claim that it exists, since it is defined in such a way that its existence one way or another changes nothing. Thus, by definition, it does not exist. It isn't a matter of presenting proof. It's a matter of understanding what the word "exists" means.

If you disagree, you are free to show any way that the word "exists" can be meaningfully applied to the garage dragon concept.

"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
19-08-2015, 01:37 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 12:04 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 11:23 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Most people are about a 6. It would be very strange to find anyone who is delusional or ignorant enough to be the strongest on either side and be completely honest about it.

[Image: mlfw10086-360693__safe_applejack_solo_an...ntense.gif]

[Image: e7e.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: