The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:38 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:24 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  That.

Those!

These!!

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
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
19-08-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 11:33 AM)pablo Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 05:19 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You'd have just as much burden of proof as those in number 2, wouldn't you?

If you don't have proof that god doesn't exist but you believe it anyways, then wouldn't we call that faith?

If we agree that faith = belief without proof

"a belief not based on proof" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

If you think that position 6 six has no burden of proof, but that number 2 does, then you must agree that the scale is biased.

As I suggested in an earlier post, this scale is not symmetrical. If we wanted remove the bias from the scale, we could arrive at one of these 2 options.

We could leave 5, and 6 the way they are but change 2 and 3 to read:

2. I cannot know for certain, but I think god is very probable.

3. I do not know whether or not god exists, but I'm inclined to be skeptical.

This would give symmetry to the scale. The other option is to leave 2 and 3, but change 5 and 6 to read:

5. I am very uncertain but I'm inclined to believe god does not exist.

6. I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe that god does not exist.

If you still fall into category number 6 under the second option, then would you agree that both 6 and 2 escape the burden of proof? It seems most of our theists on this site are claiming position 2, do they escape the burden of proof?

The next time a JW, Mormon, or any other theist I'm arguing with claims they're a #2 on the Dawkins Scale, I won't hold them to the burden of proof.
How's that grab ya?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to single you out. There were several members who labeled themselves an >6, 6.9, etc. My questions were as much for them as you. The only reason I referenced your post is because you mentioned the burden of proof.

To me, the starting point for any claim is neutral. To move in either direction requires evidence. With the god claim, we don't even know what kind of evidence to look for, or what evidence would look like. I don't see any reason to move away from the neutral position.

I really enjoy your contributions, and you seem like a very smart person, and I hope you didn't take my post as an attack.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
19-08-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 04:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 11:33 AM)pablo Wrote:  The next time a JW, Mormon, or any other theist I'm arguing with claims they're a #2 on the Dawkins Scale, I won't hold them to the burden of proof.
How's that grab ya?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to single you out. There were several members who labeled themselves an >6, 6.9, etc. My questions were as much for them as you. The only reason I referenced your post is because you mentioned the burden of proof.

To me, the starting point for any claim is neutral. To move in either direction requires evidence. With the god claim, we don't even know what kind of evidence to look for, or what evidence would look like. I don't see any reason to move away from the neutral position.

I really enjoy your contributions, and you seem like a very smart person, and I hope you didn't take my post as an attack.

You don't yet know Pablo. Nothing gets to him. Absolutely fucking nothing.

Relax.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 04:43 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 11:33 AM)pablo Wrote:  The next time a JW, Mormon, or any other theist I'm arguing with claims they're a #2 on the Dawkins Scale, I won't hold them to the burden of proof.
How's that grab ya?

Alla claims she's a 2.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 04:46 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 04:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 11:33 AM)pablo Wrote:  The next time a JW, Mormon, or any other theist I'm arguing with claims they're a #2 on the Dawkins Scale, I won't hold them to the burden of proof.
How's that grab ya?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to single you out. There were several members who labeled themselves an >6, 6.9, etc. My questions were as much for them as you. The only reason I referenced your post is because you mentioned the burden of proof.

To me, the starting point for any claim is neutral. To move in either direction requires evidence. With the god claim, we don't even know what kind of evidence to look for, or what evidence would look like. I don't see any reason to move away from the neutral position.

I really enjoy your contributions, and you seem like a very smart person, and I hope you didn't take my post as an attack.

What makes you state the starting point of a claim is neutral opposed to absence of claim?

"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
19-08-2015, 04:54 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 12:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You are focused too much on the analogy and have lost sight of the points that Carl was making.

Then perhaps you can tell us what the answer to Carl's own question is?

"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?"

What if I changed that to "Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, undetectable (at least to date) passive computer virus which only interacts with the environment by monitoring it and collecting data? 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 computer virus exists?"

Does that change anything?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 05:01 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 03:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 03:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Can you prove that?

Can you show any meaningful way in which it can be said to be true?

No, you can't. Therefore, it is false. That is what false means.

Not to nitpick (which of course means I'm gonna nitpick) but that is not what false means in a many-valued logic. Tongue

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
19-08-2015, 05:02 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 04:54 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  What if I changed that to "Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, undetectable (at least to date) passive computer virus which only interacts with the environment by monitoring it and collecting data? 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 computer virus exists?"

Does that change anything?

An interesting question, but we've relocated the discussion. My reply is over there.

"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, 05:06 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
If we're talking about a vague deist god I'd be in somewhere between 6 and 6.5. If we're talking about yahweh it's a solid 7.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 05:11 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2015 05:16 PM by pablo.)
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 04:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 11:33 AM)pablo Wrote:  The next time a JW, Mormon, or any other theist I'm arguing with claims they're a #2 on the Dawkins Scale, I won't hold them to the burden of proof.
How's that grab ya?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to single you out. There were several members who labeled themselves an >6, 6.9, etc. My questions were as much for them as you. The only reason I referenced your post is because you mentioned the burden of proof.

To me, the starting point for any claim is neutral. To move in either direction requires evidence. With the god claim, we don't even know what kind of evidence to look for, or what evidence would look like. I don't see any reason to move away from the neutral position.

I really enjoy your contributions, and you seem like a very smart person, and I hope you didn't take my post as an attack.

No sweat. Smile
I should have read more than the first post before I replied.I thought it was just a fun little post, I didn't see what it morphed into later.

Girly, I've read some of Alla's posts, most of them are #2. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: