The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
1 and 7 are not possible.

But, let's not start that argument again.

I'm a comfy 1.7.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
18-08-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
6 for Girly.

(18-08-2015 09:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.'
...
If you're own number correspond to a 6, or low 7, then it would appear you don't merely lack a belief in God, but believe God doesn't exist.

The only "belief" "improbable" entails is that it's highly unlikely. It does not entail belief that God does not exist just that my odds of winning the lottery are many many many orders of magnitude more likely.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
18-08-2015, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 02:07 PM by unfogged.)
RE: The Dawkins Scale
When I was very young I was probably somewhere between 5 and 6 and by early teens I was passing 6 at high speed. I've spent the rest of my life approaching 7 on an asymptotic curve.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
18-08-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 10:12 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 10:03 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  People keep splitting this up into specific god claims (like saying they are a 7 for the christian god) and then some sort of more nebulous god claim (and give a different number).

I don't see a reason to make the distinction. For specific gods, there is no evidence where it would be expected. For a more nebulous god claim, there can be no evidence because it is untestable and unfalsifiable, making it indistinguishable from imagination. I believe imaginations exist and that people believe in their imaginary friends, but without any external evidence or reason to believe, it too is a concept without evidence where it should be expected.

Well Christian God, if one defines attributes and doesn't mind too much about say the Problem of Evil (which already puts him into questionable God territory) has some specific claims -
  • he speaks with a booming voice
  • he occasionally starts fires if the priest sets up a sufficiently public fire-starting performance
  • he stops rain because the king is bad
  • he cures people of diseases
  • he answers prayers from believers *unconditionally*
  • he does the pillar of smoke / pillar of fire thing (also possible to do with large amounts of gasoline but whatevs).

There's a whole bunch of shit which it's claimed that he has done, used to do etc, and not a shred of credible evidence for any of it. So very easy to be strongly skeptical of this God, so that can be a 6.9.

If you don't claim as much for your God, you don't have as strong of a God, but you also don't have as hard a time with skepticism. You're claiming less. If you claim some kind of non-falsifiable deist God the most I can say is I think he exists to the same degree I think Santa exists - not at all, but not actually, y'know, with evidence *against*, unlike, no talking pillars of fire have been reported since we developed the necessary equipment to fact-check such claims... So that can be a 6.

There can be no evidence against the existence of something that doesn't exist. There can only be a paucity of evidence. There is the same paucity of evidence for a specific god claim as there is for any nebulous god claim. The only difference (as far as I can tell) is that the more nebulous god claims have set themselves up to be unfalsifiable, untestable, unverifiable, and not independently derivable. In that sense, they are nothing more than imagination and should be treated as such.

Until external evidence exists to demonstrate the plausibility of any given god claim (specific or nebulous), I treat them all as fiction. And I identify as a 7.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
18-08-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 10:31 AM)unfogged Wrote:  When I was very young I was probably somewhere between 5 and 6 and by early teens I was passing 6 at high speed. I've spent the rest of my life approaching 7 on a asymptotic curve.

That's the best way to describe my feelings on this I've yet seen. Thanks! Thumbsup

Edit to Add: Except I started as a 1, and dropped to a 3-4 at age 17 when I ran into a wall of sudden WTF about my faith. I probably hit 5-6 in my early 20s, and after that it has been "asymptotic curve toward 7" as I see more crap from theists that give me more WTF. Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-08-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 10:23 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  1 and 7 are not possible.

I am a seven.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
18-08-2015, 11:28 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
All right...

[Image: joker-herewego_zpsac94e649.gif]

"I absolutely KNOW that the world is flat."
-My ancestors: c. a long time ago

I'll repeat, no human can be a #1 or a #7 on the Dawkins Scale. It is literally impossible within the realm of humanity. Only an omniscient being can "know"... anything. Absolute knowledge is not obtainable if you are a homo sapien.

"But KC, knowledge as it's understood is equivalent to a very strong belief supported by evidence and a conscious decision that you cannot reach any other conclusion based on the observable."

Yeah, I know. But what you (me?) just described isn't "knowledge". It's you (me?) redefining knowledge to equivocate to very, very, very strong belief.

"Maybe, but the Dawkins Scale is talking about that very thing, not absolute knowledge."

No. Just no. That is the very reason why points 2-6 exist and why the words "know" and "believe" are used separately.

A 1 or a 7 on a Dawkins Scale claims absolute knowledge.... so, congratulations... you're omniscient?

"But it's an unfalsifiable, ridiculous claim that has no bearing on reality."

It doesn't matter. The ridiculousness or the credibility of a claim have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the claim can be made. The very fact that the claim can be made is proof enough that it exists within reality; thus, must be given the same treatment as any other claim that has been made, can be made, or will be made; and what's more, it doesn't even matter if it's unfalsifiable or not.

You saying that "la la la that claim is bunk and unfalsifiable so I'm a 1/7" doesn't strike that claim from existence.

In that, if you cannot prove absolute knowledge on every claim that has been made or will be made then you cannot be a 1 or 7.

Saying you're a 1 or 7 because of the aforementioned doesn't mean you're a 1 or 7. You're simply redefining the scale to make the 1 or 7 fit with your very, very, very strong beliefs.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
18-08-2015, 11:32 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  All right...

[Image: joker-herewego_zpsac94e649.gif]

"I absolutely KNOW that the world is flat."
-My ancestors: c. a long time ago

I'll repeat, no human can be a #1 or a #7 on the Dawkins Scale. It is literally impossible within the realm of humanity. Only an omniscient being can "know"... anything. Absolute knowledge is not obtainable if you are a homo sapien.

"But KC, knowledge as it's understood is equivalent to a very strong belief supported by evidence and a conscious decision that you cannot reach any other conclusion based on the observable."

Yeah, I know. But what you (me?) just described isn't "knowledge". It's you (me?) redefining knowledge to equivocate to very, very, very strong belief.

"Maybe, but the Dawkins Scale is talking about that very thing, not absolute knowledge."

No. Just no. That is the very reason why points 2-6 exist and why the words "know" and "believe" are used separately.

A 1 or a 7 on a Dawkins Scale claims absolute knowledge.... so, congratulations... you're omniscient?

"But it's an unfalsifiable, ridiculous claim that has no bearing on reality."

It doesn't matter. The ridiculousness or the credibility of a claim have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the claim can be made. The very fact that the claim can be made is proof enough that it exists within reality; thus, must be given the same treatment as any other claim that has been made, can be made, or will be made; and what's more, it doesn't even matter if it's unfalsifiable or not.

You saying that "la la la that claim is bunk and unfalsifiable so I'm a 1/7" doesn't strike that claim from existence.

In that, if you cannot prove absolute knowledge on every claim that has been made or will be made then you cannot be a 1 or 7.

Saying you're a 1 or 7 because of the aforementioned doesn't mean you're a 1 or 7. You're simply redefining the scale to make the 1 or 7 fit with your very, very, very strong beliefs.

Fucking this.

Hence, why Dawkins himself doesn't consider himself to be a 7.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes itsnotmeitsyou's post
18-08-2015, 11:36 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
KC - Since we don't have a "high five" emoticon, I'll have to settle for a Thumbsup and a "ni".


Knights who say NI!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-08-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
KingsChosen, you are totally missing the point. This is about a claim of knowledge, not knowledge.

I find it hilarious that everyone seems to know the probability of god's existence. I'm curious to see the data set used to calculate the probability. Rather than make a factual claim that god is improbable (which makes you seem very silly since you didn't do any calculation), why not just say that it is your hypothesis is that god doesn't exist?

5 for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: