puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Apr 13, 2017 14:21:55 GMT
Interesting scale. I think you'd have to first discuss the definition of "God" though. ^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^What other definition of god would you think worth discussing?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 13, 2017 14:26:57 GMT
Interesting scale. I think you'd have to first discuss the definition of "God" though. If he's talking Judeo-Christian or other types of anthropomorphic personal deities, 6.9 seems reasonable. Not really because theist is a generic term that can discuss anyone who believes in any deity.
This god is generic too whether discussing Allah, Vishnu, Jehovah, or Zeus.
Anything other than a generic definition increases the likelihood that we are all atheists to most stuff.
We're all 6.9 - 7 on any given scale...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 14:29:44 GMT
^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^ What other definition of god would you think worth discussing? What do you mean by 'other'? There are countless understandings of what god is/should be. Some believe a consciousness/sentience are characteristics and some don't, some believe god is a form, some formless, some believe the entire universe is god, some believe part of it, some believe something independent. This goes on and on. For any meaningful discussion on god's existence individuals must first qualify what they understand god to be.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Apr 13, 2017 14:39:04 GMT
What other definition of god would you think worth discussing? What do you mean by 'other'? There are countless understandings of what god is/should be. Some believe a consciousness/sentience are characteristics and some don't, some believe god is a form, some formless, some believe the entire universe is god, some believe part of it, some believe something independent. This goes on and on. For any meaningful discussion on god's existence individuals must first qualify what they understand god to be. Well, the poster mentioned a specific god. So, a definition other than that. You seemed to say the definition was important, and I was wondering what definition you thought could be worth discussing beyond that. Saying the entire universe is god doesn't seem interesting to me, it sounds like a relabelling of the universe with a word most often used another way. The definition of god doesn't really seem all that important to the question about Dawkins beliefs. Id say he'd be at the same level regardless of any god definition you have used so far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 14:48:36 GMT
Well, the poster mentioned a specific god. So, a definition other than that. You seemed to say the definition was important, and I was wondering what definition you thought could be worth discussing beyond that. Definition is important, and I already mentioned why. There you have it. I haven't used a definition so far... and the answer about Dawkin's beliefs could only be truly answered in a discussion with Dawkins himself, while considering all defintions. I may at least go as far as to say by most definitions Dawkins would probably be at the same level.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Apr 13, 2017 14:59:59 GMT
Well, the poster mentioned a specific god. So, a definition other than that. You seemed to say the definition was important, and I was wondering what definition you thought could be worth discussing beyond that. Definition is important, and I already mentioned why. There you have it. I haven't used a definition so far... and the answer about Dawkin's beliefs could only be truly answered in a discussion with Dawkins himself, while considering all defintions. I may at least go as far as to say by most definitions Dawkins would probably be at the same level. Sure definitions are generally important in discussions, but they don't seem that important here yet. As I said, none suggested so far would make an obvious difference to the OP You say that you like it's some kind of point. Discussion boards are about opinions. Basically I was wondering why you were agreeing to the level of bold type and tons of arrows about definitions being important. It doesn't seem that big of a deal, as id argue most atheists would feel the same about any definition of god.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 15:14:46 GMT
Basically I was wondering why you were agreeing to the level of bold type and tons of arrows about definitions being important. Again, I've explained why. It may not be a big deal to you, but I feel it's quite relevant to any discussion on the belief of god, if one desires an understanding of another's belief. I also know that all atheists are not alike.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 13, 2017 15:17:49 GMT
Depends on your definition of "atheist". He uses this scale : And says he is a "six point nine". By some people's standards this makes him not actually an atheist. Personally I think it makes him an atheist with a sensible caution level. I'm a 7 on that scale, but I wouldn't say that one has to be a 7 to be an atheist. What I have more of a problem with on that scale is that he's defining agnostic as "I don't know" basically rather than "it can not be known."
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 13, 2017 15:23:03 GMT
This is a practical scale that works. Not sure why everyone likes to get caught up in theoretical minutiae. Agreed. Any scale represents a simplified view of of things, one that is often helpful in evaluating where things lie, as long as it's always kept in mind that it doesn't represent a complete picture (which would be impossible). A higher dimensional graph might capture more information, but it could obfuscate just as well as illuminate (a 10 dimensional graph is unlikely to be useful). For example the one recently put foward here, with a gnostic axis and a theist axis, is in my mind inferior to Dawkins' graph. Another way to look at the one dimensional graph of Dawkins is to compare it to sports bookies. They are never at a loss to come up with betting numbers for a sporting event (for events in their area of coverage). Even if no one held even odds for the existence of god, it doesn't imply a defect in the graph, just that there are no plot points to be made in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 13, 2017 15:23:20 GMT
. . . some formless, some believe the entire universe is god . . . Really, though, when someone says something like that, the only thing to say is, "Dude, what the fuck are you even talking about?" And not once can they answer you with any clarity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 15:29:42 GMT
. . . some formless, some believe the entire universe is god . . . Really, though, when someone says something like that, the only thing to say is, "Dude, what the fuck are you even talking about?" And not once can they answer you with any clarity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 13, 2017 15:32:10 GMT
Really, though, when someone says something like that, the only thing to say is, "Dude, what the fuck are you even talking about?" And not once can they answer you with any clarity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism Repeating the chorus: "And not once can they answer you with any clarity." Maybe you were confusing whether something has any precedence or respect in some contexts with the idea of clarity?
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Apr 13, 2017 15:33:04 GMT
Basically I was wondering why you were agreeing to the level of bold type and tons of arrows about definitions being important. Again, I've explained why. It may not be a big deal to you, but I feel it's quite relevant to any discussion on the belief of god, if one desires an understanding of another's belief. I also know that all atheists are not alike. Yes definitions are critical here since we're talking about a broad range of disbelief. The underlying point is that some understandings of God are more absurd in their presentation once held up to the light of rationality and can be more easily dismissed. Other types you have to just shrug and realize they're not as easy to rule out.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 13, 2017 15:34:27 GMT
Definitions are not in any way critical when discussing "theism."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 15:35:16 GMT
Repeating the chorus: "And not once can they answer you with any clarity." =
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 13, 2017 15:36:28 GMT
Repeating the chorus: "And not once can they answer you with any clarity." = You can't hear me, or you don't want to hear me?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 15:39:39 GMT
You can't hear me, or you don't want to hear me? Should I embolden the = sign for you... or could you just read a bit slower?
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Apr 13, 2017 15:40:31 GMT
Again, I've explained why. It may not be a big deal to you, but I feel it's quite relevant to any discussion on the belief of god, if one desires an understanding of another's belief. I also know that all atheists are not alike. Yes definitions are critical here since we're talking about a broad range of disbelief. The underlying point is that some understandings of God are more absurd in their presentation once held up to the light of rationality and can be more easily dismissed. Other types you have to just shrug and realize they're not as easy to rule out. Like what?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 13, 2017 15:42:15 GMT
You can't hear me, or you don't want to hear me? Should I embolden the = sign for you... or could you just read a bit slower? Do you believe that it's not possible to feel that something written on Wikipedia isn't a clear explanation of a concept?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 15:43:38 GMT
Should I embolden the = sign for you... or could you just read a bit slower? Do you believe that it's not possible to feel that something written on Wikipedia isn't a clear explanation of a concept? Can you admit that some 'clear explanations' apparently elude you?
|
|