Dawkins spectrum of probabilities

[inedifix]

The % was a simple mistake on my behalf...

How about believing you can prove a negative? Is that a mistake too?

BTW, I've devised a cunning new 7 point scale that could help us solve this conundrum...

CAUTION: IRONY WARNING

...I'm calling it the "True Scale 7 Atheist Spectrum of Probabilities." It ranges from...

1 - I don't believe that Scale 7 atheists exist, I know they do, because I've discovered the secret of how to prove a negative and I am one.

to

7 - I know for certain that Scale 7 Atheists don't exist because it's an intellectually impossible position to hold.

Rather interestingly, on this scale it just so happens that I'm also a 6.9something. Because while I operate on the basis that being able to prove a negative is in fact impossible, and therefore Scale 7 atheists really cannot exist, I am forced to accept the possibility, no matter how slim, that they might do.

Where are you on this scale?

J

[fintanruth]

As I said before I don’t think it was a good idea for Dawkins to draw up this spectrum of probabilities 1 to 7. The term God means different things to different people.

I say I’m a 7 because that’s the highest number on the scale. I actually was shocked when I read it in Dawkins book; it doesn’t make anybody’s position clear. He could have gone from 1 to 9 by adding in the two most important categories theist and atheist. Or he could have said 1 to 2 theist or atheist.

Is a weak 7 the same as a strong 1 or a weak 1 the same as a strong 7?

I don’t think there is a scale that would make any sense, using numbers or symbols only confuses the whole issue.

Theism is based on a thought process called mysticism, the use of symbols is also quiet common e.g. crucifix or stars, and the symbol itself can be adored and some are prepared to die for it.

Atheism is based on logical reasoning where all the facts are looked at and the most reasonable position is taken.

Scientific thought: - Mechanistic thinking, every thing can be proven and worked out mathematically.

E=MCsq Einstein’s famous equation means absolutely nothing unless you understand the meaning of E, M, C and sq. Which 95% of the population of the planet wouldn’t have a clue about.

The trouble with this thread is; it seems to me to have become an argument between logical reasoning and dogmatic mechanistic thinking.

Adamd164 has taken the position that he is a 6.95 on Dawkins scale of 1 to 7, and is critical of anybody that takes a different position other than his own even to the extent of accusing me of having started some sort of a fintan’s faith club, but yet refuses to respond to my answers to his questions.

If there was a scale starting with fanatical mystical thinking and ending with fanatical mechanistic thinking, adamd164 would be equal and opposite to an evangelical Christian running around carrying a crucifix shouting repent or be dammed forever.

Who ever heard of a 6.95 strong atheist?

I’m an atheist and there is no scale or a fintan’s faith club either.

Fintan

www.therealmoses.com

[lostexpectation]

Que?

As a mere mortal primate abroad in an ancient, super-massive universe for a relative nano-blip of existence, I came to terms with uncertainty where ultimate truth is concerned a long time ago (relatively speaking).

J

but still theres no omnipotent being

[lostexpectation]

... and I'll try to stop being fake as well. Note to self: remember to be a close-minded, dogmatic, absolutist non-believer.

see your only saying it for appearances sake

[adamd164]

see your only saying it for appearances sake

Rrrright... so I am dogmatic and absolutist?

Talk about hurting an atheist's feelings.

[inedifix]

but still theres no omnipotent being

I don't believe there is. But neither of us can prove it. Hence my 6.9something. I don't for an instant believe in such nonsense, but it is logically impossible to disprove the possibility of a non-interventionist, omnipotent entity. I wish it was, but it isn't.

J

[inedifix]

The trouble with this thread is; it seems to me to have become an argument between logical reasoning and dogmatic mechanistic thinking.

I agree with you entirely. Your position is dogmatic and mechanistic. Logical reasoning, on the other hand, compels one to accept that it is not possible to prove a negative, not even to oneself, without indulging in the same disingenuous leaps of faith common to true believers.

Why don't you answer this question - do you believe you discovered a way to prove a negative?

J

[CatHerder]

It amazes me that there are so many people who go around affirming that they know there is no god.

You'll only get asked to prove it, and if you do it's your own fault.

I think people dust don't understand the question and the importance of the word "know"

[adamd164]

It amazes me that there are so many people who go around affirming that they know there is no god.

You'll only get asked to prove it, and if you do it's your own fault.

I think people dust don't understand the question and the importance of the word "know"

Well said, Seamus. That's exactly the point.

[paulamcnc]

I KNOW there is no god, but this is something I know intuitively, and can never prove. While I believe myself to be 100% atheist on my own internal scale, by Dawkins scale I guess I'm 'only' a 6....