Where are you on the Theism to Atheism scale?

6

~6

I’m a 1 but open to the idea that my understanding of God could be off. I know I don’t see the whole picture.

5 – I’m always open to the possibility, but I don’t subscribe to a particular belief. I’m more open to the idea of some sort of designer existing rather than any specific one of a certain religion. But most arguments I’ve been exposed to are arguing for a particular religion’s version of a deity, and that I don’t find very convincing.

As I imagine you already know, 7. All day long.

~1 I’ve met God… and her name is Metrion. I met her in an alternate dimension at the YMCA in Edmonton, That ‘s when I told her my life story and retired from being a deity and passed on my knowledge stored from 40 googolplex years of life.

6

1
Cause there’s only one god: me.

5

Six.

10

I kinda alternate between 5 and 6.

Sort of a 6 with an asterisk.
If it were phrased thusly I’d agree with it:

“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. However, if I see reproducible scientific evidence of a God, I’m perfectly happy to believe in God.”

A nuanced and more wordy difference.

2

(But for me there is no “war” between Theism and science or evolution. It makes perfect sense to me that evolution is a logical process ordained by a Creator.)

I’ve got to go with 6.5 because I don’t have enough data to move it to 7.0.
I live my life at 6–7 because it makes no difference to me. Make every day here count. .

7

Somewhere between a 5 and a 6. Like…5.8.

I’m a 1. I’m like Einstein, the marvelous things that happen all the time amaze me.

I feel I’m between a 6 and a 7. I don’t believe that there is a god. We cannot know for certain, but I am certain that if there is one, I don’t care.

<<< less than zero.

I’m a 2½.

High 5. And thank you, Mr. Dawkins, for encapsulating life’s greatest mystery into such a precise, easy-to-grasp mathematical scale.

First I’d have to be able to define what god is. I have trouble with the concept of infinite space, let alone infinite wisdom. Does he have to know everything or just more than us? Does he have to do everything or can somethings happen without his help? I call myself an agnostic which means I don’t have any real faith but reserve the right to change my mind on my death bed. I’m not sure how that relates to your numerical scale.

I am a relative newcomer to the collective. The acrimony which accompanies discussions of this sort seems to be legendary, based on how I have read people refer to it, although I can’t say that I have personally experienced this. It has been my experience that this sort of acrimony and hard feelings is a result of a considerable emotional investment, little tolerance, and a lack of respect. And I don’t mean respectful behavior, as helpful as that is, but I mean lacking respect or feeling contempt for the person who holds the opposing view, largely because he or she holds that view.

I wish I could give a straight answer but I can’t.

6 is what I would put on a test for the best science marks.
7 is when I’m in debate mode…

But 1 is the most philosophically sound conclusion for me. With explanation:
a) Everyone who believes in God has simply experienced the universe being itself to them. What they call God is really just the Universe after all. however..
b) Fact of the matter is the universe didn’t exist until I was born. It seems to become a wishywashy dream-scape every night that I sleep. It skipped a few minutes that one time that I passed out. And I expect it will disappear altogether when I am gone.. If ever I go.. certainly hasn’t happened yet.. maybe I’m immortal.

@theodiskaz Huh?

3.5. Math is beautiful. But the exceptions to probability are so funny as to be evidence of divinity.

Great answers to all. This is about you and not me, so I will not argue with any answer. Groan. It’s soooo hard not to.

Label me a 6 and if by God you mean the brutal, egomaniacal, violent, petulant, misogynistic, genocidal God of Abraham, crank that up to something infinitely close to, but still just short of 7.

7 is actually unusual for atheists, because atheism is about evidence and not belief, and one can currently get to 7 based only on belief. There isn’t evidence to get you there. On the opposite end of the spectrum, theism is about nothing but belief, and therefore the ranks of the 1s in this world are legion.

But while I won’t argue with answers, I feel I must point out to @zenvelo that Einstein self identified as an atheist with deist leanings. He thought there just might be a watchmaker God who wrote the rules for the Universe and set it in motion. But he was contemptuous in his criticism of the notion that there is a Sky Daddy who intervenes in the day-to-day affairs of men and occasionally overrules his own laws of nature. His correspondence with his friends makes it abundantly clear that when he speaks of God he means a Universe that runs by natural law. I’ll be happy to post relevant quotes for you if you’d like.

A high six, with a PAP chaser.

The reason we can’t answer the “God question” once and for all is the fact that each posited God has its own parameters which must submit to individual inquiry.

A solid 2.

BUT…. Define God?

Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, or Focus on the Family’s God?? that would make me a 10+ and running away as fast as spiritually possible. There is NO God in my life that supports the prosperity gospel, fear-based beliefs, superiority, judgement, dividism, dogmas, hatred or exclusivism, etc…

@linguaphile Obviously you don’t want to run a profitable ministry, just an intellectually honest one. I commend you for that, even if I have come to a different conclusion.

I’m a solid 6.

I am a 2. I also think God could be a pagan god, or a Muslim god, or any kind of god. I don’t necessarily think the Christian God is the one or the only one. Who knows?

@jca Curiously, the Jewish God, Christian God, Muslim God, Seventh Day Adventist God, Unification Church (Moony) God; to name a few; is one or another incarnation of the original Ugaritic El (AKA El’him, Elohim, YHWH, YHVH and Yahweh, The Trinity and Allah), husband of Asherah and father of Hadad (AKA Baʿal), Mot, Yam as well as a legion of lesser gods. They all worship the same God. They just have to convert or kill each other because each group thinks all the others are worshiping this God of Love the wrong way. And apparently this Omnipotent superbeing is clueless about how to set them right on the issue.

Now now @ETpro , I thought it was a question that was going to be respectful (I know, I’m naive.) I hope this doesn’t devolve into faith bashing. (Any further.)

@Judi I thought after I typed that out, I really, really tried not to do that. There are just some things that have to come out. :-)

And I too hope it doesn’t become a war zone. I will force myself to exercise more restraint.

No this is great. Let it out. It’s been a while since fluther had a throw down.

May I defer to the lovely Miss @linguaphile… who so eloquently said: “Define God”.

@ETpro answers with “this Omnipotent superbeing” and paradoxically attributed the quality of “clueless” to it. Is that the God we shall debate? A clueless omnipotent super being? If so, then we’re probably closer in our belief structures than we think. I don’t believe in clueless omnipotent super beings. Though it’s fun to ponder one.

Technically a 2, and to be a 1 I would need to (get out of my own way to) experience God directly.

Like others have noted, it is important to define what God is or means. For me, it means a supreme consciousness/awareness/presence. That presence is directly perceptible via a quieted mind and a way of seeing that is available once we are free from the illusion that we are our ego-mind. This accounts for the The Problem of Evil, which is both the suffering generated by our belief in the illusion as well as the byproduct of that supreme consciousness dividing itself to create all encompassing experiences of itself.

Here is one document that explores this view and also explains how one can (must) go beyond intellectual understanding to experience God’s presence directly.

FWIW, I’m a recovered Catholic as well.

Here’s a recently released study of atheists as a group for anyone who is interested.

I have to say a 6 because there is no more proof there is NO God than there is that there IS a Good. I would say I absolutely deny there is no God, but I can’t prove it. Therefore, I have to hedge and say I’m an agnostic.

Actually, it’s worse than “Define God”.

The proper request is “Define God, and give two examples”.

Rumor has it… On a wall in Austria a graffiti said, “God is dead,—Nietzsche!”
Someone else wrote under it, “Nietzsche is dead!—God.”

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Both writers may be right.

On that final day, I have every expectation there will be a multitude of good hearted atheists astonished to find themselves in heaven. Almost as many as the purported religious zealots astonished to find themselves in hell.

And no, I won’t attempt to define heaven and hell.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I hope you are right. That would reverse Mark Twain’s recommendation, “Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the Company.” And I’d expect to meet Samuel Clemens there and enjoy the climate and company with him.

I’ve said it begote and I’ll say it again. Some of my athiest friends (and most of my athiest friends are jellies) are the holiest people I know. I hope @RealEyesRealizeRealLies is right.

Of course I’m right. God told me so.

If you don’t believe me then I’ll have to chop your head off.

About a 3. I believe in some form of higher intelligence, but that it is incomprehensible enough to the human mind that speculating as to it’s nature is at best pointless.

Oh GAWD I have 3 sixes in my lurve score right NOW! Somebody please lurve me out of this hell. PAH-LEEEEZE SAVE ME!

Somebody?

help me

You’re in trouble. I’m maxed out.

<<< debil got’m

That’s what I get for choppin’ heads off.

5/6 for me. Possible but not probable IMO.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Maxed out here too. Clearly the Devil’s hand is in this. What are the odds this could happen by chance? Oh wait… Nearly 100%.

I have a pink candle that melted into the shape of a penis with the virgin Marys face embedded in it. I think I should declare a miracle and send it to the pope. lolol

It’s obviously late.

6

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Log out. Wait till 12:01 AM Pacific time and log back in. You’ll instantly increment the last 6 to a 7 for having visited two days running.

4

If there is a god, I don’t know what it is. If there isn’t one, I’m quite happy with that.

I’m a 6, with a side of @Rarebear and a caveat of my own: If there does turn out to be a god, I’m nearly certain he/she/it will not be any of the gods human beings worship, but an as-yet unknown entity.

5

Also a solid 6, though if it’s ever proved that god (as portrayed in the bible) actually exists, I won’t worship worship him, I think he’s an ass.

6.5.

My number ain’t there, I absolutely don’t believe in a higher power…unless we’re counting Obama on steroids, but I hedge my bets just in case.
When I die & maybe a couple of angels show up holding a one way ticket to heavensville with my name on it, i’m going to insist I believed all along, just kept it a secret that’s all.

I’ve been a 5 most of my life, but I now swim in the 6ish end of the pool.

I don’t believe in a god that could be separate from the rest of the universe.
There, I said it.
Somehow, I didn’t think that Dawkins would have allowed for the existence of pantheism or non-dualism in his scale.

“7 is actually unusual for atheists, because atheism is about evidence and not belief, and one can currently get to 7 based only on belief. There isn’t evidence to get you there.”

I’m not sure I agree with this. I have no evidence that Bigfoot doesn’t not exist, yet I am a 7 when it comes to not believing in his existence. I can say with 100% certainty that I am 100% sure that there is no Bigfoot. I would be a 6 when it comes to me winning the mega million lottery. And I am much more sure about there being no God – as anyone has ever envisioned a God – than that.

If by “God” you simply mean something that is beyond our knowing at this time, well, I won’t even waste my time assigning a probability to something that is beyond grasping in the first place, because the unknowable is just that: unknowable. I’d rather spend my time on something meaningful to my life, like knowing the difference between hemlock and parsley. I guess that makes me an apatheist. It just doesn’t matter to me.

@GoldieAV16 Dawkins puts himself at 6, and explains that he is as agnostic about there being a God as he is about there being fairies, unicorns, or Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot. I think he insults the many Pastafarians of the world by lumping in the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster with that list of things science cannot falsify but can show to be extremely unlikely to exist. Bigfoot, the Yeti and such would fit in that same niche.

By God I mean any of the 3,000 supreme creator deities man has posited, including that of the deist, a watchmaker god who ordained and finely tuned all physical laws and constants, set the Universe in motion, and has since let it run its course untouched.

Also included would be a Universe which is itself super-intelligent, perhaps with all its quantum entangled sub-atomic particles being its neurons and having existed eternally, going through a phase transition 13.72 billion years ago to form the physical universe we witness today. If that turns out to be God, science may some day prove it. So I reject as bsurd Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of NOMA. If science has taught us anything it is that one generation’s scientists are very poor arbiters of what future generations of scientists will be able to know.

6

@ETpro The civility level of this discussion seemed to be about as high as that of original question, with a little silliness and frivolity mixed in in the responses. And then I read your first re post, and then your subsequent re posts. Actually I have read the discussion up to this point, and it seemed to me that, taken together, your own re posts seemed to be the ones the least in the spirit of your original question. So I reread the question to see if I heard gotten that spirit wrong. Your opening paragraph stated your purpose this way: “Often when debates about theism, agnosticism or atheism erupt on Fluther, it becomes clear that there is a great deal of confusion regarding the meanings of the labels applied. So it seemed worthwhile to develop some sort of clear scale where we can declare our position along a probability continuum from the strong theist who asserts the probability of God’s existence is 100% to the strong atheist who places that probability at 0%. Once declared here, in future debates we can avoid misunderstanding and label confusion by pointing to our answer to this question.” And I thought to myself “Aha, this fellow wants to avoid misunderstandings arising from “label confusion”. And then I thought about your re posts again, and it seemed to me that, on the contrary, Christian bashing and baiting, and a spirit of contempt or scorn are things you not only welcome, but foster, with a wink and a smile. And you really, really didn’t mean to do that, you say? You hope this doesn’t become a warzone, do you? Do you want to force yourself to use more restraint, or do you want to force this conversation in a direction you would find more gratifying ie a little more scornfull, a little more belittling? Say, were you really interested in generating more light, or only more heat? I suspect you, ETpro. I think you have said exactly what you intended to say, and with prodding, gotten exactly the results you wanted to get, although maybe not as much as you would like. The spirit you seem to adopt and the things you actually say seem to confirm the legend I spoke of earlier in this discussion. I am beginning to think of you as a legendary shit-stirrer, dis-respecter of persons, bringer out of that which is less than praiseworthy in those not only with whom you disagree but also those who already lean towards your points of view. However, I am reserving judgement. And I make apologies if someone has posted something germane to my concerns herein expressed while I took the longish time I needed to post this. Trying to watch grand-babies at the same time;)

@theodiskaz: “Christian bashing and baiting…”

Here we fucking go again.

@theodiskaz I think you are right. That’s what I was admitting to here. If it needs to be more explicitly an apology, then consider this the mea culpa.

Why, yes, tom q, here is exactly where, apparently, we do again. Did you not read the discussion up till this point? I do not complain, but merely point out what is happening. Is that all right with you? Is it possible that you don’t get that I contend for civility? Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Say something helpful, or insightful, or commendable somehow. Decry the hostility being engendered in what should be an interesting, thought provoking topic. Or, drop f bombs.

“Christian bashing and baiting”
Why not? Evil must be opposed!

Shut up Raggie!

@theodiskaz Maybe I’m missing something, but you seem to be the only one turning this into a hostile, angry, ugly insulting bash fest. I haven’t seen any angry words except yours.

@Dutchess_III , @ETpro threw a few digs in up there.

You are missing something, Dutchess III. I am not entirely sure why.

Six. There could be a god, or something else, however I really doubt it. unless it’s @Michael_Huntington

ETpro, if you will reread my post, I think you will see that I believe that the acrimony and joyful mockery were your intentions from the start, or became your intention when things weren’t getting “hot” enough. I believe you are feigning. As I said, I think you are after heat, but not the light your original question seemed to imply. Reread the discussion and compare it’s general tenor with that of your posts, striving for self honesty.

ragingloli, are you being serious, or just flip? I agree that evil must be opposed, but how does engendering anger or starting fights accomplish this?

@theodiskaz – For the record, you didn’t answer the original question. You answered a “10” (on a 1 to 7 scale). Then, you started blathering about acrimony and respect. Your third post in this thread was 466 words calling out @ETpro for being a “legendary shit-stirrer”. I read through this thread and found nothing of the sort.

What we’ve seen over and over here is the inability for some people to engage in serious discussions about belief and religion without getting offended. Being offended has no place on a site like Fluther.

Additionally, I don’t think ideas are inherently worthy of respect. People aren’t their ideas. I’m not my lack of belief. My lack of a belief in a god or gods is on the table to destroyed. Please do. Please don’t worry about my feelings being hurt because they won’t be. I do feel that the things we discuss here are worth honestly discussing without tiptoeing around trying to offend. And some concepts – belief in a god or gods, for example – are naturally going to ruffle feathers. It’s nearly impossible to discuss the nature of my lack of belief without a believer feeling that I am ridiculing.

If it helps, recall what it’s like to sit in a university class. You can’t just say something, fold your arms, and ride on self-confidence that you nailed it. Once a statement is made public, it’s open to dissection. In the process, your idea may be thoroughly annihilated. That’s how we progress in our thinking. This is how we move forward. This is how we learn.

And from what I can see, you’ve derailed the pretty straightforward question, and have yet to answer it. If I missed your answer, I apologize. But please don’t play the oppressed, offended card any longer. Things were pretty civil here from what I could see. Thanks.

@judi…I missed that. I’ll go look a little more carefully.

@theodiskazThe reason I missed it is because in just glancing through I hear people making mild comments. There was no anger or insults that I saw except for yours. As I said, I have a better idea of where to look now. I’ll be back.

After you’ve been here a while you’ll get to know the different personalities. @ragingloli was just doing what @ragingloli does! Just throws off the wall shite out there. We love her though.

tom-g, so you do more than curse? Good. And for the record, I DID answer the question with an irrelevant answer due to my mistake. I meant to type a “1”, without the following “0”

Dictionary.com defines blather as foolish, voluble talk. It defines voluble as characterized by a ready and continuous flow of words; fluent; glib; talkative. Is this what you think of my 2nd post, tom-g? Should I stop saying things like that? Just because it was (apparently) not to your liking, or whatever, does that mean it was a waste of posting space? It got 3 great answers, so someone must have found it a respectable post.

I never said I was offended by anything ETpro said. I wasn’t. I recognized his comments for what they are. I don’t invest a strong emotional response to people who seem to enjoy offending other peoples sensibilities. If I were offended by your you characterization of my second post with a word meaning “foolish, voluble talk”, does that mean I can’t come here any more?

And tom-g, where did you see me contend for the respect of ideas? you won’t be able answer that, because it isn’t there. I don’t hold that point of view. If you will reread what I have posted, you may see that I contend for civility and the respectful treatment of persons.And what does it mean to “ruffle feathers”? The American Heritage Dictionary, under Idioms and Phrases,defines it to mean “annoy or offend someone”. I also read that it means “anger, irritate someone”. Are you saying discussions like this can’t help but being offensive? Honestly, what are you trying to say?

Your imprecation not withstanding, I played no cards. I accused ETpro of intentionally prodding what his original question seemed to be aimed at averting. And if you think things were pretty civil from my perspective, and it is my perspective I come from, then you really should reread.

I belong here. If it looks like a more established member is playing games to increase the heat and smoke while seeming a paragon of reasonableness trying to increase the light, then I believe I will continue to say so.

^^^PLease use breask in your wall of text, in order to attract more readers. Thanks.

gailcalled. Thank you. Umm, I’m kinda new and not very good at this, yet;)

How do I put breaks in?

^^ Just hit enter a couple of times.

Hey Dutchess III, Thank you for that.

And thank you for that, tom-g;)

Hey, everyone. I have gotten too hot, based on a re=reading of my big post to tom-g, and I am taking a break. I apollogize, Tom, for becoming a little persnickity, there. I will be back.

I apologize to @ETpro for this derail…

@theodiskaz: “tom-g, so you do more than curse?”

Occasionally.

@theodiskaz: “And for the record, I DID answer the question with an irrelevant answer due to my mistake. I meant to type a “1”, without the following “0”.”

Ok. I said I would apologize if you had answered. So…sorry. Although it was nearly impossible to determine it was a typo without you telling me.

@theodiskaz: “I never said I was offended by anything ETpro said. I wasn’t.”

Great!

@theodiskaz: “And tom-g, where did you see me contend for the respect of ideas? you won’t be able answer that, because it isn’t there. I don’t hold that point of view. If you will reread what I have posted, you may see that I contend for civility and the respectful treatment of persons.”

Precisely. What I am saying is that attacking an idea is not the same thing as attacking a person. Ridiculing an idea is not the same thing as ridiculing a person. I just wanted to make sure you see the distinction. I will not pull any punches when it comes to discussions here. But I hope to never resort to attacking a person. If and when I do, I would like to think that I recognize and apologize. But when it comes to discussions about belief and religion, there is always a handful of people who interpret an attack on the idea as an attack on the person.

@theodiskaz: “Are you saying discussions like this can’t help but being offensive?”

I’m saying that in my experience – especially here – discussions like this are bound to offend someone. And that’s the most frustrating part. Nobody’s going to get offended when having a heated debate about the efficacy of homeopathy or economic policy. But when it comes to the god/gods question, suddenly many people are become too fragile to converse with.

@theodiskaz: “And if you think things were pretty civil from my perspective, and it is my perspective I come from, then you really should reread.”

I can see that. I disagree with your assessment. And I’d rather not see every discussion of religion turn into a discussion about the discussion. Let’s check our egos at the door, and get busy trying to figure this stuff out.

@theodiskaz: “I belong here.”

Of course you do. Welcome.

@theodiskaz: “If it looks like a more established member is playing games to increase the heat and smoke while seeming a paragon of reasonableness trying to increase the light, then I believe I will continue to say so.”

Ok. But keep in mind that we all have certain things that get us fired up. This might be one of your spots (the god thing). I have my own. So, if we keep this in mind, we might not be so trigger-happy in calling someone a “legendary shit-stirrer” for doing what could hardly be called “shit-stirring”.

@theodiskaz: “Hey, everyone. I have gotten too hot, based on a re=reading of my big post to tom-g, and I am taking a break. I apollogize, Tom, for becoming a little persnickity, there. I will be back.”

Thanks. No apologies necessary. Come back when you’re ready and mix it up!

My biggest problem with defining theism is that I’m not sure I can understand the concept of ‘god’. There are beautiful colors we don’t see, sounds we don’t hear, and most surely concepts we can’t conceive. Maybe some of the afterlife and paranormal phenomena that I accept as likely facts are due to natural laws taking their course rather than there being a transcendent creator of sorts. To me any sentience can be classified as god, in the sense that I believe that everything which is sentient ultimately makes up what we call god. In that sense, since I believe that we’re god, I’d say a 2.

I didn’t choose 1 because I don’t think in terms of yes and no, but probability. Since I feel that the probability of mind being more than a brain function is rather high when looking at the evidence for this in a collective light, I was forced to choose 2 over 1. Tough for me to word this. To me Mind is God, so the real issue is how high the probability would be for ego to not be confined to physical mechanisms. I don’t believe in absolute truth, but probaility.

Assumptions create great drama.~ Boring.

Hey, tom_g, If I were ETpro, I would adopt “Shit-stirring Legend”, or some variation thereof, as a moniker. Not that you should, ETpro, but that I would. And, once I let my wife read this, I’ll bet she starts calling me that;)

lol! Shit-stirring legend!

Oh how I could run with this, and gain shit stirring superstar status. lol

I don’t bash and bait christians, I bait and bash all religions. :P

Just kidding.

I’m either a 4 or a PAP.

I really wish people would stop saying “PAP.” Reminds me of the doctor’s office… :D

@WillWorkForChocolate I believe Richard Dawkins coined it, and he’s rather scathing in his criticism of scientists or rationalists who subscribe to the idea that we already know what is not knowable. He worked to get an acronym that called to mind Pap smears, nipples to pacify the weak minded, and soft food for infants.

@dxs Your choice of labels is yours to make, but how could you be completely convinced there is no answer to the God question and never can be, yet still be leaning toward an answer?

@Blackberry Love those equal opportunity baiters. When it comes to organized religion, I am right there with you.

@Coloma Indeed, it’s time we star shit-stirrers unite. There’s way too much BS in this world for us to face it without backup.

I just knew that phrase would resonate;)

I’ll answer when you add “I don’t give a shit, it’s all about how you treat others” to your scale.

Certainly, jonsblond, it is much, much about how you treat others.

@theodiskaz I have made not one but two attempts to undo what harm I did to the comradery here. Don’t push your luck going for three. :-)

I do welcome you to Fluther and while first impressions tend to last, I hope we can move past that because you appear to be an articulate and well informed individual, and I generally learn more from talking with others of differing opinions than from listening to and preaching to the choir.

You explained your typo, inadvertently adding a 0 to the 1 you meant to type. Using the NumPad, were you? I understand typos. My error was more egregious than a typo. I was tired late last night, and being taken to task in another thread by one of our Christian apologists who makes an art of misunderstanding what people with opposing views write, erecting straw man arguments to replace their actual words, then proceeding to slay the hapless and defenseless straw man. After responding to that thread, I noticed that I still had a response to another thread. I clicked back here without even looking at what thread it was, and violated my own rules set out in the OP. I plead guilty to being human.

I stand by what I wrote, just not where I wrote it.

@ETpro But we might get in trouble if we wear armbands that have the S.S. shit stirring initials. haha

tom_g, you said “And I’d rather not see every discussion of religion turn into a discussion about the discussion. Let’s check our egos at the door, and get busy trying to figure this stuff out.” I haven’t looked, but if you say it happens, that’s good enough for me. But, why is that the case? From the Christian’s perspective, and if some of the remarks made here today are characteristic, I think I can see why. Mind you, and this point is crucial, If I had read a defender of theism behaving so provocatively, I would have called him or her out just as strenuously.

Aside from my numerical answer, I haven’t even been talking about religion, but as you pointed out, I have rather been talking about the way some of us have been discussing the topic at hand.

When ETpro glibly rolls off his keyboard patently offensive remarks such as ”...nipples to pacify the weak minded, and soft food for infants.” (but of course, only in the course of being informative, and probably someone else’s words, anyway), and then heartily endorses baiting of any kind (but not really though, wink wink) I have to wonder to myself, and not for the first time, are some of you engaged here just to get some satisfaction from reading how well you put down holders of a faith (seemingly mostly Christian)? Or to outdo one another in smugness?

Or, honestly, to try and upset other people, maybe try and provoke an angry response, get someone to lose his or her cool?

This is the impression I am forming about some of us, here. I do not have to be a christian to deplore the implicit ad hominem characteristics of some of these interchanges, I assure you.

But, hey, if smoke, heat, and good ole boy slap ya on the shoulder and say, hey, that was a good one, pa! See if you can piss another one off!” is really what this community is about, then maybe I don’t actually belong here after all.

Maybe all the arguments have been made, all the evidence is in, maybe all the interpretations of that evidence has been proposed, and all that is left is to bandy about such non—conducive to polite discussion phrases as ”...nipples to pacify the weak minded, and soft food for infants.”

If such is the case, will someone just let me know, and I will be on my way, and I can stop wasting my time.

ETpro. Abusing straw men is repugnant, and setting them up to take a fall to begin with bespeaks poor listening, poor thinking, or more likely, a poor defensive position.

And then I read your post before yours to me which compells me to stand by my belief that you only pretend to light a candle instead of curse the darkness, without the intention of actually shedding light on anything.

Suave as your response to me was, I don’t think you started this to learn anything or think you have anything to learn, but enjoy insulting Christians and inciting others to do the same

I think this is a game you play. I think this is how you have fun.

Can I curse the darkness while striking the match?

…I don’t see why not…

@theodiskaz My explanation of the meaning that Richard Dawkins intended when he coined the acronym, PAP, was what he meant. He has said so. Get angry at me for telling the truth if you must.

It’s up to you to choose where you belong. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

I’d say I’m a 7. The idea of a god, as described by the three major Abrahamic religions, is quite laughable. It is very easy to see through the delusion, which is all it is. I was 7 years old when I came to the conclusion that it was all bullshit.

There used to be a time when belief in gods served a purpose, it explained away what humans didn’t understand. Science has now explained just about everything that people used to ascribe to gods.

I think there’s a troll in the room.

Who tells a person “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”?

The person with no empathy does. That’s who.

Outta here.

ETpro. Oh, I see, all truths must be told. Like when someone asks “How are you?” and a child or socially inept person answers with a literal response, which is not needed, which is awkward, and which actually does nothing to push the social interaction forward.

THAT kind of truth, ETpro? Like when you said “some things MUST be said” after saying that you didn’t want to say that very thing? (wink, wink) Oh, but I can’t object to what you said because, and here is the important part, that would objecting to you JUST TELLING THE TRUTH. And it would be irrational to “get angry” at someone for just “telling the truth”, wouldn’t it?

Which means my objection makes me irrational, right ETpro? Or is it actually that you really are incapable of restraining yourself from saying things you “don’t want to say” (wink, wink)?

But that last thing you said wasn’t you, right? It was Richard Dawkins. The truth is, he may have said all sorts of nasty, mean, insulting, contemptuous things about Christians, so I guess any and all of it could be inserted (only to be informative, of course) into the conversation, since that would just be TELLING THE TRUTH, you know, that this guy said these things, and everything, and that would be good and unobjectionable, despite the fact that it intends to inflame passions and make reasoned conversation less likely.

But that is actually what your all about, right? You old truth teller, you. Go ahead. Admit it. it’s all about you gratification, not making conversations in the future less burdened with “label confusion”. What a phony. And, you really don’t see it in yourself, do you? How like a child you sound…(to paraphrase) “Don’t get mad at me! I was only telling the truth!”

Wow, I expected better from you, ETpro. And, actually I came to Fluther for light, not heat. This wasn’t supposed to be kitchen. And I already knew it was my choice as to whether I belong here or not, but thanks for the useless reminder! (Sarcasm)

But the silliness here, the lack of seriousness, the facile attempts to justify throwing more green grass on the fire, etc make it an easy choice. Pity. You might very well have learned something, even it was only to keep a civil tongue in your head.

The heat? It doesn’t bother me. Pretentiousness bothers me. Dissimulation bothers me. mean people bother me.

Oh, yeah, ETpro. That fellow wasn’t even asking you to explain PAP. In fact he wasn’t even talking to you.

@theodiskaz – you appear to be operating under the assumption that either facts cease to be facts if they make you uncomfortable, or your debating partner has the unenviable job of acting steward of your feelings.

If the discussion of facts incites your passion to the point that YOU can no longer maintain reasonable discussion, than the problem lay with you. Either you should opt out of the discussion, or lead it in a more amenable direction, or simply recognize that he might have a point and resolve to look into it further. Frankly, I’ve noticed that most of the times I’ve become angry during a debate, I’ve turned out to be very much on the wrong side.

Seek_Kolinahr You do not comprehend the context. And you seem not to understand that my point is that not all facts belong in a discussion. If you understand my contention, then you will see that his insertion of these “facts” served to prove my point, which is that the lack of civility serves to generate lots of heat, but very little light, in a discussion of subjects such as this.

Seek_kolinahr. But, hey, you do a very good impression of Vulcan speech patterns!

In this thread, I am back to the passive observer letting people state their number.

@WillWorkForChocolate Since @theodiskaz has theorized that I offended you personally in explaining why Dawkins selected the acronym, PAP, I should let you know that I intended no offense toward you and hope that no offense was taken. I was simply explaining that he chose the word quite deliberately because he holds a certain level of intellectual disdain for that form of agnosticism.

ETpro, you misunderstood why I brought up the fact that WillWorkForChocolate didn’t ask you for an explanaition of PAP. My reason for doing so was to point up how you took it upon yourself to throw in some gratuitous unpleasant, not intended to be conducive to productive discussion of the topics at hand, digs at Christians.

No, I have no theories on whether you have personally offended the fellow. I am not even sure where you are coming from on that one, ETpro. Please do not make guesses about me. If you are not sure what I mean, then just ask.

I appreciated the explanation of PAP and I’m sure Nina (WillWorkForChocolate) did too. Sometimes a question doesn’t have to be a direct question to deserve an explaination. You are the only one getting upset that @ETpro explained why the term was coming up (and he explained it was not HIS term. It was Dawkin’s. Your reaction is like getting angry because some one gave you the definition of ‘cogitate’ as defined by Webster.) No one else is upset, certainly not @WillWorkForChocolate.

I don’t even know where you’re coming from. I can’t put your comments into context. Are you coming from the standpoint of an angry, defensive Christian or an angry, defensive atheist?

Smebody get into the frizzer and get that man a pancake.

In the words of the late Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Dutchess III, you said “I don’t even know where you’re coming from. I can’t put your comments into context. Are you coming from the standpoint of an angry, defensive Christian or an angry, defensive atheist?”, and that is a very, very good thing, because striving for civility and avoiding gratuitous baiting, I would think, should a concern of ALL. This is my very point, that a concern that we generate light, as some of us would seem to be interested in doing, instead of just smoke and heat is a valid concern REGARDLESS of our position on the issue at hand.

And, once again, I never said that what ETpro said to the other fellow was meant to, or did, upset him. Please just READ what I said about it. I GAVE a reason for referencing ETpro’s (informative, but not intentionally inflammatory, wink, wink) answer on the derivation of PAP.

However, I think I figured out part of the dynamic here over night. When I accuse some people here of pretending to want to inject reason and clear up understandings in such discussions, but really only want to enjoy trotting out new versions of inflammatory remarks, I’ve stated the glaringly obvious, haven’t I? And you considerate, good nature d people are embarrassed for me, right? Which is why no one will directly speak to that contention. Am I close?

ETpro wanted to collect numbers, he said, and fix the problem of “label confusion”. I say he had a hidden agenda, which says some unpleasant things about his character. And apparently, this other agenda was not hidden from anyone from me. So I am a fool for having high expectations of what kind of things ETpro, for example, would latter inject into the conversation, based on ETpro’s opening remarks.

You see, I actually am new around here. ETpro invited me to get out of the kitchen because of the heat. But, you see, I came in because I expected some light, based on the opening.

I am carrying on on interesting private conversation with ETpro, so I will stop belaboring my contentions here. I am new, but rapidly learning. And if anyone is interested, I will be starting a new thread specifically about my chief contentions.

I Simply misunderstood the reason for the actual existence of this thread. So please, everyone inclined to, enjoy your merry mockery. And look for my new post sometime soon.

Too lazy to wade through everything…what does PAP stand for?

@gailcalled From @ETpro above “I believe Richard Dawkins coined it, and he’s rather scathing in his criticism of scientists or rationalists who subscribe to the idea that we already know what is not knowable. He worked to get an acronym that called to mind Pap smears, nipples to pacify the weak minded, and soft food for infants.”

@theodiskaz I apoligize that I didn’t ask you a direct question. I only made a statement that implied I’d like some clarification.
Let me try again: Where are you coming from? Are you a theist or an atheist?

Snipping from above:

PAP=Permanent Agnosticism in Principle. The PAP would say, ‘I know that it is impossible to know whether there is or isn’t a God, so probabilities cannot be applied to the question. It is now and always will remain unknowable.’

@theodiskaz I accept your compliment at face value, being unable to determine whether it was delivered honestly or with sarcasm. Peace and long life.

Dutchess III, does it matter? Why? It doesn’t matter to my contention, which I won’t restate. But if you would like to engage me, leaving ad hominems off the table, on what you think you know about me and what I believe and why, then I will gladly tell you I am a “1” on Dawkin’s scale. Actually, I already went on record as a one in this thread. RTFT! Only kidding;) (And I hope you will get the reference;)

I get the reference.

If you are a “1”, you need to change your avatar, post-haste.

Seek-Kolinahr, I meant it sincerely. I have admired Vulcan culture since I was a little boy. In fact, I escaped into a form of Stoicism influenced by Spock in order to deal with some major unpleasantness in the dynamics of my relationship to my sick, sick parents. It was a big help;)

Spock’s own relationship with his parents was quite rocky, though, wasn’t it? Still, you and I have a bit in common in that area. And I was once both a “1” and a Trekkie. One of those is still true. Logic conquers all.

Spock’s Mom couldn’t do the “Live long and prosper” V finger thing. They had to pose her hand before they did the shot so all she had to do was lift up her hand. Of course, she wasn’t a Vulcan, either.

Which is odd, because I find that salute really easy to do.

We have tussled before, Seek, if I may call you that? I haven’t figured out how to copy full links into my texts. And why, pray tell, do I need to change my avatar? Would you love to tell me;)?

We have conversed before, at length. I may go on over there and tweak you nose, or maybe the tip of your pointy ear, about a wee tich of evasiveness I thought I detected in one of your responses to question pointed at you.

But for now, I am busy thinking about how to inject civility into some peoples attitudes, or at least the idea that it might productively nest there:)

Me too, Raggie. And I’m not even a Vulcan.

The quote in your avatar-meme is “YES I AM MORE LOGICAL THAN YOU”. This, apart from lacking some necessary punctuation, is directly in conflict with the standpoint of the “1”, which is a stance of knowing without evidence, and accepting a conclusion without inquiry. This flies in the face of logic with contempt.

Yah, and Dutchess III, if you look at my profile, you will see that I hold seemingly incompatible points of view about some things. But to me, my position constitutes a closely examined, comprehensive and rational whole. So you ought not mistake my ‘1’ to say more, or less, than it does about me and my point of view. that way lies madness;)

What? Are you talking to me or @Seek_Kolinahr?

Ummm, you Dutchess, because you wanted to know my number, and I didn’t know why. Was it an opening to conversation, in which case you may have wanted it to get a feel for my thinking? If it was, I was simply cautioning against making assumptions about that, because, among other things, I find it tedious to set aside straw men which should never, in ANY case, be emplaced.

Actually, the more I think about this numerical system, the less useful it seems to me to be. For example, to quote from the opening of this thread: “1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’ ” Actually, I personally would amend it to say “I believe that I know” . And you will see what I mean about straw men and other impertinences as I respond to Seek:)

But you answered that question 13 posts ago, and since then you’ve been talking to Seek so it left me a bit confused when you suddenly addressed me again. Your comment ”...I hold seemingly incompatible points of view about some things.” seemed like you were responding to Seeks comments about you being a 1 doesn’t match your avatar. Wasn’t sure what the comment had to do with me. Still not sure!

Seek, I am a member of the Professional Organisation Of English Majors (POEM, for short), and can appreciate your criticism of the puntuation. I, however, did not create the icon. I would like to note, however, that it was not actually neccassary to your comprehnsion of the sentiment, which is put forth tounge in cheeck, as I don’t know how logical any of you are. Well, actually I AM forming opinions about some of you.

But to the point, Seek, you said “This, apart from lacking some necessary punctuation, is directly in conflict with the standpoint of the “1”, which is a stance of knowing without evidence, and accepting a conclusion without inquiry.” I reread the listing in question, and I found nothing about knowing without evidance, or accepting conclusions without inquiry. It would seem you arrived at the conclusion that these are my positions based on preconceived notions about what some convinced theists believe, which is sloppy thinking.

And now, the tedious part (sigh). No, seek, I did not form my theism without considering the evidence, lots of it, of all kinds. And no, Seek, I do not accept conclusions without repeated inquiry, mine or anybody else s. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

What I hold in contempt is the inability, or unwillingness of most people I talk to be circumspect in there thinking and refrain from muddying the waters and wasting time by attributing to me positions I do not hold.

If you can’t separate in your mind what you think you know about, or wish were true, of me, or my positions, from what I have actually stated to be the case, then perhaps you had better seek kolinahr, and having found it, engage me again, because I do not suffer fools gladly.

Seek, sorry for that last bit. I was wrong to say that and imply you are a fool. It goes against much of what I stand for. I do not believe you are a fool, either. Please accept my apology.

Hey, Dutchess. I continued to hold our conversation in memory as I conversed with Seek. This was my way of eliciting a response to my question, which is still not forthcoming. To reiterate, why do you want to know my number? So you can say, “I got your number”?;) Seriously, why do you ask? I am curious, and I have asked you a very direct question. Or, must I die a cat’s death;)

My point in asking was, as I stated, so I knew where you were coming from. It just wasn’t clear. All that was clear was that you were angry about something, but I couldn’t tell if it was because people were dumb enough to believe in God, or people were dumb to NOT believe in God. Or if God had anything to do with it at all.

Anyway, now I know. Thanks.

@theo,

If you continue to question and challenge your deity, you are not a “1”. The 1 knows there is a God. End of story. 100 percent probability, no question, God is as real as you are

The God I knew didn’t mind me questioning him or challenging him. He was a logical God. With a good sense of humor. Kind of reminded me of me, if you can imagine that!

The humans who claimed to directly represent him, though, were a different story. They got pissy if you asked questions they couldn’t answer.

Make it stop.

For members of POEM;

punctuation
tongue
explanation
gratuitous
apologize
compel
” …and good ole boy slap ya on the shoulder and say, hey, that was a good one, pa! See if you can piss another one off!” and 21 hyphens for that monumentally awkward adjectival phrase.

@Seek,

The end of who’s story? Yours? Mine? Do you mean to say that since I know God, I can’t question? Says who? You? Try again.

It seems I don’t belong in your concept of category 1. You continue to get side tracked from what and how I think as opposed to what and how a category 1 must think. So, the simple thing would be to stop considering me a category 1 theist. And if it makes that any easier for you, I hereby withdraw from category one.

But I am still convinced in the existence of the god I know, and I am continually convinced through considering the evidence, considering new information, etc.

And that bothers you, I think

As I mentioned, the rating system doesn’t seem very helpful, especially at the extremes. I am not invested in keeping my status of a 1. My story is still being written. Perhaps you have written the final chapter in your quest for knowledge, for truth, but not I.

So, now that I’m officially not a one anymore, wouldn’t it be gratifying to get to the really important issues?

I placed myself in the wrong category. I am sorry, Seek. I hope you can get over that.

Dutchess, The God I know is just like the one you knew, as you have described Him, and I love those qualities about Him, among others. And I can’t tell you how many people who claim to represent Him were just like the ones you met. I have very little use for people like that.

gailcalled, I noted your editorcraft with deep gratification. Come on, people, Standard English is WORTH saving!:)

Thank God for spell check. I should be more consistent in its use, and I should take the time to proofread, every time. But I was counting on the astuteness I have noticed in the most of the people around here to catch my meaning. Sometimes, I worry I will lose a good thought if I go back to proofread:)

(It should spell check automatically @theodiskaz. Are you using Firefox or Chrome?)

Well, and there you have it @theodiskaz. We created our own image of God. Others have a different version. That just isn’t possible, is it?

@theodiskaz : I don’t think the rating system is very helpful either, because it is one-dimensional. It supposes that there’s only one type of God for people to believe or disbelieve in.

I think it’s OK for a quick shot. I mean, there is nothing that says, “This applies only to the God of Abraham.” A God is a God. If a person believes whole wholeheartedly in 5 different Gods (including @Michael_Huntington) he can still be a 1. Well, unless he believes in one specific God (like @Michael_Huntington) more than another, there is room to address that. Like
God=1
@Michael_Huntington = 1
Erebus=2
Theia=3
Kronos=4
The Sun=7.

Dutchess II,

Chrome, actually. But what I didn’t do is right click on the read underlines, which I don’t see very well anyway. And oh, yah, getting at mutually agreed upon meanings, with such a clumsy thing as natural language, is hard enough with many concrete objects, or even something like Love, which, I think, most agree exists. Trying to do the same thing with God is, well, you get my drift:)

Have you ever looked at the website called christianthinktank.com?

I would like to extend an apology to all over my snarkiness. It seemed at the time to fit in with the tenor of much in the posts I was focusing on, but rereading some of what I said is kind of embarrassing, now.

:) We know that people on both sides of the fence can be pretty awful. Just this morning I had a discussion with one of my son’s former friends (who calls me Mom, so he gets treated like one of my own!) who constantly posts “So, you pray to an invisible man in the sky who kills babies” kinds of crap. I’ve clocked him a few times because that’s just wrong. “Live and let live” I told him.

(Hey…if you hold down the ctrl key, then use the roller in the middle of your mouse, you can make your screen bigger or smaller, depending on which way you roll. I find it very useful when trying to show my husband things that people post.)

I would be a 2.

For me to be a 1 it would not have to be my own self seeing God, because honestly who can trust the bipolar, but I’d have to have definitive proof.

And bipolar devil voice fades in..

You jellies better not be trolling me, soo help me gawd

And bipolar fades out.

And I’m lmfao, today I feel pretty good actually, that episode would of happened the day before
yesterday. Serious. Face. Palm.

3

@theodiskaz I clearly need to join you in apologizing for the snarky posts I contributed here. After asking that not be done, I clearly bear the greater guilt for having violated my own request.

2— How’d I miss this Q?! :)

@KNOWITALL I was wondering why you didn’t chime in. I should have just taken the bull by the horns (not an idol bull like Apis, the embodiment of Ptah, mind you) and sent the question to your attention. My bad.

@ETpro Another friend mentioned it to me yesterday – lol, I didn’t even get snarky?! You all are so good for my growth!

^^^ A non-snarky knowitall. Will wonders never cease? :-)

@ETpro I had to put fluther Q’s & jellies in perspective and step back, I don’t like getting overemotional, which is when I got snarky. Plus treating this more objectively is better for me!

@KNOWITALL It is better for us all. It takes constant work, but it is possible to disagree with what someone says, and say why we disagree without being disagreeable and calling names just because someone else holds a different opinion than we do.

@ETpro I think it just has to do with what I want there to be, especially having grown up in a Catholic environment. It would be good to have a god, and I live life as if there was one, but in reality I can’t say for sure if there actually is one. And I don’t think that anyone else can, either. So I guess I am a PAP.

@dxs The atheists I know all live there lives at least as morally, often more generously and morally, than the theists around me.

^^^ Errata. Make there into their up there.

You talking to @dxs @ETpro? I don’t see where he made a “there” error…”?

@Dutchess_III Sorry for not being perfectly clear. I made the error. I was pointing up to the post immediately above the errata post, which was my own. If I’m using the caret character incorrectly, someone please explain to me how it should be used.

LOL! I was getting ahead ache trying to figure out where @dxs had gone wrong!

@ETpro I wasn’t meaning to say that theistic people are more moral than atheistic people. What I meant was that I could use a god as something to look up to, like Catholics do.

Hey, what a pleasant turn the thread has taken. ETpro, I welcome our conjunction.

I have come to understand that what I did is a derailment. So, I will not do that anymore. I will try to come up with some sort of an aphorism, rather than inserting large amounts of confrontational rhetoric.

Believe it or not, I have always abhorred confrontation, but have been on Testosterone therapy for a month now;) If I feel like being confrontational, I’ll PM, or start a new thread to avoid a derailment.

And, I felt pretty alone out there, Know it all! You are a natural ally, and I am glad to see you here.

If you hang around long enough threads tend to finally turn pleasant. It may take weeks, months or years but….they do! Welcome to Fluther

That, or they simply turn to food.

Thank you, Dutchess.

…Did someone say pancakes?

Nekkid pancakes!? Awe! My fluther homies! Or shall we say our fluthership has landed. ;)

@dxs Having a god to look up to may be comforting and in some believers, it is frightening enough to push them toward moral behavior they might otherwise not embrace. But all to often, a forgiving god who can be placated by confession and alms is license to live how the hell ever the believer wishes, and sort out the sin problem at the confessional.

@theodiskaz Welcome back. And thanks for warning me that you might be subject to a bit of Hi-T rage. :-)

@KaY_Jelly Is this s where Fluthership first popped up?

@ETpro No, I am sure of that since I just write that not long ago.

But I am not sure of when I said the word for the first time lol :)

The mother fluther ship has landed….bearing good will and pancakes.

@theodiskaz Thanks doll. It is not always easy, but for me, it’s worth the hurt for the knowledge I gain here. You can PM me anytime.

@KaY_Jelly Well, congratulations on a good turn of phrase. I expect it will become a part of the group lexicon.

I don’t give it a lot of thought. I certainly believe in the laws of nature. And that can get quite mystical at times, especially alone at sea at night with a little sleep deprivation to help things along. Throw in a storm. The word Majesty comes to mind. If there is a God, it is through nature, specifically through the sea, sky and weather that I find he/she/it. I have a lot of respect for these things. They are often quite unpredictable and dangerous. And beautiful. I suppose this either makes me an agnostic of some sort, or a pantheist, or simply someone who just believes in physics. I don’t know. It’s not exactly on my bucket list.

This whole agnostic/atheist thing reminds me of a quote attributed to Emily Bronte about her dissolute brother, Branwell:

“I am an agnostic, and depressed. He is an atheist, and suicidal. You have to admire his commitment.”

@Espiritus_Corvus I love that answer. We’re kindred spirits in some ways.

Great scale!

I guess I’m around 3.

5
Good question! Not knowing does make life more interesting and knowing would not change my lifestyle so it’s really moot and not something I worry about.