Spectrum of theistic probability

[Armin-A]

Does a 7 exist? Also, where do you place yourself?

1 .Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

[laconicsax]

1. 6

I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

It's partially because of this part of the de facto atheism that I say that the vast majority of believers are probably de facto atheists.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

2. Also a 6

I haven't seen any evidence that a god exists, and I'm doubtful that any evidence can be found.

[GliderGuider]

3. There's one more position

Call it x: No judgement made one way or the other. "I do not know, so I'm still examining the question. I may know eventually, but I don't know that either."

That's where I stand at this time.

[darkstar3]

4. And once again we see someone misuderstand the difference between knowledge and belief.

[GliderGuider]

9. Not at all.

I understand the nature of belief quite well. What I'm attempting to do is relinquish all belief in favour of direct knowledge. If the knowledge has not been acquired, I prefer to say I don't know, and leave the question open.

There is no need to slap a band-aid of belief or disbelief (which is the same fabric seen from opposite sides) onto an uncertainty, no matter how psychologically uncomfortable the open wound may be. We do it all the time, of course, but it's really just a habit born of pain-avoidance.

Those ancient Greeks sure had some interesting philosophical ideas.

[darkstar3]

19. Some things really are binary, no matter how much you might deny it.

If you reply "I don't know" to the question of "do you believe", then you have not answered the question.

That's the thing about replies. Just because you offer one doesn't make it an answer.

[GliderGuider]

20. Some things are binary. This is not one of them.

Just because you don't understand the answer doesn't mean I haven't provided one. (See how that game works?)

[laconicsax]

21. Sorry, Guider, but you're wrong about this.

"I dont know" isn't the answer you believe it is.

[GliderGuider]

22. If that's what you believe, then that's what you believe.

I don't share your belief, so I'll take a pass, thanks.

[laconicsax]

23. It's not a belief on my part.

I don't believe that "I don't know" is the answer you believe it is. I could believe it at some point in the future, but as it stands I don't share your belief in its answerness.

[GliderGuider]

25. I have no problem with that.

At some point I might change my mind as well. Just not right now.

[GliderGuider]

27. OK, let me back up and take another run at this

Last edited Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:15 PM - Edit history (2)

Maybe I can answer and stay within the binary boundary.

Q: Do you believe there is a God?
GG: No.

OK so far? the problem is, that only tells one side of the story, it's about my belief in the existence of God. What about the opposing belief?

Q: Do you believe there is no God?
GG: No.

It's a simple system - for any question about belief I can simply answer, "No, I do not believe that." That's because I am trying to expunge all beliefs from my view of reality. The problem is that in normal usage saying "I do not believe X" implies at least some degree of disbelief in X, and I'm saying that non-belief and disbelief are quite different animals.

So I can be quite comfortable answering "No" to such questions as "Do you believe the sky is blue?" or "Do you believe there are no unicorns?" or "Do you believe the world is a real place?"

Is that better?

[Armin-A]

29. I may be wrong here but...

isn't that what an agnostic is? Someone who does not know? There may be a God, but there may not be a God?

If you imagine it as a balance of God on one side and no God on the other side.. which side is heavier or are they the same?

I think if someone doesn't know which way the scale is tipping they are probably scared to at admit it or they are stuck in between two integers (not necessarily the middle) and are concentrating really hard to see which way the needle is tipping

[GliderGuider]

30. For me the problem is in the word "know"

How do I "know" something, to the extent that there is no need for "belief"? I can decide I know something if I have experienced it directly, or if I trust the source of my information sufficiently. Other than that, I'm stuck with some level of belief. The closer that needle is to the center, the more need there is for belief to come to the rescue. If one feels the compulsion to be certain, the only way to get that certainty is by substituting some level of belief for the knowledge one doesn't have.

Belief in anything gives rise to its own set of problems, not least of which is that it governs one's actions based not on reality but on one's internal state of mind. Even worse, strong belief implies little actual knowledge since the two are inversely proportional, and strong belief becomes dogma.

I prefer the uncertainty of not-knowing: of accepting low-knowledge situations without feeling compelled to "top up the glass" with belief. If there is a little fear involved, so much the better. Wisdom lies inside the fear, and can only be discovered by moving towards it.

So yes, I'm an extreme agnostic in that sense, with aspirations to be a Pyrrhonian skeptic.

[darkstar3]

36. OK, so let's take your chosen questions, and your answers, and provide definitions:

Q: Do you believe there is a God?
GG: No.

You are an atheist.

Q: Do you believe there is no God?
GG: No.

You're still an atheist, you're just not a straw man.

I know it only provides half the story about your views on deities. That's how the divide between knowledge and belief works. That's why most sane people ask the questions in the following manner, paraphrased to make the point:

Do you believe in God?
What do you know that causes you (not) to believe?

Now to answer the question I know is on your mind...

Why do I harp on this? Because those who flatly refuse to self-identify as atheists while at the same time stating plainly that they don't believe in God are perpetuating myths created by believers to disparage atheists. Take your pick as to which one or all of these derogatory myths:

1. Atheists are not people who lack belief, but rather people who actively disbelieve in God (note that capital G.)
2. Atheists are so mean and hateful that no one wants to be associated with them by label.
3. Atheism is an illogical, irrational, and untenable position, and should be abandoned en masse for the far superior position of agnosticism.
-This one really gets my goat, because not only does it fly in the face of logic and definition, it re-labels people in order to move them one step closer to belief. It's also one of the most likely sources of scorn heaped upon atheists by those non-believers infantile enough to buy into the myth.b
4. Atheism isn't real, because everyone has to believe in something.
5. Atheists are just closed-minded because they can't accept possibilities.
-Once again flying the face of definition and completely ignoring the fact that there are atheists who actually believe in the probability of an afterlife.

[GliderGuider]

37. Fortunately, I self-identify as an atheist.

Always have, always will. I have gone from strong to weak over the years, but I'm still an atheist in the way that question is commonly asked. It's not all that I am, philosophically speaking, but it's enough to get me by in day-to-day conversation.

The myths that you reference seem fairly specifically American - I doubt that many other English-speaking people (or the majority of Europeans, for that matter) share them. Certainly I haven't rrun einto many of them here in Canada, even as a child in the 1950s going to a one-room school in a conservative farming community. the US has some strange burr under its saddle when it comes to religion. This is my take on those "myths":

1. Atheists are not people who lack belief, but rather people who actively disbelieve in God.

Atheists are not only people who lack belief, but also people who actively disbelieve in God. I use the terms "weak" and strong" for those positions.

2. Atheists are so mean and hateful that no one wants to be associated with them by label.

This one seems to me to be the most specifically American of the set, and is purely a self-validation belief. The worst I've ever had tossed at me even by fundies here in Canuckistan was that my life "must be" empty.

3. Atheism is an illogical, irrational, and untenable position, and should be abandoned en masse for the far superior position of agnosticism.

This one usually comes up because people don't understand what agnosticism actually is. I've never encountered this one IRL.

4. Atheism isn't real, because everyone has to believe in something.

Most people believe they have to believe in things. The problem with this one is both that it is a logical fallacy and that it ignores the multiplicity of other things there are for atheists to believe. From my POV disbelief is still belief, but in this context that's only applicable to strong atheism.

5. Atheists are just closed-minded because they can't accept possibilities.

This sounds to me like a projection by theists with authoritarian personality traits. Anybody can be closed minded, regardless of their position on the existence of God, and usually closed-mindedness is the result of an authoritarian personality type. I think it shows up in fundamentalist theists more than strong atheists because the certainty of the positive belief is attractive to rigid authoritarian psychologies.

My position on my atheism isn't that I'm not an atheist (which I definitely am), but that I find other aspects of the psychology of belief and non-belief much more compelling than whether or not I believe in a completely anthropomorphic god-image.

[darkstar3]

39. Then I challenge you to explain this subthread,

and I mean starting from #3, in which you spend an incredible amount of time avoiding the label "atheist", arguing with others over what it means, and attempting to establish your position as firmly in the middle, neither theism nor atheism, no matter how clearly the binary nature of the situation is explained to you.

Did you change your mind somewhere in the middle? Are you only an atheist when pinned down on the subject, or at certain parts of the day? Or are you simply a contrarian by nature?

[GliderGuider]

40. I really hate labels.

I also think discussing the nuances of atheism for the 10,000th time is pointless and a little boring - this is a safe haven, most of us here get it. As a result I sometimes use these discussions as springboards to launch off into related ideas that people may not have thought of before.

I love to play with ideas. My philosophy has a large stream-of-consciousness component that causes me to investigate new ideas as I write, so they don't always spring like Athena "fully grown from the forehead of Zeus". As a result you can't count on me to adhere slavishly to a position. You can usually count on me to come back to a few basic positions with time, but only once I've finished nosing through the philosophical byways along the highways. I always try to debate in good faith along the way, though.

As I say in post #8, I'm a weak atheist when it comes to objective gods, an agnostic in my epistemology, a non-dualist in personal practice, and a Pyrrhonian skeptic when it comes to beliefs in general. I'm also, as you suspected, very much a contrarian, to the point of being an anarchist about philosophical structures. I reserve the right to build my own if I think they are required.

I understand this could make me a frustrating person to talk with, especially if someone wants to fix me in relation to the labels they're used to. You may or may not be trying to do that. If you are, I have no problem with it - whatever you're doing is your dance, while this is mine.

[darkstar3]

42. And how can you expect to communicate effectively with others

when you self-admittedly make things up as you go along and recognize that this may frustrate others?

Labels are words, and words have meaning. We as a species have spent millennia creating, refining, and broadening the scope and usefulness of our language for one purpose: to take our thoughts and put them in a format that's easier for others to understand. What you do here repeatedly is work against that purpose.

As for your contrarian nature, my grandfather used to have a saying - "You'd argue with a fencepost!". Then he'd walk away and wash his hands of the matter. I am beginning to see his wisdom.

[GliderGuider]

51. That is a cross I'll have to bear, I guess ;-)

Last edited Fri Jan 20, 2012, 09:06 AM - Edit history (1)

There are many reasons communication doesn't happen. I'd rather risk the occasional failure than put myself in a carefully labelled box. I don't mind if people sometimes walk away. I'm not a teacher, I think and write at least as much for my own benefit as anyone else's.

BTW, we all make things up as we go along. I admit to doing it, in the hopes that it will reduce the stigma attached to uncertainty and spontaneous exploration. There is no better antidote for dogmatism than uncertainty.

[Armin-A]

5. but you are always on one side of the line or the other... or right on it

not saying you can't change... just asking where you see yourself right now

[Armin-A]

6. and if you don't know.. you are probably

closer to the 7.... I mean you are posting in this group

[GliderGuider]

8. Regarding objective gods I'm a weak atheist.

I'm a weak atheist when it comes to objective gods, an agnostic in my epistemology, a non-dualist in personal practice, and a Pyrrhonian skeptic when it comes to beliefs in general. That qualifies me to post here, I suspect.

[GliderGuider]

7. Are you?

I'm experimenting with the possibility that with practice and awareness both belief and disbelief can be discarded. In that case I would be on a different, unlined page.

It's called "Pyrrhonian skepticism". It shows some signs of working, but I don't yet know how far it will be possible to take it.

[Armin-A]

10. I say im 6.99

I have a major belief in skepticism. Atheism to me is "no"theism. I see no religion no god nothing. We are here and that's all we have. I don't rule out the possibility that I could be wrong and there is an almighty god that sends signals that mislead us to think he doesn't exist. Sure. Highly doubtful in my mind which is why i go for the 6.99.

I believe a 7 is almost as ignorant as a 1

[Armin-A]

16. Anyone else that has the same thinking as me get annoyed when people try to call you agnostic....

instead of atheist...and tell you need to learn your definitions.

[OriginalGeek]

11. I don't know if there are any gods

but I don't believe there are any.


I imagine 1 and 7 are pretty much lying to themselves but I'm as close to a seven as one can get.

[mr blur]

12. 6.9 too, because I can't know. (nt)

[AlbertCat]

14. 6.9 too, because I can't know.

Bingo...


Actually, I don't think about it at all. It just is a waste of time.... until some religion pokes its nose into everyone's business.

[Goblinmonger]

13. 6+

"very improbable" might be a little weak on the adjective.

[GliderGuider]

15. 0. To paraphrase Jung, "I do not believe, I do not know."

If I knew, there would be no reason to believe. Even though I don't not know, there still seems to be no reason to believe either for or against the proposition.

What can result from belief or disbelief except unwarranted certainty? Is there a value to unwarranted certainty? I don't see one - it's simply dogma.

I prefer to live with the uncertainty - that at least seems to be a useful personal exercise.

[rvt1000rr]

17. Let's think about this...too much

of an atheist's time and energy is spent on "soul searching" (pardon the term) the priorities and complexities of his or her perceived life-view with exercises such as this. Trust me, a true believer does not care if you are a 50 percent atheist or a satanist. Since you don't believe the way that they do, you're not one of them, so what is the point here. It has all of the relevance of the old metaphysical discussion of how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin or which conservative is the most "conservative".
Seriously folks, it really all comes down to "Do you believe in this shit or not?"

It's that easy. Really.

[Armin-A]

18. well our group is atheists and agnostics

while I do agree with you to a certain degree not everyone here is completely against everything... it is atheists and agnostics not just atheists. just wondering where our little community members see themselves and not what believers think of them

[ZombieHorde]

24. I really doubt it, so six. nt

[uriel1972]

26. Another 6+ here nt

[amyrose2712]

28. 6

[montanto]

31. On this scale? 6

I see there are others who would like to grade the area between 6 and 7 too. If the question went like this: "Do you believe in a god that has anything to do with the daily lives of humans?" My answer would be 7. If the question was: "Do you think its at all possible that there is some sort of meta-creator out there that probably doesn't know we exist, like a scientist in a lab who has left a sandwich in the lab refrigerator and its now getting green and moldy and its already been forgotten?" then the chances are somewhat greater than zero. I'm positive that there is no god watching us, but I'm not absolutely positive that there is no god not watching us.

[MarkCharles]

32. EIGHT! There is no reason at all for human beings to even ever be...

discussing this.

A sincere waste of time. We do NOT have witches, ghosts, goblins, or any other fantasy organisms on this planet!

We have 300,000 insects, 20,000 birds, 90,000 animals, 189,000 known plants, probably 170,000+ bacteria, 100,000 viruses.

Why would we need another 5 or 10 or 1000 gods, angels, or whatever?

Let's stop talking about mythologies, other than as something that people USED TO BELIEVE IN! Now we don't need this, we need our minds to be occupied with those plants and animals we have on this planet, learn as much as we can about them, serve ALL of them as best human beings can serve, (including serving all humans first, even at the cost of a few animal and plant and bacteria and viral species)

WHY are we wasting time with mythical beings, or ancient mythologies concerning a few hundred or a thousand or two gods and angels and other singular human-like figures? Let's get on to the work we have before us before we use up the last 2 billion years of hydrocarbon fuels we have here on this planet, (fuel we will use up in 200-300 years at our current rate, yes, use up!)

[laconicsax]

41. Nitpick: I think your numbers are off

There are possibly 8.7 million different species on Earth.

Also, birds are animals.

Now, for a different topic you mention: I reject the idea that we're supposed to "serve" those we live with. Co-exist, yes. Serve, no. It's far too close to the idea that we're supposed to be "stewards" of the Earth, which belies a fundamental misunderstanding of our existence.

[MarkCharles]

46. You are probably closer to correct, and I appreciate your fact-checks..

I will not debate your numbers, you probably are more well-read than I am.

I will some other time discuss our choice of words serve or be stewards or whatever... some time when I am more awake.

Peacefully coexist, is that better? Just trying to figure out what I actually mean.

[laconicsax]

47. I like peacefully coexist.

It's not always possible though.

[MarkCharles]

48. Certainly not with viruses and retro-viruses! Can't coexist with..

us homo-sapiens folks!

Then there's a few hundred thousand bacteria we can all do without, and manage to almost wipe out every few years, or have other bacteria actually eat them.

[laconicsax]

49. Some retroviruses are fine.

They make up part of our DNA, after all.

[MarkCharles]

50. Not really independently viable, are they?

I get kind of lost when it comes to retro-viruses. I didn't learn about them in college, I think they were just theoretical back then.

Can you give me a link to learn more?

[Armin-A]

53. basically...

RNA is inside of the "capsule". DNA is much more stable and can impact the target cell directly, whereas RNA has to replicate which isn't as accurate because mutations are much easier to occur. Look at HIV or the flu

Here's something else that may interest you:

[Armin-A]

54. if you prefer text

Try seeing if a library has Kurth and Bannert book Retroviruses: Molecular Biology, Genomics and Pathogenesis

[Armin-A]

52. I think you're posting this in the wrong group :P

I think everyone here agrees with you about shifting focus from a god/s to our own environment, but the religion group may have a different opinion.

[RebelOne]

33. I think I am a 6. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

34. 6

[lindysalsagal]

35. 7

If there was a god, how could he/she screw up the world so much? That's one dumb god! I mean, why do we have to get older and uglier and more vulnerable just when our minds are finally starting to figure shit out? Who's plan was that? You get so many years, and then, fuggatabouit? Whether you're having fun, or not, game over?

Lousy plan. Really. I could probably think up some stuff that would work better than this.

And then there's this crap where you believe the shit they tell you in the town where you were born, and then go around killing everyone who was born in another town and so believes stuff differently. Who's great plan was that?

Why CAN'T we choose our parents? That would make a whole lotta more sense than the random casino-game of "Here, you go! Good luck!"

Plus there's Donald Trump, I'm just sayin'.

[BlueJazz]

38. I'm very close to a 7 (6.95?)

From what I've read and experienced, no Deity exists.

[rexcat]

43. I accept the null hypothesis until proven otherwise...

or about a 6.9999...

[laconicsax]

44. Why so shrill?

[rexcat]

45. Well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

on edit: and from someone who had to lock their own post!