Are you a 6.9 or a 7? Are you certain God doesn't exist?

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I assumed that most atheists take the 6.9 Dawkins approach - that the possibility must be conceded simply because to state impossibility of God as a certainty is unscientific and faith-based. But I wanted to find out. Are you a Dawkins or a Hitchens?

Note - this only applies to the atheists on the board, I want to see if you're all as sensible as I think you are

 

[monitoradiation]

I'd probably be a 6.9. It'd simply be intellectually dishonest in my opinion to say that god absolutely without doubt does not exist. What 7.0s would be getting at is most likely that a particular god-claim (most likely the judeo-christian one) simply cannot be correct, based on its descriptions running counter to the consistency of reality. That it would be absurd to find that this particular god-claim were true.

Though my inclination would be to have whoever is talking to me about the issue define and describe their version of god and any testimonials/evidence first before I make an assessment on whether or not their god could be said to exist.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I'd probably be a 6.9. It'd simply be intellectually dishonest in my opinion to say that god absolutely without doubt does not exist. What 7.0s would be getting at is most likely that a particular god-claim (most likely the judeo-christian one) simply cannot be correct, based on its descriptions running counter to the consistency of reality. That it would be absurd to find that this particular god-claim were true.

Though my inclination would be to have whoever is talking to me about the issue define and describe their version of god and any testimonials/evidence first before I make an assessment on whether or not their god could be said to exist.

THEN VOOOOOOTE SIR

 

[Aught3]

Yeah, 6.9 since it's an incredibly large claim that seems very unlikely. But I would also consider myself an anti-theist towards some of the more toxic forms of religion. Of course you can be a 7.0 to logically inconsistent gods, since even god is subject to logic. Does this mean we should be praising/worshiping/loving logic rather than god? Well, I for one will happily take the label sophia-phile

 

[monitoradiation]

THEN VOOOOOOTE SIR

Ack, sorry; the vote thingy took awhile to load so i was twiddling my thumbs. *scurries away after votage*

 

[CupOfWater]

I can't vote, for some weird reason. But I'd vote for the top.

 

[PuppetXeno]

You assume too much about the meaning of the term "God" in your selectable options, so I can't vote

I remain nontheist, all the way.

I find the idea of a pandimensional superbeing capable of (instantly) creating/destroying worlds with life and everything on it highly unlikely, but in all fairness will not deny it's possibility.

I will not call such a being "god" though.

 

[Josan]

I would say I'm more of a 6.8 (voted 6.9) of there being any sort of super natural entity in any way. But a clear 7 when it comes to the christian God.

 

[Sando]

Just to make it clearer, are you talking about the existence of A god or the existence of Yahweh? If it's a god, I'm a 6.9 (may even be quite a bit lower, since many mythologies have gods that aren't really supernatural in all too many ways). If it's Yahweh, I'm a 7.0.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

My problem with this is that we can't be absolutely, 100% certain of anything, ever. Therefore, you could have substituted anything for "God" in the poll, and we would be logically compelled to choose 6.9 instead of 7. It is sort of a cheat... plus the whole "faith" thing at the end of 7 sort of guarantees your poll results.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Just to make it clearer, are you talking about the existence of A god or the existence of Yahweh? If it's a god, I'm a 6.9 (may even be quite a bit lower, since many mythologies have gods that aren't really supernatural in all too many ways). If it's Yahweh, I'm a 7.0.

I mean God or Gods in general.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

My problem with this is that we can't be absolutely, 100% certain of anything, ever. Therefore, you could have substituted anything for "God" in the poll, and we would be logically compelled to choose 6.9 instead of 7. It is sort of a cheat... plus the whole "faith" thing at the end of 7 sort of guarantees your poll results.

Well, since the question was just to find out about views on God . . . I was inspired by AmazingMuslim, of all people. He was saying that most atheists state God CAN'T exist, which I felt was a bit of a sweeping statement, so I attempted to redress the balance.

My point is that logic doesn't matter to some people, like Hitchens. He isn't logically compelled to concede the possibility, and I was wondering if anyone else here subscribes to that point of view. I don't personally find it a big deal, I mean as we've had various people proving that 0.999 recurring = 1 then surely a 99.99% recurring probability equals a 1:1 ratio of certainty! As I said to AM, or Epicion as he's now known, it's not as of people use their faith in no God in argument - they use the same arguments as you are I.

I could certainly have said "nissan-shaped planet" instead of "God" and used the same poll, but nissan-shaped planets don't lead very many people into bullshit.

 

[Homunclus]

I agree with Joe though...nothing can be know with 100% certainty...right now I'm 99.9% sure I'm typing on a keyboard...

 

[Icefire9atla]

I beleive that my real response would be somewhat lower than 6.9. 6.5 maybe?

If it's Yahweh, I'm a 7.0

Ditto.

 

[Squagnut]

Hmmm.

I make a distinction between what I believe and what I'm prepared to argue. In my beliefs, I'm a 7, but in what I'm prepared to argue, a 6.9.

To me, the question of God's existence is as important and interesting as the question of the existence of unicorns, giants and fire-breathing fragons.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well, since the question was just to find out about views on God . . . I was inspired by AmazingMuslim, of all people. He was saying that most atheists state God CAN'T exist, which I felt was a bit of a sweeping statement, so I attempted to redress the balance.

My point is that logic doesn't matter to some people, like Hitchens. He isn't logically compelled to concede the possibility, and I was wondering if anyone else here subscribes to that point of view. I don't personally find it a big deal, I mean as we've had various people proving that 0.999 recurring = 1 then surely a 99.99% recurring probability equals a 1:1 ratio of certainty! As I said to AM, or Epicion as he's now known, it's not as of people use their faith in no God in argument - they use the same arguments as you are I.

I could certainly have said "nissan-shaped planet" instead of "God" and used the same poll, but nissan-shaped planets don't lead very many people into bullshit.

I'm down with all of that... of course... but it still seems a little something or other, that I can't put my finger on. Maybe just the absurdity that we atheists have to explicitly declare our lack of omnipotence as a way to deflect theist stupidity.

Also, Hitchens is a bit of a douche nozzle, not half as clever as he thinks he is. Luckily for him, he's found a class of opponent that can be trounced by a barely-prepared drunk.

 

[Jotto999]

For me, it depends. If we are talking specifically about the Christian god, then I am absolutely sure god doesn't exist, I would be a 7. If we mean simply the concept of an eternal, omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe...then I am a 6.9, which is what I voted.

In general though, I'm like 99.9999% sure god doesn't exist, of any kind. So close, but I leave that small bit just because I suppose it's a possibility. But in the same way I view unicorns and fairies - sure it's possible but, come on.

 

[SZS]

Define God.

 

[Josan]

Define God.

Is that really neccesairy? Do you really not understand in what context this is?

Wikipedia:

God: - A deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.
Deity: - A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.

 

[SZS]

It is not a given. There's a thousand different conceptions of God (anything from only being synonymous with first cause, to omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, intelligent, personal being, to merely "energy" (very descriptive, thus very useful, not)), and that is the main problem with using the word in the first place; you can't give the same answer to all of these.

Presumably this is in the context of petty ridicule as far as God and religion goes. The question itself is more in the category of "Are you as rational as you think you are?"; and indeed as others have pointed out before, you can replace "God" with whatever. This is not really about religion or God at all, except seizing the opportunity to dish out an easy blow. And about that: Give it a rest already; it's getting old.

As far as popular (mis?)conception of God goes, I'm a 7 on the certainty scale that it is a load of rubbish. But that's like attacking science based on the same popular misconceptions I'm sure you're all familiar with by now. I mean, you wouldn't want to have that done against you (you know, "not just a theory" etc., you know how annoying that is).

Now, if I were to be a little less pedantic and just answer the question already: Do I think the first cause is a sentient being? Hell no. But that's not really what this question is about, is it.

Are you a 6.9 or a 7? Are you certain Santa Claus doesn't exist?

The real question for me is: Does the question itself deserve to be taken seriously enough for me to answer 6.9 (or more likely lower), or not, in which case I'm a 7 just because.

Also keep in mind that 6.999... = 7. After all, is the meaning of voting 6.9 really so different from voting 6.999... ?

God bless.