Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

There are 289 comments on the News24 story from May 10, 2013, titled Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism. In it, News24 reports that:

Awarded after your tenth article is published on MyNews24. You've got 15 more to go to reach the next level! All children are born Atheist, without the knowledge of God or whatsoever.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#227 May 25, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_thei...

"Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
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."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
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."
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."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate."
Lincoln

United States

#228 May 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S pectrum_of_theistic_probabilit y
"Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]
Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
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."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
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."
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."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate."
Thanks,
Informative
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#229 May 25, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Interesting views from Dawkins as an agnostic
Known by many as the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins - author of The God Delusion - explained during a public discussion at Oxford University, that he does not think of himself as an atheist, but rather an agnostic.
The Telegraph reported on Monday that Richard Dawkins - although regularly labeled as one - does not consider himself an atheist.
In the open dialogue with Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, Dawkins also noted that in his book, The God Delusion, he never made the claim that he is certain that God does not exist.
please give us adequate guidance to your sources on all of this. some folks do not believe you, apparently.

there is nothing wrong with being an agnostic, but it is certainly possible to be an agnostic atheist, who does not claim to know that God does not exist, but nevertheless does not believe in any version of God that he has ever heard of. That is a more modest viewpoint than that of the type of atheist who claims to know there is no God, which seems overconfident and egotistical in my view.

It also seems to me to be stronger and braver to be an agnostic atheist who does not claim to know, and who nonetheless is fearless in saying he or she does not believe in any God that he or she has ever heard of. It is a bit silly to not believe in any version of god even if one has never heard of it, but there are certainly categories of gods that one can not believe in - and if new ones fall into those categories, then one can safely expect not to believe in them either.

I really don't care that much what the famous atheists and/or agnostics really believe. By becoming famous they may expose themselves to pressures to sell books, get book tours and lecture fees, and feed their egos.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#230 May 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S pectrum_of_theistic_probabilit y
"Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]
Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
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."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
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."
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."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate."
Of course a 6 seems most sensible, but the idea of using the term "he" or the term "God" sort of pre-concedes the silly definition of a God that comes from the monotheistic tradition, of the three nonsense religions from the Middle East. I do not think that is fair to the pantheist's definition of God, which is so all-encompassing (God is the all that exists) that it is very different from different little puny gods and God that most folks have believed in, when they did believe in a god or gods or a God. And it is not fair to a sort of dualistic kind of definition - such as calling some sort of force for good God.

What is ridiculous is the assertion that there is an allgoodallpowerful God; and even more ridiculous is the assertion that the God of the Bible or any of the big monotheistic religions is such a critter, and exists.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#231 May 25, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> It is a bit silly to not believe in any version of god even if one has never heard of it, but there are certainly categories of gods that one can not believe in - and if new ones fall into those categories, then one can safely expect not to believe in them either.
The entire concept of god is flawed and has no meaning - when theists learn to stop lying about their gods, they are being truly honest with the world for the first time in their lives.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#232 May 25, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems news that Richard Dawkins is an agnostic
Known by many as the world's most famous atheist,
Richard Dawkins - author of The God Delusion -
explained during a public discussion at Oxford University, that he does not think of himself as an atheist,
but rather an agnostic.
The Telegraph reported on Monday that Richard Dawkins - although regularly labeled as one - does not consider himself an atheist.
Kennedy then asked Dawkins , "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic then?"
Dawkins replied, "I do."
better, but still give us a link to the actual source, date. what Telegraph? we need to be able to look it up for ourselves, and also decide whether we trust the source. Is there a video of it, or a transcript?

Why do you seem to assume that one must be either an agnostic or an atheist, but not both? Of course one can be both. The terms refer to different things. Don't you understand that? the agnostic reference is to whether one makes a knowledge claim onesself, and or whether one believes it can ever be known. The atheist reference is a reference to not being a believer in a God or god, or gods.

By the way, I think Skeptic is a sort of ll on the 7 point scale - sure there is no God and that he knows it. He is definately not my type of atheist. I suspect most socalled atheists on topix are closest to the 6 description, and would call themselves agnostic atheists if they understood the words properly and wanted to bother to explain themselves to folks who do not understand their meaning.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#233 May 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The entire concept of god is flawed and has no meaning - when theists learn to stop lying about their gods, they are being truly honest with the world for the first time in their lives.
when you talk about the concept of god, and then "their gods" you seem to admit that there are differing concepts.

and I do not approve of your use of the word "lying", when some of the believers are not telling deliberate lies in the sense of things they themselves know or believe not to be true.

I still think you are more of an egotist in claiming knowlege, rather than a thinker. I also think you like to engage in hostilities with everyone who does not accept your arrogant viewpoint that you know. How do you define know? other than it is whatever your opinion is!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#234 May 25, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> when you talk about the concept of god, and then "their gods" you seem to admit that there are differing concepts.
Where have I admitted that the concept of god is a different concept?

I haven't - when the people that choose to hallucinate gods, write this stuff down and share it with other people encouraging them to hallucinate gods, it is up to them to prove the concept is real.

Until they do that, they are merely hallucinating and are suffering from the symptoms of the mental illness of faith.

Their opinions are not being formed from any rational basis.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>
and I do not approve of your use of the word "lying", when some of the believers are not telling deliberate lies in the sense of things they themselves know or believe not to be true.
Theists are all liars - that's their job once they join the cult - its to lie about the central god story to strangers in order to create a critical mass of mentally ill people. The more mentally ill people get together, the more ferverent (and forgetful of lack of evidence) they get. Its like a virus or disease.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>
I still think you are more of an egotist in claiming knowlege, rather than a thinker.
I haven't claimed any knowledge. If you want to present evidence instead of empty accusations and opinions you are welcome to.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>
I also think you like to engage in hostilities with everyone who does not accept your arrogant viewpoint that you know. How do you define know? other than it is whatever your opinion is!
When you have the courage to present evidence of a definition of god that isn't meaningless I am all ears.

All theists claim that god is real and for this they are liars. Most know that there's no evidence and trick themselves into thinking that a higher power is in control of their destiny. Its a mental illness that many are not intelligent enough to think themselves out of.

Also theists are arrogant about the illness and so will not seek help or treatment and will attack people who's beliefs / understanding differ.

Just like we see with the troll attacks every day in topix.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#235 May 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have I admitted that the concept of god is a different concept?
I haven't - when the people that choose to hallucinate gods, write this stuff down and share it with other people encouraging them to hallucinate gods, it is up to them to prove the concept is real.
Until they do that, they are merely hallucinating and are suffering from the symptoms of the mental illness of faith.
Their opinions are not being formed from any rational basis.
<quoted text>
Theists are all liars - that's their job once they join the cult - its to lie about the central god story to strangers in order to create a critical mass of mentally ill people. The more mentally ill people get together, the more ferverent (and forgetful of lack of evidence) they get. Its like a virus or disease.
<quoted text>
I haven't claimed any knowledge. If you want to present evidence instead of empty accusations and opinions you are welcome to.
<quoted text>
When you have the courage to present evidence of a definition of god that isn't meaningless I am all ears.
All theists claim that god is real and for this they are liars. Most know that there's no evidence and trick themselves into thinking that a higher power is in control of their destiny. Its a mental illness that many are not intelligent enough to think themselves out of.
Also theists are arrogant about the illness and so will not seek help or treatment and will attack people who's beliefs / understanding differ.
Just like we see with the troll attacks every day in topix.
you are the troll and you are the one who is mentally ill. it is all the sadder because it is much wiser not to believe in almost any version of God than to believe in it - yet you discredit the argument with your viciousness and arrogance. of course you claim to know - it is implicit in all your comments. you are arrogant, and evil in discrediting what could otherwise be a respectable - though mistaken - view point: that one knows there is no God. It depends on what one means by knows, and what one means by God.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#236 May 25, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>you are the troll and you are the one who is mentally ill. it is all the sadder because it is much wiser not to believe in almost any version of God than to believe in it - yet you discredit the argument with your viciousness and arrogance. of course you claim to know - it is implicit in all your comments. you are arrogant, and evil in discrediting what could otherwise be a respectable - though mistaken - view point: that one knows there is no God. It depends on what one means by knows, and what one means by God.
Repeating your same flawed tirade does not make it valid.

When you have the courage to be honest and present evidence that "god is possible" or even an attempt at defining the term, you are welcome to take the leap into our "higher morals".

Or of course you could just tell the truth and admit that you are here to promote your personal hallucination and attempt (and fail) at slandering science - a concept you are too ignorant to understand.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#237 May 25, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>you are the troll and you are the one who is mentally ill. it is all the sadder because it is much wiser not to believe in almost any version of God than to believe in it - yet you discredit the argument with your viciousness and arrogance. of course you claim to know - it is implicit in all your comments. you are arrogant, and evil in discrediting what could otherwise be a respectable - though mistaken - view point: that one knows there is no God. It depends on what one means by knows, and what one means by God.
We know you're a religious troll because you capitalise god and are quick to attack science, but not present any evidence for the god you intend to lie about.

You've been in this forum before and we all remember you.

Its better that you go back to the discovery institute along with Buck & Lincoln so you can save some money for the lawsuits your cult will be eventually getting hit with in future.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#238 May 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
I love that one, in particular.... anyone who knows the facts knows Gore never said it, and in any case the internet was a direct descendent of DARPANET and other similar, academic information exchanges.
:)
Which were all descendants of the old BBS. Ah, the days of yore, such memories of having to dial up a website instead of being able to just enter the name.:P

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#239 May 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Which were all descendants of the old BBS. Ah, the days of yore, such memories of having to dial up a website instead of being able to just enter the name.:P
And configuring the various settings in your modem: which error protocol? Which signal wire was used? ACK. RCV. etc.

I find I do not miss those days... at all.

;)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#240 May 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And configuring the various settings in your modem: which error protocol? Which signal wire was used? ACK. RCV. etc.
I find I do not miss those days... at all.
;)
I never said I missed them.:P

I love living in the future, it's the best time to live.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#241 May 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said I missed them.:P
I love living in the future, it's the best time to live.
:)

The last time I had to fiddle with the modem's settings was at least 10 years ago or more... I have so repressed that memory, I don't even remember exactly when I switched to an "always-on" cable internet.

I agree with you: the internet has become an "instant information" engine, that is pretty much as accurate as you want it to be.

One of the more positive effects of that? People are no longer content to blithely take the word of a so-called "expert". They can easily go out and find out for themselves.

Pretty cool.

Another welcome consequence of *that* sort of thinking? Religion is in a desperate retreat, trying to find it's niche in an ever-shrinking marketplace.

Which is even more cool.
KJV

United States

#242 May 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S pectrum_of_theistic_probabilit y

"Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
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."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
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."
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."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate."
Does Dawkins think that nothing exploded to create everything?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#243 May 27, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Does Dawkins think that nothing exploded to create everything?
Who cares? He's not one of the scientists on the cutting edge of cosmology, is he?

So his opinion hardly matters here, does it?

No more important than your Pope-um's opinion on sex with little boys is...

(by the way, it's likely your pope is in favor of that...)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#244 May 27, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Does Dawkins think that nothing exploded to create everything?
[/QUOTE]

No one thinks that, because we know there is never "nothing," the coined adage to illustrate this is "nature abhors a vacuum." Did you even open a science book at any time in your life? This is basic stuff.
KJV

United States

#245 May 27, 2013
You follow him don't you?
He is like your cult leader.

I love the way you atheist believe there is no God and then think nothing changed into every thing on its own.

You know that is against all of your science rules. No I guess you don't
KJV

United States

#246 May 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Does Dawkins think that nothing exploded to create everything?
"

No one thinks that, because we know there is never "nothing," the coined adage to illustrate this is "nature abhors a vacuum." Did you even open a science book at any time in your life? This is basic stuff.
Your science has dated the universe at 13.7 billion years old. Hence it had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning has a pre beginning.
Now this Pre is a bit tricky because there was no time before the BB hence no before. So I'll state it like this. When there was no time and no matter and no energy and no space, what was there then that became our universe and all there is and all that ever existed?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Eagle 12 - 78,697
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 17 min Science 1,410
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Science 32,438
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... Aug 12 Eagle 12 - 1,152
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web