Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: Luigison on June 17, 2011, 04:24:58 PM
-
I fluctuate between 3 and 5.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_Theistic_Probability
-
The last two options are the same.
-
Sorry. That's fixed now.
-
Debated with myself for a while between one and two. I chose two, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that you have regard the existence of God as proven fact to be a "strong theist." Faith in God can't be proven by normal as absolute fact. That's why it requires faith. I suppose I could see myself choosing one, in the sense that "I do not believe, I know," where to "know" doesn't mean "to know to be proven by natural means"; but "to know in my own heart in mind."
Also, the spectrum should be reversed, since the number seven is traditionally associated with God. Just putting that out there.
-
Agnostic atheist, which is basically choice 6.
-
I chose number two because, believe it or not, I'm only human.
-
I chose three simply because two and four were too extreme.
-
I can't vote. There have been recent events in my life that have made me question my faith.
-
Six. So that's what it's called...
-
Dawkins considers himself to be a '6.9'.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6b%2FRichard_Dawkins_35th_American_Atheists_Convention.jpg%2F220px-Richard_Dawkins_35th_American_Atheists_Convention.jpg&hash=5972d0ec23077b29c69e3921df0c7323)
Ew, no.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.justsaypictures.com%2Fimages%2Fdawkins-vs-watson.jpg&hash=a95ecb3fb0852d3b7a2fdf1627613e6f)
-
I'd do both of them.
-
I'm pretty sure that's shopped. The mouths are just too identical.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi34.tinypic.com%2F33lniv7.gif&hash=a35f8374eb4983d19b64870600171aa0)
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lepuqaqmBP1qanb21o1_500.jpg&hash=517ef2112f452886aad424796a656ba1)
For comparison here's the originals:
http://gallery.ewva.net/albums/photoshoots/ElleGirl/EWELP10.jpg (http://gallery.ewva.net/albums/photoshoots/ElleGirl/EWELP10.jpg)
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/assets/contributor/dawkins$richard_lres.gif (http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/assets/contributor/dawkins$richard_lres.gif)
-
5.4 to be honest. Most of my family is thoroughly believers... I'm not so sure. My belief may evolve, though I doubt it.
-
So, according to the poll results, someone on here considers themself more of an atheist than Dawkins?
-
I don't recall him saying he's 100% certain that there's no god, just that he or she probably doesn't exist.
Adam Carolla is the only atheist I know of who has explicitly stated that he "knows" there's no god.
-
I picked #1.
-
If one more person picked option #2, the poll would be perfectly balanced.
-
I picked #1.
Koopaslaya
Kansas
-
Luigison
Luciferous
EDIT: I am presuming that the above post was demanding an explanation of my post. I suppose #1 seems foolish. I certainly believe in God with my entire being. Jung's epistemology, however, is probably inadequate to really define my understand my "knowledge" of God. What I do not mean is the following: "I know God, I know what God wants, I know who is saved and [darn]ed, I know all the problems of the universe, I know how God operates, I understand all the mystery." I am not a fundamentalist of that sort.Yes, even the great theologians (Thomas, in particular) admitted that quidditative knowledge is impossible in this life, at least. But, what theologians would not deny is an express knowledge or certitude of the existence of God, (if we could even say that God exists -- for it is far better to say that God is existence).
As a theologian myself, it would be idiotic of me to suggest that I am studying something that does not exist. The biologist, for instance, could not say that he studies biology, but then go and deny the existence of something biological. Nay, the biologist first presumes that there is indeed something alive to be studied! And so, I can't say that I study God if I don't even know that my subject matter exists.
Christianity works very nicely in this regard. Either Jesus was who he said he was, or he was, to quote CS Lewis, a lunatic of "a particularly abominable type." Christ makes it easy, either we have to accept him for who he claimed to be, or he was a nut. I, for one, hold the Christ's divinity to be true. This is one reason for my certainty on this subject.
If we wanted to strip this issue of its Christian character, I suppose we could, and I would have to argue from the age-old arguments for and against God in the most general sense possible. We could do that, but it's a terrible amount of work, and it surely doesn't make for good leisure reading.
I know (perhaps better than I know God) this is all very convoluted and confusing, but I reckon that this is what 4 years of Philosophy, Greek, and Latin will do to a man!
-
The biologist, for instance, could not say that he studies biology, but then go and deny the existence of something biological. Nay, the biologist first presumes that there is indeed something alive to be studied!
Actually, the biologist relies on empirical evidence. Not a priori knowledge.
And so, I can't say that I study God if I don't even know that my subject matter exists.
That sounds like the ontological argument...again, a priori knowledge. You could easily say the same thing about a unicorn though.
Christianity works very nicely in this regard. Either Jesus was who he said he was, or he was, to quote CS Lewis, a lunatic of "a particularly abominable type." Christ makes it easy, either we have to accept him for who he claimed to be, or he was a nut.
A lot of what was written about Christ's divinity is a lot younger than the man himself. So we could also say that they (meaning the writers) were nuts.
-
That sounds like the ontological argument...again, a priori knowledge. You could easily say the same thing about a unicorn though.
Exactly my point. You can't study a unicorn. I am not attempting to prove God. I know what its like to try to do that, especially around these parts. Rather, I was only attempting to explain why I chose #1 and what I meant by it.
Also, just an FYI; I think the ontological argument is bogus. That was not what I was going for. I was simply saying that if I am to call myself a theologian, I ought to know that what I study exists, otherwise I'm crazy!