Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
Reply to "Posters your sick of!"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It would be a lot easier to tolerate your labeling Dawkins "Agnostic" if he hadn't written a whole chapter of his book about "The Poverty of Agnosticism".[/quote] Time to repost from this link (http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html): "Dawkins' central argument against religion is probabilistic, and his scale of belief reflects this, ranging from 1: 'Strong theist. 100% probability of God' to the equivalent 7: 'Strong atheist'. He doesn't see 7 as a well-populated category, [b]placing himself as 6: 'Very low probability, but short of zero.[/b] De facto atheist'.[6] Again, this terminology suggests that [b]he sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. [/b]It should not be taken for a lack of certainty in a practical sense, however: Dawkins states 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden'." If you read the rest of the piece, it goes on to say that Dawkins "divides agnosticism into TAP (temporary agnosticism in practice) and PAP (permanent agnosticism in principle), identifying the first as Sagan's stance on alien life...." According to this piece, all but categories 1 and 7 are TAP. Summary: Dawkins sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. He himself is not 100% certain because the probability is "low, but short of zero." He is therefore not an atheist (he is a 6,not a 7 on his scale), either by his own definition, or by his own assessment of where he belongs on his own scale. You're welcome. [/quote] [b]So convenient of you[/b] to leave out half of his scale. Dawkins wrote: 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." If you are going to claim #2 is really agnosticism, you must accept the same for #6. If Dawkins is really an agnostic, then we Christians are all agnostics as well, unless we are willing to sign up to #1. In that case, we can revisit all of the comments about hubris.[/quote] As a reminder, we were talking about atheists vs. agnostics, and that's why I only included the 2nd half. So my original excerpting had nothing to do with my "convenience" and everything to do with the Ranting Atheist's apparent unwillingness to read long excerpts. (Geez, I've got snarky christians as well as snarky atheists beating on me!) OK then: 1. Being Christian never required 100% certainty (#1 on the scale). Christianity is full of doubters, starting with the apostles in the gospels. 2. So being Christian could easily encompass 1-3. 3. A Christian who is at, say, 2 (de facto theist) would still fit the definition of a Christian. I see no reason to redefine "Christian" to exclude people who question their faith, just to accommodate Dawkins and his scheme. In fact, questioning your faith is the most important thing you can do, in my book (if not in the Tea Party's book, as s/o pointed out).[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics