The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Multiple Choice

September 28, 2006 | 71 Comments

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins identifies seven “milestones” in the continuum of beliefs regarding God:

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

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. “I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in Gd and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. “I don’t know whether God exits but I’m inclined to be sceptical.”

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot 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.”

For the purpose of his book, Dawkins defines “God” as “a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.” Where do you stand on this spectrum? Where do you think Dawkins places himself?

Comments

71 Responses to “Multiple Choice”

  1. benjamin
    September 28th, 2006 @ 8:41 am

    6.

  2. severalspeciesof
    September 28th, 2006 @ 9:03 am

    Okay, I’ll bite….

    Using Dawkins definition of “God” as “a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.”, I’m a 6.
    (But if one adds ‘omni’ such as omniescent and omnibenevolent, etc. as I believe many, if not most, believers would be inclined to do… I’m a 7)

  3. youneedmercy
    September 28th, 2006 @ 9:09 am

    Well, from what I have seen, people move all around the scale from day to day and sometimes minute to minute!

    This is a faithless world we live in. It is because of you atheists that this world is so faithless. You try to make everyone daoubt everything so there is nothing left to believe.

    Well I will tell you now God is real and you better heed His words for the day will come when He will tire of dealing with your foolishness.

    You know in your heart God is real. You feel it but you deny it so that you can go around fornicating with whovere and whatever you please. Then you make little babies and want to kill them because you think when you make a mistake you have no responsiblity to that mistake. Well people, God will hold you accountable, you will see.

    Come to God now before the time runs out, He will take you in and love you!

  4. Professor Chaos
    September 28th, 2006 @ 9:14 am

    youneedashrink

  5. youneedmercy
    September 28th, 2006 @ 9:15 am

    You admit my words are true!

  6. JUST_ANOTHER_PRIMATE
    September 28th, 2006 @ 9:28 am

    For the same reason that if substitute “pink unicorns” for god I am at #7.

    There is TONS of evidence for an enirely naturalistic explanation and nothing but HOAKEY evidence for a god.

    And the ravings of LUNATICS like “youneedmercy” above only reaffirm my conviction.

  7. baron_thredkil
    September 28th, 2006 @ 9:29 am

    “so that you can go around fornicating with whovere and whatever you please.”

    Indeed, but in reality a good atheist fornicates with WHOMEVER and whatever we please. We are, if nothing else, always dedicated to the Holy Writ of Grammar.

  8. benjamin
    September 28th, 2006 @ 9:38 am

    “you make little babies and want to kill them because you think when you make a mistake you have no responsiblity to that mistake”-youneedmercy
    Correction: We want to kill babies because they are delicious. It’s theists who want to be forgiven by their god or jesus for the wrongs they do, instead of by the people they have wronged. It’s theists who trivialize the importance of everything related to this life by positing an eternal afterlife. It’s theists who think suffering is all part of God’s plan.

  9. Kate B.
    September 28th, 2006 @ 9:49 am

    2.

  10. youneedmercy
    September 28th, 2006 @ 10:08 am

    Suffering is NOT part of God’s plan. It is a result of disobedience to God. If everyone would obey and have complete faith that person will know no suffering.

    This is my point exactly! The faith of today is so weak. You atheists can not even have 100% faith that God does not exist so you try and tear down believers so you have more company to make you feel BIG and IMPORTANT.

    Without God you are nothing! Take responsibility of yourself and come to God. You will feel His love wash over you!

  11. Marcus
    September 28th, 2006 @ 10:11 am

    I could say from 6 to 7. The basic problem is simply human fallibility. Do I know what my name is, or that I’m speaking English, or anything at all? I could always be wrong. If that’s assumed, then maybe I’m a 7, but it still seems more honest to say 6.

    It’s just annoying, because 6 makes people think, “Oh, well if Jung KNOWS and you guys just aren’t sure, then we’re going with Jung.” People seem to like simple confidence…

  12. severalspeciesof
    September 28th, 2006 @ 10:42 am

    One more comment about #6… “and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”” I don’t do that, I just live my life the best I can. To live one’s life based on the assumption that god is not there leads credence to the idea that athiests are continually thinking about god, denying its existence, then thinking “Okay now, since I don’t believe in god this is what I’ll do, but had I believed in god I would act differently in most every case.” That is what I believe leads people like ‘youneedmercy’ to think we are rejecting god so we can live evil ways. I’m not rejecting god, nor ‘assuming’ it is not there.

    Does this make sense?

  13. JUST_ANOTHER_PRIMATE
    September 28th, 2006 @ 10:59 am

    Speices — makes perfect sense to me.

    Now how about his lunacy from this threads bible-thumper: “If everyone would obey and have complete faith that person will know no suffering.”

    What the %^@#$%^ kind of superstitious thinking is THAT? Do you mean no suffering in the here and now or in that fantasy land you call heaven?

    So with enough faith all cancer, heart disease, CP, MS … all disease and suffering goes away ??? Give me a break – you are livingin lala land!

    Keep it up youneedmercy …. makes my stance on #7 that much stronger.

    PS – I suspect Dawkins is at #7

  14. Holopupenko
    September 28th, 2006 @ 11:07 am

         10.
         Existence (beingness) itself must be explained (why is there something rather than nothing at all?): (1) even if someone (incoherently) believed naturalism explains everything, it cannot explain itself (self-referencing argument), (2) reality cannot be a brute fact requiring no explanation, and (3) the question cannot be avoided by referencing an infinite regress. To believe any of these is not only unscientific and unphilosophical, it’s also intellectual cowardice.
         Dawkins: 5. I think he’s looking… but using the wrong tools and approach, i.e., at a certain intellectually-stunted level he’s honest—albeit exasperated. He’s also got to get over the fallacy that people of “bad” faith or evil in general somehow “disproves” God. That would be analogous to (but not similar to!) someone claiming atheism is disproved because of the foul-mouthed denizens commenting at this blog.) His shrillness betrays a deep-seated angst. If he REALLY believed there was no God, and even if it were a very low probability for him, Dawkins wouldn’t care so much.
         YNM—With all due respect, I must agree with the general sentiment expressed towards you: you need help. You and Choobus are like matter-antimatter: together you pack a whallop… but little if any intellectual substance.

  15. JUST_ANOTHER_PRIMATE
    September 28th, 2006 @ 11:09 am

    I believe that an orderly universe, one indifferent to human preoccupations, in which everything has an explanation even if we still have a long way to go before we find it, is a more beautiful, more wonderful place than a universe tricked out with capricious ad hoc magic.
    Richard Dawkins (Unweaving the Rainbow)

  16. youneedmercy
    September 28th, 2006 @ 11:15 am

    Holo,

    I have known from the beginning that I was created with a purpose. I am glad someone else finally has noticed my contribution to God’s world.

    I was created to combat choobus. Choobus is possesed by satan himself. If you were a person of 100% faith you would see all this as clearly as I do.

    Atheists are destroying the faithful! There is no one with 100% faith in God left on this earth. The time is coming for the earth as it is to end. Heed my words, you know in your heart they are true.

    And yes species I am right, if one among has 100% faith in God to do something it will be done. The problem is you atheists have sown seeds of doubt and are destroying the world, but not to worry for the time is coming when all will be righted!

  17. JUST_ANOTHER_PRIMATE
    September 28th, 2006 @ 11:26 am

    Here’s the thing youneedmercy —- the day you come down with a catastrophic illness, despite your belief that you 100% faith in god will protect you —- you will use some sort of convoluted pretzel logic to justify that illness. Suddenly it’s OK to be sick even though your faith was supposed to make you immune of that …..

    Never will you question (or blame) you god …. great job that god of yours has …. if he (or you think) he protects he gets credit and if he something bad happens —–oh well that’s not god’s fault …. (blame it on the atheists I suppose).

    I sure wish I had the “accountability” god has (none) !!!!

    Your thinking scares me.

  18. Sean
    September 28th, 2006 @ 11:27 am

    I’m a 7, and I just know Dawkins is a 7. I also saw him read from his book “Ancestor’s Tale” last year here in Denver, and inevitably the question of ID came up, and he very much seems like a 7 to me.

    Check out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk&mode=related&search=

  19. Erik
    September 28th, 2006 @ 11:34 am

    People are disingenuous when they ask this question, because most people don’t give a rat’s ass whether there is some force in the universe that does not interact with humans, but could nevertheless be called “god”. But they pretend to be talking about this god when asking the question.

    So when I saw “6”, what I might mean is “7”, because the former takes into account the remote possibility, but the latter takes into account what most people really mean when they ask the question.

  20. Sean
    September 28th, 2006 @ 11:36 am

    Why does anyone even acknowledge youneedmercy?

  21. Axolotl
    September 28th, 2006 @ 11:47 am

    Well, I was a 6 until I started reading youneedmercy’s rants. Then I went immediately to a 7!!

    My response to youneedmercy: youneedabrain!!

  22. Choobus
    September 28th, 2006 @ 12:31 pm

    Holoprick, you might want to restrict your discussions to things you actually know about. Here is a helpful list so you don’t use up all 50 of your brain cells trying to remember.

    antimatter: no
    polesmoking: yes
    jeebus: yes
    science: no
    logic: no
    reason: no
    dadwanking: yes
    shitsucking: yes
    mum fisting: double yes
    bigotry: yes

    You fucking homophobic retard, you are the perfect reader for the new RA; a vacuous cretin with a delusions. I hope you choke on a salty wang fucktard.

  23. severalspeciesof
    September 28th, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

    Holo,

    Existence DOES NOT need to be explained. “Nothing”, in your sense is IMPOSSIBLE. Explain “nothing” and you contradict yourself. You need something to explain nothing, but you don’t need “nothing” to explain something.

    My head hurts…..

  24. HappyNat
    September 28th, 2006 @ 12:48 pm

    I’d peg myself at a 6.

    YNM, if atheists are the reason there is “no one with 100% faith in God left on this earth”, then your god is a weak and worthless wanker isn’t he?

  25. Evil_Mage_Ra
    September 28th, 2006 @ 12:49 pm

    I rate myself about a “6”, like most other atheists here. I bet Dawkins would rate himself a “7”.

  26. Evil_Mage_Ra
    September 28th, 2006 @ 12:58 pm

    By the way, it seems Holo rates himself a “10” on the atheist scale……

  27. gordonliv
    September 28th, 2006 @ 1:01 pm

    Dawkins will be a 7. No doubt about it.

    Me? 7 of course! How can I be so sure? Well, the ideas of omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and all the other omni-whatevers simply snap under their own (lack of) logic. God cannot possibly be. It’s that simple.

    SevenSevenSevenSevenSevenSevenSeven (as Monica Geller said in “Friends!”)

  28. youneedmercy
    September 28th, 2006 @ 1:18 pm

    I am a 1.

    Surely I am not the only 1 out there. I am a true believer and I can see the evil spirits that are here.

    Stand up for God, show your faith. Rally to God the end is near and we must fight!

  29. Tim
    September 28th, 2006 @ 1:44 pm

    Dawkins: “I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” (or, presumably, about Russel’s teapot, or flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns etc.)
    I’d put myself at about 6.9.

  30. DJ Kaput
    September 28th, 2006 @ 1:46 pm

    “I am a true believer”

    You are a complete dip shit!

  31. themightychew
    September 28th, 2006 @ 1:49 pm

    6.

    And really, much as I think it’s great that people from both ends of the spectrum post comments, I think youneedmercy is simply a wind-up merchant having a bit of fun.

    For the type of people typified by youneedmercy though:

    you should be aware that there are literally millions of people in this world with good, pure and altruistic ideals and morals going about their day-to-day life, WITHOUT the thought of God (or the Devil for that matter) breathing down their neck. Huge numbers of people using their common sense and own empirical experiences to know what’s right and what’s wrong. Just as their are huge numbers of religious murderers, homophobes, terrorists and paedophile priests….

  32. Tim
    September 28th, 2006 @ 1:50 pm

    Would be interesting to know where RA puts himself these days. I keep wandering past this blog but can’t see the point, I mean, his refusal to state what his current beliefs are makes any post irrelevant as neither “side” knows whether to take things as being ironic or literal.

  33. Kreme
    September 28th, 2006 @ 2:08 pm

    I’m a 6 on Dawkins’ scale. However, if I was to base my selection on the persuasion of comments here, I’d lean more toward 7. Not, because of the atheists who’ve commented. In regards to them, I remain indifferent. Rather, because some of the theists here tend to evoke a cringing effect that pushes one to complete opposite.

  34. Holopupenko
    September 28th, 2006 @ 2:39 pm

    Evil_Mage_Ra:
         Thanks for pointing out my “off the scale” mistake… the “0” snuck in there by accident. My apologies.

    Just_Another_Primate:
         The Dawkins quote you provide is a personal opinion of his that proves—neither scientifically nor philosophically—anything at all. (You employ it as a rhetorical trick.) Moreover, his quote is a straw man: no one who uses his rational capacity properly thinks God is somehow related to “capricious ad hoc magic.”

    YNM:
         Your fideism is stunning. Faith is a gift—not something to be rammed into the faces of very real people on the other side of their blogsphere handles.

    SeveralPiecesOf:
         Why, i.e., on what rational basis do you base your assertion that “existence DOES NOT need to be explained”? Why should anyone swallow that… just because? Doesn’t that sound a little like YNM to you wrt his “believe” in God. Also, “nothing” is the privation (lack of) of “something”—of “being.” Yes, you need “something” to understand what “nothing” is—but not in the positive sense of “there it is.” You must first know being, i.e., that something—anything—exists (in whatever capacity that is), before you can understand that nothing is non-beingness.

    Choobs:
         Please continue: your actions are a “bright lights, bells, and whistles” advertisement to which I point people as an example of atheism in action.

  35. Forrest Cavalier
    September 28th, 2006 @ 2:44 pm

    My answer: with that definition of God, who cares?

    I think RA violated his “non-criticism” vow by creating this poll with such a straw-man hollow definition of God. It presumes all Christians are idiots and worship the impersonal multiverse.

    The God I believe in isn’t afraid to participate in real life, laughing, crying, criticizing, encouraging, and sacrificing for others, enabling them to live life more abundantly, joyfully. He doesn’t retreat to the gaps. He dwells among us.

    If love is not the essential part of the definition of God, then you cannot to begin to form an intelligent opinion about God. Grow up, RA.

    Actually, that good advice for you too, youneedmercy. Maybe you just ate too many Choobio’s for breakfast, but your posts in this thread seem a little short on love, and little high on judgement. Just a thought.

  36. JP
    September 28th, 2006 @ 2:50 pm

    Believe in GAWD or he will burn you!

    What a fucking retard…How in the fuck do we keep making these people?

  37. The Power of Greyskull
    September 28th, 2006 @ 3:21 pm

    Youneedmercy,

    You deny the existence of Allah? You refuse to follow him and believe in another God? When it comes to the day of judgement, Allah will not take very kindly to people who deny the significance of Mohammed (PBUH) and the one true religion of Islam. You still have time to find salvation.

    [COUGH] WANKER [COUGH]

  38. The Power of Greyskull
    September 28th, 2006 @ 3:29 pm

    Choobus is mean
    Choobus is an atheist
    Therefore the atheistc world view is evil

    Hitler was a vegetarian
    Hitler was an evil person
    Therefore all vegetarians are evil

    Boo Hoo Holopupenko

  39. Arkady
    September 28th, 2006 @ 3:32 pm

    6. But what I wanna know is how did you get a copy of Dawkins’ book before it came out!?!? Lucky!

  40. Kamikaze189
    September 28th, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

    Gods cannot exist by definition, no evidence suggests that they do exist, and many logical arguments disprove the most commonly believed gods.

    7.

  41. "Q" the Enchanter
    September 28th, 2006 @ 4:44 pm

    I think 6 and 7 are too vague. I’ll use Russell’s metaphor: I “know” there is no God like I “know” there isn’t a teapot orbiting the stars comprised by the constellation Sirius. Is that 100% metaphysical certainty? No–but it’s as certain as I am of anything.

    Call that 6.999999… on the Dawkins’ doxastic continuum, and I’d say that describes him and me both.

  42. "Q" the Enchanter
    September 28th, 2006 @ 4:44 pm

    I think 6 and 7 are too vague. I’ll use Russell’s metaphor: I “know” there is no God like I “know” there isn’t a teapot orbiting the stars comprised by the constellation Sirius. Is that 100% metaphysical certainty? No–but it’s as certain as I am of anything.

    Call that 6.999999… on the Dawkins’ doxastic continuum, and I’d say that describes him and me both.

  43. "Q" the Enchanter
    September 28th, 2006 @ 4:44 pm

    I think 6 and 7 are too vague. I’ll use Russell’s metaphor: I “know” there is no God like I “know” there isn’t a teapot orbiting the stars comprised by the constellation Sirius. Is that 100% metaphysical certainty? No–but it’s as certain as I am of anything.

    Call that 6.999999… on the Dawkins’ doxastic continuum, and I’d say that describes him and me both.

  44. Drusilla
    September 28th, 2006 @ 5:25 pm

    “if one among has 100% faith in God to do something it will be done”

    YNM – Please, please be very careful. There is no magic formula that gives desired results in relationship to the size of faith. Matthew 17:20 (the well-known verse about faith the size of a mustard seed) does not speak of faith as something that innoculates us from the effects of a fallen world. Neither does it call us to believe that anyone is exempt from what it means to live on earth.

    “Take up your cross” means nothing less than undergoing the experience of suffering and no one escapes it. No one. Faith gives us the ability to be victorious in the misdt of a fallen world, to continue on to Easter, to live in a world where the fallen reality of earth is only a very tiny portion of the whole story.

    In some ways JUST_ANOTHER_PRIMATE at #17 is correct. The day will come when you face loss or a catastrophic illness or some similar experience. But it will not be because you lack “100% faith.” (You’ve read Paul. You know Romans 3: 22.)

    You remind me of Job and you stand very close (if you are not already there) to being afraid of God, to trying to propitiate him. And whether or not you can accept it, you do great harm by making statements that depict faith as some sort of magic under our control. It’s not.

    For Christians, faith is all about being conformed to Christ’s image, it is seeking His will, His righteousness, not so as to save ourselves from bad things but because, in response to Christ’s great love for us, we love him and want to be like Him. There is no magic and no propitiation. And, we are called to be very careful about judgement (cf. Luke 6:37)

  45. CycloneRanger
    September 28th, 2006 @ 5:43 pm

    Regarding the definition Dawkins used: I don’t think it’s really reasonable to try assigning a probability to something like that (it’s irrational; we have no data on which to base the determination). If I had to pull a number out of the air, though, I’d say I’m around 5.

    Regarding the omni-max deity of christianity (i.e. God), I score at 6. I’m not foolish enough to declare with perfect metaphysical certainty his non-existence, but many things I have seen no evidence for must be true in order for God to exist.

  46. Evil_Mage_Ra
    September 28th, 2006 @ 5:47 pm

    If he REALLY believed there was no God, and even if it were a very low probability for him, Dawkins wouldn’t care so much.

    This is like saying James Randi really believes people have psychic powers, since he spends all his time debunking them.

  47. Godthorn
    September 28th, 2006 @ 7:42 pm

    I would think that most intelligent atheists, if they’ve given enough thought to the matter, would rank themselves as a fair seven, with a sliver allowed, of course, for the impossibility of absolute certainty. That’s approximately the degree of confidence I’d claim for the proposition that two chestnuts added to two other chestnuts will form a group of four, and that all four will remain chestnuts.

    I didn’t leap from “belief” to a level 5 or 6 atheist overnight. It took several years, and a few more to get to a confident seven. But where is the coherent case for spiritualism? I’ve not encountered one. And the origins and appeal of religions are all too obvious.

    The supposition that intelligence was prior to the stuff of the universe is diametrically opposed to the facts in all observed instances of the emergence of intelligences. And the exhaustively observed facts of evolution and of individual development from simpler to more complex form are likewise counter-directional to the spiritual proposition. While this does not definitely negate the possibility, it is a strong card when added to the fact that there is no demonstrable evidence of any spirit entities whatever occupying the biosphere. If James Praag and company could persuade a few shades to give a much better accounting of themselves, then perhaps we could allow for the possibility of a Great Ghost as well.

    The existence of intelligent beings necessitates an intelligible universe, but the reverse does not hold. Intelligibility does not imply a conscious organizer.

  48. Annie Banno
    September 28th, 2006 @ 8:00 pm

    Just_another_primate, I hope you’re getting the mistaken idea that “faith was supposed to make you immune of [illness]” from only what youneedmercy said, and don’t really think that yourself. I believe it is not true. It’s also not true that “If everyone would obey and have complete faith that person will know no suffering.” At least in the Christian/Catholic faith, that idea would pretty much eradicate all the human existences of all the saints, who almost all suffered greatly. It was HOW they suffered, usually with great and sublime patience and willingness, that made the difference in their lives. Perhaps that’s what youneedmercy is driving at, but I am not certain s/he expressed it understandably enough even for me.

    By the way, good question, TRA. I think I’d say I’m a 1 although I’m uncomfortable with the vaguely arrogant-sounding Jung quote. I do believe, I do “know” that God exists, have felt proof of His existence, therefore I don’t doubt at all. So, yeah, I’m a 1. But that comes as no surprise, I’m certain.

  49. Choobus
    September 28th, 2006 @ 8:16 pm

    An asshole said “Choobs:
    Please continue: your actions are a “bright lights, bells, and whistles” advertisement to which I point people as an example of atheism in action.”

    By this “logic” all christians are clearly child molestors.

    You sick bastards.

  50. skinnydwarf
    September 28th, 2006 @ 9:16 pm

    6

  51. ranma
    September 28th, 2006 @ 11:38 pm

    SInce i do not believe in the supernatural I am a 7 however if you take out the supernatural im between a 5 and a 6.
    I think anything can eventually be explained.

  52. Andrew
    September 29th, 2006 @ 1:55 am

    You first, RA.

  53. The Power of Greyskull
    September 29th, 2006 @ 3:02 am

    6.999999…..

  54. Interested Atheist
    September 29th, 2006 @ 5:00 am

    Not having read all of the comments, so don’t know if anybody has written this yet –

    Dawkins himself says that he is number 6 – except he states it more strongly. “The probability of God existing is vanishingly small,” is how he puts it, I think.

    Me, I’d agree. You know, we can never be a hundred percent certain that the universe WASN’T created by a sentient and all-powerful pork pie, now can we?

  55. Interested Atheist
    September 29th, 2006 @ 5:14 am

    Just to make myself absolutely clear – when I say that Dawkins is a six, I don’t in any way wish to imply that he believes religion to be true as anything more than a mathematical probability.

    In other words, Dawkins, me and most of the rest of us atheists think that God makes about as much sense as Zeus.

  56. youneedmercy
    September 29th, 2006 @ 8:18 am

    I should not have to do this but I will explain in detail my meanings:

    A person of complete faith knows no suffering means:
    That person can face any struggle this world has to offer with PEACE in their hearts KNOWING God will right it ALL!!!

    faith as a magic wand: I never said that. Jesus explained what faith can do very well. Let me explain this:

    To be a believer, a true believer in God and to trust God 100% means that you give your will over to God. At that point you will suffer no more, no matter what this world of satan throws at you. Satan no longer has power over you and you are free. The things you pray for will be things that God wills, because you have the Holy Spirit in you and the Holy Spirit guides you even through your prayers. You are no longer a person of this world, you are of God!

    Now I know Holo disagrees with me because I use the truth of God’s words. You either take a stand on what God says or you might as well defend those who are against God. Choobus has a blog and it evil to the core and it should be fought. It is an abomination in the eyes of God. You can not go there and play footsy and all will turn out well.

    I just witnessed a poor young soul go in there and be converted away from christianity. Where were you faithful chrisitians at that moment. You must fight evil. Not just sit by a judge me for speaking up for God. I tell the truth and if you can not take maybe you need more prayer in your life for you have not found truth yet.

  57. severalspeciesof
    September 29th, 2006 @ 8:25 am

    To Holo:

    I should have put emphasis on the ‘need’ part of “existence DOES NOT need to be explained”. It would be nice to be explained, but it does not NEED to be explained, existence is purely axiomatic, it cannot be broken down (by sheer definition of the word ‘existence’) even with a belief in a god, since in that belief, god exists.

    I liken all this thought about existence/nothingness with the adage “you can’t prove a negative” Nothing (no pun intended) could be more negative than “nothingness” in these types of thoughts. But existence is a fact (I believe it’s the only pure fact out there/here, even for the pure skeptic who pronounces there is no reality) and that’s all I NEED to know.

    You hit the nail on the head with this statement: “You must first know being, i.e., that something—anything—exists (in whatever capacity that is), before you can understand that nothing is non-beingness.” and that too is all I NEED to know, for the opposite is…. what?…..(Clue: it cannot exist)

  58. Los Pepes
    September 29th, 2006 @ 10:09 am

    I’m an 8. Seriously.

  59. JUST_ANOTHER_PRIMATE
    September 29th, 2006 @ 12:06 pm

    HA HA good one: an 8 ???

    Does that that mean someone who goes beyond knowing there is no god ……………….. to actually despising the god/concept that all the pathetic lost little sheep cling too ?

    Count me in!

  60. JP
    September 29th, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

    What? Choobus has a blog? Where have I been?

    WingbatnuttyChristian said: “Choobus has a blog and it evil to the core and it should be fought. It is an abomination in the eyes of God. ” And the best part, “I just witnessed a poor young soul go in there and be converted away from christianity.”

    SOLD!

    All I needed was the word of mouth advertisement from a True Christian ® to know the blog was for me. Hooorah for the guidance of JEEBUS!

    I am soooooo in. Someone link me to a real atheist blog, please.

  61. PX
    September 29th, 2006 @ 4:44 pm

    Def an 8,
    I don’t see why in this day and age we would even think if god exists, is just a terrible ideology and most obvious social construction..ok there a long history to consider, but still.
    People (religious) seem to spend so much energy, money (usually the poor) and annoy others, at best, by trying to convert non-religious people. There is absolutely no reason to believe in god in `this way`
    …and yes, you can be a good person and have a purpose in life (would that be to live?) without being a Christian (re: to the last Evangelist who tried to convert me).

    Penn

  62. DR. BDH
    September 29th, 2006 @ 6:47 pm

    Which god? There are so many, past and present. Shouldn’t a believer in one have to specify, and explain why that one and not the others? Or is it possible to believe in them all, that is, in a generic idea of “god”? In which case, what religious tenets would you embrace? The believers I know disbelieve the gods of other dissimilar believers. I don’t know any who believe in god without any religious tenets. Would such a believer even make sense? What difference would her belief in god make if it entailed no other beliefs? And if you believe in this god and not that, how do you know you believe in the correct god, if there’s any god at all? Why Jehovah and not Allah, or Krishna, or Zeus, etc., etc.?

    If nothing else, it’s easier to be an atheist, with a simple yes-no choice to make.

  63. Godthorn
    September 29th, 2006 @ 10:44 pm

    Annie B, I’ve also felt the presence of God & Jesus a few times (or the Holy Spirit ingredient thereof). That’s no great trick. I was able to do it until I was 15. If you have any imagination at all, you can sit alone in a dark room, imagining that a sociopathic rapist is creeping up behind you, and you’ll very soon be fidgiting and glancing behind you. Chances are at least a million to one he won’t be real.

  64. Godthorn
    September 30th, 2006 @ 2:13 am

    I once had a blog myself, but after awhile I decided to just come back to pointless incessant barking.

  65. Irreligious
    September 30th, 2006 @ 1:29 pm

    Never, ever, in my life could I honestly wrap my brain around the concept of an omnipresent, omniscient superhuman. Any god capable of potentially destructive human emotions such as anger, jealousy and benevolence toward only a chosen few– and only after they have sloughed off this mortal coil– is, to my way of thinking, an imperfect creature with tendencies toward tyrannical behavior, as any human with absolute power would be. I do not spend my time seriously contemplating such a being.

  66. Garth
    September 30th, 2006 @ 5:34 pm

    I am an 8:

    Not only do I know that there is no god, I am uncertain that anything exists at all in the sense that we believe that it does.

    A 9 would not only disbelieve in god (Know there is none) but would also *know* that reality is not at all how we perceive it and therefore is illegitimate as evidence of any greater being having created it in the first place.

    Oooo…maybe I am a 9!

  67. Joey D
    September 30th, 2006 @ 9:34 pm

    RA, is this giving you an erection?

  68. Martin H
    October 1st, 2006 @ 1:52 pm

    Richard Dawkins really needs to bone up on his Jung. Of all the people he could have picked, Jung is the least likely to give comfort to those who like their religion straight up. The sly old fox, being interviewed by John Freeman on the BBC’s Face to Face in 1959, was caught off guard with the question of whether he believed in God now, as opposed to when he was a child. He replied: “Difficult to answer. I know. I don’t need to believe, I know.”
    He was not affirming the existence of a transcendent deity, but saying something along the lines of: “Belief has nothing to do with it. The god-image, which is unquestionably part of the psychic totality, is a psychological fact.” Unlikely as this sounds, it is nevertheless an accurate summation of his thought.

  69. Adam
    October 2nd, 2006 @ 10:34 am

    I’m a strong 6. Sometimes I would think I’m a 7, but just as there’s no empirical evidence that proves the existance of God, there’s also no empirical evidence that proves the non-existance of God.

  70. Newk
    October 2nd, 2006 @ 3:44 pm

    You don’t need empirical evidence that proves the non-existence of God. You just need the understanding that if the supernatural were possible, there would probably be some verifiable (i.e., provable) evidence of it over the past several hundred years. Maybe even in the last twenty years ;-) No supernatural = no god.

    7

  71. Godthorn
    October 2nd, 2006 @ 10:55 pm

    We’ve never exposed any minor ghosts; why would we suspect there’s a giant one anywhere?

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links