Well I like that. It’s not perfect, but I like the idea.
But then shouldn’t we divide the 1’s by the same token? Go to a hospital when you get sick instead of trusting the magical power off prayer? Off to group 2 you go. Cry at funerals, even though you’re supposed to believe they went to a better place? Group 2. Christian, but haven’t donated all your belongings to the poor? Right this way sir. Because if you were really 100 percent absolutely sure your religion is correct you wouldn’t think twice about it.
I think group 1 would be a lonely place. And group 2’s qualification about faith problems starts to look a bit odd, because again, everyone does at some level.
Group 5 I don’t get at all, why put a group for what theists think. If there’s no people there’s no group.
In the end I’m always left with the same 3 categories
1: Believes in god.
2: Doesn’t believe in god.
3: Doesn’t really care, hasn’t really thought about it.
Other categories are either empty, or serve no practical purpose. All this categorizing… Just obfuscates the issue, makes it look like rocket science when it’s really not.
You miss the point of throwing everyone out of category 3 - it was to make an argumentum ad absurdum about your desire to throw everyone out of category 1. Or to put it less delicately, to show the fundamental flaw in your argument by mocking it.
I am quite confident that group 1 is the fullest category in the world. Your arguments for claiming people don’t really believe are specious; most religions don’t tell their followers not to go to hospitals, not to cry at funerals, or (in any serious or consistent way) to give everything to the poor. Which makes them poor reasons to toss people out of category 1 unless you’re just throwing them out for the sake of throwing them out, as I was saying about category 3.
But let’s put the details of which absurdity is more absurd aside for the moment. If you want to stop obfuscating the issue, then just stop talking about agnostics entirely: there are people who believe in god(s), and people who don’t. Two categories, full stop, done. Anything else is muddying the issue of belief with epistimology - and forcing us to accept at least the first four categories.
(The fifth is admittedly included for reasons other than the fact that it has members; mostly completeness. Wether any people believe 0%, they could, and that would be epistimologically very distinct from category 4.)
I guess I just don’t see the parallell. We’re throwing people out for opposite reasons. Besides, no one want to be in group 1 or 5. Very strident atheists and theists alike will go to great lengths to avoid being classified as absolutely certain, you don’t have to evict anyone. Everyone wants to be in group 3, not asserting a belief is a huge advantage in a debate.
I agree. My third category wasn’t intended for agnostics, it was intended for people who have no interest in participating in these discussions whatsoever. It seems we need a place to lump them as well. It is possible to have no stance on the issue, if you never really give it any thought in the first place.
In an actual discussion there should be exactly two teams, theists and atheists. The only thing self proclaimed agnostics ever do is derail things.
Please explain to me, why is it distinct? What is the big difference between 100/0 guy and 99/1-guy, compared to say 99/1-guy and 98/2? I get that there’s a distinction, but why is it worth even making an issue out of, much less a big fat category of it’s own. To my mind, if they play for the same team they should be in the same category.
Again, have you talked to theists? Heck, have you talked to anyone? Most theists desperately want to be in category 1, assuming they’re not proudly proclaiming they already are. And everyone wants to be in category 3? You think that everyone is an agnostic? Seriously?
I wouldn’t want to be in category 3. I prefer to understand that imaginary things are imaginary.
Whether a person cares about the question or not is an entirely separate discussion, the inclusion of which would probably involve increasing the number of categories again by a factor of two or three. (Atheists who care, and atheists who don’t! Agnostics who care, and agnostics who don’t! Theists who care, and theists who don’t! And what about the atheists who don’t care if they care, eh?)
You’ve about convinced me that you’re not talking about anything even tangentially related to what I’m talking about, and thus I should ignore your comments completely, since they’re inherently irrelevent to mine. Is that your goal?
Because of this not-uncommon argument.
Theist: I’m certain!
Atheist: Hey theist, your faith-based certainty is dogmatic and stupid!
Theist: Your beliefs are just as faith-based as mine! ALL Atheism is just as based on faith as theism!
Heard of it? There’s a reason we’re calling the category “strawman atheist”, and the reason to keep track of it is to point out we’re not in it.
I believe most people would prefer to claim they are in category 3, unless they specifically want to advocate in favor of one side or the other and are forced to admit they belong in 2 or 4. It’s just sound strategy. If you don’t commit to a position of your own you never have to defend yourself. I’ve never seen or heard anyone insist they’re a 1, and I don’t expect I ever will. There’s just no upside to it compared to a 2. You get to keep your original position for all practical purposes, but you gain the higher ground, and the ability to handwave a lot of crushing arguments with a simple “well I didn’t say I was 100%.”
I guess our experiences differ.
No, no, no, I’m not talking about how strongly people care about their chosen belief. Just, not everyone has any interest in the subject whatsoever, and have never given it any thought. The non-participants. If you’re in the thread you’re out of group 3, even if you’re just reading it. Both sides always want to claim these people, but they should go in their own little category.
It’s a non-issue really, just an aside about why I was willing to admit 3 categories, rather than 2.
Yep. And then the rest of the thread is reduced to frantic arguing about who’s a 99.9%er and who’s a 100%er and everyone scrambling for the higher ground, instead of whatever the thread was actually about.
I just wish people would say “who cares, it’s basically the same thing” and talk about something interesting instead.
I’ve removed the 100% from groups 1 and 5 and I think these categories match how people self report reasonably well:
Certain that there’s one or more gods.
above threshold that there are gods - enough to assert belief but not certainty.
between thresholds; unwilling to assert belief.
above threshold that there are no gods - enough to assert disbelief but not certainty.
Certain that there are no gods.
Group1 and 5 aren’t really a problem because, as stated multiple times in this thread previously, humans can’t really be 100% certain of much, and new evidence has the possibility of changing anyone from one group to another. But it seems to match the strength of some people’s conviction.
begbert2, based on what you have said, I would put you in category 5.
What is this “can’t be 100% certain” bullshit? There are lots of things we can be 100% certain of, such as mathematics. I’m 100% certain that 1 + 1 = 2, for instance.
My disbelief in God is of exactly the same level of certainty. And no, that doesn’t preclude me making jokes about God, FFS.
Well clearly you haven’t seen late 90s masterpiece The Matrix. There is no spoon dude. You think that’s air you’re breathing? Whoa…
What if you’ve been lied to your entire life and everyone has pretended that 1 is 2 and 2 is 1, in preparation for this exact moment? And you fell for it! What if I tell you in my math 1 is a giraffe, and 2 is a Volkswagen? Now you’re not only wrong, you’re not even making sense!
Yeah ok, no, the big nitpick here is that you write uppercase God, which is a perfectly reasonable stance because he’s pretty well defined. But that’s not the same as disbelieving in every possible god that has every been proposed or even thought of, and every possible god that ever will which is the supposed stance of the strawman atheist. That’s how they get you, and by the time you’re done backtracking and qualifying your statements you’ve forgotten what you were arguing about.
It’s probably ok to have removed the 100% even though MrDibble is 100% because you would still go in that category. The only problem is that you’ve been lumped in with the wishy-washy 99.99%'ers.
I think that atheists and agnostics “should” do what they do.
If they disagree about something and it’s important for one or the other to reach agreement, then they “should” do whatever they think they should do to reach agreement. Or, not. Or both. Or all three. :dubious:
In simple terms, what is the main issue here? Is it one of classification or is it one of doing something else?
Which gods are you 100% certain about? Let’s say I claim the universe was actually created by a god who only cared about a race living a couple of hundred million light years away, they got created as soon as the universe settled down after inflation, and they eventually all went to their version of heaven. We’re living in the dregs of the universe. There is no reason in the world for you to believe this story, and I’m fine with you believing it is not true, but 100% certainty? Seems a bit much. 100% certainty about the god of the inerrant Bible, (- a small delta for evil hypnotists and things) is perfectly reasonable, on the other hand.
I agree, Voyager.
Also, when MrDribble says “I’m 100% certain that 1 + 1 = 2”, I ask: So??
What are the implications of 1+1=2? Where do you go from here?
Whether you say “I believe that God exists” or “I don’t believe God exists” or “I’m pretty sure that God doesn’t exist” or “I don’t know whether God exists”, what do you do next? What is the effect of any of those statements on how you live your life? If there’s no effect, then what’s the point? Is this purely an exercise in logic and theory?
BTW, in case anyone is wondering: 2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Or, maybe that has something to do with four atheists getting a complete suit in a game of Bridge.
Or the odds of atheists and agnostics agreeing.
Math, logic, and purely abstract systems are an entirely different kettle of fish, because the truth about such statements is within your power to control. Suppose I write a fiction story. I make a character in it named Carissa. As author I state that Carissa has green eyes. This I can know for certain to be true - because my say-so alone makes it true! No problem of perception or evil wizard can be confounding my perception of Carissa’s eyes because there’s no perception going on to interfere with.
Math and logic function similarly; 1 + 1 = 2 because we say so, by gum, and there’s no real way we can be mistaken about that, becauase it’s all in our heads anyway. Contrast with thinking the sky is blue - you may be wearing blue-tinted sunglasses, or you may be seeing a painted ceiling inside a building, or an evil wizard may be tapdancing on your optic nerve. There’s no way to be sure, because there are places where outside interference could be messing with you. The same goes for perceptions of gods - unless of course they’re entirely made up. If you invent the god yourself, you can declare it to have green eyes, and be certain. About the only thing you can’t do with it is accurately declare that it exists in the real world.
Define “certain”. Because I think you just robbed it of distinct meaning.
I allow for the possibility that I’m mistaken, especially about noninterventionist noncreator nonbenevolent (to us) non-logic-breaking-omnipotent gods. (Whether such dieties deserve the label is another discussion, as is whether gods that nobody believes in should be labeled as gods.) Given this, how can I be in group 5? What does “certainty” mean now, if it doesn’t require certainty?
If you take out the “100%”, group 1 becomes group 2 and group 5 becomes group 4. Remember, the 2 and 4 groups have met their threshold of belief. They accept the statement as true. The only difference they ever had from the 1s and 5s is that the 1s and 5s declare absolute certainty, and the 2s and 4s allow for the possibility of error. If you take that away, then you have removed all distinctions between the groups.
Or, to put it another way, you want to put me in your redefined group 5. Why would you not put me in group 4?
They differ absolutely - you sound like you’re talking about a different planet than the one I live on. For example, on your planet there are no religions, because nobody wants to claim to believe in a god.
And with all due respect, I consider pragmatic utility to be a poor justification for lying about one’s beliefs, so I reject that one should lie and falsely pretend to be an agnostic just to avoid having to defend onesself. And in cases where lying would be justified, for example if the inquisition is knocking on doors hunting unbelievers, then you obviously shouldn’t lie and say you’re an agnostic; you should lie and say you’re whatever they are, as that’s the safest approach. (Except of course if the agnostics are the ones going around putting non-ambiguous people to the sword, which frankly I don’t think is too likely.)
That’s exactly what I was talking about. Three times the categories: people who don’t care at all, people who care some, and people who care a lot, for all the other categories that have been talked about. You’re adding a third orthogonal axis of measurement; we have belief, we have knowledge, and now you want to add level of interest on top of all that. Bringing us to thirty-three categories!
Forget it. If you want to call yourself an apatheist or an apathagnostic, good for you; that’s an additional point of information. As would be your skin color. But such additional complexities have little to do with the current discussion, which is relating to the differences between atheists and agnostics (and theists, one supposes).
If you think that category 3 is about apathetic people, then you don’t know what the rest of us are talking about.
Only problem with that is it’s not the same thing, and it would be stupid for anybody who’s in that sort of discussion to say so.
And if you have distinguished between the strawman atheists and the soft atheists, then nobody has to scramble at all. Which is why we call the strawmen atheists “hard” atheists, so we can quickly tell them apart and move on to other things.
The categories are imprecise. Category 5 self reports as “certain” or some similar strongly worded phrase. Category 4 self reports as something along the lines as “don’t think there is a god but not certain”.
Due to the nature of human brains and the universe around us, it’s pretty difficult to be too precise about things like this, but the categories seem reasonable. If we were filling out a multiple choice questionnaire, the wording would probably be something like: “There is a god”
Strongly agree
Agree
Don’t know
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I can put you in category 4 if you prefer (Gustav did mention some benefits to strategic category choosing).
Groups 1 and 2 are not symmetric with groups 5 and 4. As you say, there is no advantage in being in group 5, and not allowing the possibility of error is a problem. On the other hand, if you believe in a god (group 2) you have the possibility that this god wants more than belief, he wants certainty/faith. You also have a whole profession pushing to move people from group 2 to 1 (where they will stick with a given religion) which you don’t have in group 5. Plus, you might be in group 1 if you buy the supposed evidence, but there is no realistic evidence that would put you in group 5.
These groupings look useless to me. I am in all three of the non-theist categories!
In my opinion, questions of this format aren’t really about testing belief. They’re about testing interest. The difference between disagreement and “strong” disagreement has nothing to certainty and everything to do with fervor. Which is why such questions usually turn up in asking about things like quality of service where you’re testing opinions and reactions, not truth.
We could talk about the apathy/interest continuum. It would certainly make Gustav happy. But I’m not talking about the apathy/interest continuum. I’m talking about atheists and agnostics here. I’m talking about belief here. That’s what my 1-2-3-4-5 is about, anyway, and I’m not really interested in any other.
So? I never said the dynamics were identical on both ends of the scale. They don’t need to be.
Seems to me you’re projecting my opinions onto your own model. I don’t want continuums at all! I hate the bloody things. They contribute nothing, because we can’t actually measure strength of beliefs anyway. I want exactly 2 distinct categories; you’re either with us or against us, and I want a third category for non-participants.
If you participate in these discussions you do have an opinion on the subject, whether you’re willing to commit to it or not, and that’s not of any practical importance. I don’t care if someone is really really sure, or just sure, or half-sure, or whatever. It’s just a silly, nitpicky derail.
e: Really, just forget about category 3. It’s for rocks. Because inevitably someone asks “what about rocks, are rocks atheists? what about hermits? newborns?” and a 3 page discussion follows on the religious beliefs of rocks.
You need to differentiate whether you think I’m right to be certain versus whether I am certain. It’s the latter I’m saying, it’s the former you’re saying. And absurdist arguing isn’t logical debate, and doesn’t have to be accorded the same consideration. I can dismiss arguments like “what if everyone lied to you?” as silly from the outset, just like I can dismiss the notion of solipsist mathematics out of hand.
I do it because there was that one thread where some fundie threw a shitstorm because someone didn’t, and I can do without the distraction in this thread. I’m OK with either way, personally. Maybe I’ll mix it up…
I do disbelieve in every *possible *god, because I believe that gods are *definitionally *impossible beings. Therefore always logically inconsistent.
I haven’t backtracked anything. I remain 100% certain.
I disagree. Firstly, the truth of the real world is just as dependent as the mathematical world on axiomatic statements (in the real world, this would be the “I am not a brain in a jar” axiom.) Secondly, any statements about possible gods are also abstract statements and fall under the purview of logic (generally modal logic). Formulations for the nature of god aren’t private systems, and are indeed open to scrutiny in a way fiction isn’t. That doesn’t make them unique or immune to use of logic.
