romansh

I agree 100% … My point completely … which in turn is different to believing something (ie god) exists or does not exist. And if you bothered to read what I have written you'll find I have said that theism and atheism are not mutually exclusive from agnosticism. And by some usage … theists are atheists with respect to Roman, Greek and Norse gods etc. You yourself have put yourself on the atheistic side with respect to them. Do some reading. You seem to claim there is no such thing as knowing and at the same time say claim 1 and 1.1 are the same. So the logical position is to claim there is no such thing as a 1. Now I take your point it is all about belief … or perhaps thought or even just chemistry and physics. But there are people who claim the 1 and no doubt the 7 position. So it becomes ridiculous to claim 1 and 1.1 are the same when you don't believe in 1. Are you certain of this? This paradox seems to keep flying you by.

And the reason you are displaying here Burl has little value. We can agree on that. Thank you for your fallacy.

A couple more axioms: I exist and by extension, we exist as well. A universe exists beyond me (and us). That my (our) experience is a reflection of that universe, though our "reflections" might not be totally accurate or possibly complete Consequently we need to take our conclusions with possibly a pinch of salt. There seem to be three possibilities. The universe ticks to the beat of causality, it does not tick to causality or perhaps it is some combination. If causality is false we don't cause anything so consequently we are not in any sense responsible for any consequences of actions we take. If causality is true our actions are a result prior cause then we are responsible in the sense of proximate cause. Being morally responsible is a non sequitur because we could not have done otherwise. If it some combination of the one and two does not seem to let us of the hook. OK so far?

It's a form of acceptance … understanding it could not be otherwise. Some will get it others won't … c'est la vie

Partly … you missed (ignored) the bit about lacking belief (not believe). Again the Oxford Dictionary did not go into the detail that the Dawkins' scale goes into, nor does it go into the various flavours of atheism I have mentioned. You seem oblivious to these nuances. This question does not quite sense to me. Just to pick on three flavours of atheism, weak, strong and gnostic … personally I lead to weak/agnostic atheism, but then again so what? Partly accurate I think … I think a knowledge of denim seems perfectly reasonable to me. Weak atheism is a lack of belief so in of itself is not a belief. The same way not collecting stamps is not a hobby. That as may be. But we are talking about how Dawkins and others see it. And? The Oxford is barely one line. I keep mentioning the different flavours or chasms if you like … Weak, implicit, agnostic, soft, negative, strong, explicit, gnostic, hard, positive … Ok now what? Read up about it … Google is your friend. If you were a little more familiar with the subject you would understand that gnostic is different from Gnostic and that when speaking of gnostic atheism we are talking about the difference with agnostic atheism. So you claim you know god exists really? No. 7 is the gnostic atheist position. 6.9 might be a "very" strong atheist position. I strongly believe there is no god but I can't be certain. I did not say there are no gnostic atheists (100%).

On the real Jesus thread I asked Paul why not work out what to do (how to behave) from first principles rater than looking at ancient texts. He suggested that I go for it. Well here is my attempt at it. I hope this can be a collaborative effort. A few axioms first: I exist and by extension, we exist as well. A universe exists beyond me (and us). That my (our) experience is a reflection of that universe, though our "reflections" might not be totally accurate or possibly complete. Any problems so far? Any other axioms we should consider?

It's not just the scale (dumb), but the whole language around atheism, agnosticism and theism.

I don't see the mistake here … I stand by what I said. No the Oxford dictionary has two definitions … the weak, soft, agnostic or implicit atheist … more or less equivalent to 5 and perhaps 6. The second 'believes not' definition is equivalent to strong, hard and explicit atheist positions … more less equivalent to 6 and perhaps 7. The Oxford definition does not include the gnostic atheist position knowing god does not exist ie 7.

1 is about knowing 1.1 is between 2 and 1 so it is about not being certain strongly believing.

No one but no one is claiming otherwise. You seem to want to keep a distinction for yourself believing and knowing (1 vs 1.1) but won't accept the distinction on the other side. I do recognize Dawkins is an atheist. He just is not a gnostic atheist. The extra 0.9 is simply pointing at the preposterousness that he finds in the arguments for god. The difference between 6.9 and 7 is the same as 1.1 and 1. You live your life on the assumption there is a god. Me personally I don't assume there isn't a god but my life looks pretty godless. No this is an atheist position. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and for that matter neither are theism and agnosticism. Though the latter smacks of fideism. And yet Jung claimed he knows there is a god. Certainty in the sense of 100 % I agree, but that is irrelevant. But if I believe I can't be 100 % certain then there is a paradox here. How can I be 100 % certain of this? It's Cantor's self containing set. So ultimately I don't agree with you. Dawkins is someone who does not believe there is a god (possibly does believes there is no god), is aware he can't be certain and lives his accordingly as an atheist. Simple really.

It's called agnosticism. Its the ability to say I am not completely sure, despite the fact the proposition makes no sense whatsoever. I find puzzling that you allow yourself this wiggle room But you won't allow Dawkins the same space. Not puzzling really, more amazing.

This goes back to your lack of knowledge or at least apparent lack. Oxford definition of atheist A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. So anything above a 4 is an atheist by this definition. Of course someone actually disbelieves in god would be either a 6 or a 7 depending where they stand on knowledge bit. For example I cannot prove there are no fairies under my garden shed so I can't say I know they are not there, but I can say I am a 6.99999 on the fairy scale. Close to 7 but no bananas. And as you like Bertie:

So you think Dawkins is 100 % sure that there is no god? Or to phrase it more accurately Dawkins thinks it is 100 % probable there is no god … no uncertainty?

New Jersey is a lot closer to New York than say Los Angeles. That does not make New Jersey, New York, despite being a lot closer. No one is debating that he is close to being a seven. He points that out himself. He also says clearly he is not a seven. What is difficult to understand about that?

So we are agreed he did not say there is no god. 5 and 6 are also atheist positions. He just thinks it is extremely unlikely god [insert definition here] exists. It's not difficult for reasonable people here. I am not advocating here for his scale, I find it dumb to be honest. But I am trying to understand what he is trying to say and not put words into his mouth.

Most people would take this as he can't say god does not exist but is close. And this would be good enough for most reasonable people.

I don't ignore what is 7. Nor do I ignore the fact that 6.9 is not 7 As for 1.1 being the same as 1 … I was being perverse. The fact they are not the same seems to escape you.

To get vaguely back on topic. Routledge seems to imply that those that leave (or never had) faith get strange beliefs whether it be the likes of astrology or ghosts. He seems to think that this is a reflection of some deeper nature. But there is an argument that at least in part this is also due to nurture. To move towards secularity from a traditional religion must be difficult for many. I suspect many of the deistic type beliefs are this phenomenon … not being able to leave completely the comfort of some past belief. Being secular the only belief that required some sort of 'magical' belief for me has been free will. And the moment (three weeks) I started thinking about it was something I could drop.

Then 1.1 is close enough to 1. And that you see 6.9 to be the same as 7 is your particular bias. So we are agreed nowhere in the video Dawkins says he knows god does not exist. He carefully explains that he is agnostic and what agnosticism means for him. You ignore Dawkins' caveats. I will ignore yours.

I did I could not find it.

OK at which second does he say there is not a god?

Then in that case Dawkins does not know there is not a god either.

OK I will iterate … you know panentheism is true.

So where do we go now? The bits of rewritten Jesus? How about for something really novel, learning from our contemporary experience and applying a little bit of rigour to that learning?

Nope; 1.1 is close enough to 1 … You can define the space between 1 and 2 however you want. But 1.1 is close enough. A quote from Bertrand Russell on what is an agnostic? His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.