Where are you on Richard Dawkins's theism/atheism scale?

[Eldritch]

From The God Delusion:


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

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

3. Higher than 50 percent 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 percent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable".

5. Lower than 50 percent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether God exists 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 convintion as Jung "knows" there is one".

[Loki]

I've gone from 1 (ten years ago) to 7 currently -- where I'll probably stay.

[Thorum]

I would have to say a 6 or 7. Incidentally, the book, "The God Delusion", is really interesting and excellent!! :thumb001:

[Atlas]

4. Exactly 50 percent. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable".

I don't know, maybe there's someone, maybe there isn't... where are we from makes me think there might be someone above us all, but what proof do we have ? This is very irrational which explain the 50/50 for me.

[Eldritch]

I'd say 6, except that I don't want to identify as any kind of atheist, even a de facto one. So I guess I'm a 5.

[Äike]

I'm between 5 and 6.

[SuuT]

The extreme ends of anything tend to be the most fruitless. Excepting fruit trees.

[Thorum]

...I don't want to identify as any kind of atheist

So let me ask you. Is there something wrong with not believing in gods?

:confused:

[Absinthe]

3. :D

[Zyklop]

6 - Why no poll?

[Eldritch]

So let me ask you. Is there something wrong with not believing in gods?

:confused:

No, of course not. But what disturbs me about militant atheists, like Dawkins himself (he does write well and rises some very interesting points, but he has a chip on his shouilder the size of the proverbial Mohammed's mountain) is their blank denial that whatever we miserable simian dirt-dwellers think of as "God" cannot, does and must not exist.

[Eldritch]

Poll added, please cast your votes.

[Vulpix]

Poll added, please cast your votes.

;)

I'm between a 5 and 6, I voted for 5 as I don't really identify as an atheist.

[Thorum]

No, of course not. But what disturbs me about militant atheists, like Dawkins himself (he does write well and rises some very interesting points, but he has a chip on his shouilder the size of the proverbial Mohammed's mountain) is their blank denial that whatever we miserable simian dirt-dwellers think of as "God" cannot, does and must not exist.

Well, I differ. Atheists, including Dawkins, readily admit that proving gods do not exist is impossible....

[Aemma]

I always find these types of atheist/theist scales or polls and the like quite interesting. Without meaning any disrespect at all and any who value the posing of such questions (for the record, I do value this type of exercise as well), I always find it curious really that the underlying assumption is the belief in an Abrahamic god of some sort. In the end, this very question concerns those of Abrahamic faiths (those of Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths) versus those who have rejected those religious ideologies in particular--nothing more, nothing less. There is no room for religious ideologies other-than-Abrahamic in this type of debate which I sometimes find unfortunate in that it almost denies the very existence of other forms of 'theism', specifically of the 'poly' type.

Interesting poll nonetheless Ex. In light of the above, I have voted 'other'.

Cheers!...Aemma

[SuuT]

Other:

Per usual from Dawkin's and his ilk, the premise of the scale is flawed.

For example, the use of the words "(G)od" and 'he"; which implies a single, omnipotent, omniscient, and engendered diety: he is talking about the god of Abraham, and then proceeds - in the scale - to rate from this axiom.


Whenever I hear the words "I know 'x'", my ears perk-up: This is the easiest run of words (in such matters) to obliterate.

[Äike]

I am between 5 and 6, but now when the poll was added. I voted 5, because I don't see myself as an atheist.

[Loki]

A 7 is probably as arrogant as a 1 is -- note to self. I guess I am probably closer to a 6 realistically. Man can't know all, and there is no such thing as perfect knowledge.

[Absinthe]

I always find it curious really that the underlying assumption is the belief in an Abrahamic god of some sort. In the end, this very question concerns those of Abrahamic faiths (those of Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths) versus those who have rejected those religious ideologies in particular--nothing more, nothing less. There is no room for religious ideologies other-than-Abrahamic in this type of debate which I sometimes find unfortunate in that it almost denies the very existence of other forms of 'theism', specifically of the 'poly' type.



Yes, I was wondering the same, upon trying to decide what to vote....

I have totally rejected Christianity + monotheism but not the notion of the Divine altogether. I wonder what applies in my case, I voted 3 but not meaning the Abrahamic God. ;)

[SuuT]

One more thing. Dawkin's (flawed) scale loses further credibility, as Jung is not talking, himself, about the (G)od of Abraham; although, Jung did capitalise the word in his writings as a conveyance of the macro-scopic Absolute Indeterminability of Causation and Purpose.

"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse" (Jung).

[SwordoftheVistula]

I identify as atheist. I don't have any way to prove there is no supernatural deity, as any time it becomes possible to disprove a supernatural deity (for example, a giant living under a mountain who causes volcanoes) they invent another, more nebulous one which is even more difficult to disprove.


So let me ask you. Is there something wrong with not believing in gods?

:confused:

Some atheists give a bad name to us by throwing a huge fit over such things as Christmas trees and saying 'Merry Christmas'. Most of them are of Jewish rather than Christian/European lineage, thus I shy away from them and even make a point to say 'Merry Christmas' rather than 'Seasons Greetings' or some such crap just because I disapprove of their overall agenda.

However, nothing drives me more crazy than the opposite end of the spectrum: "I don't care what you believe, as long as you believe in something." Hey asshole, thanks for considering me lower than Osama bin Ladin.

[Loddfafner]

Which Gods exist? I am pretty sure Odin exists (2) but I am not so sure about Tyr (6). The Greek gods and goddesses are mostly dead or non-existent except for Dionysus (1). I am sure I saw him the other night. Shango and Yemaya might exist (can I vote a "3" for them?) but Krishna died of embarrassment from the conduct of his followers (is that a "5"?).

[Gooding]

I respect the Biosphere and feel awe at the forces of Nature.I deeply respect my ancestors and feel that they're a part of me as I feel my daughter's a part of me. I love my family and revere my Folk. Label me as you will, but if that's too complicated, then just call me an atheist, for truly the desert god of the Semites does not exist, nor would he have any meaning for me if he did.

[anonymaus]

If there was a single shred of evidence for the supernatural over the entire course of recorded history, I would be a 6. As it stands, there is absolutely no rational reason to believe anything mystical, or supernatural, exists beyond the most infinitesimal speck of possibility required by logic.

That tiny, nearly immeasurable, possibility speaks to the direct proportionality with which we should even begin to believe there might be some truth to the unsubstantiated claims of the faithful. Further, there is a wide gap between theism and awe of nature which should not be confused by careless language in the vein of Einstein.

Believing in the supernatural, the mystical, the implausible and unevidenced, would mean the negation of one's mind; to negate or destroy one's only tool to survive in the world they are sure exists is an act of incredible self-hatred and self-destruction.

6.(9)

[Aemma]

If there was a single shred of evidence for the supernatural over the entire course of recorded history, I would be a 6. As it stands, there is absolutely no rational reason to believe anything mystical, or supernatural, exists beyond the most infinitesimal speck of possibility required by logic.

That tiny, nearly immeasurable, possibility speaks to the direct proportionality with which we should even begin to believe there might be some truth to the unsubstantiated claims of the faithful. Further, there is a wide gap between theism and awe of nature which should not be confused by careless language in the vein of Einstein.

Believing in such things would mean the negation of one's mind; to negate or destroy one's only tool to survive in the world they are sure exists is an act of incredible self-hatred and self-destruction.

6.(9)

By "believing in such things" do you mean the belief by some that there is little to no gap between theism and one's awe in nature? I'm not sure if I read this part accurately. :)

[anonymaus]

By "believing in such things" do you mean the belief by some that there is little to no gap between theism and one's awe in nature? I'm not sure if I read this part accurately. :)

Hastily written on my part! I've revised for clarity. I meant specifically that the gap should be delineated clearly and respected :)

[lei.talk]

Atheists, including Dawkins, readily admit that proving gods do not exist is impossible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)....

If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness,
then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.

We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.

Therefore, there is no such animal.
- The Fallacy Files (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/whatarff.html)

[YggsVinr]

I voted 6 as the closest thing to my own thoughts, though not exactly. To me its not so much that I simply assume that "god" is not there, but rather that I don't really care.

I can't say that there is any "god", I prefer to speak in terms of "higher powers", except that a "higher power" can mean anything. Natural forces in themselves are "higher powers", but it doesn't make them sentient beings. We ourselves can be higher powers whilst being sentient beings. If there is an ultimate creative force out there, I hardly believe it requires us to get on our knees and worship it. Those of us not doing so are doing just fine on our own.

That said, there is a distinct difference between religion and spirituality. I do see myself as a spiritual person, and there is a lot out there that can't be explained at the moment, though I find myself more concerned with discovering my true self, my true potential which kind of lie on the same path anyway. To me, striving to understand the world is a way of striving to understand and to know yourself. Odin, to me, is a spiritual and symbolic manifestation of many things. He is a symbol for traits, traditions and world views that I feel a strong kinship with, and he also lies on the path backward into my own ancestral past to which I feel a strong connection. Yet at the same time he is detachment from it. Ancestor "worship" (for lack of a better word) in itself is not necessarily a recognition of the supernatural around us, unless we redefine the word "supernatural". Hell, what is it other than something inexplicable the individual feels or believes, whether threatening or guiding. People often dismiss the past as irrelevant, but like the natural world around me I feel history itself coursing through my veins. Its a connection to something beyond life and yet it can be an intrinsic part of it. It makes one feel like everything one does seeps into the soil beneath one's feet and shapes it and strengthens it, and despite feeling like one has a thousand selves it works towards an eventual unity or rather that that unity will be illuminated.

While Odin or any other deity are not the "ultimate truth of the universe", he is a necessity on the path to discovering my truth or untruth and on the very earth my own life path is established. Not necessarily as a deity, but as a kind of lens through which to see one's own puzzle, one's own self that would otherwise remain nameless. There is something to be learned from the pursuit of spirituality as a kind of knowledge even if it isn't the "all-encompassing", for what is truth at the end of the day anyways, and what do we have but ourselves? Our ancestors certainly didn't see truth as we do today, so why should we follow the path of Christianity and cement truth to our own feet like we're about to feed the fishies in the East River:p

[Psychonaut]

Both 1 and 7 at the same time, kinda...

[Eldritch]

I always find these types of atheist/theist scales or polls and the like quite interesting. Without meaning any disrespect at all and any who value the posing of such questions (for the record, I do value this type of exercise as well), I always find it curious really that the underlying assumption is the belief in an Abrahamic god of some sort. In the end, this very question concerns those of Abrahamic faiths (those of Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths) versus those who have rejected those religious ideologies in particular--nothing more, nothing less. There is no room for religious ideologies other-than-Abrahamic in this type of debate which I sometimes find unfortunate in that it almost denies the very existence of other forms of 'theism', specifically of the 'poly' type.

Interesting poll nonetheless Ex. In light of the above, I have voted 'other'.

Cheers!...Aemma

That's a good point, and yes, Dawkins is mainly concerned with the so-called Abrahamic, monotheistric or purportedly monotheistic desert religions.

[I suppose I should point out now that I posted this thread out of curiosity to see what others would have to say, not because I agree with Dawkins on everything 100%].

However I myself think the difference between monotheistic and polytheistic religions is pretty irrevelevant.

And the difference isn't that cut and dried either: Christianity, especially Catholicism, is a polytheistic religion in all but name, whereas some "officially" polytheistic religions such as Hinduism regard all the different gods as simply different manifestations of the same deity. And can anyone seriously regard Islam, with its Allah/Mohammed combo, as a truly monotheistic religion? :rolleyes:

I don't see how Dawkins's scale, flawed as it (and the man himself) may be, could not be applied to religions like Odinism/Wotanism, etc.

[Psychonaut]

THowever I myself think the difference between monotheistic and polytheistic religions is pretty irrevelevant.

I disagree. Most polytheistic religions are/were animistic at the root and are/were more concerned with the numinosity of actual objects and occurrences than with abstract invisible deities. Worshiping the Sun, Moon, Thunder, etc. isn't really comparable to the big Jew in the sky.

[Lenny]

I never give it much thought; it seems obvious to me that there is more to this world than stone-and-bone; more to the universe than empty-space and the occasional ball of hot-gas or rock. The soul exists, and reincarnation as well. The atheistic-cynics can call me irrational if they want, but in my worldview the supernatural exists and there is really no question about it.




I always find it curious really that the underlying assumption is the belief in an Abrahamic god of some sortIf that's the way people have interpreted it here, that's unfortunate. I interpreted it as "do you believe in spiritual concepts", not as some kind of "Jew-on-a-stick-believers vs normal-thinking people" idiot contest. (I don't even know what is meant when people toss around such a term "Abrahamic god").


there is absolutely no rational reason to believe anything mystical, or supernatural, exists beyond the most infinitesimal speck of possibility required by logic.
Man, that is really cynical.:(

[Brynhild]

None of the above answers what I know in my own heart and mind. I'm a Polytheist who doesn't adhere to a monotheistic deity. I can't prove or disprove this form of theism but I know that my deities are there for me - always!

[Tabiti]

Depends what is meant by "God" there...

[Sarmata]

7 pass for me...I don't believe in "big jew in the sky":D and other fairy tales, no matter if some are really beauty...If some will be offended well...sorry but millions could be wrong like people who saw creature from Loch Ness for instance;) From the other side I think that we could discoverd one day the truth about the some supernatural phenomena etc., just useing our brains...I'm convinced to rational theories, did you heard about Thor Heyerdahls theories about gods?

[Eldritch]

Depends what is meant by "God" there...

In the same book the options are from, "God" is defined as "a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us".

[YggsVinr]

In the same book the options are from, "God" is defined as "a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us".

By giving this definition, I think you have actually answered the question on why all non-monotheistic religions and/or spiritualities may not fit into the paradigm.

My own thoughts on the matter is that if there is a higher power/supernatural intelligence out there it is nothing like any human could imagine. Our ancestors perceptions of higher powers are based on cultural/ethnic experiences, and often when polytheists in the ancient past came across others with differing gods it seems that there was a recognized "our gods/their gods". Often times, particularly in Europe, you find that a deity (when you study the myths more closely) is more often a creator/believed ancestor of the folk rather than the entire universe. They are arguably not the same (or perceived in the same way) as a god literally stated to be super-human/supernatural intelligence that created everything. Every religion has its creation myths, but at its centre is often the tribe, not the entirety of humanity.

[Aemma]

Believing in the supernatural, the mystical, the implausible and unevidenced, would mean the negation of one's mind; to negate or destroy one's only tool to survive in the world they are sure exists is an act of incredible self-hatred and self-destruction.

Well this isn't exactly a notion that I can say I would support though Anon; if anything I would have to say that I vehemently disagree with it. :eek: I very much doubt that I am perpetrating any form of "incredible self-hatred and self-destruction" and much less a "negation of [my] own mind" by, at the very least, being open to the possibilities of other realities as perceived by my mind. If anything I think that those of us who do believe (for lack of a better word right now) in these types of other realities can quite legitimately say that we accord an even greater capacity to said mind. Mind and the concepts of the supernatural and the mystical (and what you later refer to as the *cough* implausible and the *hack, hack* unevidenced ;)) are NOT mutually exclusive notions and nor should they be seen as such imho.

Cheers Anon!...Aemma

[Tabiti]

In the same book the options are from, "God" is defined as "a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us".
According to me there is no such thing as one source for everything, but endless aspects creating unity we call world. "God" could not exist in one-sided dimension, can't be given name or certain special abilities to change forms, since those inconstant forms can be also refer as a side of the so called "God". So, there the eternal question "Who created which" arises with full form again. We are used to start from one point and finish in other, creating lines, curves or other forms, but often only in two, three or even just one, linear dimension. Source => path (method) => result with a strict correlation of determinant visible elements, excluding any invisible with bare eye ones, but affecting the whole model on great degree. That is why we have the standart "creator" images of the so called "God". The easiest thing is to accept someone is sitting somewhere in the Universe on a golden tron, giving direct orders and affecting mortals life and order. In fact, we still don't know what Universe is, so what is "Universal" mind, spirit or intelligence, then?

[Spaniard_Truth]

The 'God' question can take two forms: the belief in an anthropomorphic God, and the belief in the possibility of some form of abstract higher being beyond our comprehension that may possibly hold the answers to the 'antinomies' of existence.

To me, the first is a joke. The second has more philosophical value. I'm open to the possibility of some absolute 'being' being the first cause, the origin of time, matter, space etc. But to link this being to a firm doctrine of belief, with concrete values and conceptions is ridiculous.

Personally, I believe that even if such a being exists, it would exist beyond our cognitive capacity. To render it into categories of human conception is to completely debase its essence and simply falsify it.

And so the problem leads to the question: Since this 'thing' would be incomprehensible, the word 'God' would have to be so broad as to be virtually meaningless. Consciousness, substance, will etc. are all anthropomorphisms that simply do not apply. Whatever the first cause may be (if there even is one) is beyond us in the same way the theory of relativity is beyond an ant.

And it may simply be (and I hold that it is) that space, time, extension etc. are simply errors of a faulty organic being at a transitory, imperfect stage of evolution/existence, and our knowledge, to re-use an example, is as accurate, and grasps the "essence" of truth/reality as well as the knowledge of an ant. Truth and reality are indeed probably mere constructs of the human collective consciousness, linked as it is to itself and nothing beyond.

God, therefore, is a futile hypothesis, one among a billion rivals. A Christian or Greek or Muslim God is even less likely. Belief is less an intellectual matter as a spiritual one. God doesn't exist, but maybe it's better for happiness if one refuses to acknowledge this.

[Eldritch]

By giving this definition, I think you have actually answered the question on why all non-monotheistic religions and/or spiritualities may not fit into the paradigm.

My own thoughts on the matter is that if there is a higher power/supernatural intelligence out there it is nothing like any human could imagine. Our ancestors perceptions of higher powers are based on cultural/ethnic experiences, and often when polytheists in the ancient past came across others with differing gods it seems that there was a recognized "our gods/their gods". Often times, particularly in Europe, you find that a deity (when you study the myths more closely) is more often a creator/believed ancestor of the folk rather than the entire universe. They are arguably not the same (or perceived in the same way) as a god literally stated to be super-human/supernatural intelligence that created everything. Every religion has its creation myths, but at its centre is often the tribe, not the entirety of humanity.

That seems like a rather fine distinction to me, but I suppose it's nevertheless an important one. I think I understand what you (and Psycho) were getting at now.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Worshiping the Sun, Moon, Thunder, etc. isn't really comparable to the big Jew in the sky.

The Sun, Moon, Thunder, etc. used to be attributed to 'the big Jew in the sky' in Christianity, before more rational explanations were found. This is why the Catholic Church opposed science in the middle ages, and why many Christians and Muslims today oppose the theory of Evolution, because it takes away powers previously attributed to 'the big Jew in the sky' and gives them more mundane explanations. The reason Christianity is today left with only 'the big Jew in the sky' is because it is the only thing left which can't be disproved by producing a more rational explanation.

Even today, there's a popular notion of 'God striking down with thunderbolts', and Christian-themed greeting cards, calendars, & posters often feature a sunrise, sun shining through the clouds, mountains, etc.


often when polytheists in the ancient past came across others with differing gods it seems that there was a recognized "our gods/their gods".

Same thing with ancient monotheists, for example the treatment of Dagon and Ba'al in the bible.



Often times, particularly in Europe, you find that a deity (when you study the myths more closely) is more often a creator/believed ancestor of the folk rather than the entire universe. They are arguably not the same (or perceived in the same way) as a god literally stated to be super-human/supernatural intelligence that created everything. Every religion has its creation myths, but at its centre is often the tribe, not the entirety of humanity.

I don't think there is really that much difference here, just in nomenclature. The ancient northern European religions terminated shortly the time they came in contact with the wider world (having been replaced by Christianity), if they had survived they would have had to expand their religion to explain the creation of the rest of the world. Conversely, the 'universal' creation attribution in the ancient hebrew mythology was in fact centered on themselves. For example, the if the biblical 'flood which covered all the earth' in fact happened, it was only a flood of a patch of land in the middle east, probably a particuarly large river flood of the Tigris and/or Euphrates. Before the recent infusion of Christianity political correctness, it had make rather stretched explanations of where other races came from, usually claiming they were descendants of wayward children of biblical characters, for example attributing blacks as the descendants of Ham and the modern day jews as the descendants of Cain.

[Ulf]

Depends what mood I wake up in.

[Tabiti]

The heavenly bodies and natural powers worships have in fact the most ancient religious roots, which christianity and islam only adopted. I don't say they should be personalized as human-like creatures, but in fact they do effect our life more than any theories - different climates, tides, natural disasters, electromagnetic waves. In that meaning they deserve to be "gods" more than anyone other. At least we see their real effect.

[Psychonaut]

The Sun, Moon, Thunder, etc. used to be attributed to 'the big Jew in the sky' in Christianity, before more rational explanations were found.

I don't think this is really a comparable case. Within monotheisms, nature is thought to be created by God and occasionally to be a manifestation of some aspect of God, but these phenomena are not the focus of worship; God is. In polytheisms (many of 'em at least), it's the actual Sun or the actual Moon that is the direct object of worship. For instance, the generative powers of the Sun need not be attributed to anything supernatural, but, if anything, have been upheld by our scientific understanding of the Sun's nature. And, although in many pantheons, worship of direct natural objects was transformed into the worship of Gods of that phenomena rather than that phenomena itself, early animism was very naturalistic. The way I see it, the fact that we know the Sun (for instance) to be a ball of flaming gas and not a shield bearing maiden need not undermine any numinous experiences we have of the Sun.

[Lahtari]

The 'God' question can take two forms: the belief in an anthropomorphic God, and the belief in the possibility of some form of abstract higher being beyond our comprehension that may possibly hold the answers to the 'antinomies' of existence.

To me, the first is a joke. The second has more philosophical value.

Exactly. When the existence of a god cannot be verified or falsified, it is outside of the sphere of science and rationality. After that it's just about possibilities and their propabilities. An anthropomorphic god who also acts like a human tells so much about the culture that invented him that it needs no other explanations than pure human need for it - making such things as plausible as Santa Claus. :p

A creator as such is a more trickier question. If it's a being completely hidden from our side of the universe - or actually containing it - and doesn't care to interact with it at all, then we might never be able to get any clue, do we? :mmmm:

But hey, an another annoying question for Exordium: if I believe that the universe was created by a cosmic computer nerd eating cold pizza in a cosmic basement, running us as a very advanced computer simulation, does that make me a theist or not? :D :D

[YggsVinr]

Same thing with ancient monotheists, for example the treatment of Dagon and Ba'al in the bible.

When we look at the treatment of foreign gods in the Old Testament we have to be careful and consider what "their god" versus "God" means. In Judges 16:23 we have "Then the lords of the Philistines gathered them together for to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god, and to rejoice: for they said, Our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hands", and as you noted there are other similar passages.

However, we have to read this through a certain lens, because also in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy it clarifies what is meant when the term "god" is used to describe a foreign deity or any entity other than "the Lord" or "God". "But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God."

While they are called strange gods, they are distinguished as different types of beings from God by the very attribution of the term "devils" often associated also with demons. If we then accept that devils equates demons we then have to consider that demons, even without connotations of evil as angels have been called demons as well, are spirits of the air. These spirits are not gods but were, in the Old Testament and afterwards, demons/spirits who tricked humans into believing that their power was equal with that of God. Even in the Old Testament God is believed to be the ultimate Good and the Rock, and any being posing as a god (a devil or a demon) were leading humans away from the ultimate Good and into evil (and consequently the worshiping of "false" or "strange" gods or idols).

Yes, the Christian god is originally considered the god of the "chosen people", but that doesn't stop him from also being the creator of everything else (a sin to think otherwise at that), not simply of the folk. The problem (or perhaps the blessing) with northern European religion is the mythology was largely canonized during the Christian period and not only that, but that it was canonized at all. But if we look at artwork and even tribal names down to the Ingaevones, Istaevones and Irminones (among others) we see that certain gods were considered ancestors and, therefore, first and foremost as progenitors of the tribe. We see that in ancestor worship itself. Gods, spirits and ancestors in early European religion were in many ways originally interchangeable, while in monotheistic religion there is no real tradition of ancestor worship or that possibility of interchangeability between gods and ancestors. God is the creator and father of man, but not their ancestor if that makes sense. A worshiper of Frey did not see him as the only god worth sacrificing to, nor even the only fertility deity/spirit worth sacrificing to. There wasn't the same sense of "this is the absolute and only truth", nothing is so concrete in an oral tradition and Christianity/Judaism had long surpassed that and any time before their own canonization has little bearing on monotheism as we know it today or even during the middle ages.



I don't think there is really that much difference here, just in nomenclature. The ancient northern European religions terminated shortly the time they came in contact with the wider world (having been replaced by Christianity), if they had survived they would have had to expand their religion to explain the creation of the rest of the world. Conversely, the 'universal' creation attribution in the ancient hebrew mythology was in fact centered on themselves. For example, the if the biblical 'flood which covered all the earth' in fact happened, it was only a flood of a patch of land in the middle east, probably a particuarly large river flood of the Tigris and/or Euphrates. Before the recent infusion of Christianity political correctness, it had make rather stretched explanations of where other races came from, usually claiming they were descendants of wayward children of biblical characters, for example attributing blacks as the descendants of Ham and the modern day jews as the descendants of Cain.

Define shortly? Northern European religion had been in contact with other European religions long before Christianity even arrived in Europe and before the common era itself, yet it lasted until the 11th century. Northern European religion was concerned primarily with the folk out of necessity. You sacrificed to Frey because of the believed result. Sacrificed to Odin because of the result and so on. As was shown particularly in Rome, European heathens had no problems adding to their pantheons if it appeared to benefit their survival. By the time Jewish/Christian beliefs had been set in stone the purposes of monotheism differed greatly from that of polytheism. My thoughts are that if you were to ask an early migration period Germanic how he perceived Odin or his own ancestors, it would be different than how a Jew of the same period considered Yaweh.

[Eldritch]

But hey, an another annoying question for Exordium: if I believe that the universe was created by a cosmic computer nerd eating cold pizza in a cosmic basement, running us as a very advanced computer simulation, does that make me a theist or not? :D :D

This idea has been making the rounds in science fiction for quite a while now. Dawkins himself makes reference to it in his book (I no longer remember the title or the author), and it is also speculated upon in the final installment of David Brin's (remarkable infantile) second Uplift trilogy.

I don't really see this idea as a part of the theist/atheist continuum. I'd say it falls into the category of speculative cosmology.

[Pino]

depends what the poll defines as God.

In my opinion The Gods and The Creator are two seperate things.

[Eldritch]

At this point, I'm very glad to see the votes distributed more or less evenly between the different options. It's wonderful and refreshing to see such a diversity of viewpoints. Hooray for us! :D

[Ulf]

I'm probably an agnostic with tendencies towards theism with bouts of existential atheism.

My imaginary friend is more powerful and real than your imaginary friend.

Nothing exists outside my own consciousness and you are all just figments of my imagination.

[Lahtari]

I don't really agree with Dawkins' definition of "god" as the Creator, it's just too singlehandedly monotheist, like already mentioned.

Even if you don't believe in the Creator, you can believe in superior multi-dimensional beings that live under this universe and it's laws, and that after death your life continues in other spheres that is ruled by such beings, etc. Sure you can call them angels or demons, but you can't call the believer and atheist.



(P.S. Greetings from the Cosmic Computer Nerd: :ranger: He's reading the Apricity with great amusement. ;))

[Discover]

I am basically of the belief that there is no god/omnipotent(and cognitive) power... I voted 6 though, because I am humble in my potential to be wrong. Although it has not happened yet... :P

[Cato]

1, although I regard God as an impersonal entity much like the Monad of the philosophers- the indivisible One.

[Kempenzoon]

I went from a 7 to a 5 in the past few years. However, I have problems with the monotheistic slant in which the question is asked.

[Cato]

1, although I regard God as an impersonal entity much like the Monad of the philosophers- the indivisible One.

As a follow-up, I'm not exactly a polytheist and nor do I suscribe to the position that "All Gods are one God and all Goddesses are one Goddess." Rather, I believe that there is, for lack of a better term, a hierarchy:

The One, aka the God of Gods or the single divine reality of which the physical world is a mere reflection, which gives rise to its defied aspects, who are called:

The Gods, who are the immanent portions of the One in nature and the universe, either as personified concepts, natural phenomena, persons, places and the like.

Humans relate to the Gods as the Gods relate to the One. The goal of humans is to awaken to their inner selves, that is divinity and godliness.

If this concept seems to be Platonian and Plotinian, it is. :D

This has little to do with the heathenry that I would normally suscribe to, but my religion states that "It's complicated." I've been doing a lot of soul-searching lately and I'm beginning to align myself much more with a philosophical conception of divinity in general and the Gods and mankind in general.

As to heathenry, I do not hold literal opinions of the myths nor to the literal, physical existence of the Gods. The Aesir and Vanir are personalities, often more reflective of our inner, human and ethnic selves than outer, sublime personalities. This is Jungian, which probably places me at odds with many other heathens.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I have problems with the monotheistic slant in which the question is asked.

Just mentally add an 's' to the end of 'God' :thumb001:

[Lulletje Rozewater]

From 1 to 7 to Nature.

If you would rise but a cubit above religion and dogma and self,you would indeed become godlike.

[safinator]

5. Lower than 50 percent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical".

[Midori]

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

I'm not really religious, but I do believe in God and I have my own way of connecting with Him.

[Corraidh]

I'd say I'm probably a 5.5

[GeistFaust]

I would probably say I am in between a 4 and 5, but more in and around a 5, but probably more in the middle of Dawkins chart.

[Siegfried]

I'm somewhere between 1 and 2.

[Jerry]

There is no option, that allows me to answer properly. I might believe that there is a chance of some abstract higher power / spiritual force but it has nothing to do with the notion of God or the ridiculous battle of religions. There either is some spiritual power in this world or there isn't, I'm agnostic but I hope there is some kind of very abstract force of life behind it all - I'm hopeful otherwise it's a dull place.

But the notion of God in Christianity, Judaism or Islam has absolutely nothing to do with my belief - at most their god is derived from this spiritual force existing, and I'm not able to answer your poll

[JamesSteal]

So let me ask you. Is there something wrong with not believing in gods?

:confused:

No, it's just that a lot of us don't want to be affiliated with a fat ogre like TheAmazingAtheist or that creepy tranny Zinnia Jones.

[Leadchucker]

1., Always was and always will be. Call me arrogant ,silly, blind or whatever but that's what I feel. I accept by faith the God as taught in the Christian Bible. I also don't have my head stuck in the sand about the way the world works with science and physics being a big part of my everyday doings. I see them all fitting together just fine.