I was pissed off because the "massive" amount of "agnostics". I can't imagine that this place is full of people who are like option 1. can't deside, or option 2. we can't prove or disprove god so its equally possible, kind of agnostics. SO I thought that I'll post the professor RICHARD DAWKINS'es categorylizing (is this a word?) system.

(all this explaining wouldn't propably fit the poll boxes so I'll explain them here, if you dont mind :D )

SO the question is: How certain are you of god's existance?

Option 1. You are absolutely certain that god exist. (100%)
Option 2. You are pretty sure that god exists, but there is a slight change that he doesn't. (95-99%)
Option 3. You think that it's likely for god to exist. (51-94%)
Option 4. You think that god is just as likely to exist and not to exist (50%)
Option 5. You think that it's likely for god not to exist (49-6%)
Option 6. You are pretty sure that god doesn't exist, but there is still a slight change that he does. (5-1%)
Option 7. You are absolutely certain that god doesn't exist. (0%)
Option 8. You don't give a rats ass.

given these options, I'm going to have to say 1%

Oh blody fucking shit.. i acidently posted it when it wasnt ready... just fucking awesome.. I cant edit the polls...
Admistrator! I spilled my coke on the floor! I need a rag to clean up my mess!

A low category 6.

This thread is unnecessary. But while I'm here--

-There is no way to be certain that God exists.

-There is no way to be certain that God does not exist.

-Using a fake percentage to measure "how sure" you are that God exists is pointless. How can anyone honestly say, "Well, I'm about 51-60% sure that God exists, based on an arbitrary number I pulled right out of my ass."?

No i didn't. prof. Dawkins has this published in his book. and it IS possible to base it in number. As for the bible we are pretty sure that its false as prayer doesnt influence anything.

Option 9: my having categorical knowledge one way or the other would imply a self-awareness of the system while I am still inside of it. Which means that there is order or plan. There can't be a plan or order if I'm aware of it, because then the option to absent myself is presented. If there is a God, that would be unacceptable. If there is no God, then there is no plan to absent myself from.

Uh...in other words, knowing either way is technically impossible.

What's with all the religion threads?

Option 10. God is absolutely certain that I don't exist.

Pahkasika:
No i didn't prof. Dawkins has this published in his book. and it IS possible to base it in number. As for the bible we are pretty sure that its false as prayer doesnt influence anything.

Prof. Dawkins said it, so it must be true!

You do realise that by unwaveringly following everything Dawkins says, you're doing the very thing he warns against.

Pahkasika:
No i didn't prof. Dawkins has this published in his book. and it IS possible to base it in number. As for the bible we are pretty sure that its false as prayer doesnt influence anything.

I don't care if Jesus Christ published it in his book, you can't measure an immeasurable quantity and assign it a percentage.

The question asked by religion is inherently unanswerable, so I view it as moot. I'll find the answer out sooner than I wish, no matter what I do.

-- Steve

Edited to add: And I didn't need Dawkins to tell me that... it's my own conclusion, derived after a lot of reading and thought; time I wish I had back, frankly, though at least I learned a bunch of nifty stuff doing it.

Option 1: 100% because I'm a pantheist, or at the very least, a panenthiest.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Pahkasika:
No i didn't prof. Dawkins has this published in his book. and it IS possible to base it in number. As for the bible we are pretty sure that its false as prayer doesnt influence anything.

Prof. Dawkins said it, so it must be true!

You do realise that by unwaveringly following everything Dawkins says, you're doing the very thing he warns against.

I never said that it must be true.. i just happen to think that it is. I'm not following him because of "faith" just because that I think that he is right.

Anton P. Nym:
The question asked by religion is inherently unanswerable, so I view it as moot. I'll find the answer out sooner than I wish, no matter what I do.

-- Steve

Edited to add: And I didn't need Dawkins to tell me that... it's my own conclusion, derived after a lot of reading and thought; time I wish I had back, frankly, though at least I learned a bunch of nifty stuff doing it.

Yes you can't get an absolute answer but you can argue about gods existance. just because it hasnt got a yes or no answer it doesnt mean its not a question worthy of asking.

option 2

Im not all too sure why this popped up. "Whats your religion" well the first thread answered that. this should be called 'Do you believe in A god, and to what degree?'. But im nit picking. No i dont believe in god. I believe in science, hence, give me my fucking bionic arm bitch. Heh

Pahkasika:

Anton P. Nym:
The question asked by religion is inherently unanswerable, so I view it as moot. I'll find the answer out sooner than I wish, no matter what I do.

-- Steve

Edited to add: And I didn't need Dawkins to tell me that... it's my own conclusion, derived after a lot of reading and thought; time I wish I had back, frankly, though at least I learned a bunch of nifty stuff doing it.

Yes you can't get an absolute answer but you can argue about gods existance. just because it hasnt got a yes or no answer it doesnt mean its not a question worthy of asking.

Which is exactly why we have a whole other thread devoted to it.

Option 1

There are way too many things here that are like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordyceps it can't possibly be random chance. Someone planned it all out.

Versuvius:
Im not all too sure why this popped up. "Whats your religion" well the first thread answered that. this should be called 'Do you believe in A god, and to what degree?'. But im nit picking. No i dont believe in god. I believe in science, hence, give me my fucking bionic arm bitch. Heh

Nice Idea. as I said I wasnt able to think it through as i acidently posted it.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Pahkasika:

Anton P. Nym:
The question asked by religion is inherently unanswerable, so I view it as moot. I'll find the answer out sooner than I wish, no matter what I do.

-- Steve

Edited to add: And I didn't need Dawkins to tell me that... it's my own conclusion, derived after a lot of reading and thought; time I wish I had back, frankly, though at least I learned a bunch of nifty stuff doing it.

Yes you can't get an absolute answer but you can argue about gods existance. just because it hasnt got a yes or no answer it doesnt mean its not a question worthy of asking.

Which is exactly why we have a whole other thread devoted to it.

And here we do the same thing differently. and stuff.

HSIAMetalKing:
This thread is unnecessary. But while I'm here--

-There is no way to be certain that God exists.

-There is no way to be certain that God does not exist.

-Using a fake percentage to measure "how sure" you are that God exists is pointless. How can anyone honestly say, "Well, I'm about 51-60% sure that God exists, based on an arbitrary number I pulled right out of my ass."?

I got ninja'd
Or to be more precise, i got beat to it.
:I
:(
:C

Pahkasika:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Pahkasika:

Anton P. Nym:
The question asked by religion is inherently unanswerable, so I view it as moot. I'll find the answer out sooner than I wish, no matter what I do.

-- Steve

Edited to add: And I didn't need Dawkins to tell me that... it's my own conclusion, derived after a lot of reading and thought; time I wish I had back, frankly, though at least I learned a bunch of nifty stuff doing it.

Yes you can't get an absolute answer but you can argue about gods existance. just because it hasnt got a yes or no answer it doesnt mean its not a question worthy of asking.

Which is exactly why we have a whole other thread devoted to it.

And here we do the same thing differently. and stuff.

Well, no. You've taken all the different options from the other thread and added an arbitrary percentage next to each of them.

Snik:
Option 1

There are way too many things here that are like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordyceps it can't possibly be random chance. Someone planned it all out.

Oh blody hell.. I'm always pissed when someone says. "It can't exist by random change"
Evolution isn't random! The mutation are random, BUT natural selection (and sexual selection) IS NOT!

Pahkasika:
As for the bible we are pretty sure that its false as prayer doesnt influence anything.

So, because he didn't give you the super awesome present you wanted for Christmas God doesn't exist?

Prayer is a useless concept - how could we ever hope to adequately communicate with something that is everywhere, knows everything and understands all? So how can we say that because you didn't get your Tickle Me Elmo it is because God didn't answer your prayer?

In fact, compare this point to yours, multiply the difference by a few billion times, and you'd get the difference between a human talking to something omniscient. It just, doesn't, work - so no, that is no where near adequate evidence to even suggest that God doesn't exist.

On a similar note, what makes you think the Bible is actually the word of God? It was written by men - so for Dawkins, for example, using it is pointless as if it is not divine then it has no real credibility when describing such matters.

As for the crappy numbers? Personal beliefs change daily, no matter how small the difference may be, so any singular event would change this percentage even if it was quantifiable...which it really isn't;

Do you really expect me to know exactly how much I do or do not believe in an omnipotent, omniscient being that is without physical form?

If I had to choose an option in this rather pointless poll? I'd go with a low 3; perhaps around 60%, but anything more specific would be a load of bullshit. It is impossible to bring down a constantly changing belief down to an exact percentile.

Oh, and whilst Dawkins is very witty, he is overrated when it comes to philosophy - he's an evolutionary biologist, not an Atheist Messiah.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Pahkasika:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Pahkasika:

Anton P. Nym:
The question asked by religion is inherently unanswerable, so I view it as moot. I'll find the answer out sooner than I wish, no matter what I do.

-- Steve

Edited to add: And I didn't need Dawkins to tell me that... it's my own conclusion, derived after a lot of reading and thought; time I wish I had back, frankly, though at least I learned a bunch of nifty stuff doing it.

Yes you can't get an absolute answer but you can argue about gods existance. just because it hasnt got a yes or no answer it doesnt mean its not a question worthy of asking.

Which is exactly why we have a whole other thread devoted to it.

And here we do the same thing differently. and stuff.

Well, no. You've taken all the different options from the other thread and added an arbitrary percentage next to each of them.

ONO HE DEEDN'T
You got buuuurned
*snapsnapsnap*
Religion is a touchy subject sometimes best left untouched.

Qayin:

Pahkasika:
As for the bible we are pretty sure that its false as prayer doesnt influence anything.

So, because he didn't give you the super awesome present you wanted for Christmas God doesn't exist?

Prayer is a useless concept - how could we ever hope to adequately communicate with something that is everywhere, knows everything and understands all? So how can we say that because you didn't get your Tickle Me Elmo it is because God didn't answer your prayer?

In fact, compare this point to yours, multiply the difference by a few billion times, and you'd get the difference between a human talking to something omniscient. It just, doesn't, work - so no, that is no where near adequate evidence to even suggest that God doesn't exist.

On a similar note, what makes you think the Bible is actually the word of God? It was written by men - so for Dawkins, for example, using it is pointless as if it is not divine then it has no real credibility when describing such matters.

As for the crappy numbers? Personal beliefs change daily, no matter how small the difference may be, so any singular event would change this percentage even if it was quantifiable...which it really isn't;

Do you really expect me to know exactly how much I do or do not believe in an omnipotent, omniscient being that is without physical form?

If I had to choose an option in this rather pointless poll? I'd go with a low 3; perhaps around 60%, but anything more specific would be a load of bullshit. It is impossible to bring down a constantly changing belief down to an exact percentile.

Oh, and whilst Dawkins is very witty, he is overrated when it comes to philosophy - he's an evolutionary biologist, not an Atheist Messiah.

I agree it was a bad example. And I think that you can closely know how much you belive in an "omnipotent". You belive in emotions even when they have no physical forms. that isn't a very good example eather, but you got my point.

paulgruberman:
So, since you don't like the results from the other poll, you change the question? At what point are you going to be satisfied? Only when reality shifts to fit your view?

No... I just rearranged the question. and atleast one poll was somethinh like 60% non religios, and I'm and atheist so its not about that.

I'm fed up with defending my post :P it had much more retalitiation than i thought :D
Step on my post all you like I'm going to bed :)

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait.
Wait.
Are we starting a flame war based on the fact that he pulled the percentage out of his ass?
Or because there's already a topic on this.

I absolutely don't *believe* that a god exists. Intellectually I understand that I can't be sure there are no gods, but then again, I intellectually understand that Coventry City could get promoted this year, it doesn't mean I remotely believe it. I'm not taking any pains to accommodate any god or gods (or a Sky Blues promotion) in my life. So I guess I'm a low 6 living the life of a 7, thanks to a minor disjunction between my slightly agnostic mind and my atheist gut.

Edit: the phrase would be "categorisation system".