Faith selector

[DaShi]

I put my cult in:


1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (98%)
3. Liberal Quakers (90%)
4. New Thought (78%)
5. Hinduism (73%)
6. Mahayana Buddhism (73%)
7. Theravada Buddhism (72%)
8. Neo-Pagan (65%)
9. Sikhism (65%)
10. New Age (65%)
11. Reform Judaism (65%)
12. Bahá'í Faith (64%)
13. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (63%)
14. Orthodox Quaker (55%)
15. Scientology (55%)
16. Jainism (53%)
17. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (51%)
18. Eastern Orthodox (44%)
19. Roman Catholic (44%)
20. Taoism (42%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (41%)
22. Seventh Day Adventist (40%)
23. Secular Humanism (37%)
24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (35%)
25. Jehovah's Witness (35%)
26. Islam (32%)
27. Nontheist (18%)

Now to get some tax breaks.

[Giovanni Wine]

Here are mines:

In bold the one I really am:

1. Orthodox Quaker (100%)
2. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (94%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (91%)
4. Eastern Orthodox (87%)
5. Roman Catholic (87%)
6. Seventh Day Adventist (86%)
7. Liberal Quakers (77%)
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (71%)
9. Orthodox Judaism (71%)
10. Unitarian Universalism (69%)
11. Hinduism (66%)
12. Jehovah's Witness (65%)
13. Islam (62%)
14. Bahá'í Faith (58%)
15. Neo-Pagan (54%)
16. Reform Judaism (52%)
17. Sikhism (52%)
18. New Age (47%)
19. Jainism (45%)
20. Mahayana Buddhism (43%)
21. Theravada Buddhism (41%)
22. Secular Humanism (40%)
23. New Thought (35%)
24. Taoism (35%)
25. Scientology (31%)
26. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (26%)
27. Nontheist (26%)

Saluti

[flash9286]

1. New Thought (100%)
2. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (96%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (95%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (93%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (85%)
6. Scientology (81%)
7. Liberal Quakers (80%)
8. Mahayana Buddhism (80%)
9. Neo-Pagan (71%)
10. Bahá'í Faith (69%)
11. New Age (69%)
12. Secular Humanism (68%)
13. Hinduism (64%)
14. Nontheist (61%)
15. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (60%)
16. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (58%)
17. Reform Judaism (57%)
18. Sikhism (55%)
19. Orthodox Judaism (54%)
20. Taoism (51%)
21. Jainism (50%)
22. Jehovah's Witness (45%)
23. Islam (44%)
24. Orthodox Quaker (44%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (33%)
26. Roman Catholic (33%)
27. Seventh Day Adventist (19%)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ramo
I agree. But agnostics want to feel metaphysically seperate from atheists, so I think there should be a practical redefinition of terms to reflect their beliefs.

Ok, I think we agree here...

Why do you trust this evidence?

The same reasons you do, but as below:

Ok, what about an invisible unicorn on the dark side of moon that comes into existence for one second every 5.6 million years. Is there a 50% chance that it exists?

Drake was quite right when he pointed out that, unless the unicorn is omnipotent, this is irrelevant. You established a clear boundary for the unicorn--it is indeed a unicorn, it is invisible, it stays on the dark side, ir appears once every 5.6 million years. With all those boundaries, I can reasonably assume, by what I know of the laws of nature and science, etc., and by the fact I know you just made up the unicorn yourself, that it doesn not exist. It's possible, but very very improbable.

That doesn't apply to God, because God has no limits.

I don't see the logic behind this 50% assertion.

Do you believe that the probability distribution of anything not empirically determinable is uniform?

Blah blah blah more science speak. The logic is simple...you can't compare it to an electron. An electron, or any other scientific thing, is something of which we know certain qualities and limits on its behavior. We know nothing of the nature of God, and can't put any sort of limit on God's existence, because god is unknowable, if he exists.

How do we know Jehovah didn't lie in the Bible? How do we know that what Jehovah wrote wasn't mistranslated, etc.?

Because Jehovah claims the words in the Bible are his words. If he lied, he wouldn't be Jehovah (Jehovah isn't supposed to lie), and if the words in the Bible are mistranslated/in error/etc., that would contradict the idea that those who are writing the words are divinely inspired.

Regardless, if those above were true, then the image of Jehovah given in the Bible is false, and that image of God is therefore provably incorrect, which was all I was saying--that particular incarnation of God is provably wrong.

Nope, it's based on a few assumptions (i.e. my vision is a valid accurate reflection of reality, etc.). Given my experiences of no apparant divine intervention, I think it's reasonable to assume no diety exists.

I don't think that is reasonable to assume at all. There is no prerequisite that an omnipotent being has to demonstrate his existence to you or I for him to exist. What if God doesn't meddle in worldy affairs? If that is the case, then your assumption is not really rational, is it?

Not believing something exists is not the same thing as believing something does not exist.

How would this work with God? "I do not believe God exists," or "I believe God does not exist" seem to me to be hairsplitting...

By knowable, do you mean provable?

provable, comprehensible, visible, etc.

Not me.

I was just making a cheap shot with that. What I really think is that agnostics just want to feel intellectually superior when they aren't.

Funny, because I think atheists do the same--and also get defensive about agnostics differentiating themselves and then lash out at them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger
I mean, Boris is claiming that he 50% believes in God and 50% doesn't believe in God, but professions of belief are largely irrelevant, and I don't see how it's possible to incorporate "half believes in God and half doesn't believe in God" into one's worldview. Does he only believe in God every other day of the week or something? Does he only confess half of his sins, or eat half of the communion wafer, or whatever?

You use quotes there, but I don't see anywhere where I said that, so who are you quoting? Not me, and I will thank you not to attribute false quotes to me.

That is not at all what I am saying, come on. the 50%/50% is the probability of God's existence, nothing more. As I've said, my own belief is that the existence of God is unknowable and unprovable, so I don't ascribe to either there being a God or there not being a God, and I think the likelihood of God existence is even.

Or does he (like most agnostics) have a worldview that is fundamentally identical to the atheist worldview (e.g. doesn't pray, doesn't go to church/temple/etc., doesn't blame God for his bad fortune or praise God for his good fortune)?

So if I believed in God, but didn't pray, go to church, blame/praise God, etc., then by this rationale I would be an atheist? Many people believe in God and do not lead a different life than yours. The difference is that you don't do these things out of lack of belief, whereas someone who believes in God but does not do the things may do it out of belief that such things aren't necessary. You're putting a really narrow definition on theists here.

If someone can explain how it's possible to have a worldview that is fundamentally different from both the atheistic and theistic worldviews, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, I don't see how there is any merit whatsoever to the distinction between atheists and agnostics.

Again, a theist and atheist can have the same basic worldview, the only difference one believes in God, the other does not. IMO, worldview is irrelevant to the discussion--it's simply about the belief in the existence of God.

[Felch]

1. Neo-Pagan (100%)
2. New Age (97%)
3. Mahayana Buddhism (97%)
4. Unitarian Universalism (95%)
5. Liberal Quakers (92%)
6. Reform Judaism (89%)
7. Sikhism (87%)
8. Hinduism (84%)
9. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (82%)
10. Jainism (79%)
11. New Thought (79%)
12. Scientology (77%)
13. Theravada Buddhism (77%)
14. Bahá'í Faith (76%)
15. Orthodox Judaism (72%)
16. Islam (64%)
17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (61%)
18. Taoism (58%)
19. Orthodox Quaker (57%)
20. Secular Humanism (51%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (40%)
22. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (40%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (36%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (32%)
25. Nontheist (32%)
26. Roman Catholic (32%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (29%)

Not the most effective upbringing.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How would this work with God? "I do not believe God exists," or "I believe God does not exist" seem to me to be hairsplitting...

It's not hairsplitting in the least, especially when the assumption that "I do not believe God exists" is equivalent to "I believe God does not exist" causes people to incorrectly ascribe the latter statement to many atheists.

In order to determine somebody's beliefs with regards to the existence of God (only the nature of their beliefs, not necessarily the extent), you need to ask two questions: "Do you believe that God exists" (question 1) and "Do you believe that God does not exist" (question 2). It is possible to answer "no" to both questions. Answering "no" to question 1 does not equate to answering "yes" to question 2, and vice versa.

You use quotes there, but I don't see anywhere where I said that, so who are you quoting? Not me, and I will thank you not to attribute false quotes to me.

You're splitting hairs. You said "I'd change agnostic to someone who believes the probability for the existence or non-existence of God is even," in other words, you half believe and half don't. I don't see how you can be offended by my paraphrasing, seeing as how you've said that you're not a theist (thus you don't believe in God) and you're not an atheist (thus you believe in God), which only leaves the possiblity that you both believe and don't believe in God.

That is not at all what I am saying, come on. the 50%/50% is the probability of God's existence, nothing more. As I've said, my own belief is that the existence of God is unknowable and unprovable, so I don't ascribe to either there being a God or there not being a God, and I think the likelihood of God existence is even.

Which doesn't answer the question regarding your worldview. Does your worldview incorporate a belief of God, or doesn't it?

So if I believed in God, but didn't pray, go to church, blame/praise God, etc., then by this rationale I would be an atheist?

If you believed in God, then you'd incorporate God into your worldview in some way (unless you consider God to be irrelevant, and I don't see how this is possible unless God were to mean something besides "an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent being/force"). This isn't restricted to praying, going to church, or blaiming/praising God (hence the "etc." in my list of activities), of course. If I truly believed, f'rinstance, that some omnipotent being were going to give me a cosmic spanking if I misbehaved, then you bet your ass that my worldview would incorporate some means of avoiding said spankings. However, I don't believe in an omnipotent being who doles out cosmic spankings, and my worldview reflects this.

Many people believe in God and do not lead a different life than yours. The difference is that you don't do these things out of lack of belief, whereas someone who believes in God but does not do the things may do it out of belief that such things aren't necessary.You're putting a really narrow definition on theists here.

At no time did I ever say that theists had to take part in all of the religious practices I described, I said that atheists (and practically all agnostics) take part in none of them. I'm in no way putting a narrow definition on "theists," I'm putting a narrow (and accurate) definition on "belief." Belief is the "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something." Simply saying "I believe thus and such" does not actually mean that you believe in thus and such--unless you truly accept the validity and relevance of thus and such, you don't actually believe in it. (I said previously that this is why Pascal's Wager is useless.) "Belief" is not merely another word for "opinion."

Again, a theist and atheist can have the same basic worldview, the only difference one believes in God, the other does not. IMO, worldview is irrelevant to the discussion--it's simply about the belief in the existence of God.

In your book, what is a "belief"? If you think that a belief in something as fundamental as the existence of an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent force/being can be irrelevant to somebody's worldview, then I question your definition of the term "belief."

[Illyrien]

The options that you are presented with doesnt seem very to accept atheism!

Just look at the first question

1. What is the number and nature of the deity (God, gods, higher power)? Choose one.

I want to answer that there is no such thing as a God..etc And the only option pointing in that direction is a weee bit rude!

"No God or supreme force. Or not sure. Or not important. "

That comment "Not Sure" is insulting. I am sure of my view and I consider it very important...And this option makes the test think I dont give a damned...


Anyway, I got these results:
1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (90%)
3. Nontheist (88%)
4. Secular Humanism (84%)
5. Liberal Quakers (83%)

[DaShi]

It's that 'or' part that gets me.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Illyrien
"No God or supreme force. Or not sure. Or not important."

All three responses fall under "atheism," that's why they're all lumped together. "Nihilism" isn't one of the faiths presented, so there's no need to make a distinction between "none" and "not sure/not important."

[Jethro83]

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Mahayana Buddhism (99%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (92%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (89%)
5. Liberal Quakers (88%)
6. New Age (87%)
7. Neo-Pagan (87%)
8. Bahá'í Faith (81%)
9. New Thought (80%)
10. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (79%)
11. Jainism (77%)
12. Hinduism (76%)
13. Taoism (73%)
14. Sikhism (71%)
15. Scientology (66%)
16. Secular Humanism (64%)
17. Reform Judaism (57%)
18. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (51%)
19. Orthodox Quaker (50%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (47%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (45%)
22. Nontheist (41%)
23. Jehovah's Witness (38%)
24. Islam (34%)
25. Seventh Day Adventist (25%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (23%)
27. Roman Catholic (23%)

[Ramo]

The same reasons you do, but as below:

But my reasons (and therefore yours) are based on many tenuous assumptions that by your criteria have a 50% likelyhood of being true (making the probability that the assertions you make on the non-existence of Santa or the tooth fairy astronomically insignificant).

For instance, by your criteria the assertion that I'm not connected to some "Matrix"-type computer simulation has only a 50% chance of being true because it is not testable.

Drake was quite right when he pointed out that, unless the unicorn is omnipotent, this is irrelevant. You established a clear boundary for the unicorn--

You've already given God a boundary - It's omni-potent. Objectively, that's no less clear than the ones I made on the unicorn.

it is indeed a unicorn, it is invisible, it stays on the dark side, ir appears once every 5.6 million years. With all those boundaries, I can reasonably assume, by what I know of the laws of nature and science, etc., [...] It's possible, but very very improbable.

Really? How do you know how an invisible unicorn that lives on the dark side of the moon and comes into existence every second out of 5.6 million years behaves? I haven't interacted with one, so I certainly don't know.

Clearly, the existence of this unicorn is not testable or "knowable."

and by the fact I know you just made up the unicorn yourself, that it doesn not exist.

That's irrelevant to my point. Imagine that this wasn't the case.

Besides, I think a bunch of people made up the idea of an omni-potent being, themselves (to help cope with their mortality).

Blah blah blah more science speak.

Is there some part of the question you don't understand?

The logic is simple...you can't compare it to an electron. An electron, or any other scientific thing, is something of which we know certain qualities and limits on its behavior. We know nothing of the nature of God, and can't put any sort of limit on God's existence, because god is unknowable, if he exists.

You don't seem to understand what science is about. Empiricism is the practice of making assertions based on generalizing similar, previous evidence. Based on all we know about the behavior of electrons, we've constructed a field theory on quantum electro-dynamics, so we can determine a probability distribution of this electron's momentum, despite the fact that it's physically impossible to find it out.

The question of God is no different. I'm only applying my previous experiences to this situation. Since I haven't dealt with any omnipotent beings thus far, nor have I heard of a credible account of such a contact, there's absolutely no reason to believe one such being exists. Just as there's absolutely no reason to believe the unicorn exists.

Because Jehovah claims the words in the Bible are his words. If he lied, he wouldn't be Jehovah (Jehovah isn't supposed to lie),

I'm jus curious, does it actually say that? And if he lies, why wouldn't he lie about lying?

and if the words in the Bible are mistranslated/in error/etc., that would contradict the idea that those who are writing the words are divinely inspired.

Why? Just because the writing is wrong today doesn't mean it started out that way.

Regardless, if those above were true, then the image of Jehovah given in the Bible is false, and that image of God is therefore provably incorrect, which was all I was saying--that particular incarnation of God is provably wrong.

Probably? It's been my experience that those with power tend to lie, and that people tend to distort words over many generations, so I don't find it that much more improbable that Jehovah didn't exist were this true.

I don't think that is reasonable to assume at all. There is no prerequisite that an omnipotent being has to demonstrate his existence to you or I for him to exist. What if God doesn't meddle in worldy affairs?

What if the invisible unicorn isn't able to interact with us?

If that is the case, then your assumption is not really rational, is it?

It's as rational as any other assertion based on the physical world, I imagine. The only teston which we can judge the physical world is previous experience. And God fails, at least for me.

How would this work with God? "I do not believe God exists," or "I believe God does not exist" seem to me to be hairsplitting...

The primary definiton of "believe" from my convenient online dictionary:
"1.
[v] accept as true; take to be true. More..."

To not believe that a God exists, is to not accept as true that a God exists.

To believe a God does not exist is to accept as true that a God does not exist. Or to accept as false that a God exists.

Obviously, those are extremely different assertions.

They want to feel metaphysically separate (usually by ascribing beliefs to atheists that many atheists don't even have, like Boris has done by falsely equating "doesn't believe in God" to "believes in no-god"), and every time there's an OTF "what religion are you" poll that has an atheist option but no agnostic option there's always a slew of agnostics saying "I refuse to vote, because I'm not an atheist." I'm just trying to figure out how agnostics are metaphysically separate from atheists. I mean, Boris is claiming that he 50% believes in God and 50% doesn't believe in God, but professions of belief are largely irrelevant, and I don't see how it's possible to incorporate "half believes in God and half doesn't believe in God" into one's worldview. Does he only believe in God every other day of the week or something? Does he only confess half of his sins, or eat half of the communion wafer, or whatever? Or does he (like most agnostics) have a worldview that is fundamentally identical to the atheist worldview (e.g. doesn't pray, doesn't go to church/temple/etc., doesn't blame God for his bad fortune or praise God for his good fortune)? If someone can explain how it's possible to have a worldview that is fundamentally different from both the atheistic and theistic worldviews, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, I don't see how there is any merit whatsoever to the distinction between atheists and agnostics.

I see what you're getting at, but I think that the easiest division between the three beliefs, given that agnostics aren't suddenly going to start calling themselves atheists en masse, is the differing idea on the likelyhood of the existence of God(s).

[nationalist]

Orthodox Jew, 100%

I'm a Protestant.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Ramo
But my reasons (and therefore yours) are based on many tenuous assumptions that by your criteria have a 50% likelyhood of being true (making the probability that the assertions you make on the non-existence of Santa or the tooth fairy astronomically insignificant).

For instance, by your criteria the assertion that I'm not connected to some "Matrix"-type computer simulation has only a 50% chance of being true because it is not testable.

Well yeah, that's how it works.

If you have no way of knowing or even making an educated guess, and there are two mutually exclusive possibilities, the chance for each is one half.

Probability rears its ugly head.

You might be willing to bet on different odds than that, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the probability. I think we are at least.

[Ramo]

But the point is, I can make an educated guess. I don't know of any people ever being connected to a Matrix-type simulation, and as far as I know I haven't previously myself, so it's improbable that I am right now.

The same reasoning applies to the existence of God or the unicorn I proposed.

I can use my experiences to associate a probability distribution to any concept.