How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[Foxfyre]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

Dawkins wimped out by admitting he was a "6.5". First, because he didn't have the guts to just say "7" and, secondly plus more importantly, he didn't admit the most logical position is Agnostic, "I don't know and I can't prove either position".

I questioned his "I am a 6.9" comment, too. Had to look it up, but he created his belief scale in 2006 in The God Delusion. He made his 6.9 comment in 2012. He considered himself an agnostic at one time, so will give him the benefit of a doubt and accept his answer. A person can give a finer grade to their answers. He's still a Strong Atheist and anyone can change their mind. Something can happen to change a person's mind.

He was an atheist then and was hedging his bets.

"The God Delusion" was published in 2006. He claimed to be a "6" on Bill Maher's show in 2008 then a "6.9" in 2012.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

While I certainly don't look to Richard Dawkins as any sort of authority on religious faith, I will give him props for being honest about it. Many Atheists like to hold up Einstein as a model Atheist who rejected the Abrahamic God, but Einstein did not consider himself an Atheist and rejected the label. He did not believe in a personal relationship with any God or gods, of course, but he did not reject intelligent design.

As he said:
“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind... "

 

[Brynmr]

The caveat with this scale is, which god is it that the person is professing belief in.

A Creator.

An argument can be made that we ourselves are our own creators.

 

[Brynmr]

Neither theist nor atheist, since neither theory is provable.

This is a bit like asking "how much of a Democrat or Republican are you" as if two binary choices covered everything. It doesn't.

Missed the 'other' button did you.

 

[ding]

Over 24,000 written manuscripts says otherwise.

Your evidence is that people copied the book?

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

Did you witness the Roman Empire? Did you know Socrates?

 

[ding]

Your evidence is that people copied the book?

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

 

[ding]

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

And yet there are 24,000 written manuscripts which chronicle his 3 1/2 year ministry.

 

[Mudda]

Your evidence is that people copied the book?

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

Did you witness the Roman Empire? Did you know Socrates?

The R.E. never claimed that Caesar walked on water, came back from the dead, turned water into wine... Extraordinary claims require more proof than fragments of a manuscript dated to several generations after the facts.
Plus, who ever said that I blindly accept everything written about the past? Take Socrates, for example, who knows what he was really like? Or what he really did in his spare time? Ans how is this relevant to his historical writings anyways? We have writings that influenced western society attributed to him, that's it. So what's your point?

 

[Mudda]

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

Apparently, there were several guys named Jesus pontificating in the area at that time.

 

[sealybobo]

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

 

[ding]

The book didn't exist back then.

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

Did you witness the Roman Empire? Did you know Socrates?

The R.E. never claimed that Caesar walked on water, came back from the dead, turned water into wine... Extraordinary claims require more proof than fragments of a manuscript dated to several generations after the facts.
Plus, who ever said that I blindly accept everything written about the past? Take Socrates, for example, who knows what he was really like? Or what he really did in his spare time? Ans how is this relevant to his historical writings anyways? We have writings that influenced western society attributed to him, that's it. So what's your point?

That's because they didn't.

My point is the 24,000 written manuscripts from antiquity tell us He did.

 

[ding]

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

24,000 written manuscripts say otherwise.

 

[ding]

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

Apparently, there were several guys named Jesus pontificating in the area at that time.

You are starting to sound like Michael HaShev. And he thinks he is the messiah.

 

[Mudda]

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

Did you witness the Roman Empire? Did you know Socrates?

The R.E. never claimed that Caesar walked on water, came back from the dead, turned water into wine... Extraordinary claims require more proof than fragments of a manuscript dated to several generations after the facts.
Plus, who ever said that I blindly accept everything written about the past? Take Socrates, for example, who knows what he was really like? Or what he really did in his spare time? Ans how is this relevant to his historical writings anyways? We have writings that influenced western society attributed to him, that's it. So what's your point?

That's because they didn't.

My point is the 24,000 written manuscripts from antiquity tell us He did.

24,000 copies of a manuscript whose earliest fragments date from several generations after the facts. And most of it is dated way after that. But you seem impressed by that, why is it?

 

[Mudda]

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

Apparently, there were several guys named Jesus pontificating in the area at that time.

You are starting to sound like Michael HaShev. And he thinks he is the messiah.

He could be right. After all, it's been foretold:

 

[ding]

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

Did you witness the Roman Empire? Did you know Socrates?

The R.E. never claimed that Caesar walked on water, came back from the dead, turned water into wine... Extraordinary claims require more proof than fragments of a manuscript dated to several generations after the facts.
Plus, who ever said that I blindly accept everything written about the past? Take Socrates, for example, who knows what he was really like? Or what he really did in his spare time? Ans how is this relevant to his historical writings anyways? We have writings that influenced western society attributed to him, that's it. So what's your point?

That's because they didn't.

My point is the 24,000 written manuscripts from antiquity tell us He did.

24,000 copies of a manuscript whose earliest fragments date from several generations after the facts. And most of it is dated way after that. But you seem impressed by that, why is it?

Because it is the evidence you have so sorely been looking for. You have been looking for evidence, right?

 

[ding]

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

Apparently, there were several guys named Jesus pontificating in the area at that time.

You are starting to sound like Michael HaShev. And he thinks he is the messiah.

He could be right. After all, it's been foretold:

Yes, he could. But it could also be that he is as bat shit crazy as you are too.

 

[Mudda]

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

Did you witness the Roman Empire? Did you know Socrates?

The R.E. never claimed that Caesar walked on water, came back from the dead, turned water into wine... Extraordinary claims require more proof than fragments of a manuscript dated to several generations after the facts.
Plus, who ever said that I blindly accept everything written about the past? Take Socrates, for example, who knows what he was really like? Or what he really did in his spare time? Ans how is this relevant to his historical writings anyways? We have writings that influenced western society attributed to him, that's it. So what's your point?

That's because they didn't.

My point is the 24,000 written manuscripts from antiquity tell us He did.

24,000 copies of a manuscript whose earliest fragments date from several generations after the facts. And most of it is dated way after that. But you seem impressed by that, why is it?

Because it is the evidence you have so sorely been looking for. You have been looking for evidence, right?

It's evidence that a lot of people copied a document full of hearsay. That's about it.

 

[Mudda]

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

Apparently, there were several guys named Jesus pontificating in the area at that time.

You are starting to sound like Michael HaShev. And he thinks he is the messiah.

He could be right. After all, it's been foretold:

Yes, he could. But it could also be that he is as bat shit crazy as you are too.

I'm bat shit crazy because I ask for real proof and you can't deliver any?

 

[ding]

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

Apparently, there were several guys named Jesus pontificating in the area at that time.

You are starting to sound like Michael HaShev. And he thinks he is the messiah.

He could be right. After all, it's been foretold:

Yes, he could. But it could also be that he is as bat shit crazy as you are too.

I'm bat shit crazy because I ask for real proof and you can't deliver any?

No. You are bat shit crazy because you spend so much resources talking about something you don't believe in.

 

[Divine Wind]

So your evidence is that people copied some manuscripts?

Yes, just like every other event in antiquity which you accept. The only difference is that in this case it was done many many more times and with far greater accuracy and must closer to the actual event in time.

Why, what do I accept that is historical? Give me an example.

An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians find that Jesus was a real person but then there's the separating myth from fact.

You need to make up your mind. Did Jesus exist or didn't He?

The man maybe the myth no

Agreed the "myth" is up for debate, but the man seems certain to me due to the almost immdiate impact he had on society.