Spectrum of theistic probability Popularized by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, the spectrum of theistic probability is a way of categorizing one's belief regarding the probability of the existence of a deity.
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't 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 conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Last Edit: Jul 10, 2014 4:18:57 GMT 5 by Vodmeister
The god that appears in the bible or the Qur’an is just plain impossible even from a philosophical point of view–something just can’t be "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent" from a logical point of view. Furthermore, from a historical point of view that god would obviously not be omnibenevolent, and if we were to accept any of those holy books, his own words would prove that. So in that regard, actually I’m a 7, because I am sure that such a god does not exist (and hell, I wouldn’t want it to exist either).
There is a possibility that I can not completely rule out that our universe (or what we think of as our universe, anyway was influenced, perhaps even created, by some sort of extremely powerful being (or beings), which just not hasn’t been discovered yet. I find that very unlikely, but I can’t falsify it either, so my view bases on parsimony and probability. Hence concerning that, I’m still a 6. However, I think "God" would not be the right word to describe such an entity. If such beings existed, and were discovered, that would just imply a significant advancement of modern science and an extension of natural principles, no more, no less. "Supernatural" is thus just a natural phenomenon that hasn’t been understood yet, because everything there is is natural.
I.e., what I think could be possible (but don’t believe in), I just wouldn’t call a god.
Last Edit: Jul 16, 2015 14:29:06 GMT 5 by theropod
Most religious people tend to range between 2 and 3. I know of very few who would actually be a 1, perhaps some extremists who'd willingly bet their lives that every word in their holy book (usually either the Bible or Qur'an) is true.
I still haven't changed my mind though, I'm a 5. I don't believe in a god, but I wouldn't bet anything on it.
Religious or not, there are many stuff we don't know what happens to consciousness after death, if at all. We found out recently that consciousness isn't entirely affiliated with the brain. I think there is something more to it then evolution/god or whatever. I think its a good idea for both religious people and atheists to look into other cultures and take a long look, and draw your conclusions from there.
Infinity Blade: I'm not sure. Freshwater plants certainly grow from the underwater sediment upwards, but I don't know if they support the same kinds of diverse ecosystems seagrass meadows do.
Mar 25, 2022 21:40:57 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Is there a freshwater equivalent of seagrass meadows?
Mar 24, 2022 22:17:28 GMT 5
hypezephyr: IN DROWN, WATER WILL CHIMPS
May 27, 2021 22:33:21 GMT 5
kekistani: IN WATER, CHIMPS WILL DROWN.
Mar 18, 2021 11:18:01 GMT 5
roninwolf1981: I wonder why is it that the greater apes would drown if they fell into water from the trees?
Mar 16, 2021 22:25:11 GMT 5
kekistani: The virgin and bluepilled Mokele Mbembe versus the CHAD and REDPILLED Water Elephant
Mar 4, 2021 22:31:57 GMT 5
Ceratodromeus: Considering even the most terrestrially inclined extant crocodilians are also very good swimmers, i see zero reason for sebechids to not be.
Feb 25, 2021 21:09:18 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Virtually every terrestrial animal can swim if it needs to. I don't know about tail flexibility, though.
Feb 21, 2021 22:17:14 GMT 5
jhg: Probably not. Terrestrial crocodiles stayed on land for a good reason.
Feb 21, 2021 11:17:16 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Do you think sebecids and other crocodile-like terrestrial animals were good swimmers and if so, would they have used their tails to swim or would they have been too stiff?
Feb 21, 2021 6:16:35 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Welcome to World of Animals.
Jan 31, 2021 5:06:24 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Any idea how well pterosaurs would have fared in extremely cold climates? I can't help but assume that their wing membranes would be more vunerable to frostbite than a bird's wing.
Jan 23, 2021 9:38:14 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Turns out there is a study: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08812-2 fresh bones provided 63% more energy than dry bones but what I find intresting is that dry bones that are between 3-12 months old is still a viable food source for them.
Jan 4, 2021 9:18:34 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: I think they might get calcium from the bones, but those might be harder to digest as well. For bone marrow, I'd say however long it's around before it completely decays.
Jan 4, 2021 6:23:06 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Question: I know a bearded vulture's diet consists mainly of bone marrow, but are they able to derive nutritional value from old bones or do the bones have to be relatively fresh?
Jan 4, 2021 2:59:21 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Happy New Year mudda fuggas.
Jan 1, 2021 10:02:06 GMT 5