Religious Typology Quiz

Doc Dutch said:
I prefer concise and condensed. It's much better than self-inflated and useless in a survival situation. :D

What was the hardest thing you ever did, neef?
Click to expand...

I survived Vietnam, but I don't take too much credit for that because I wasn't trying that hard. It was just luck.

I put two kids through private universities.

I protected workers successfully before the labor relations board.

I put the toughest guard from our state's maximum security prison into both the ER and the ICU of Massachusetts General Hospital
when he decided that he could supplement his day job as a boxer. He permanently lost sight in one eye.
It was the only time I ever purposely hurt somebody in an athletic contest.
You're welcome, inmates.
 
Last edited:
NiftyNiblick said:
I survived Vietnam, but I don't take too much credit for that because I wasn't trying that hard. it was just luck.

I put two kids through private universities.

I protected workers successfully before the labor relations board.

I put the toughest guard from our state's maximum security prison into both the ER and the ICU of Massachusetts General Hospital
when he decided that he could supplement his day job as a boxer. He permanently lost sight in one eye.
It was the only time I ever purposely hurt somebody in an athletic contest.
You're welcome, inmates.
Click to expand...

With a wine glass and a cigar?

You did your fatherly duty. Good for you. Even better is that they passed on their own, albeit with your financial assistance, Mr. Moneybags. :thup:

Why would you intentionally maim someone?
 
Doc Dutch said:
With a wine glass and a cigar?

You did your fatherly duty. Good for you. Even better is that they passed on their own, albeit with your financial assistance, Mr. Moneybags. :thup:

Why would you intentionally maim someone?
Click to expand...

I was a pretty boy college student boxing on local pro club cards for gas and beer money.
It wasn't hard because most local club pros didn't have my amateur tournament credentials.
They were just local tough guys.

I was twenty or twenty-one, I believe, and this fine state employee was pushing thirty.

We met in the middle of the ring for the usual referee instructions,
and when we were to respectfully touch gloves before returning to our respective corners and waiting for the bell,

this gentleman informed me that he was about to become my new daddy.

I took it badly, and he wasn't the kind of person I would like much anyway.
I regret nothing before you ask.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I was a pretty boy college student boxing on local pro club cards for gas and beer money.
It wasn't hard because most local club pros didn't have my amateur tournament credentials.
They were just local tough guys.

I was twenty or twenty-one, I believe, and this fine state employee was pushing thirty.

We met in the middle of the ring for the usual referee instructions,
and when we were to respectfully touch gloves before returning to our respective corners and waiting for the bell,

this gentleman informed me that he was about to become my new daddy.

I took it badly, and he wasn't the kind of person I would like much anyway.
I regret nothing before you ask.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a fair fight to me.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I define "grace" as a combination of respectable deportment, taste, poise, good will, and adequate refinement.

That's as much as we can expect from our very imperfect species. Probably a little more, it seems.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see and grok your definition. It is not the same as when Christians refer to receiving grace.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed. It's a problem when people either try to mix them too much or declare one is superior to the other.

When push comes to shove, I prefer to follow the facts. Studying and understanding the Universe is a good thing. Those who are religious and truly believe God created the Universe should also believe God gave humans a brain with the expectation people would use it. People saying, "No, we should do it like our ancestors Og and Olga did in the old days because they saw a grass fire" are not using their brains.
Click to expand...

I think science is clearly superior as a method for collecting and interpreting data about nature.

But I agree with you, that the complete human life really can't be just about understanding differential equations and quantum energy fields. The moral, philosophical, spirirtual, and/or religious dimension has to come into play if life is going to have the slightest purpose or meaning. Donald Trumpf would be the exception to that rule. He is strictly materialistic, cynical, irreligious, and amoral.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Exactly. If a person says to you that there aren't invisible unicorns moving around you, how would they know except for their imagination?

How can I know for certain there aren't creatures from a different plane of existence next to you? All I know is that there is no evidence either way. I'm certainly not going to get bent out of shape over it. LOL
Click to expand...

I believe this is what is the basis for Weak vs Strong atheism. Strong atheists simply decree "There is no God", but they can't say that. God may be out there but undetected. It is like saying "There are no cows on Mars". Well, that makes perfect sense, but we don't know that for sure since we have not explored all of Mars down to every nook and cranny. A global negative claim is impossible to prove.

Weak atheists on the other hand equally do not believe in God but their position as I understand is that they simply don't see evidence for God so assume that likely He does not exist. But they are open to hearing more evidence just in case they are wrong. But it is still very much "atheism", just more philosophically and logically robust.

It seems that you are taking a kind of obverse position from the weak athiest in that you are saying that it is rational to believe that ALL non-logically-impossible beings that could exist DO exist until shown otherwise. I can't really think of anyone who functions that way in regards to anything in their lives.
 
Cypress said:
There are no legitimate scientists studying the purpose of the Big Bang or the purpose of life.
Click to expand...

That's probably because there is no "purpose" on display anywhere.

Let's take "evolution" for instance. Many on this forum may believe that humans are more "advanced" evolutionarily than bacteria. But that's kind of wrong thinking. In fact BOTH are EQUALLY advanced per evolution. Evolution is a passive filter which eliminates maladaptive features. The bacteria inhabiting its niche is as perfected as it needs to be to survive. It is the pinacle of evolution. Humans inhabiting their niche are as evolutionarily perfect as they need to be.

Evolution doesn't have a "direction", it just acts as a passive gate that keeps maladaptive features of living things from getting past so long as they happen before reproduction can happen.

Final causes (teleology) has generally been rejected by science because the modern scientific view is that the cosmos doesn't ultimately have a purpose, direction, or goal....at least not one amenable to scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...

Again, what "final cause" are you referring to? I bet it differs from every single other human being's suggestion of the "final cause". That's probably because it is mostly just humans imagining something deeper. They look at a tree and think it's so amazing that it MUST have some deeper attributes, there must be a REASON nature created a tree. But that is little more than magical thinking.

I assume you are amply familiar with Ockham's Razor. So why propose an added complexity to nature when there isn't really any NEED for it? Just because one can imagine some "teleology" for the tree doesn't mean it has a necessary existence. And it is possible to explain everything about the tree without reliance on any metaphysical features.

Philosophically-minded scientists have been discussing for a century what quantum mechanics really means, what it tells about reality.
Click to expand...

Just because QM is difficult to understand from a macro-existence perspective and is truly and honestly weird as anything does not mean there is some deeper meaning to existence. All it means is that existence is potentially weirder than we thought at the atomic level but it doesn't necessarily mean there is some "deeper cause" or "meaning" to anything.


QM seems to undermine determinism.
Click to expand...

If something undermines determinism and things become truly random, then it would seem to indicate that even nature is trying to tell you there is no "plan". It just is.
 
NovoJank said:
I believe this is what is the basis for Weak vs Strong atheism. Strong atheists simply decree "There is no God", but they can't say that. God may be out there but undetected. It is like saying "There are no cows on Mars". Well, that makes perfect sense, but we don't know that for sure since we have not explored all of Mars down to every nook and cranny. A global negative claim is impossible to prove.

Weak atheists on the other hand equally do not believe in God but their position as I understand is that they simply don't see evidence for God so assume that likely He does not exist. But they are open to hearing more evidence just in case they are wrong. But it is still very much "atheism", just more philosophically and logically robust.

It seems that you are taking a kind of obverse position from the weak athiest in that you are saying that it is rational to believe that ALL non-logically-impossible beings that could exist DO exist until shown otherwise. I can't really think of anyone who functions that way in regards to anything in their lives.
Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probability puts it on a scale of 1 to 7. As a famous atheist, not to mention getting rich off of atheism, even Dawkins' wasn't stupid enough to call himself a 7.

https://bigthink.com/articles/atheism-easter-atheister/
Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

  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.
Click to expand...

Assuming anything without evidence is not a logical position. It's a belief.

From the link, I am a 3 to a 4; akin to Pascal and Einstein.
 
NovoJank said:
That's probably because there is no "purpose" on display anywhere.

Let's take "evolution" for instance. Many on this forum may believe that humans are more "advanced" evolutionarily than bacteria. But that's kind of wrong thinking. In fact BOTH are EQUALLY advanced per evolution. Evolution is a passive filter which eliminates maladaptive features. The bacteria inhabiting its niche is as perfected as it needs to be to survive. It is the pinacle of evolution. Humans inhabiting their niche are as evolutionarily perfect as they need to be.

Evolution doesn't have a "direction", it just acts as a passive gate that keeps maladaptive features of living things from getting past so long as they happen before reproduction can happen.



Again, what "final cause" are you referring to? I bet it differs from every single other human being's suggestion of the "final cause". That's probably because it is mostly just humans imagining something deeper. They look at a tree and think it's so amazing that it MUST have some deeper attributes, there must be a REASON nature created a tree. But that is little more than magical thinking.

I assume you are amply familiar with Ockham's Razor. So why propose an added complexity to nature when there isn't really any NEED for it? Just because one can imagine some "teleology" for the tree doesn't mean it has a necessary existence. And it is possible to explain everything about the tree without reliance on any metaphysical features.



Just because QM is difficult to understand from a macro-existence perspective and is truly and honestly weird as anything does not mean there is some deeper meaning to existence. All it means is that existence is potentially weirder than we thought at the atomic level but it doesn't necessarily mean there is some "deeper cause" or "meaning" to anything.




If something undermines determinism and things become truly random, then it would seem to indicate that even nature is trying to tell you there is no "plan". It just is.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So we should not allow mankind to be directed by violent eugenicists, mass murderers, and others who do not value basic morality.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Richard Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probability puts it on a scale of 1 to 7. As a famous atheist, not to mention getting rich off of atheism, even Dawkins' wasn't stupid enough to call himself a 7.

https://bigthink.com/articles/atheism-easter-atheister/


Assuming anything without evidence is not a logical position. It's a belief.

From the link, I am a 3 to a 4; akin to Pascal and Einstein.
Click to expand...

But it's not a matter of "degree". It's a fact that a universal negative claim is nearly impossible if not logically impossible to prove.

As such Level 7 isn't achievable.
 
NovoJank said:
I believe this is what is the basis for Weak vs Strong atheism.....
Click to expand...
NovoJank said:
But it's not a matter of "degree". It's a fact that a universal negative claim is nearly impossible if not logically impossible to prove.

As such Level 7 isn't achievable.
Click to expand...
You just flip-flopped on your own previous statement.

Take it up with Dawkins. He's the one who got rich selling this shit to atheists. LOL
 
Doc Dutch said:
You just flip-flopped on your own previous statement.
Click to expand...

No, I clearly stated in my original point that strong atheism which is exactly what is noted as level 7 is logically impossible.

I have remained consistent in my definitions.

(And I don't really care what Dawkins says about this since there is no "atheist pope" so no need to give a flip if I disagree with him on the topic).
 
NovoJank said:
No, I clearly stated in my original point that strong atheism which is exactly what is noted as level 7 is logically impossible.

I have remained consistent in my definitions.

(And I don't really care what Dawkins says about this since there is no "atheist pope" so no need to give a flip if I disagree with him on the topic).
Click to expand...

What is "level 7?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top