Anyone here a Category 7?

[The Grand Nudger]

They can call it impersonal all they like.  That doesn't mean that their description is accurate....and you're equivocating on this one anyway (unintentionally, I think).

Many great spirits are claimed to be "impersonal" in the way that deists god is "impersonal".  That's not actually the same as claiming (or describing) it in a way that lacks human attributes, personhood. -as a being.

[Angrboda]

My understanding is that ignosticism can mean two things. That definitions of God aren't, or that it doesn't matter period. Regarding the first, the complaint seems to be that in the case of God, the definition is slippery and indeterminate. But the problem is that all language is like that. Just because we can't have an exact definition which everybody unambiguously agrees upon doesn't mean we lack an adequately defined common understanding from which we can work. That just seems like the fallacy of the beard on steroids. So I'm in Khem's camp, even if I don't necessarily see it as a rhetorical device. I think it's just a confusion masquerading as an important point.

---

There is no concept of god that isn't, in some way, relatable to human beings as significantly "like us" (so that we might understand why nature does what it does..what motives the wind and the rain to feed us or starve us, to put out the fire or burn down our settlement) even if it's argued to be different in so many other ways.  Like them...believers often contend that -we- are supernatural beings.  

The god of Neo-Platonism comes close, at the least, though to the degree that it does, I would also argue that it is not God.

[Dr H]

-and the whole time you were debating that..he believed in an anthropomorphized supernatural entity that held authority over the functions of this world.

Or an anthropomorphized paranormal entity...

[The Grand Nudger]

The gods of neoplatonism were gods, and The One was not. That later christian nitwits asserted that their god was not only a god, but also Demiurge and The One is a fun little tick of apologetic history.

[shadow]

I'm definitely a 6. A 7 would be more flashy but it's doesn't make sense to be that certain. For all I know there's some rando god somewhere in the undiscovered universe doing his/her/its thing.

Don't really see why that scale matters though: why is delineating certainty into 7 steps meaningful? Isn't it more important to explore why people hold a belief than arbitrarily ranking that belief by their level of obstinance?

[Dr H]

Don't really see why that scale matters though: why is delineating certainty into 7 steps meaningful? 

I am 57.1% uncertain how to answer that question.

[Gwaithmir]

I'm a 7 in regard to God as defined by mainstream Christianity, since he can be logically demonstrated to be non-existent. As to other gods, I don't really care as none of them have been clearly defined to me, nor rational evidence presented for their existences.
 

[Natachan]

Yup, as far as the god of the Bible. That thing doesn’t exist. We can trace the origins of the myths, the evidence Kitiona of the story, and the elder religion it comes from. As such we can be damn sure the god described in the Bible is as likely to exist as Voldemort.

[onlinebiker]

I'm a lapsed atheist.


That' s a practicing atheist who quit going to services.


..


If one " practices " a belief ( or non- belief) - isn't that sort of like a philosophical garage band? Just always practicing - and never getting a gig???

Quit with the practice already, and PLAY that mother.......

[Dr H]

If one " practices " a belief ( or non- belief) - isn't that sort of like a philosophical garage band? Just always practicing - and never getting a gig???

Garage religionists never get to heaven. 

And they don't have any fun here.  So sad.