handdator

Visa fullständig version : Vilken typ av ateist är du?


Doctor Snuggles
2014-01-14, 22:04
http://www.atheismresearch.com/

"Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic (IAA)

The first and most frequently discussed type is what could be termed The Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic or IAA. IAA typology includes individuals who proactively seek to educate themselves through intellectual association, and proactively acquire knowledge on various topics relating to ontology (the search for Truth) and non-belief. They enjoy dialectic enterprises such as healthy democratic debate and discussions, and are intrinsically motivated to do so. These individuals are typically versed in a variety of writings on belief and non-belief and are prone to cite these authors in discussions.
IAAs associate with fellow intellectuals regardless of the other’s ontological position as long as the IAA associate is versed and educated on various issues of science, philosophy, “rational” theology, and common socio-political religious dialog. They may enjoy discussing the epistemological positions related to the existence or non-existence of a deity. Besides using textual sources such as intellectual books, IAAs may utilize technology such as the Internet to read popular blogs, view YouTube videos, and listen to podcasts that fall in line with their particular interests. Facebook and other online social networking sites can be considered a medium for learning or discussion. However, not only is the IAA typically engaged in electronic forms of intellectualism but they oftentimes belong to groups that meet face to face offline such as various skeptic, rationalist and freethinking groups for similar mentally stimulating discussions and interaction. The modus operandi for the Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic is the externalization of epistemologically oriented social stimulation.

Activist (AAA)

The next typology relates to being socially active. These individuals are termed the Activist Atheist/Agnostic. Individuals in the AAA typology are not content with the placidity of simply holding a non-belief position; they seek to be both vocal and proactive regarding current issues in the atheist and/or agnostic socio-political sphere. This sphere can include such egalitarian issues, but is not limited to: concerns of humanism, feminism, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered (LGBT) issues, social or political concerns, human rights themes, environmental concerns, animal rights, and controversies such as the separation of church and state. Their activism can be as minimal as the education of friends or others, to much larger manifestations of social activities such as boycotting products, promoting legal action, or marching public demonstration to raise awareness. Activist Atheists/Agnostics are commonly naturalistic or humanistic minded individuals, but are not limited to these types of ethical concerns. It is not uncommon for AAA individuals to ally themselves with other movements in support of social awareness. The Activist Atheist/Agnostic’s are not idle; they effectuate their interests and beliefs.

Seeker-Agnostic (SA)

The third typological characteristic is the Seeker-Agnostic. Seeker-Agnostic typology consists of individuals attuned to the metaphysical possibilities precluding metaphysical existence, or at least recognizes the philosophical difficulties and complexities in making personal affirmations regarding ideological beliefs. They may call themselves agnostic or agnostic-atheist, as the SA simply cannot be sure of the existence of God or the divine. They keep an open mind in relation to the debate between the religious, spiritual, and antitheist elements within society.
Seeker-Agnostics recognize the limitation of human knowledge and experience. They actively search for and respond to knowledge and evidence, either supporting or disconfirming truth claims. They also understand, or at least recognize, the qualitative complexities of experiences in the formation of personal meaning. Seeker- Agnostics do not hold a firm ideological position but always search for the scientifically wondrous, and experientially profound confirmation of life’s meaning. They may be intrinsically motivated to explore and seek understanding in the world around them. The diversity of others is accepted for the SA and co-existence with the “others” is not only possible, but also welcomed. Their worldly outlook may be mediated by science; however, they recognize current scientific limitations and embrace scientific uncertainty. They are comfortable with this uncertainty and even enjoy discussing it. Some Intellectual Atheist/Agnostics or Anti-Theists may accuse the Seeker-Agnostic of avoiding responsibility or commitment to a more solid affirmation of atheism. In other cases, outsiders may see it as an ontological transitional state from religion or spirituality to atheism.
In some cases, Seeker-Agnostics may generally miss being a believer either from the social benefits or the emotional connection they have with others such as friends or family. At times, their intellectual disagreement with their former theology causes some cognitive dissonance and it is possible they may continue to identity as a religious or spiritual individual. However, taking those exceptions into account, the majority of Seeker-Agnostics should in no way be considered “confused.” For the Seeker-Agnostic, uncertainty is embraced.

Anti-Theist

The fourth typology, and one of the more assertive in their view, we termed the Anti-Theist. While the Anti-Theists may be considered atheist or in some cases labeled as “new atheists,” the Anti-Theist is diametrically opposed to religious ideology. As such, the assertive Anti-Theist both proactively and aggressively asserts their views towards others when appropriate, seeking to educate the theists in the passé nature of belief and theology. In other words, antitheists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental. The Anti-Theist has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding of the limitations and danger of religions. They view the logical fallacies of religion as an outdated worldview that is not only detrimental to social cohesion and peace, but also to technological advancement and civilized evolution as a whole. They are compelled to share their view and want to educate others into their ideological position and attempt to do so when and where the opportunity arises. Some Anti-Theist individuals feel compelled to work against the institution of religion in its various forms including social, political, and ideological, while others may assert their view with religious persons on an individual basis. The Anti-Theist believes that the obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another. Based on personalities, some Anti-Theists may be more assertive than others; but outsiders and friends know very clearly where they stand in relation to an Anti-theist. Their worldview is typically not a mystery. The Anti-Theist’s reaction to a religious devotee is often based on social and psychological maturity.

Non-Theist

The fifth typology is termed the Non-Theist. While not many individuals identified themselves as this type, they did have experiences with others who self-classified as being non-theists. For the Non-Theists, the alignment of oneself with religion, or conversely an epistemological position against religion, can appear quite unconventional from their perspective. However, a few terms may best capture the sentiments of the Non-Theist. One is apathetic, while another may be disinterested. The Non-Theist is non-active in terms of involving themselves in social or intellectual pursuits having to do with religion or anti-religion. A Non-Theist simply does not concern him or herself with religion. Religion plays no role or issue in one’s consciousness or worldview; nor does a Non- Theist have concern for the atheist or agnostic movement. No part of their life addresses or considers transcendent ontology. They are not interested in any type of secularist agenda and simply do not care. Simply put, Non-Theist’s are apathetic non-believers. They simply do not believe, and in the same right, their absence of faith means the absence of anything religion in any form from their mental space.

Ritual Atheist/Agnostic (RAA)

The sixth and final type was one of the most interesting and unexpected. This exploration termed this type The Ritual Atheist/Agnostic or RAA. The RAA holds no belief in God or the divine, or they tend to believe it is unlikely that there is an afterlife with God or the divine. They are open about their lack of belief and may educate themselves on the various aspects of belief by others. One of the defining characteristics regarding Ritual Atheists/Agnostics is that they may find utility in the teachings of some religious traditions. They see these as more or less philosophical teachings of how to live life and achieve happiness than a path to transcendental liberation. Ritual Atheist/Agnostics find utility in tradition and ritual. For example, these individuals may participate in specific rituals, ceremonies, musical opportunities, meditation, yoga classes, or holiday traditions. Such participation may be related to an ethnic identity (e.g. Jewish) or the perceived utility of such practices in making the individual a better person.
Many times the Ritual Atheist/Agnostic may be misidentified as spiritual but not religious, but they are quick to point out that they are atheist or agnostic in relation to their own ontological view. For other Ritual Atheist/Agnostics, it may be simply that they hold respect for profound symbolism inherent within religious rituals, beliefs, and ceremonies. The Ritual Atheist/Agnostic individual perceives ceremonies and rituals as producing personal meaning within life. This meaning can be an artistic or cultural appreciation of human systems of meaning while knowing there is no higher reality other than the observable reality of the mundane world. In some cases, these individuals may identify strongly with religious traditions as a matter of cultural identity and even take an active participation in religious rituals. While RAA may celebrate their association with ritualistic organizations or call themselves cultural practitioners of a faith-based practice, they are open and honest about their ontological position and do not hide their lack of belief in the metaphysical or divine. Ritual Atheist /Agnostics may identify ritualistically or symbolically with Judaism, Paganism, Buddhism, or Laveyan Satanism to name some examples.

Red Apple
2014-01-14, 22:21
IAA antar jag.

Doctor Snuggles
2014-01-14, 22:22
Jag antar man måste vara en av de aggressivare typerna för att orka läsa det där. :D

Rikard Jansson
2014-01-14, 22:24
Sorten som inte lider av hybris och är jobbigare än Jehovas när det kommer till att köra ner sina åsikter och tankar i halsen på andra :)

tntballe
2014-01-14, 22:24
TLDR stämmer på mig

MasterChief
2014-01-14, 22:25
Jag tror inte på Gud. Kan någon berätta vilken typ av ateist jag är?

en stor stark
2014-01-14, 22:25
IAA brukade jag väl vara. Orkade inte läsa så noga. :D

Idag bryr jag mig inte så mycket om något övh och är bara inte troende helt enkelt. Har blivit rätt passiv. Såvida man inte aktivt försöker få fram en reaktion från mig. ;)

Känns lite konstigt att dela upp det i så många saker. Jag tror bara inte på gud helt enkelt.

AronP
2014-01-14, 22:26
Måste jag klassificeria mig så är det väl iaa.

eternallord
2014-01-14, 22:27
Nån blandning mellan IAA och SA skulle jag tro.

Doctor Snuggles
2014-01-14, 22:31
Jag tror inte på Gud. Kan någon berätta vilken typ av ateist jag är?

Du är en av de sex typerna.

XXXL
2014-01-14, 22:33
Jag tror inte på gud men jag tror på tomten, vart hamnar jag då?

hugok
2014-01-15, 10:01
Jag gissar att jag är en non-theist. Religion existerar inte i min värld. Jag diskuterar knappt ens guds möjliga existens eller huruvida evolutionen är på riktigt eller ett påhitt. På samma sätt som jag inte diskuterar om gravitationen är på riktigt eller ett påhitt. Det är en icke-fråga.

Hackenschmidt
2014-01-15, 10:04
Den fedoratippande

qozmox
2014-01-15, 10:04
jag är en sån dära richardawkinist

BelowAverage
2014-01-15, 10:05
Seeker-agnostic.
Har svårt att förstå motiven hos ateister på krigsstigen mot religion (i Sverige).
I USA t.ex förstår jag att man sätter ned foten.

4623
2014-01-15, 10:07
TLDR stämmer på mig

Samma här.

Trodde det skulle finnas något skoj test där jag skulle svara på frågor. :(

filmjölk
2014-01-15, 10:14
Jag är ingen av de där, då jag hellre vill tro på gud.

LoveMachine
2014-01-15, 10:37
Då jag inte ser mig som ateist bara för att jag inte tror på gud så blir det väl en lite skev fråga. Men om man ska begränsa sig till de arketyper som finns ovan så blir det nog, Non-Theist.

För mig handlar det utöver brist på tro eller sympati för religion om att det inte är relevant för mig. Gudomlighet har helt enkelt ingen plats eller betydelse i min världsbild. Jag har inga problem med att diskutera frågan på ett abstrakt plan men skulle aldrig drömma om att göra gudadyrkan eller gudsförnekelse till en livsstil. Båda leder ju till att man faktiskt låter en eller flera religioner vara ens referensram, antingen som ledstjärna eller som motpol.

En teist, en agnostiker, en ateist och LoveMachine titar upp mot natthimmeln.

Agnostiker: Vilken fantstisk syn, undrar om det är en gud som skapat vårt fantastiska universum.
Teist: Ja det måste det vara, något så fantastiskt kan inte uppstå genom en slump.
Ateist: Nej det är ingen gud som skapat universum.
LoveMachine: Undrar vilken stjärna som är Alfa Centauri?

Dessutom så motsätter jag mig den ofta rätt auktoritära världsbild som religionerna har vad det gäller moral. Jag vet inte om jag kommer dömmas för mina synder i efterlivet, men jag vet att jag måste leva med de beslut jag gör. Det sistnämnda spelar en större roll för mig då jag inte kan tänka mig ursäkta mitt handlande genom att hänvisa till en moralisk auktoritet. Så om gud har samma moral som mig har jag inget behov av dess budord för mitt uppträdande, om vi inte har samma moral så har jag ingen avsikt att följa budorden. Är jag dessutom mot förmodan en hemsk och ond människa så förtjänar jag väl att brinna i all evighet

Om det finns en allsmäktig gud som styr allt så är det dessutom ändå ingen bra förklaringsmodell för världen. Vetenskapen har många modeller som kan förklara hur saker hänger ihop som vi har kunna använda oss av. Även om naturlagarna är skapade av en gud så hjälper de oss mer i vardagen än att försöka förutspå hur en allmäktig allseende varelse tänker. Att använda argumentet att något är guds vilja saknar helt och hållet praktisk nytta annat än för att döva sitt samvete.

Slutligen så har jag inget emot tro, men däremot religion. Detta eftersom det är när folk har börjat organisera sin tro i diverse religioner som saker jhar en tendens att gå över styr. Den personliga tron är din egen ensak och påverkar bara dig.

jenni
2014-01-15, 10:48
Inga bevis, ingen Gud

spoonchest
2014-01-15, 10:55
Jag gissar att jag är en non-theist. Religion existerar inte i min värld. Jag diskuterar knappt ens guds möjliga existens eller huruvida evolutionen är på riktigt eller ett påhitt. På samma sätt som jag inte diskuterar om gravitationen är på riktigt eller ett påhitt. Det är en icke-fråga.

Är inne på samma spår. En icke-fråga.
Men å andra sidan blir jag lika provocerad av religion i sig som typ andra sagoväsen som skogsrået och tomten. Alltså inte det minsta. Jag blir däremot provocerad av folk som tar med dessa sagoväsen som relevanta faktorer när de resonerar kring saker och ting i den verkliga världen. Eller ja, i klartext: När folk tappar distans till sagorna.

J.V
2014-01-15, 12:32
TLDR stämmer på migPrecis så. Gud och religion är för stor icke-fråga för att jag ska bemöda mig till att komma fram till sånt här. Jag tror inte det existerar någon gud och religion är värdelöst, men jag håller käft om det och försöker inte övertyga andra. Det räcker så. Försöker någon ta upp det med mig byter jag samtalsämne.

TomasB
2014-01-15, 12:46
Seeker agnostic - rätt spot on också! :)

Onigiri
2014-01-15, 13:23
Då jag inte ser mig som ateist bara för att jag inte tror på gud så blir det väl en lite skev fråga. Men om man ska begränsa sig till de arketyper som finns ovan så blir det nog, Non-Theist.

För mig handlar det utöver brist på tro eller sympati för religion om att det inte är relevant för mig. Gudomlighet har helt enkelt ingen plats eller betydelse i min världsbild. Jag har inga problem med att diskutera frågan på ett abstrakt plan men skulle aldrig drömma om att göra gudadyrkan eller gudsförnekelse till en livsstil. Båda leder ju till att man faktiskt låter en eller flera religioner vara ens referensram, antingen som ledstjärna eller som motpol.

En teist, en agnostiker, en ateist och LoveMachine titar upp mot natthimmeln.

Agnostiker: Vilken fantstisk syn, undrar om det är en gud som skapat vårt fantastiska universum.
Teist: Ja det måste det vara, något så fantastiskt kan inte uppstå genom en slump.
Ateist: Nej det är ingen gud som skapat universum.
LoveMachine: Undrar vilken stjärna som är Alfa Centauri?

Dessutom så motsätter jag mig den ofta rätt auktoritära världsbild som religionerna har vad det gäller moral. Jag vet inte om jag kommer dömmas för mina synder i efterlivet, men jag vet att jag måste leva med de beslut jag gör. Det sistnämnda spelar en större roll för mig då jag inte kan tänka mig ursäkta mitt handlande genom att hänvisa till en moralisk auktoritet. Så om gud har samma moral som mig har jag inget behov av dess budord för mitt uppträdande, om vi inte har samma moral så har jag ingen avsikt att följa budorden. Är jag dessutom mot förmodan en hemsk och ond människa så förtjänar jag väl att brinna i all evighet

Om det finns en allsmäktig gud som styr allt så är det dessutom ändå ingen bra förklaringsmodell för världen. Vetenskapen har många modeller som kan förklara hur saker hänger ihop som vi har kunna använda oss av. Även om naturlagarna är skapade av en gud så hjälper de oss mer i vardagen än att försöka förutspå hur en allmäktig allseende varelse tänker. Att använda argumentet att något är guds vilja saknar helt och hållet praktisk nytta annat än för att döva sitt samvete.

Slutligen så har jag inget emot tro, men däremot religion. Detta eftersom det är när folk har börjat organisera sin tro i diverse religioner som saker jhar en tendens att gå över styr. Den personliga tron är din egen ensak och påverkar bara dig.Hur dumt det här än låter så var det exakt så jag tänkte skriva fast jag begriper inte hur jag ska föra mig i textform ibland.

Ponde
2014-01-15, 13:25
http://www.atheismresearch.com/

"Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic (IAA)

The first and most frequently discussed type is what could be termed The Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic or IAA. IAA typology includes individuals who proactively seek to educate themselves through intellectual association, and proactively acquire knowledge on various topics relating to ontology (the search for Truth) and non-belief. They enjoy dialectic enterprises such as healthy democratic debate and discussions, and are intrinsically motivated to do so. These individuals are typically versed in a variety of writings on belief and non-belief and are prone to cite these authors in discussions.
IAAs associate with fellow intellectuals regardless of the other’s ontological position as long as the IAA associate is versed and educated on various issues of science, philosophy, “rational” theology, and common socio-political religious dialog. They may enjoy discussing the epistemological positions related to the existence or non-existence of a deity. Besides using textual sources such as intellectual books, IAAs may utilize technology such as the Internet to read popular blogs, view YouTube videos, and listen to podcasts that fall in line with their particular interests. Facebook and other online social networking sites can be considered a medium for learning or discussion. However, not only is the IAA typically engaged in electronic forms of intellectualism but they oftentimes belong to groups that meet face to face offline such as various skeptic, rationalist and freethinking groups for similar mentally stimulating discussions and interaction. The modus operandi for the Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic is the externalization of epistemologically oriented social stimulation.

Activist (AAA)

The next typology relates to being socially active. These individuals are termed the Activist Atheist/Agnostic. Individuals in the AAA typology are not content with the placidity of simply holding a non-belief position; they seek to be both vocal and proactive regarding current issues in the atheist and/or agnostic socio-political sphere. This sphere can include such egalitarian issues, but is not limited to: concerns of humanism, feminism, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered (LGBT) issues, social or political concerns, human rights themes, environmental concerns, animal rights, and controversies such as the separation of church and state. Their activism can be as minimal as the education of friends or others, to much larger manifestations of social activities such as boycotting products, promoting legal action, or marching public demonstration to raise awareness. Activist Atheists/Agnostics are commonly naturalistic or humanistic minded individuals, but are not limited to these types of ethical concerns. It is not uncommon for AAA individuals to ally themselves with other movements in support of social awareness. The Activist Atheist/Agnostic’s are not idle; they effectuate their interests and beliefs.

Seeker-Agnostic (SA)

The third typological characteristic is the Seeker-Agnostic. Seeker-Agnostic typology consists of individuals attuned to the metaphysical possibilities precluding metaphysical existence, or at least recognizes the philosophical difficulties and complexities in making personal affirmations regarding ideological beliefs. They may call themselves agnostic or agnostic-atheist, as the SA simply cannot be sure of the existence of God or the divine. They keep an open mind in relation to the debate between the religious, spiritual, and antitheist elements within society.
Seeker-Agnostics recognize the limitation of human knowledge and experience. They actively search for and respond to knowledge and evidence, either supporting or disconfirming truth claims. They also understand, or at least recognize, the qualitative complexities of experiences in the formation of personal meaning. Seeker- Agnostics do not hold a firm ideological position but always search for the scientifically wondrous, and experientially profound confirmation of life’s meaning. They may be intrinsically motivated to explore and seek understanding in the world around them. The diversity of others is accepted for the SA and co-existence with the “others” is not only possible, but also welcomed. Their worldly outlook may be mediated by science; however, they recognize current scientific limitations and embrace scientific uncertainty. They are comfortable with this uncertainty and even enjoy discussing it. Some Intellectual Atheist/Agnostics or Anti-Theists may accuse the Seeker-Agnostic of avoiding responsibility or commitment to a more solid affirmation of atheism. In other cases, outsiders may see it as an ontological transitional state from religion or spirituality to atheism.
In some cases, Seeker-Agnostics may generally miss being a believer either from the social benefits or the emotional connection they have with others such as friends or family. At times, their intellectual disagreement with their former theology causes some cognitive dissonance and it is possible they may continue to identity as a religious or spiritual individual. However, taking those exceptions into account, the majority of Seeker-Agnostics should in no way be considered “confused.” For the Seeker-Agnostic, uncertainty is embraced.

Anti-Theist

The fourth typology, and one of the more assertive in their view, we termed the Anti-Theist. While the Anti-Theists may be considered atheist or in some cases labeled as “new atheists,” the Anti-Theist is diametrically opposed to religious ideology. As such, the assertive Anti-Theist both proactively and aggressively asserts their views towards others when appropriate, seeking to educate the theists in the passé nature of belief and theology. In other words, antitheists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental. The Anti-Theist has a clear and – in their view, superior – understanding of the limitations and danger of religions. They view the logical fallacies of religion as an outdated worldview that is not only detrimental to social cohesion and peace, but also to technological advancement and civilized evolution as a whole. They are compelled to share their view and want to educate others into their ideological position and attempt to do so when and where the opportunity arises. Some Anti-Theist individuals feel compelled to work against the institution of religion in its various forms including social, political, and ideological, while others may assert their view with religious persons on an individual basis. The Anti-Theist believes that the obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another. Based on personalities, some Anti-Theists may be more assertive than others; but outsiders and friends know very clearly where they stand in relation to an Anti-theist. Their worldview is typically not a mystery. The Anti-Theist’s reaction to a religious devotee is often based on social and psychological maturity.

Non-Theist

The fifth typology is termed the Non-Theist. While not many individuals identified themselves as this type, they did have experiences with others who self-classified as being non-theists. For the Non-Theists, the alignment of oneself with religion, or conversely an epistemological position against religion, can appear quite unconventional from their perspective. However, a few terms may best capture the sentiments of the Non-Theist. One is apathetic, while another may be disinterested. The Non-Theist is non-active in terms of involving themselves in social or intellectual pursuits having to do with religion or anti-religion. A Non-Theist simply does not concern him or herself with religion. Religion plays no role or issue in one’s consciousness or worldview; nor does a Non- Theist have concern for the atheist or agnostic movement. No part of their life addresses or considers transcendent ontology. They are not interested in any type of secularist agenda and simply do not care. Simply put, Non-Theist’s are apathetic non-believers. They simply do not believe, and in the same right, their absence of faith means the absence of anything religion in any form from their mental space.

Ritual Atheist/Agnostic (RAA)

The sixth and final type was one of the most interesting and unexpected. This exploration termed this type The Ritual Atheist/Agnostic or RAA. The RAA holds no belief in God or the divine, or they tend to believe it is unlikely that there is an afterlife with God or the divine. They are open about their lack of belief and may educate themselves on the various aspects of belief by others. One of the defining characteristics regarding Ritual Atheists/Agnostics is that they may find utility in the teachings of some religious traditions. They see these as more or less philosophical teachings of how to live life and achieve happiness than a path to transcendental liberation. Ritual Atheist/Agnostics find utility in tradition and ritual. For example, these individuals may participate in specific rituals, ceremonies, musical opportunities, meditation, yoga classes, or holiday traditions. Such participation may be related to an ethnic identity (e.g. Jewish) or the perceived utility of such practices in making the individual a better person.
Many times the Ritual Atheist/Agnostic may be misidentified as spiritual but not religious, but they are quick to point out that they are atheist or agnostic in relation to their own ontological view. For other Ritual Atheist/Agnostics, it may be simply that they hold respect for profound symbolism inherent within religious rituals, beliefs, and ceremonies. The Ritual Atheist/Agnostic individual perceives ceremonies and rituals as producing personal meaning within life. This meaning can be an artistic or cultural appreciation of human systems of meaning while knowing there is no higher reality other than the observable reality of the mundane world. In some cases, these individuals may identify strongly with religious traditions as a matter of cultural identity and even take an active participation in religious rituals. While RAA may celebrate their association with ritualistic organizations or call themselves cultural practitioners of a faith-based practice, they are open and honest about their ontological position and do not hide their lack of belief in the metaphysical or divine. Ritual Atheist /Agnostics may identify ritualistically or symbolically with Judaism, Paganism, Buddhism, or Laveyan Satanism to name some examples.
Närmast är väl IAA för mig.

Red Apple
2014-01-15, 13:27
Tack för att du citerade Ponde.

Ponde
2014-01-15, 13:28
Inga bevis, ingen Gud
Du menar väl empiriska bevis? :d

TomasB
2014-01-15, 13:37
Du menar väl empiriska bevis? :d

Beroende på hur du accepterar diverse axiom finns det matematiska definitioner som bevisar gud.

Här är en skriven av Christopher Langan - en av de män på jorden med högst IQ. Detta är dock en tolkning av det.

1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.

2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit.

3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence.

4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists.

5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is isomorphic.

6.]The describer is a super-intelligence.

7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God.

The burden of proof becomes the burden of proving the "convergence", to an exact correspondence, between the mental construct[infinite number of axioms] and reality

At the limit

[MIND]<--->[REALITY]

M = R

[axiomatic method]--->[exact correspondence]<---[scientific method]



Jag säger inte att han har rätt dock.

Ponde
2014-01-15, 13:48
Beroende på hur du accepterar diverse axiom finns det matematiska definitioner som bevisar gud.

Här är en skriven av Christopher Langan - en av de män på jorden med högst IQ. Detta är dock en tolkning av det.




Jag säger inte att han har rätt dock.
"Högst IQ", skulle inte säga det. Traditionella IQ-test går verkligen inte upp till 195-210 (som han påstås ha), dock intressant åsikt om det hela.

Glöm inte heller att även intelligenta människor kan ha existentiell ångest och tillförtro sig till någon religiös världsbild för att stilla sin oro om döden, denna mannen är ju ett bra exempel (från wiki-sidan ser man flera utdrag som pekar på att han tror på en skapande makt, trots total avsaknad av bevis för en sådan tes).

Ponde
2014-01-15, 14:02
Dessutom tror han på "intelligent design", vilket ganska tydligt visar att även logisk-matematiskt begåvade personer inte behöver vara övermänskligt smarta på alla områden.

TomasB
2014-01-15, 15:12
"Högst IQ", skulle inte säga det. Traditionella IQ-test går verkligen inte upp till 195-210 (som han påstås ha), dock intressant åsikt om det hela.

Glöm inte heller att även intelligenta människor kan ha existentiell ångest och tillförtro sig till någon religiös världsbild för att stilla sin oro om döden, denna mannen är ju ett bra exempel (från wiki-sidan ser man flera utdrag som pekar på att han tror på en skapande makt, trots total avsaknad av bevis för en sådan tes).

Dessutom tror han på "intelligent design", vilket ganska tydligt visar att även logisk-matematiskt begåvade personer inte behöver vara övermänskligt smarta på alla områden.

Jag är inte theist, men vissa saker han påstår är om inte annat filosofiskt väldigt intressanta.

Såhär svarar han själv om sitt IQ:

Mr. Langan, on IQ tests you don’t just score in the 99th percentile (as members of Mensa, the high-IQ society, do), but more like in the 99.9999th percentile. How is this difference measured?

There are distinctions to be made between conventional IQ tests designed for the vast majority of test subjects, and experimental tests designed to pick up where those tests leave off (around IQ 160 or so). Due to the nature of these distinctions, the difference of which you speak can only be estimated, not directly measured.

When one exceeds the ceiling of a full-range standardized IQ test like the WAIS* (as I have, for example), one’s IQ is said to be “off the charts”. As it cannot be fully measured with a standardized IQ test, further refinement requires an experimental test with a higher ceiling. However, because off-the-charts IQ’s are so rare that they are unlikely to be found in the limited samples on which conventional IQ tests are directly normed and statistically calibrated, experimental high-ceiling tests designed for them can only be indirectly calibrated. Basically, one sees how test subjects have scored on other tests, establishes a correspondence, and extrapolates for the very highest scores. At best, this yields an “estimated IQ”. [*WAIS = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale]

The items in experimental high-ceiling IQ tests tend to be complex and quite difficult, and more time is needed to properly solve them. This affects the requirements of such tests and the manner in which they are taken, which in turn raises the question of exactly how they relate to standard IQ tests. The field of high-ceiling IQ testing is thus open to controversy, as is IQ testing in general.

This controversy is worthwhile in some respects, but misleading in others. IQ is a politically loaded topic on which misinformation abounds; purportedly “scientific” criticisms of the IQ construct and its associated statistics are often motivated less by science than by fear that they somehow threaten fairness and equality, or by the exploitation of such fear for hidden social or political agendas. Similarly, critical commentary about the IQ of a specific person is often a thinly disguised way of attacking intellectual content.

In my view, ideas and other intellectual productions are more interesting, more indicative of intelligence, and more productively debated than IQ alone.

Hela intervjun:

http://www.superscholar.org/interviews/christopher-michael-langan/

Angående hans teori finns en intressant tråd på TSF:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/scientific-study-religion/25350-chris-langans-ctmu.html

I am setting up this thread to discuss the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), which is the brainchild of the American autodidact Chris Langan. The following brief explanation of the CTMU is due to Chris Langan, and it focuses on the CTMU's theistic applications. More information can be found in the longer paper at http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/A...TMU_092902.pdf.

"Scientific theories are mental constructs that have objective reality as their content. According to the scientific method, science puts objective content first, letting theories be determined by observation. But the phrase "a theory of reality" contains two key nouns,theory and reality, and science is really about both. Because all theories have certain necessary logical properties that are abstract and mathematical, and therefore independent of observation - it is these very properties that let us recognize and understand our world in conceptual terms - we could just as well start with these properties and see what they might tell us about objective reality. Just as scientific observation makes demands on theories, the logic of theories makes demands on scientific observation, and these demands tell us in a general way what we may observe about the universe.

In other words, a comprehensive theory of reality is not just about observation, but about theories and their logical requirements. Since theories are mental constructs, and mentalmeans "of the mind", this can be rephrased as follows: mind and reality are linked in mutual dependence at the most basic level of understanding. This linkage of mind and reality is what a TOE (Theory of Everything) is really about. The CTMU is such a theory; instead of being a mathematical description of specific observations (like all established scientific theories), it is a "metatheory" about the general relationship between theories and observations…i.e., about science or knowledge itself. Thus, it can credibly lay claim to the title of TOE.

Mind and reality - the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external - are linked together in a certain way, and this linkage is the real substance of "reality theory". Just as scientific observation determines theories, the logical requirements of theories to some extent determine scientific observation. Since reality always has the ability to surprise us, the task of scientific observation can never be completed with absolute certainty, and this means that a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone. Instead, it must be based on the process of making scientific observations in general, and this process is based on the relationship of mind and reality. So the CTMU is essentially a theory of the relationship between mind and reality.

In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.

Thus, the attempt to formulate a comprehensive theory of reality, the CTMU, finally leads to spiritual understanding, producing a basis for the unification of science and theology. The traditional Cartesian divider between body and mind, science and spirituality, is penetrated by logical reasoning of a higher order than ordinary scientific reasoning, but no less scientific than any other kind of mathematical truth. Accordingly, it serves as the long-awaited gateway between science and humanism, a bridge of reason over what has long seemed an impassable gulf."

Herr Oberst
2014-01-15, 15:44
Är den typ som tycker att det verkar jobbigt att läsa all den texten bara för att klassificera mig som motståndare till en massa idioter som helt saknar egen tankeförmåga.
Förbjud religion utanför egna hemmet.

d1anny2
2014-01-15, 16:02
Sorten som inte lider av hybris och är jobbigare än Jehovas när det kommer till att köra ner sina åsikter och tankar i halsen på andra :)

Tack. Militanta ateister är ofta de värsta. Tillsammans med Jehovas.

TomasB
2014-01-15, 16:16
Är den typ som tycker att det verkar jobbigt att läsa all den texten bara för att klassificera mig som motståndare till en massa idioter som helt saknar egen tankeförmåga.
Förbjud religion utanför egna hemmet.

Blir lite självmål att slänga in alla religiösa människor i samma fack utan nyansering under parollen "inte kunna tänka".

d1anny2
2014-01-15, 17:05
Hur är det dom som saknar läseförmåga?