A More Accurate Categorization of Religion

[Grave_n_idle]

What is non-scientific evidence and how could it possibly make sense? It seems logically inconsistent.

Once again, you are crippled by your own pre-suppositions.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Once again, you are crippled by your own pre-suppositions.

Give me an example of non-scientific, non-logical evidence that could, in principle, convince you of the supernatural.

[Flameswroth]

Theist side (Boldest to least bold)

Total anti-science/anti-rational: Flat Earthers, Answers in Genesis, Gorilla199 (batshit crazy Christian YouTuber and conspiracy theorist)

Militant Fundamentalist: Al Qaeda, the abortion clinic bombers and shooters, suicide bombers, etc.

I'm not sure how a Christian Youtube video person is more bold than the guy that walks into your store and blows himself up. Am I alone in my confusion?

[Angleter]

As a Catholic, I believe that I may just be placed in the Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant category. We are one fifth of the world's population though, must we share a category with the C of E and other assorted small Protestant organisations?

[America0]

I think I'm between Naturalist and Materialist.

[Gift-of-god]

There are two continua, one of certitude and the other of the boldness of the claims you are making. The first is the agnostic/gnostic axis, and the other is the theist/atheist axis.

....
There's a more sophisticated picture of what's really going on.

I would place myself probably where Dawkins is. I think the probability that I am correct is rather high. I have yet to conclude whether or not epiphenomena are real, so I'm either a naturalist or a materialist depending.

I seem to have elements of strong agnosticism, strong gnosticism, biblical seriousness, liberal and moderate christianity, universalism, pantheism, and apparently deism, and non-theism.

[Grave_n_idle]

Once again, you are crippled by your own pre-suppositions.

Give me an example of non-scientific, non-logical evidence that could, in principle, convince you of the supernatural.

Having an actual organic conversation with a ghost (for example), that ended with me knowing more real data than I had at the start.

That would be unverifiable, scientifically, perhaps - since there'd be no way to confirm the presence of the 'ghost' as a definitive entity.

[Bitchkitten]

Strong gnostic naturalist.

[Dyakovo]

Hmm, based on the categorization I'm Strong Agnostic, Non-theist/Naturalist... Kind of a toss up for me on the theism side of things...

[Javoul]

Based on this I'm Strong Agnostic Pantheism.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Mad hatterist-changes view all the time-no set idea of God or unnatural events-no certainty in tomorrow happening but prepares anyway.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I'm not sure how a Christian Youtube video person is more bold than the guy that walks into your store and blows himself up. Am I alone in my confusion?

His beliefs are crazier. They are further from the zero claim. I'm categorizing beliefs not in terms of the behaviors of those who believe them but rather in terms of how far from not claiming anything at all they are.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Having an actual organic conversation with a ghost (for example), that ended with me knowing more real data than I had at the start.

That would be unverifiable, scientifically, perhaps - since there'd be no way to confirm the presence of the 'ghost' as a definitive entity.

If you could verify that you weren't hallucinating, I'd call that empirical/observational evidence.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I seem to have elements of strong agnosticism, strong gnosticism, biblical seriousness, liberal and moderate christianity, universalism, pantheism, and apparently deism, and non-theism.

How can you have strong agnosticism and strong gnosticism simultaneously?

How can you take the bible very seriously and also have deistic, universalist, and non-theistic beliefs? This is self-contradictory in the extreme.

[Grave_n_idle]

Having an actual organic conversation with a ghost (for example), that ended with me knowing more real data than I had at the start.

That would be unverifiable, scientifically, perhaps - since there'd be no way to confirm the presence of the 'ghost' as a definitive entity.

If you could verify that you weren't hallucinating, I'd call that empirical/observational evidence.

I didn't say you'd be able to verify you were not hallucinating.

You ask a question, get an answer, and then modify the answer so that it fits what you wanted to hear?

[Grave_n_idle]

I seem to have elements of strong agnosticism, strong gnosticism, biblical seriousness, liberal and moderate christianity, universalism, pantheism, and apparently deism, and non-theism.

How can you have strong agnosticism and strong gnosticism simultaneously?

How can you take the bible very seriously and also have deistic, universalist, and non-theistic beliefs? This is self-contradictory in the extreme.

Waah, someone doesn't fit my perfect definition scheme. They must be broken!

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

Once again, you are crippled by your own pre-suppositions.

Give me an example of non-scientific, non-logical evidence that could, in principle, convince you of the supernatural.

Having an actual organic conversation with a ghost (for example), that ended with me knowing more real data than I had at the start.

That would be unverifiable, scientifically, perhaps - since there'd be no way to confirm the presence of the 'ghost' as a definitive entity.

But Clarke's Law: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

What would it really take to convince you that a ghost existed, when all your other sources of verifiable knowledge can be traced back to a natural being or to physical observations? How could you exclude the possibility that a natural being was communicating with you using means you do not understand?

I doubt you would be so easily persuaded to the "magic" explanation.

[Grave_n_idle]

What would it really take to convince you that a ghost existed, when all your other sources of verifiable knowledge can be traced back to a natural being or to physical observations?

This part was actually already answered.

How could you exclude the possibility that a natural being was communicating with you using means you do not understand?

Indeed. That's a possibility. That doesn't actually conflict with the point I'm making.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Waah, someone doesn't fit my perfect definition scheme. They must be broken!

How can somebody hold two completely contradictory ideas at once. How can you simultaneously hold that you will never have any evidence for or against the existence of god and that you already have enough evidence regarding the situation to make a conclusion? Those literally contradict each other. You can play at rejecting the law of non-contradiction, but paraconsistent logic is an epic failure and I'll stick with systems that don't involve the principle of explosion.

[Grave_n_idle]

Waah, someone doesn't fit my perfect definition scheme. They must be broken!

How can somebody hold two completely contradictory ideas at once. How can you simultaneously hold that you will never have any evidence for or against the existence of god and that you already have enough evidence regarding the situation to make a conclusion? Those literally contradict each other. You can play at rejecting the law of non-contradiction, but paraconsistent logic is an epic failure and I'll stick with systems that don't involve the principle of explosion.

Well, I'm not going to try to answer for another poster, but he's not the only one that's had problems with your categorisations.

From my OWN point of view - you could believe that there are different TYPES of evidence - and believe that enough of a certain TYPE of evidence exists to leave you absolutely convinced of a truth, even while you simultaneously hold that there is insufficient evidence of another type.

[Obamas Ideology]

Hmm I am very glad that you recognized that only the religious can be militistic about their beliefs. I have hear people called "militant athiests" but I'm glad to know they don't exist now.

[Muravyets]

There are two continua, one of certitude and the other of the boldness of the claims you are making. The first is the agnostic/gnostic axis, and the other is the theist/atheist axis.

Agnostic side (Strongest to weakest):

Radical agnosticism: Essentially solipsism or epistemic nihilism. Denies the possibility of knowing anything.

Strong agnosticism: Denies the possibility of ever knowing anything about god/the supernatural.

Weak agnosticism: Has theological positions but claims that too little is known at present in order to have any confidence.

Gnostic side (Weakest to strongest):

Weak gnosticism: Has theological positions and is open to the possibility of being wrong but still thinks there is enough evidence to have
confidence

(I would place Richard Dawkins here between the two).

Strong gnosticism: Is nearly 100% certain about currently held theological positions and thinks that considering the possibility of being wrong is a waste of time, because while the belief may technically be wrong the chances of it being so are to small to warrant consideration.

Radical gnosticism: Basically History Land or Bluth but with regards to theology rather than economics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theist side (Boldest to least bold)

Total anti-science/anti-rational: Flat Earthers, Answers in Genesis, Gorilla199 (batshit crazy Christian YouTuber and conspiracy theorist)

Militant Fundamentalist: Al Qaeda, the abortion clinic bombers and shooters, suicide bombers, etc.

Literalists/Fundamentalists: Reject large parts of modern science if it conflicts with their worldview. Believe their holy text is 100% literally true.

Biblical Seriousnessists (could not come up with a better word): Take the Bible (or the Koran or Torah or whatever) very seriously. May take large portions of it literally. Probably reject evolution and old Earth.

Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant: Often not sola scriptura. Usually accepts evolutionary theory. Still takes most of the bible seriously.

Liberal/Moderate Christian: Accepts evolution and all of modern science (all of it they know of until neuroscience advances). Considers large parts of the bible to be symbolic or even errant word of man. Believes in modern sensibility trumping biblical law. Tends not to believe in hell.

Universalist: Believes that the given religion of choice is just one of many, apparently equally valid, paths to get to god. Does not consider any religion to be wrong.

Deist: Does not believe in a personal god, just a prime mover. May not even believe in an afterlife

Atheist side (Least to most bold):

Pantheism: Like Albert Einstein, Percy Byshe Shelley, and Baruch Spinoza. Calls god and nature the same thing. Has a religious belief or attitude toward nature.

Non-Theism: Does not accept that any gods exist. Does not believe in the gods of any given religion.

Naturalist: Not only rejects gods but also rejects any and all supernatural/paranormal claims. Considers epiphenomena to really exist.

Materialist: All that exists is physical phenomena. Considers both QFT actions and particles to really exist. Rejects that epiphenomena are anything more than a convenient abstraction.

Naive Materialist: Believes that only matter exists. Denies that energy or momentum are real.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a more sophisticated picture of what's really going on.

I would place myself probably where Dawkins is. I think the probability that I am correct is rather high. I have yet to conclude whether or not epiphenomena are real, so I'm either a naturalist or a materialist depending.

Is there a reason why you make no mention of polytheism?

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Hmm I am very glad that you recognized that only the religious can be militistic about their beliefs. I have hear people called "militant athiests" but I'm glad to know they don't exist now.

Lol Richard Dawkins doesn't exist, but you don't hear God writing a book about him.

[Muravyets]

A More Accurate Title would be "A More Accurate Categorization of Religion (Christianity)".

If you have some other religious positions that you know enough about so that I could categorize them, please tell me.

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but if you have not yet explained why we should want YOU to categorize anything, please do so.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Is there a reason why you make no mention of polytheism?

I don't know enough about it to categorize it yet.