Chart: Gnostic, Agnostic, Theist, Atheist

[SisterSalome]

Found this chart (Creative Commons)

I think I fall just left center, in the agnostic theist section.

Where do you fall on this chart (if at all)?

Edited March 6, 2016 by SisterSalome

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On this particular chart, I am an Agnostic Atheist.  The probability of God's existence seems exceedingly small, but still greater than absolute zero.

It would also be accurate to classify me as an Apathetic Agnostic.  I don't actually care whether or not God exists.  "We don't know and we don't care."

 

[Dianna]

According to that chart, I fall into the Agnostic Atheist.

I believe we are all, as Carl Sagan said, “star stuff”.  We are composed of the materials of this planet, so in that sense, we are a part of nature and can become more in tune with its natural rhythms. While I do believe the earth is “living”, I don't believe that it can be “appeased” as some cultures have tried through religion. I believe the early gods were attempts to explain natural phenomena.

I also do not believe specifically in the god of the Hebrew/Christian Bible or any of the “known” gods, and I do not have a need to attribute the good and beautiful or bad things that exist or happen from a god.

I am Epicurean in the sense of believing even if there are higher beings that would seem to be as gods to us, they would either be so different than us, or be so evolved and involved in their own thing, they chose not to be involved or interact with us at this time. I think as humans, we ultimately share the same experience upon death. We certainly don't have to worry about them sending us to eternal torture upon death.

So yes, Atheist in that I don't believe the “gods” of religions but “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamed of in your philosophy”- Hamlet (1.5.167-8)

What I do know, is that we do not know, see, hear, the whole enormous picture, we don't have the senses even “lesser” animals and insects use (for example, can color-blind animals see a rainbow? How many spectrums do we miss?) If they exist, are they gods? Or just different or advanced and godlike to us?

So the Agnostic is also there because I know that I don't know, and if there is are gods/spirits there, they may be totally different then our legends have created them.

 

[SisterSalome]

I like this chart a lot more than the comparative side by side style. This chart reminds me a lot of the political chart I once saw on a Green-Party forum. Have you ever seen this?

The top represents government authority, the bottom personal authority, the left is for a unregulated society and the right is for regulated society. The left and right would be flipped in comparison however (since the religious chart would be atheists on the left, and theists on the right)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

By the nature of things, neither Agnostics nor Atheists tend to be big on spiritual authority.  This does not translate into ideas on government authority.

[Gruffydd y Dryw]

According to the chart, I would have to say I am a Gnostic Theist. I do believe there are gods, but I do not, however, believe in God as a Supreme Being

Bendithion (Blessings),

Gruffydd y Dryw /|\

Edited March 6, 2016 by Gruffydd y Dryw

[SisterSalome]

43 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

By the nature of things, neither Agnostics nor Atheists tend to be big on spiritual authority.  This does not translate into ideas on government authority.

Understandably, the subject-object relationship shifts depending on the subject and object. I don't mind a bossy kickboxing coach but I don't care for bossy employers. Looking again, my first comparison was hinging on the certainty principal, but if we spin the religious chart 90 degrees to the right to hinge it on the belief principal, perhaps the similar concepts between charts will be more apparent.

Edited March 6, 2016 by SisterSalome

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 hours ago, SisterSalome said:

Understandably, the subject-object relationship shifts depending on the subject and object. I don't mind a bossy kickboxing coach but I don't care for bossy employers. Looking again, my first comparison was hinging on the certainty principal, but if we spin the religious chart 90 degrees to the right to hinge it on the belief principal, perhaps the similar concepts between charts will be more apparent.

 

I think that you are looking for connections that don't exist.  Many of the godless are strongly patriotic and oriented to civics.  Many of the godly will say, "I bow down only to God."  Knowing how someone feels about government or religion gives nothing useful to use for extrapolation.  It's not there.

[emalpaiz]

I would say that I fall on the  Gnostic/Theist side.  I do not believe in the Bible/Qur'an God concept.  I follow a more Pantheistic or Panentheistic concept of God with a strong Buddhist moral view.

Hermano Luis

[SisterSalome]

With all respect, useful is a term subjective to our own reasoning however.
You could have 5 uses for a hammer, I could have 3 or 207, another person could see no use at all for a hammer. 

I'm not saying that "from one's relationship or definition of god, we can gain insight to their relationship or definition of government."  (or vice versa)
^^^^ That's not what I am saying. 

Can a school determine how a child behaves toward their parents based on a test taken on a teacher-student relationship, no.

I think perhaps you misunderstood or perhaps my vagueness allowed space to infer I meant something like that. 



I am saying the first chart reminds me of the second because the two share:

• Graphing on a coordinate system vs. side by side comparison only
• An axis describing SELF=SUBJECT, OTHER=External Force
• An Axis describing Certainty, Uncertainty

Certainty Principal:

1. Conservative or Liberal to the belief in god(s)
2. Conservative or Liberal to a belief in "freedom for all"

[While some may posit that god need not be greater, it's also probable there are others who took the political test that perceive their government to be a benevolent created force by the people for the people; while others perceive the government as a malevolent force against the people with an agenda of its own. The belief of the qualities of the government is not addressed here and ones own beliefs about the government may influence their own opinion of the government and thence influence their relationship to the government.]

Digressing ... 

What I'm saying is that we can "map" subject-object relationships in this format (on a graph) to understand and communicate our ideals regarding anything.

As a consequence, we can identify how closely we share the specific ideals we mapped.

In this case, yourself and Diana both identify as Agnostic Atheist.

In the case of the religious chart, we just chose where we fit: 1-A, 1-B, 2-A, or 2-B.

In the other test, where we fit is determined by test.

We chose religious philosophy based on YES/NO of two qualities: Certainty and Belief and placed them on a 2x2 chart.

The Political Chart is 20 x 20 graphing: Statism to Libertarianism, and Liberalism to Conservativism.
(These are qualified by a multi-question Q&A on the site the graph was found.) 

For the sake of explaining usefulness, another test could be created like this:

On a scale from 1 to 5, how much do you enjoy being controlled by your employer?
1 indicates you preference self-control and that your employer trust your self-guidance.
5 indicates you preference employer-control and that you trust your employer to guide you.

On a scale from A to E, how is accountability shared in the workplace?
A indicates you preference everyone holds peers accountable and you depend on being held accountable.
E indicates you preference everyone is self-accountable and you depend on everyone (including you) holding themselves accountable.

Placing these values on the two axis', we can form a field on which we can graph the coordinates of of all job applicants.
I may be at 1-C, you may be at 5-B, etc.
And employer can use these scales to only hire those of us who apply and fall in 5-C.

Or a teacher, knowing themselves to be more of a 5 type of teacher (guiding and demanding obedience) can estimate possible "difficulty" with blind obedience from students who fall in the 1 range.

I was also saying that I like this format better than side by side analysis.

Here is a test for politics that uses a graph: https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

And example of a side-by-side test would be: http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx

Note in the side by side type test, possibility isn't a field; it's particular. In side by side, while the possibility of a whole graph (for all qualities being determined) exists; here's only certain places we are allowed to fall on a side by side test. It's why I like the field version more.

As far as extrapolation; technically, we could make 1 superduper test that incorporates all possible sources and forms of force and get an average of how we relate to force in general. Our rebel quotient if you will 

However, our averages could be similar in general, but different per source of force.

Breaking a big chart up into separate charts, we get a more accurate picture of each subject-object relationship within the subject-object relationship matrix of us to the everything else.







 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 3/6/2016 at 6:04 PM, SisterSalome said:

With all respect, useful is a term subjective to our own reasoning however.
You could have 5 uses for a hammer, I could have 3 or 207, another person could see no use at all for a hammer. 

I'm not saying that "from one's relationship or definition of god, we can gain insight to their relationship or definition of government."  (or vice versa)
^^^^ That's not what I am saying. 

Can a school determine how a child behaves toward their parents based on a test taken on a teacher-student relationship, no.

I think perhaps you misunderstood or perhaps my vagueness allowed space to infer I meant something like that. 



I am saying the first chart reminds me of the second because the two share:

• Graphing on a coordinate system vs. side by side comparison only
• An axis describing SELF=SUBJECT, OTHER=External Force
• An Axis describing Certainty, Uncertainty

Certainty Principal:

1. Conservative or Liberal to the belief in god(s)
2. Conservative or Liberal to a belief in "freedom for all"

[While some may posit that god need not be greater, it's also probable there are others who took the political test that perceive their government to be a benevolent created force by the people for the people; while others perceive the government as a malevolent force against the people with an agenda of its own. The belief of the qualities of the government is not addressed here and ones own beliefs about the government may influence their own opinion of the government and thence influence their relationship to the government.]

Digressing ... 

What I'm saying is that we can "map" subject-object relationships in this format (on a graph) to understand and communicate our ideals regarding anything.

As a consequence, we can identify how closely we share the specific ideals we mapped.

In this case, yourself and Diana both identify as Agnostic Atheist.

In the case of the religious chart, we just chose where we fit: 1-A, 1-B, 2-A, or 2-B.

In the other test, where we fit is determined by test.

We chose religious philosophy based on YES/NO of two qualities: Certainty and Belief and placed them on a 2x2 chart.

The Political Chart is 20 x 20 graphing: Statism to Libertarianism, and Liberalism to Conservativism.
(These are qualified by a multi-question Q&A on the site the graph was found.) 

For the sake of explaining usefulness, another test could be created like this:

On a scale from 1 to 5, how much do you enjoy being controlled by your employer?
1 indicates you preference self-control and that your employer trust your self-guidance.
5 indicates you preference employer-control and that you trust your employer to guide you.

On a scale from A to E, how is accountability shared in the workplace?
A indicates you preference everyone holds peers accountable and you depend on being held accountable.
E indicates you preference everyone is self-accountable and you depend on everyone (including you) holding themselves accountable.

Placing these values on the two axis', we can form a field on which we can graph the coordinates of of all job applicants.
I may be at 1-C, you may be at 5-B, etc.
And employer can use these scales to only hire those of us who apply and fall in 5-C.

Or a teacher, knowing themselves to be more of a 5 type of teacher (guiding and demanding obedience) can estimate possible "difficulty" with blind obedience from students who fall in the 1 range.

I was also saying that I like this format better than side by side analysis.

Here is a test for politics that uses a graph: https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

And example of a side-by-side test would be: http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx

Note in the side by side type test, possibility isn't a field; it's particular. In side by side, while the possibility of a whole graph (for all qualities being determined) exists; here's only certain places we are allowed to fall on a side by side test. It's why I like the field version more.

As far as extrapolation; technically, we could make 1 superduper test that incorporates all possible sources and forms of force and get an average of how we relate to force in general. Our rebel quotient if you will 

However, our averages could be similar in general, but different per source of force.

Breaking a big chart up into separate charts, we get a more accurate picture of each subject-object relationship within the subject-object relationship matrix of us to the everything else.







 

 

Behind the details of technique; what is this urge to chart and graph and define everything?  Your goal is not to be "useful."  You made that clear.  What then?  

Edited March 8, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

I am not certain I like to be charted. I cannot with 100% certainty say there is a god or with 100% certainty say there is no god and nor do I believe one way or another. The other question is what god are we referring to and can it be defined enough for us all to understand without some incredible leap of faith. Can anyone prove there is a god or disprove there is a god. I just feel it is up to those who say there is a god to prove it and define the god. It is my understanding it just cannot be done. Now if we talk about the literal biblical interpretation of god then I just feel it makes no sense but that is not to deny the possibility or assert it. I suspend belief until someone can say with proof that a god exists and until then I wonder does it really matter and if it does then where is the proof that it does. Most do not prove there is a god but just quote a book made from dubious sources.  I think the biggest catalyst for my doubting is fundamentalism and the lack of pluralism or proof in some of the many assertions. I am open to change and adopt a belief if there was proof but there is none that is credible or demonstrable (imo).  Hence I remain neutral and just get on with my life. 

In my work I have to be neutral and support those I care for to practice their faith, if they have one, but not to express my view on any of it or to participate in their faith or practice. .It is a case of live and let live and until one can supply something credible that is where I stand. Chart that if you can. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

I am not certain I like to be charted. I cannot with 100% certainty say there is a god or with 100% certainty say there is no god and nor do I believe one way or another. The other question is what god are we referring to and can it be defined enough for us all to understand without some incredible leap of faith. Can anyone prove there is a god or disprove there is a god. I just feel it is up to those who say there is a god to prove it and define the god. It is my understanding it just cannot be done. Now if we talk about the literal biblical interpretation of god then I just feel it makes no sense but that is not to deny the possibility or assert it. I suspend belief until someone can say with proof that a god exists and until then I wonder does it really matter and if it does then where is the proof that it does. Most do not prove there is a god but just quote a book made from dubious sources.  I think the biggest catalyst for my doubting is fundamentalism and the lack of pluralism or proof in some of the many assertions. I am open to change and adopt a belief if there was proof but there is none that is credible or demonstrable (imo).  Hence I remain neutral and just get on with my life. 

In my work I have to be neutral and support those I care for to practice their faith, if they have one, but not to express my view on any of it or to participate in their faith or practice. .It is a case of live and let live and until one can supply something credible that is where I stand. Chart that if you can. 

 

It's thinking "inside the box."      

[Songster]

Whether one calls themselves atheist, agnostic, gnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Hedonist, etc.... makes no difference to me. There was a time when I claimed to be an atheist and said that there was no GOD. I know now that the claim was a defense mechanism I employed because I did not want there to be a GOD. Disbelief in the existence of GOD in no way negates HIS existence. You want proof????? I am under no obligation to prove HIS existence to anyone. (If you see the sky as green, you will never believe me when I say it is blue... ) I'm not here to bring sight to the blind..... especially to those that prefer to wander in darkness...

Edited March 9, 2016 by Songster

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Songster said:

Whether one calls themselves atheist, agnostic, gnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Hedonist, etc.... makes no difference to me. There was a time when I claimed to be an atheist and said that there was no GOD. I know now that the claim was a defense mechanism I employed because I did not want there to be a GOD. Disbelief in the existence of GOD in no way negates HIS existence. You want proof????? I am under no obligation to prove HIS existence to anyone. (If you see the sky as green, you will never believe me when I say it is blue... ) I'm not here to bring sight to the blind..... especially to those that prefer to wander in darkness...

I'm sure this is why you used the Atheist label.  That does not mean real Atheists are of like mind.

Seriously, people who don't agree with you are "blind" and  "prefer to wander in darkness?"  How very hostile of you.  And rude.  That's a conversation killer.

 

[SisterSalome]

On 3/8/2016 at 1:45 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Behind the details of technique; what is this urge to chart and graph and define everything?  Your goal is not to be "useful."  You made that clear.  What then?  

What do you mean by I made it clear that my goal was not to be useful? I was saying what's useful to me may not be useful to you AND I do think it's useful. 

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'urge' to chart, graph and define 'everything'? I was not aware my urges were being analyzed.  I'm sure I've not tried to chart, graph and define everything; neither in general and certainly not here. 

 

[SisterSalome]

11 hours ago, Pete said:

Chart that if you can. 

I sense discomfort in your opening statement and this final one. I'm not trying to put anyone in a box. I invited others to put themselves in a box if they so desire for simply the sake of us finding common grounds with each-other (if any) and for fun. I got that sentiment sadly, from Jonathan that is inferring I am attempting to label others when clearly I've only been attempting to label myself (and invited other to label me and invited others to label themselves if they so desire). Anyone who does not wish to participate in a thread I make, feel free to ignore it. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by SisterSalome

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, SisterSalome said:

What do you mean by I made it clear that my goal was not to be useful? I was saying what's useful to me may not be useful to you AND I do think it's useful. 

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'urge' to chart, graph and define 'everything'? I was not aware my urges were being analyzed.  I'm sure I've not tried to chart, graph and define everything; neither in general and certainly not here. 

 

Alright.  My mistake.    

 

[Songster]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I'm sure this is why you used the Atheist label.  That does not mean real Atheists are of like mind.

Seriously, people who don't agree with you are "blind" and  "prefer to wander in darkness?"  How very hostile of you.  And rude.  That's a conversation killer.

 

If my comment was directed to you personally, I would have quoted, or mentioned, you in my post. It was a statement made to the forum as a whole.... Methinks you think too much of yourself.... Want to talk about rude???? How many have your posts have contained recurring inferences that those that profess a faith in GOD (or anything besides science) are intellectually inferior. If you don't like what I have to say, there's an ignore function available for your use. Use it.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Songster

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Songster said:

If my comment was directed to you personally, I would have quoted, or mentioned, you in my post. It was a statement made to the forum as a whole.... Methinks you think too much of yourself.... Want to talk about rude???? How many have your posts have contained recurring inferences that those that profess a faith in GOD (or anything besides science) are intellectually inferior. If you don't like what I have to say, there's an ignore function available for your use. Use it.

It was.  You stopped by just long enough to throw a smug bomb and leave.