Honestly, I personally consider Dawkins' scale flawed, as a good portion of it is predicated on the assumption that agnosticism and atheism are, on some level, mutually exclusive.
The way I see it, they're not.
Agnostic - Covers knowledge of God's existence or non-existence. Deals with an understanding of objective reality. Do you think you can demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God even if that demonstration can be seen as very weak indeed?
Atheism - Covers belief of God's existence or non-existence. Deals with person at hand's subjective understanding of the subject at hand. Do you consider the arguments for or against the existence of God convincing?
In fact, a charting of atheism might work better as a grid than a simple numbered scale like Dawkins proposes.
The way I see it, they're not.
Agnostic - Covers knowledge of God's existence or non-existence. Deals with an understanding of objective reality. Do you think you can demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God even if that demonstration can be seen as very weak indeed?
Atheism - Covers belief of God's existence or non-existence. Deals with person at hand's subjective understanding of the subject at hand. Do you consider the arguments for or against the existence of God convincing?
In fact, a charting of atheism might work better as a grid than a simple numbered scale like Dawkins proposes.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.