So what level is Dorkins at?

I would also put myself at a 7, because almost all definitions of God include something supernatural, and that's just nonsense. A square circle.

(August 21, 2018 at 9:58 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’d be like, a 6.5.

I consider myself a 5.3, by the way; years of brainwashing from my childhood is probably the reason why I am not a 6+.

I'm generally in the camp that 1 and 7 are just nonsensical, or even dishonest, claims to make. I don't know how anyone would go about proving the assertion in #7. Even Dawkins says he's not a 7, just really close to a 7. If forced to choose a number I'd be a 6.

That being said, I think Dawkins' scale is unnecessary and not really helpful in most cases. It doesn't add much at all to a conversation and just muddies the waters even further when it comes to casual conversations/debates about god(s).

I’m a hard, stiff 6.
Like... hard. It can almost be confused with a 7, but it’s still a six. A six that lifts.

It's exactly as easy or as difficult as proving any other assertion.

(August 21, 2018 at 1:08 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(August 21, 2018 at 9:58 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’d be like, a 6.5.

I consider myself a 5.3, by the way; years of brainwashing from my childhood is probably the reason why I am not a 6+.

You have doubts regarding Sadistic Christian God?

I'm a hard, fully erect 6.

7 for human myths, 6 for the possibility of something no one has thought of yet.

In the past I've represented myself as a 7, but that depended on making certain things clear. When people speak of knowing something, they typically embrace the idea that it is known with absolute certainty. I liked Mathilda's point about the contextual nature of the meaning of "to know" but I would go even further and suggest that except in certain contexts, such as the question of God, the sense in which absolute certainty is required is never employed. Not in science. Not in everyday life. We don't even ultimately have a firm grasp on what even makes something knowledge. It's a very divisive philosophical issue. However, seeing that most people assume the sense of knowing with absolute certainty when discussing the existence of God, and I do hold that my beliefs could be in error, I incline toward a softer stance on the question if I'm not going to fully qualify my remarks as I have done here. Ultimately it's less a stance about our knowledge of God's non-existence as it is a concession to reasonable dialogue based on shared assumptions.