Where do you rate on Dawkins scale?

[Ryantology]

Six philosophically, seven practically.

[Whateverist]

Here is the scale Tiberius was referring to (minus many definitions of terms just to shorten it up):

The Tiberius-Braeloch Scale

1. Gnostic Theist
Those who believe that gods exist, and hold that the existence of gods can be conclusively established.

2. Agnostic Theist
Those who believe that gods exist, and hold that the existence of gods cannot be conclusively established.

3. Apatheist
Those who are uncertain regarding the existence of gods. They may sometimes 'believe' and other times 'not believe' that gods exist, and question whether the issue has ultimate consequences.

4. Agnostic Atheist
Those who do not believe that gods exist, and hold that the non-existence of gods cannot be conclusively established.

5. Gnostic Atheist
Those who do not believe that gods exist, and hold that the non-existence of gods can be conclusively established.[/size]


By this scale I'm mostly a "4" but I want also to claim the "questions whether the issue has ultimate consequences". So not all the points on this scale are mutually exclusive. Perhaps I should say I am a "3.75" on the Tiberius-Braeloch Scale.

---

Six philosophically, seven practically.

That's why I like to say 100% agnostic, since knowledge is the concern of epistemology in philosophy. Amongst the things I am agnostic about is just how attainable knowledge of gods may ultimately be. All I know, is I don't now know.

But, on a practical level, also 100% atheist. Absolutely no operative beliefs in gods. No covert prayers, no thoughts about an after life, no wondering about my 'true' destiny.

To make claims about the non-existence of gods you'd have to have a clearer idea of what those even are and care a whole lot more about it than I do.

[One Above All]

6.9 for any god....

7.1 for the absurd angry desert god creation of stupid goat herders and their modern idiot believers.

So you don't even believe in the believers' existence? :S

[Whateverist]

Why not? I believe in yours.

[Minimalist]

6.9 for any god....

7.1 for the absurd angry desert god creation of stupid goat herders and their modern idiot believers.

So you don't even believe in the believers' existence? :S

7.1 for the absurd angry desert god creation of stupid goat herders and their modern idiot believers.

In case English isn't your first language.

and
   [and; unstressed uhnd, uhn, or, especially after a homorganic consonant, n] Show IPA
conjunction
1.
(used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with;

Or do you really think that this silly shit has not evolved in modern times?

[One Above All]

Or do you really think that this silly shit has not evolved in modern times?

English is not my first language, but I take pride in my near-perfect grammar and perfect spelling. Your wording inferred that the deity had been created by goat herders (which isn't far from the truth), that you were a 7.1 for the god created by said goat herders, and also inferred that you were a 7.1 for (the existence of) their believers. The "their" made all the difference, as it made the connection between believers and the goat herders, rather than believers and their respective deity. To me, that sounded like you were saying that you didn't believe in the people who believed in goat herders. It could also be interpreted as you saying that the believers in the goat herders were the ones who created the deity, along with the goat herders themselves.

Anyway, even if my explanation is wrong and there was no possible way anyone else would've picked up on my "secondary" interpretation, my comment was in jest. I was fairly certain that the smiley would've hinted at that.

[Godscreated]

I'm absolutely a 1.

You KNOW he exists?

What! You mean you don't.

[Cyberman]

Either that or maybe he doesn't know, or even pretend pretend to know, that it does. Which it doesn't, obviously.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

He ? What the fuck is this "he" shit, Kemosabe?

Indeed; in the early 70's this joke was fairly popular:


Neil Armstrong is being interviewed by a reporter:

Reporter "Sir, I understand that on your way home from the moon you actually met God? Is that true, and will you tell us about the meeting?"

Armstrong: "Yes,it's true, and there are going to be a few changes-; for a start,she's black--------------------------"

I thought it was a wonderful response to the misogyny of the Abrahamic religions. I doubt Hindus found it at all amusing.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


Oh, I'm not interested in scales of atheism. To me,one either believes or one does not. I do not believe,but make no claims. However,I live my daily life as if there are no god(s)

[Cato]

7.0 and if the meter were analog I would have it pegged hard!