Dawkins' scale doesn't deal with the burden of proof, it deals with belief like Fallen said.
I don't think of the burden of proof as being quantifiable like a number line, nor do I believe that people can dictate truth value with common opinion. Just because people don't agree that Zeus isn't real doesn't mean he isn't, and likewise just because there are a huge number of people that believe in Jebus it doesn't mean that he is real.
I don't think that was what you meant to imply when you said things like, "Well, what do you know, we have all just agreed on a whim that it's a myth and therefore doesn't amount to a positive quantity, therefore adding to the 'not-real' side." Still, truth doesn't take into account popular opinion. What we have to work with is the claims of others, which we weight against what is real and see how they stand up. With anything that has confessedly no way to prove itself as exigent, I dismiss it offhand until such time that evidence is presented. Oftentimes those presenting a God claim do so when they have zero evidence referring instead to the human capacity to convince itself, a tactic I find repels the critical thinker to dismiss that person's claims entirely.
I don't think of the burden of proof as being quantifiable like a number line, nor do I believe that people can dictate truth value with common opinion. Just because people don't agree that Zeus isn't real doesn't mean he isn't, and likewise just because there are a huge number of people that believe in Jebus it doesn't mean that he is real.
I don't think that was what you meant to imply when you said things like, "Well, what do you know, we have all just agreed on a whim that it's a myth and therefore doesn't amount to a positive quantity, therefore adding to the 'not-real' side." Still, truth doesn't take into account popular opinion. What we have to work with is the claims of others, which we weight against what is real and see how they stand up. With anything that has confessedly no way to prove itself as exigent, I dismiss it offhand until such time that evidence is presented. Oftentimes those presenting a God claim do so when they have zero evidence referring instead to the human capacity to convince itself, a tactic I find repels the critical thinker to dismiss that person's claims entirely.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
