@Purple Rabbit
It is not "my goal" to do anything here; I have already made the scale, it is finished. As I have said before, the scale is designed to be simplistic; it does not delve into the reasons behind beliefs (i.e. strong agnosticism vs weak agnosticism) because it isn't meant to. Strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism are lumped together into "agnosticism" for the simple reason that they both give the same answer to the question "Can the existence/non-existence of Gods be conclusively established?". It matters not, in the context of this scale, whether one agnostic atheist thinks that Gods can never be conclusively established, and another agnostic atheist thinks that Gods *currently* cannot be conclusively established. This scale doesn't measure agnosticism, it measures belief in God.
"Even on Wikipedia apatheism is considered totally different from apatheism."
No idea what you meant there. Look, you agreed on this point before; at a push you could argue that theological non-cognivitism can be included in the "apatheist" category. I don't mind if people want to put it there; but I can equally say that it doesn't have a place on the scale in the first place. It wasn't considered at the time of making, and I'm not going to go around adjusting our work without Arcanus here. I suggested created a new scale with all (or at least most) positions in mind, and I stick by that suggestions.
If your charge of personal preference is all down to how the scale is presented, and what decisions went into it, then your argument applies to every scale that could be made, and I don't see how it is constructive. Dawkins' scale suffers from the same, as would any scale yourself and I would make. Such is the problem with subjectivism; there will always be a disagreement. However it seems to me that if at least most people can place themselves on a scale (as we've seen in this thread), then it does have some value.
"Precisely that chronology of events could have made you decide to somehow adjust the scale."
Not really. We wanted to keep it simple, and you admit that theological non-cognivitism doesn't necessarily need a place on this scale if it is meant to be simplistic (which it is). Again, this was a joint effort; I'm not going to go around making changes without Arcanus. Hence my suggestion of doing a new scale, and incorporating all the conversations we've had over agnosticism and theological-noncognitivism (as well as all other stances we can find).
It's a shame you don't want to help with a new scale, but perhaps Caecilian will accept my offer. I like the idea of your 4 dimensions, though I have a question. What would you define as the difference between provability and verifiability?
Update: Well seeing as Caecilian isn't interested, this entire thing is dead in the water. The "Hayter Braeloch Scale" will remain how it is until I meet someone who is willing to help me improve it
It is not "my goal" to do anything here; I have already made the scale, it is finished. As I have said before, the scale is designed to be simplistic; it does not delve into the reasons behind beliefs (i.e. strong agnosticism vs weak agnosticism) because it isn't meant to. Strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism are lumped together into "agnosticism" for the simple reason that they both give the same answer to the question "Can the existence/non-existence of Gods be conclusively established?". It matters not, in the context of this scale, whether one agnostic atheist thinks that Gods can never be conclusively established, and another agnostic atheist thinks that Gods *currently* cannot be conclusively established. This scale doesn't measure agnosticism, it measures belief in God.
"Even on Wikipedia apatheism is considered totally different from apatheism."
No idea what you meant there. Look, you agreed on this point before; at a push you could argue that theological non-cognivitism can be included in the "apatheist" category. I don't mind if people want to put it there; but I can equally say that it doesn't have a place on the scale in the first place. It wasn't considered at the time of making, and I'm not going to go around adjusting our work without Arcanus here. I suggested created a new scale with all (or at least most) positions in mind, and I stick by that suggestions.
If your charge of personal preference is all down to how the scale is presented, and what decisions went into it, then your argument applies to every scale that could be made, and I don't see how it is constructive. Dawkins' scale suffers from the same, as would any scale yourself and I would make. Such is the problem with subjectivism; there will always be a disagreement. However it seems to me that if at least most people can place themselves on a scale (as we've seen in this thread), then it does have some value.
"Precisely that chronology of events could have made you decide to somehow adjust the scale."
Not really. We wanted to keep it simple, and you admit that theological non-cognivitism doesn't necessarily need a place on this scale if it is meant to be simplistic (which it is). Again, this was a joint effort; I'm not going to go around making changes without Arcanus. Hence my suggestion of doing a new scale, and incorporating all the conversations we've had over agnosticism and theological-noncognitivism (as well as all other stances we can find).
It's a shame you don't want to help with a new scale, but perhaps Caecilian will accept my offer. I like the idea of your 4 dimensions, though I have a question. What would you define as the difference between provability and verifiability?
Update: Well seeing as Caecilian isn't interested, this entire thing is dead in the water. The "Hayter Braeloch Scale" will remain how it is until I meet someone who is willing to help me improve it
