Why Agnostic?

[Tiberius]

That would make you a 7 on my scale: Strong Gnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God’s non-existence as provable (or provable), and is 100% certain about its non-existence.

[Purple Rabbit]

That would make you a 7 on my scale: Strong Gnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God’s non-existence as provable (or provable), and is 100% certain about its non-existence.

Disbelieves in God - YES

Holds God’s non-existence as provable - NO, only highly improbable and (depending on the specific god concept evaluated) in most cases a highly immoral concept

(or provable) - NO (at least not up till now, I cannot predict the future on this)

and is 100% certain about its non-existence - NO, I am not 100% certain about anything even that I am not 100% certain about anything (because I cannot trace back my own thoughts to the level of atomic events or even events at the level of neurons firing)

[Tiberius]

Erm...

I don't think the existence of god is unprovable, only unproven.

This is a complete contradiction with what you just said

Holds God’s non-existence as provable - NO, only highly improbable and (depending on the specific god concept evaluated) in most cases a highly immoral concept

Either you don't think the existence of god is unprovable (and thereby think it is provable...double negative remember), or you think the existence of god is unprovable.

As for certainty, I am talking about relative certainty, not absolute. I'm near enough 100% certain about most things I do (for instance I'm 100% certain I will not get shot by a sniper when I open my door tomorrow), and that includes my disbelief in God. The key thing to remember about certainty is that it is not knowledge. You can be 100% certain about something and still be wrong. Certainty is an attitude.

So really, if you think that the existence of god is unprovable, you are a 6 or 5, depending on your certainty. If you think that god is provable (or that the non-existence of god is unprovable) then you are either a 6.5 or a 7, again, depending on your level of certainty.

[bozo]

DAWKINS 6 for me.

[Purple Rabbit]

Erm...

I don't think the existence of god is unprovable, only unproven.

This is a complete contradiction with what you just said

Holds God’s non-existence as provable - NO, only highly improbable and (depending on the specific god concept evaluated) in most cases a highly immoral concept

You're right. I have mixed things up. What I meant is this:
1) God’s existence is unproven, highly improbable and (depending on the specific god concept evaluated) in most cases a highly immoral concept. God's existence is not necessarily unprovable but it is unproven so far. It is possible that we still can find proof.
2) God's non-existence is unproven, but not necessarily unprovable. It is still possible that we find a proof of god's non-existence.

Either you don't think the existence of god is unprovable (and thereby think it is provable...double negative remember), or you think the existence of god is unprovable.

You are too hasty with the double negative rule because that assumes a clean divide between unprovable and provable. It may be undecided (or even undecidable) whether a statement A is provable or unprovable. Meanwhile I can think it to be either provable or unprovable, but that is what I think, it is not absolute certain knowledge.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Oh btw, on the Tiberius scale I cannot be ranked (no problem really, I am used to having no friends in crime) since I don't think the existence of god is unprovable, only unproven. On the Dawkins scale I rank 6.

No offence Adrian but I can't find a position on it either ... like PR I rank 6 on the Dawkins scale.

Kyu

---

That would make you a 7 on my scale: Strong Gnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God’s non-existence as provable (or provable), and is 100% certain about its non-existence.

Presumably me too and you'd be wrong.

I disbelieve all current claims to the existence of deity yes, I hold that any deity's existence would be provable (there should be at least indirect evidence for it) yes but no, I am no way certain that there is no god ... how can I be? The fucker won't come out and play!

Kyu

---

As for certainty, I am talking about relative certainty, not absolute.

Then why do you say 100% certain?

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

I think that Kyu points to what makes it problematic for me to rank myself in your scale: your use of certainty.

Let's give an example of what I mean:

Suppose the deistic god shows up tomorrow, you know the one that created the universe and after that with god speed (sic) was off to a happier place. He gives us falsifiable details about the origin of our universe that enable us to empirically check his claims. At a certain point we would in all honesty have to conclude that within the boundaries of our understanding of the world and what is provable in it on basis of scientific criterions his claim is right, so the existence of this god is proven with (for example) the same certainty that I can claim that the existence of electrons is proven.

Suppose that meanwhile my brain however really is in a jar in some lab in the 27th dimension of Being, or wherever, and thinking this all up or was fed with information from the 27th dimension of Being that made me think it up.

However farfetched, my example shows that it is possible to have proof for the existence of God, in the same way that we can have proof of anything at all, and at the same time draw the wrong conclusion.

[Tiberius]

Your example is precisely why we are agnostic. We understand that nothing can truly be known. Certainty therefore is the measure of relative knowledge of beliefs, i.e. how well you think your beliefs match reality. I'd never claim that I know there are no gods, but I would claim that I think my beliefs are 100% correct; I can never know, but I don't doubt that there are no gods.

Then why do you say 100% certain?

For the reasons I stated above. Absolute certainty is the measure of the actual probability (a fair die has a 1/6 certainty of landing on a 1), whilst relative certainty is a measure of how well you think your beliefs match reality. I'm 100% certain that Evolution happens, but I also understand that we can never actually know (at least in an absolute sense) given the "brain in a jar" scenario.

How would you guys improve my scale? I'm very open to suggestions, because the idea was to build a scale that everyone could use, and so far you are the only two people who have said they cannot find a place on it.

[Edwardo Piet]

What I wonder is, how could I be 100% certain about a belief is I know that it could possibly wrong? if there could possibly be a a small chance (however small) that my 100% certainty could be mistaken because I could be wrong...then doesn't that give me reason to not be 100% certain exactly? (however less than 100% certain I'd be instead, realizing that I could be wrong in my own certainty)...

So if this is so...isn't it basically using different words to express the same thing?

In two different cases for instance:

Case 1: "I am 100% certain in a relative sense that there is no God. I know I can be wrong though, so I'm agnostic on this".

Case 2: "I am almost 100% certain there is no God. The fact I'm not absolutely certain still means I'm agnostic, but I myself can't even be 100% certain in a relative sense either[i], because I believe that [i]my own certainty - could be wrong...so I have to take that into account and that lowers my certainty (however slightly, since I know this)"

Hmm... - See I can't be 100% certain of something if I am agnostic about it because that means I believe that it at least may, be possible that I am wrong. Because I'm agnostic about it...so in that sense...how can I be 100% certain about it when I know there's a chance that the certainty is wrong...? Wouldn't that, at least to some extent - lower my certainty? It does for me anyway...not that it makes any difference!

I'm as certain that God doesn't exist as that fairies don't...I know they may exist so I cannot be a 100% certain in a relative sense either, knowing that they may indeed exist - but they basically don't exist!

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

Your example is precisely why we are agnostic. We understand that nothing can truly be known. Certainty therefore is the measure of relative knowledge of beliefs, i.e. how well you think your beliefs match reality. I'd never claim that I know there are no gods, but I would claim that I think my beliefs are 100% correct; I can never know, but I don't doubt that there are no gods.

Then why do you say 100% certain?

For the reasons I stated above. Absolute certainty is the measure of the actual probability (a fair die has a 1/6 certainty of landing on a 1), whilst relative certainty is a measure of how well you think your beliefs match reality. I'm 100% certain that Evolution happens, but I also understand that we can never actually know (at least in an absolute sense) given the "brain in a jar" scenario.

How would you guys improve my scale? I'm very open to suggestions, because the idea was to build a scale that everyone could use, and so far you are the only two people who have said they cannot find a place on it.

If my example should rank me as you propose then the "100% certain" is misleading indeed and " unprovable" should be stated more accurately: unprovable within the current science-based epistemological framework
>>
Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven) within the current science-based epistemological framework, and is as certain about its non-existence as humanly possible.

Sorry for fauling up your ranking system so badly, but now I've done so (don't feel obliged to accept my suggestions ;-) ) it is time for bed.