How atheist are you

[Jacob(smooth)]

So fuck Dawkins and his stupid scale.

The scale itself isn't too bad at describing the relative positions certain people think they hold, so I wouldn't bash on Dawkins for that personally.

It does seem wholly unnecessary to even need a scale though, as you say, in reality nobody really knows for certain.

It's a product of the scientific model. Statistical analysis expresses probability as a p value, the probability that the data pattern is attributable to luck. Dawkins is just extrapolating that.

I found it to be pleasantly honest.

---

Less than zero.

Wow. Less than zero.

If one is absolute belief and 7 is absolute disbelief then zero would make you a republican

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The reason this scale isn't well liked is because it's missing the "I have no reason to believe in God" position.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the Dawkins Scale. I prefer the following one which, for me at least, better represents the range of feelings I have on this matter.

The Borudian Scale

1. I know beyond all possible doubt that gods do not exist.

2. I have a metaphysical certitude that gods do not exist.

3. The existence of gods is a completely meaningless concept to me.

4. I am utterly sure that gods do not exist.

5. I cannot imagine anything which would convince me of the existence of any gods.

6. I am not in the least unsure that gods do not exist.

7. I am as sure that gods do not exist as I am that my scrotum will begin yodeling The Toreador Song from 'Carmen.'

But please don't think that I'm inflexible. My beliefs fluctuate wildly between #1 and #2.

Boru

[Fruity]

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the Dawkins Scale. I prefer the following one which, for me at least, better represents the range of feelings I have on this matter.

The Borudian Scale

1. I know beyond all possible doubt that gods do not exist.

2. I have a metaphysical certitude that gods do not exist.

3. The existence of gods is a completely meaningless concept to me.

4. I am utterly sure that gods do not exist.

5. I cannot imagine anything which would convince me of the existence of any gods.

6. I am not in the least unsure that gods do not exist.

7. I am as sure that gods do not exist as I am that my scrotum will begin yodeling The Toreador Song from 'Carmen.'

But please don't think that I'm inflexible. My beliefs fluctuate wildly between #1 and #2.

Boru

he he he nice.

---

I don't know, I can't know, I don't believe.

I'm with zazzy. Fuck the scale.

[Doubting Thomas]

I really don't see the need for a scale at all to judge religious belief. I don't care where anyone is on the scale as long as they're not knocking on my door on Saturday morning to share the good news.

[Minimalist]

6.999999999999999

And...when it comes to the angry desert god or any of its variants...7.

[Zazzy]

The scale itself isn't too bad at describing the relative positions certain people think they hold, so I wouldn't bash on Dawkins for that personally.

I'm just sick of Dawkins somehow representing all atheists, and doing it with lazy crap like this that encourages people to think there is any genuine scale of gnosticism. If you really think you know, then you're a twatwaffle, no matter what side you're on.

[henryp]

I'm a twatwaffle. The Gods that humans have come up with are silly. Screw physical proof, just some common sense about God's alleged nature should be enough.

[Zazzy]

I'm a twatwaffle. The Gods that humans have come up with are silly. Screw physical proof, just some common sense about God's alleged nature should be enough.

Well, I think we can probably say that specific attributes of specific gods are so ridiculous that their likelihood is essentially nil- like, for instance, we can search every inch of Mt. Olympus, and we know we are not going to find Zeus there. So I'm pretty sure that Zeus is not sitting on Mt. Olympus. Does this negate EVERYTHING about Zeus, to the extent that I can be absolutely sure he doesn't exist? No.

Since no two theists can agree on the nature of their deity, and get worked up about other theists misrepresenting their god, I'd prefer to let them hash out a common working definition before saying I know anything for sure. Those annoying theists who say shit like "God is love!" are putting everyone in the position of agreeing with them by dint of fuzzy definitions. We all believe in love, so if God IS love, then we have to believe in it.

[paulpablo]

Was listening to Prof Dawkins on the way to work this morning. He described a spectrum of agnosticism from
1, KNOWING there is a god,
2 Being almost certain there is
3 more probable than not,
4, even odds,
5, more probable than not that there isn't,
6, almost certain there isn't, and
7. KNOWING there is no God.

He described himself as a 6, and cited the celestial teapot, which may or may not be orbiting the sun, as an example (it's probably not but he couldn't be certain).

So my question is, where are you on Dawkins scale?

4/5

I suppose it depends on your definition of a god.

I really don't think you can compare a god or gods to a celestial teapot.

First of all a celestial teapot within our universe going round the sun is within our time and within our universe and within our laws of physics so its highly likely not to exist.
But who knows what exists outside our universe, outside of time. But saying that I think if there is a some sort of a powerful being beyond our space and time I think it might not even know we exist, and if it does I feel almost certain it didn't make a virgin pregnant or cause some floods.