Where do you sit on the Dawkins belief scale?

[Asmodean]

So how is this different than me rejecting all possibility of a planet revolving around a particular star in some far off galaxy?  Right now, there may be absolutely no evidence available to us of such a planet revolving around such a star.  Is that a rational basis for rejecting the possibility of such a planet?  Of course not.

Depends.

If, for instance, someone says "There is a planet revolving around that star" and then I ask "Beause..?" and then that person says "Because there just is", I will say "Bullshit until proven otherwise".

While not a very good reason for rejecting the possibility, however remote, the lack of knowledge IS a good enough reason to reject unsubstantiated beliefs of others.

We might not be capable of gathering the evidence for such a planet, based upon our current level of technology, yet such a planet may exist.  It's existence does not depend upon our level of technology.

No, but unless we can demonstrate its existence, the default assumption should be that it does not unless there are known irregularities in that star's motion (Or whatever else gets the astronomers hot and sweaty ), or unless such an irregularity is later demonstrated.

Similarly, we may simply not have the brain power at this stage of our evolution to discern the existence of a creator God, yet such a God may exist.

May, but there is no need for gods in our reality. Therefor, we must assume there are no such things until and unless it is demonstrated that they must exist in some shape or form to fulfill a specific function like that planet of yours would affect the star with its gravity.

His/her/its existence does not depend upon our level of brain power.  It is frankly irrational to assert affirmatively and absolutely that something doesn't exist just because we do not currently possess any evidence of same.

Oh, we can do that, as long as we modify our knowledge according to the standing facts. What we know today may not be what we will know tomorrow, but doubting the current verifiable knowledge is pointless unless such doubt is warranted.

The most that you can legitimately say is that you have not been presented with sufficient evidence for you to believe.  For this reason, the most you can rationally claim is level 6, just as the most I can rationally claim is level 2 on the theist side. 

When it comes to knowledge, you can easily claim either end of the scale, but when it comes to how you treat the standing evidence, I'd say your point is completely valid. I can, for instance, know for certain that my car is low on antifreeze. However, if when I fill some more, I disover that it was full to begin with, I will modify my knowledge accordingly. If I were a one or a seven on the antifreeze scale, I'd overfill it because my facts to me would be the only valid ones.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that if theists cannot prove their god then it must be made up. Really you'd expect a bunch of people (numbering BILLIONS between them) to come up with at least one shred of evidence, and if not that, one genuine reason to believe.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that if theists cannot prove their god then it must be made up. Really you'd expect a bunch of people (numbering BILLIONS between them) to come up with at least one shred of evidence, and if not that, one genuine reason to believe.

If you haven't seen anything that convinces you or that strikes you as a genuine reason to believe, then your most rational position is a 6.  At least that way you give the appearance of keeping your mind open to the possibility of evidence.  A 7 or a 1 sort of ends all consideration.  A 6 or a 2 at least leaves the light on in case a stray fact comes waddling up to your door.

[Attila]

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that if theists cannot prove their god then it must be made up. Really you'd expect a bunch of people (numbering BILLIONS between them) to come up with at least one shred of evidence, and if not that, one genuine reason to believe.

If you haven't seen anything that convinces you or that strikes you as a genuine reason to believe, then your most rational position is a 6.  At least that way you give the appearance of keeping your mind open to the possibility of evidence.  A 7 or a 1 sort of ends all consideration.  A 6 or a 2 at least leaves the light on in case a stray fact comes waddling up to your door.

Sorry Bruce, but I strongly disagree. Without a meaningful definition of 'god' any point on the belief scale is meaningless. If I asked you, "do you believe in sillyigenfolszhangen?" what would be "your most rational position" on the scale? Give me a notion of "god" that  has some semantic content -- something to hang a judgement of existence on -- and we can do business. I really don't know how anyone, theist or atheist can make judgements on things they can't define clearly. Boggles the mind.

[Norfolk And Chance]

A 7 or a 1 sort of ends all consideration.

Yep, there is no point in conversing until you accept that god is made up.

[j.woodard24]

Six, maybe six and a half. I'm as agnostic about a god as I am the tooth fairy. We can never be entirely sure of anything. Regardless, "atheist" is certainly the proper term, just as would be "atoothfairyist".

[not your typical...]

Only two others voted with me in knowing there is a God.... I feel outnumbered. eh. But I was surprised at the number who weren't certain there is no God, but think that it is improbable...

[Tank]

Only two others voted with me in knowing there is a God.... I feel outnumbered. eh. But I was surprised at the number who weren't certain there is no God, but think that it is improbable...

Well this is an atheist forum so theists are likely to be in the minority and thus under represented in the poll. Most theists are mislead about atheism and why people are atheists, you are not alone in your surprise 

[not your typical...]

Most theists are mislead about atheism and why people are atheists

Yeah, that's why I joined the forum.

[Heisenberg]

Note that the ratio of 1:2 is over 15 times higher than that of 7:6. This comes as no surprise since atheists are more likely to leave room for the unknown (science) whereas theists are more likely to be set in their ways (faith).

[Tank]

Most theists are mislead about atheism and why people are atheists

Yeah, that's why I joined the forum.

I'd sort of guessed that 

[Sandra Craft]

Only two others voted with me in knowing there is a God.... I feel outnumbered. eh. But I was surprised at the number who weren't certain there is no God, but think that it is improbable...

I consider the existence of a god right in line with the existence of other supernatural things -- incredibly unlikely but on the other hand who knows?  It's not like I'm clued in to all the mysteries of the universe. 

[not your typical...]

I consider the existence of a god right in line with the existence of other supernatural things -- incredibly unlikely but on the other hand who knows?  It's not like I'm clued in to all the mysteries of the universe. 

I like you. You're very open minded.

[Tank]

I consider the existence of a god right in line with the existence of other supernatural things -- incredibly unlikely but on the other hand who knows?  It's not like I'm clued in to all the mysteries of the universe. 

I like you. You're very open minded.

75% of atheists fall into the 'weak' category of 'no/insufficient reasonable evidence', rather than 'strong', 'I don't believe there is a God'. 

[not your typical...]

75% of atheists fall into the 'weak' category of 'no/insufficient reasonable evidence', rather than 'strong', 'I don't believe there is a God'. 

Yeah, most of my friends fall into the 'strong' category. i tend to not really bother trying to prove there is one anymore. I can tell you only of what I've seen and my experiences and if you don't want to believe me, that's fine.