Where do you sit on the Dawkins belief scale?

[Norfolk And Chance]

I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.

I'm also certain there are no unicorns, no fire breathing dragons and no santa claus, flying reindeers and elves.

People can call me irrational all they like.

You are not, as long as when confronted with conclusive evidence to the contrary, you amend your certainties. By that line of thought, I am a seven on the scale in terms of certainty, but only six in terms of mule-headedness about it. Thus, it's cathegory 6+ for me.

If I can't be certain that there is no god I also cannot be certain that there is no santa claus, or no magical teapot orbiting the earth.

Not being certain there is no santa and not being certain that there is no magical teapot is of course absurd.

Let's all quit this philosophical bullshit and call it as we see it - there is no god.

I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.

[Asmodean]

I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.

Which is precisely my point.

As worded, a 7 on Dawkins' scale seems to me like the kind of person who would dismiss evidence and common sense to maintain his affiliation... Not unlike most religious fundies would.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.

Which is precisely my point.

As worded, a 7 on Dawkins' scale seems to me like the kind of person who would dismiss evidence and common sense to maintain his affiliation... Not unlike a religious fundie would.

I said I was an 8 though 

[Asmodean]

I said I was an 8 though 

Good place to be, I suppose 

[Tank]

I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.

Which is precisely my point.

As worded, a 7 on Dawkins' scale seems to me like the kind of person who would dismiss evidence and common sense to maintain his affiliation... Not unlike most religious fundies would.

IMO that is exactly the point RD was getting at in his definition of 1 and 7.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.

Which is precisely my point.

As worded, a 7 on Dawkins' scale seems to me like the kind of person who would dismiss evidence and common sense to maintain his affiliation... Not unlike most religious fundies would.

IMO that is exactly the point RD was getting at in his definition of 1 and 7.

I don't like the lack of absolute certainty of 6 though. That's not me.

[Tank]

I would of course renounce my certainty if somebody proved god.

Which is precisely my point.

As worded, a 7 on Dawkins' scale seems to me like the kind of person who would dismiss evidence and common sense to maintain his affiliation... Not unlike most religious fundies would.

IMO that is exactly the point RD was getting at in his definition of 1 and 7.

I don't like the lack of absolute certainty of 6 though. That's not me.

I recall ISoK, one of our Muslim members, saying he didn't like a world view that lacked certainty 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.

The feeling of certainty is only a matter of human subjectivity.  Lots of people have been certain about a whole lot of things - and were completely wrong.  To interpret your subjective feeling of certainty as an absolutely objective fact is, well, the height of hubris and the zenith of narcissism.  In a word - irrational.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.

The feeling of certainty is only a matter of human subjectivity.  Lot's of people have been certain about a whole lot of things - and were completely wrong.  To interpret your subjective feeling of certainty as an absolutely objective fact is, well, the height of hubris and the zenith of narcissism.  In a word - irrational.

Based on all available evidence I am certain that there is no god. I reject any possibility of god. However my feeling of certainty is exactly that, my feeling of certainty. Nowhere did I claim it was a fact.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.

The feeling of certainty is only a matter of human subjectivity.  Lot's of people have been certain about a whole lot of things - and were completely wrong.  To interpret your subjective feeling of certainty as an absolutely objective fact is, well, the height of hubris and the zenith of narcissism.  In a word - irrational.

Based on all available evidence I am certain that there is no god. I reject any possibility of god. However my feeling of certainty is exactly that, my feeling of certainty. Nowhere did I claim it was a fact.

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.  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.

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.  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.  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. 

[DeterminedJuliet]

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.  

I would agree that if you claim a 1 or a 7 on this scale, is it most likely due to an emotional inclination, but that doesn't make it any less "real". I can't say that I know anything, but I can feel certain about some things. Those feelings, I think, are the difference between a 6 and a 7, and I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. When it comes down to that degree of knowledge/belief, you are getting into "gut feeling" territory.

I will never 100% definitively know that my husband loves me, but I'd stake my life on it. Just because we are atheist, it doesn't mean we are without human feeling or a little "illogical" emotional responses in our worldviews. If someone claims a 1 or a 7, I'm not going to argue with them about how they self-identify (even though, I, obviously, can't see the sense in someone labeling themselves as a "1"). It may seem arrogant for someone to claim and "absolute" point of view, but I think it's even more arrogant to try and tell someone that they don't believe and feel what they say they believe and feel.

[Attila]

I'm basically unhappy with the scale as it stands. A number of people have expressed the wish for an 8th option. I wouldn't click any point on the Dawkins scale but I would click on an 8. The question of the existence of god is unintelligible and so unanswerable and without interest. I would also support an 8. No human has ever had contact with any supernatural being. Those who claim the contrary are liars or delusional.

[Tank]

I'm certain there is no god. I said certain.

The feeling of certainty is only a matter of human subjectivity.  Lots of people have been certain about a whole lot of things - and were completely wrong.  To interpret your subjective feeling of certainty as an absolutely objective fact is, well, the height of hubris and the zenith of narcissism.  In a word - irrational.

Sorry Bruce but I really don't understand how you can write something like that when you have admitted your epiphany happened on the day you had taken LSD and that your own reason for believing in God is subjective. Can you not appretiate that the argument you have used to attempt to discredit N&C's position applies one hundred fold to you?

[Norfolk And Chance]

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.

What are you talking about? You haven't named the star.

If you were to name the star, and we have no evidence of a planet round that particular star, it would be ridiculous for me to say "I am certain that there is no planet orbiting that star" Why? Because we already KNOW that planets orbit the star in this solar system and orbit stars in other solar systems.

It would therefore be entirely reasonable and rational to assume that there could be a planet orbiting your example star, based on what we know FACTUALLY about other star systems.

This is not the case with your sky fairy, based on the evidence available and what we know FACTUALLY about invisible made up shit, it is not reasonable to assume that could be a god. Some may want to add the caveat "though this may change based on new evidence" - hell even I would go along with that caveat.

Is that a rational basis for rejecting the possibility of such a planet?  Of course not.  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 sane person would reject the possibility of a random planet orbiting a random star based on what we already know, and based on technological levels which mean we can't identify every planet around every star. Like I just said above. Your comparson is bunk, and utterly pointless.

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.

This is just guesswork and wishful thinking from you. Let's deal with reality - there is nothing in reality to suggest a god, unlike the planet comparison which you used which is very based in reality.

His/her/its existence does not depend upon our level of brain power.

Correct, but pointless to the debate.

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.

No it absolutely is not irrational. As already discussed.

The most that you can legitimately say is that you have not been presented with sufficient evidence for you to believe.

That follows for most atheists and is logical.

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.  

Let us not forget, when it comes down to it all, the Dawkins scale is a made up scale that means nothing in the scheme of things. I do not adhere to and set my standards by that scale, though if I did, I'd be a 7 - if it really meant anything.

I am certain there is no god, because there is zero evidence for his existence and zero real reason for his being.

If some supernatural ghosty stuff was already proven to exist (like some planets round other stars are proven to exist) then you could think "well a supernatural being that we just cannot detect is NOT out of the question - because we have proof that fairies at the bottom of the garden/ghosts/santa/whatever are REAL"

Where your argument falls down is that there are no other supernatural things to fall back on and say "well if that is real this god stuff is possible"

I think to state that god is possible is irrational, because there is no rational reason to accept his existence as a possibility!

[Ildiko]

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. 

This is immediately followed by:

The most that you can legitimately say is that you have not been presented with sufficient evidence for you to believe.

What?

Many of us can legitimately say that we have not been presented with any evidence.