the meaning of atheism

[PoopShoot]

And we all know that Dawkins' minions dictate everything about atheism to us, otherwise we'd be a piss-poor excuse for a religion.  Luckily we have them, so we cna be part of the glorious church of atheism.

[notself]

I am a "7"

But that infers belief and unravels your tightly bundled disbelief  

No, it means I am convinced based on my experience, thoughts and understanding of how things are.  For one thing after having cancer and two biopsies where I thought each time that I was having a recurrence, I know I am mortal and when I die there will be and end to me.

[Asmodean]

I'm an anti-1 6  

[Tank]

And we all know that Dawkins' minions dictate everything about atheism to us, otherwise we'd be a piss-poor excuse for a religion.  Luckily we have them, so we cna be part of the glorious church of atheism.

He wrote the scale, he interpreted it and defined its application. If a person is instructed how to use a wood chisel ie which way around you hold it, one would consider the person holding it by the blade and hitting things with is a bit of a twit. One does not have to use a chisel to cut wood, one could find a different tool, but if one uses a chisel it's best to use it correctly in my experience.

[PoopShoot]

And we all know that Dawkins' minions dictate everything about atheism to us, otherwise we'd be a piss-poor excuse for a religion.  Luckily we have them, so we cna be part of the glorious church of atheism.

He wrote the scale, he interpreted it and defined its application. If a person is instructed how to use a wood chisel ie which way around you hold it, one would consider the person holding it by the blade and hitting things with is a bit of a twit. One does not have to use a chisel to cut wood, one could find a different tool, but if one uses a chisel it's best to use it correctly in my experience.

And if the chisel was flawed?

[Tank]

And we all know that Dawkins' minions dictate everything about atheism to us, otherwise we'd be a piss-poor excuse for a religion.  Luckily we have them, so we cna be part of the glorious church of atheism.

He wrote the scale, he interpreted it and defined its application. If a person is instructed how to use a wood chisel ie which way around you hold it, one would consider the person holding it by the blade and hitting things with is a bit of a twit. One does not have to use a chisel to cut wood, one could find a different tool, but if one uses a chisel it's best to use it correctly in my experience.

And if the chisel was flawed?

That's not quite the analogy as I would see it. What would be possible are different types of chisels for different jobs. If the Dawkins scale doesn't suit what you/one wants to say then don't use it, find another tool that suits what you want to say better. As you are an ignostic the Dawkins' scale probably isn't the right tool for you to express your position anyway because, if I understand ignostisism, it's already gone a step to far in placing belief in God on a scale where an ignostic would first say 'define God'. But for people that do wish to define themselves in context of the Dawkins' scale they should use it properly and possibly add their own personal caveats as needed. I did for a while say I was a 6.9 until the discrete nature of the scale was pointed out to me. That's why I say I am rationally a 6, while emotionally a 7. In general terms trying to force a tool to do something it is not designed to do is not a good idea. And a good carpenter/engineer will have a range of tools/techniques and will deploy and use them as an when they are suited to the task at hand. So simply consider the Dawkins scale as one tool in a whole range.

[PoopShoot]

You are correct in that I wouldn't be able to even use the scale without first defining who we were talking about, as I see different iterations of "god" as more or less probable.  That said, there is an inherent flaw in a scale that denies transitional measurements and to me it undersores a fatal flaw in Dawkins thinking processes: he imagines that imaginary borders are real.

[Tank]

You are correct in that I wouldn't be able to even use the scale without first defining who we were talking about, as I see different iterations of "god" as more or less probable.  That said, there is an inherent flaw in a scale that denies transitional measurements and to me it undersores a fatal flaw in Dawkins thinking processes: he imagines that imaginary borders are real.

We're slitting hairs here. Dawkins' scale is what is is. He created it as a thought experiment in the context of the chapter of his book. It is 'fit for purpose' in that context and as an illustrative tool, a very blunt tool.

How would you create an expressive scale and what would it consist of?

[PoopShoot]

How would you create an expressive scale and what would it consist of?

The same way most scales go: define what the whole numbers mean and don't get pedantic over decimals.

[Zklinedi]

Most scales go up when you stand on them...that much I know.

[Tank]

How would you create an expressive scale and what would it consist of?

The same way most scales go: define what the whole numbers mean and don't get pedantic over decimals.

Sorry, that does not cut it. Some data is discrete while some is analogue. If you count the number of cars passing a particular point on the road you wont get 0.5 of a car passing, you will get discrete whole values. If you measure length it has an analogue value, which you can measure with varying degrees of accuracy and the nature on the units you use may allow you to express that measurement as a decimal fraction. As the Dawkins scale is designed as a discrete set of options that is all you can have, it's in the nature of the scale as designed. If one wishes to abuse the terminology of the scale as designed one can, but it will not be using the measure as designed. The Dawkins scale is a set of discrete choices it is not an analogue quantity in the first place.

[elliebean]

I have no belief in gods, therefore, I am an atheist.
I have no belief in smurfs, therfore I am an asmurfist.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sorry, that does not cut it. Some data is discrete while some is analogue. If you count the number of cars passing a particular point on the road you wont get 0.5 of a car passing, you will get discrete whole values. If you measure length it has an analogue value, which you can measure with varying degrees of accuracy and the nature on the units you use may allow you to express that measurement as a decimal fraction. As the Dawkins scale is designed as a discrete set of options that is all you can have, it's in the nature of the scale as designed. If one wishes to abuse the terminology of the scale as designed one can, but it will not be using the measure as designed. The Dawkins scale is a set of discrete choices it is not an analogue quantity in the first place.

Unfortunately, thoughts aren't cars.  They don't end at the fenders.  The very fact that you have to qualify your own D-scale rating is evidence of its weakness, and shows that the scale tries to make discrete that which is inherently amorphous.

eta:  I'm a 6.

[PoopShoot]

@Tank:
Yes, it is a discreet set of values used to measure an analog reality, hence its flaws.

[Tank]

@Tank:
Yes, it is a discreet set of values used to measure an analog reality, hence its flaws.

I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this point.