How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[Milton Platt]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

Your descriptives need adjustment. You are implying that to be a a strong theist 100 % certainty is not necessary but to be a strong atheist, you must have 100% certainty. The two opposites on the scale should be opposite in meaning.

 

[AngelicFire]

I consider myself to be a hardcore atheist/antitheist.

I have a bible and Koran with personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
I'm a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.
I've Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.
I Have already made plans to donate my body to science after i die.
I Have turned on Christian TV because i needed something entertaining to laugh at.
I'm on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so i can see what they’re up to.
I keep my eyes open while i watched others around me pray.
I've argued with someone who stopped me on the street to proselytize.
I Subscribe to a freethought magazine.

I am honestly intrigued right now.

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

I agree to leave a smidgen of room. I am an aleprechaunist, too. I am quite certain that leprechauns don't kiss the Blarney Stone at the end of the rainbow or dance around wee pots of gold. But I do leave room for a smidgen of doubt. After all, that folklore came from somewhere! So, someone was really creative, or they saw something.

So, I believe it is with atheism. *de facto here.

 

[miodrag]

I consider myself a "6.9" atheist, a scientist has to leave some space to be wrong, even if it is very small,

I approve the choice and the understanding of science. Science is based on critical thinking and that involves constant reevaluation, skepticism, tedency to become more accurate etc. However, I disapprove the explanation, or at least the impression it gives. Science is not opposed to religion. There are religious scientists, and theists also understand the benefit of critical thinking. God is not in the domain of science, and He will never be. Then how is it possible to scientifically decide there is no God? Would you decide not to love, since love is only chemistry, from the scientific viewpoint? This way it seems like if you made your choice for the wrong reasons. I am inviting you to consider if it is possible for you to be more accurate on why being an atheist. Maybe you are not interested in metaphysics...?

 

[icehorse]

de facto, anti-theist

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I voted other. I'm an apatheist. I also find the scale used in the OP illogical. Use this instead.

I think I have even more problems with that than with the 1-7 scale. It solves one problem with the scale (i.e. that agnosticism isn't some halfway point between atheism and theism), but it has a bunch of new problems of its own.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My wife and I had the opportunity of seeing Rabbi Sherwin Wine on a couple of occasions (including a small gathering for dinner). I had some differences with him but found his 'ignosticism' very interesting, if not impelling. We lost something of value when he died.

 

[james bond]

Depends on what you mean by god. Since you capitalized it, you mean the Christian one? Then, De-Facto or Strong Atheist. (I'm certain the biblical assumptions about him are wrong, but there might be one or several spirits that inspired them).
Or, personal deities on the level of spirits? Pure Agnostic. Had no reliable encounters with any, but heard of lots of people who had, or claimed so.
But if you define the divine with existence, as I do as a pantheist, then I'm a Strong Theist.

The scale was written by atheist Richard Dawkins. He considers himself a scholar, so he capitalizes God. This refers to the Abrahamic God. Lower case god isn't used in philosophy and scholarly circles because it refers to pagan and mythical gods. The ignorant internet atheists are ones who use lower case god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My wife and I had the opportunity of seeing Rabbi Sherwin Wine on a couple of occasions (including a small gathering for dinner). I had some differences with him but found his 'ignosticism' very interesting, if not impelling. We lost something of value when he died.

I certainly see a lot of merit in ignosticism, but in a lot of ways I think it's an even more extreme stance than strong atheism: instead of saying to theists "you're wrong," it says to them "you're so incoherent I can't even say 'you're wrong'" and "your viewpoint isn't even worth considering until you figure out how to better express what you mean."

 

[David T]

The first time I heard of a scale being around was through Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the New Atheism group. Since I do not have a differing widely known scale, I use his. He's eliminating other beliefs and the like for those whose beliefs lie elsewhere, so I include "Other" in my poll.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

If this has been posted before, then please forgive. I did a search and did not find.

None

 

[james bond]

I voted Strong Atheist. Belief or knowledge of god is depended on many factors we experience psychological, physiological, and by relationship with one experience and belief with another. There is a lot of natural superstition and other ways our minds try to fill in the gaps of not understanding why we are here whether on a theological level or just experiencing depression.

That and I believe souls exist because I experienced and seen them. They are the spirit/energy that does not "die" (energy doesn't disappear) of the human body. Whether one personifies this feeling from an outside source or reflection of it from the inside depends on the person. Though I don't understand god because there is no body. So....

Interesting (from your background). Thank you, Carlita.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The scale was written by atheist Richard Dawkins. He considers himself a scholar, so he capitalizes God. This refers to the Abrahamic God. Lower case god isn't used in philosophy and scholarly circles because it refers to pagan and mythical gods. The ignorant internet atheists are ones who use lower case god.

Nonsense. "God" with a capital "G" is just the name given to certain monotheistic gods.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Changed it to De-facto Theist.

 

[james bond]

With regard to which God? I view the universe itself as a "god" in some sense although to quote Carl Sagan, it doesn't make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. As far as the anthropomorphic deities go; then I'm a de-facto atheist.

The list is from Richard Dawkins, who considers himself a scholar. In scholarly and philosophical terms, it's refering to the Abrahamic God, i.e. Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The list is from Richard Dawkins, who considers himself a scholar. In scholarly and philosophical terms, it's refering to the Abrahamic God, i.e. Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

He's an evolutionary biologist, not a "scholar" of philosophy, religion, theology, sociology, etc. When he talks about religion, it's purely as a layman.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The list is from Richard Dawkins, who considers himself a scholar. In scholarly and philosophical terms, it's refering to the Abrahamic God, i.e. Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

"The Abrahamic God" describes many god-concepts. Heck... even "the Christian God" refers to many god-concepts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He's an evolutionary biologist, not a "scholar" of philosophy, religion, theology, sociology, etc. When he talks about religion, it's purely as a layman.

What qualifications do you think a person should have in order to talk about religion?

 

[columbus]

The list is from Richard Dawkins, who considers himself a scholar. In scholarly and philosophical terms, it's refering to the Abrahamic God, i.e. Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

I don't pay much attention to people like Dawkins so I don't know, I have to ask.
Did Dawkins specify this, or are you assuming it? I often use the literary convention of capitalizing the term God, despite not believing, because then the audience doesn't react to the lack of such rather than what I actually say.
Tom

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What qualifications do you think a person should have in order to talk about religion?

I didn't say they need qualifications to talk about it. We're talking about it, aren't we? I was just saying that he doesn't have any more academic standing on the subject than you or I as he's not educated in the relevant fields.

 

[james bond]

Nonsense. "God" with a capital "G" is just the name given to certain monotheistic gods.

I read it in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a few years ago, but it appears that section is removed now. Ok, I'll go with yours.

Capitalized God refers to certain monotheistic gods. Also, proper nouns.

EDIT: While I didn't major in philosophy, monotheistic religions according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are still restricted. It does not include the others which have cropped up such as Bahai and others.

Monotheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems to restrict to Western Gods
God, Western Concepts of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Exploring the Monotheistic Religions of the World (liberal, non-scholar)
Exploring Monotheistic Religions