The Dawkins Scale and Why I'm a Five

[Animore]

Disclaimer: This mostly focuses on monotheistic representations of God. It may not fit with you.

Just a warning before-hand, this is more subjective, and doesn't really contain any completely objective feelings toward God. And that reminds me. When I talk of God, I do mean a general deity or supreme being. Now, if you're still interested, here's some useless talk about my views.

If anyone is wondering about the Dawkins Scale, here it is:

Apparently the scale sooner or later extended to ten-point range.

(Beyond 110% sure there is no God)

There's apparently one between the two here.

(No God, no spirituality, yes morals, and thinks of the entire debate like a debate about a flat Earth)


So anyways. I'm a number five. I do not believe in God, but I believe we cannot know at all really. Nevertheless, I remain skeptical to the last. I do not make any claims on God, either as a fairy tale, or just plain non-existent. I don't believe that God is entirely improbable, just at the most unneeded, and I do not equate God to fairies or unicorns, because I don't believe the existence of a God is that impossible or ever, I DO believe that the claim of God is, at least in this current stage of scientific discovery, an un-falsifiable hypothesis. You certainly can't prove him, but you can't disprove him. I feel it definitely down-plays rationality, and that is why I don't believe. There's no evidence.

My answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?" would be something along the lines of, "Not really, no." "Are you open to proof?" "A definite yes, but I don't see the proof."

Just thought I would make this, because I see a lot of sixes and even a few sevens, but can't really find any fives. I know there are plenty of "Dawkins Scale" threads, but again, just wanted to explain my view.

-Jacob

 

[psychoslice]

I'm a De-Facto.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Beyond Atheism, and otherwise a strong atheist.

 

[Soundwave99]

I would label myself a six.

However, I really do not like the term "agnostic atheist", as it's very clunky and most people have no idea what it means. 99% of people (and the dictionary) think that "agnostic" means "doesn't know if gods exist" and that atheist means "doesn't believe in gods". For the sake of practicality, I call myself a "dictionary atheist".

 

[George-ananda]

I would have to choose none of the above. Dawkins never struck me as one who looks outside the Abrahamic box. If I could create my category it would be: I am a pantheist based on best evidence.

 

[Animore]

I would label myself a six.

However, I really do not like the term "agnostic atheist", as it's very clunky and most people have no idea what it means. 99% of people (and the dictionary) think that "agnostic" means "doesn't know if gods exist" and that atheist means "doesn't believe in gods". For the sake of practicality, I call myself a "dictionary atheist".

That's fair enough. I feel somewhat the same. I don't like using it that much because I think it makes people assume a lot about specifics, if you get what I mean. I think the term agnostic atheist can have a variety of meanings, as seen by the Dawkins Scale.

 

[ShivaFan]

This poll won't work for me.

Because it is centric to a "One God" (Who probably has a beard) ideation and cannot even compare with my path if one is trying to "compare religions" in the "Comparitive Religions" section. I do not think I am alone in this, where the poll doesn't even apply to "my religion" - the survey only works for One God religion and atheists but not people like me nor many other religions.

For example, I think there are all sorts of Powers, Gods, Angels, beings from other Universes, Demons, Aliens, Animals, Super Smart Ones, on and on, but none of them are necessarily "all important".

Though having certain Gods on your side can be advantageous.

Animals can become Gods in time, humans too. We all have souls, including dogs et all. Things have always existed, and there is no "end" to Universes or outer space or dimensions.

One day dogs will be speaking "English" and "Hindi" and will learn to manipulate their tongues to not only talk like a parrot, but actually speak human languages and be able to say, "That P and J san-aRoooo-wich looks good. Can I have bite? You nice. Give me san-aRoooo-wich now. Yes? Look at me. MY EYES. Give me your Peanut Butter bread, PLEASE." ...

So there are Dogs coming with capital D. They are very smart and have souls. Some will be more smart than you. But some may vote for corrupt politicians who promise them free bread and other lies. Those corrupt politicians *might* be parrots. Or a God.

 

[Animore]

This poll won't work for me.

Because it is centric to a "One God" (Who probably has a beard) ideation and cannot even compare with my path if one is trying to "compare religions" in the "Comparitive Religions" section. I do not think I am alone in this, where the poll doesn't even apply to "my religion" - the survey only works for One God religion and atheists but not people like me nor many other religions.

For example, I think there are all sorts of Powers, Gods, Angels, beings from other Universes, Demons, Aliens, Animals, Super Smart Ones, on and on, but none of them are necessarily "all important".

Though having certain Gods on your side can be advantageous.

Animals can become Gods in time, humans too. We all have souls, including dogs et all. Things have always existed, and there is no "end" to Universes or outer space or dimensions.

One day dogs will be speaking "English" and "Hindi" and will learn to manipulate their tongues to not only talk like a parrot, but actually speak human languages and be able to say, "That P and J san-aRoooo-wich looks good. Can I have bite? You nice. Give me san-aRoooo-wich now. Yes? Look at me. MY EYES. Give me your Peanut Butter bread, PLEASE." ...

So there are Dogs coming with capital D. They are very smart and have souls. Some will be more smart than you. But some may vote for corrupt politicians who promise them free bread and other lies. Those corrupt politicians *might* be parrots. Or a God.

I apologize that this doesn't fit your beliefs. I'll make a disclaimer that it mostly involves a monotheistic type of deity.

 

[Laika]

Disclaimer: This mostly focuses on monotheistic representations of God. It may not fit with you.

Just a warning before-hand, this is more subjective, and doesn't really contain any completely objective feelings toward God. And that reminds me. When I talk of God, I do mean a general deity or supreme being. Now, if you're still interested, here's some useless talk about my views.

If anyone is wondering about the Dawkins Scale, here it is:

Apparently the scale sooner or later extended to ten-point range.

(Beyond 110% sure there is no God)

There's apparently one between the two here.

(No God, no spirituality, yes morals, and thinks of the entire debate like a debate about a flat Earth)


So anyways. I'm a number five. I do not believe in God, but I believe we cannot know at all really. Nevertheless, I remain skeptical to the last. I do not make any claims on God, either as a fairy tale, or just plain non-existent. I don't believe that God is entirely improbable, just at the most unneeded, and I do not equate God to fairies or unicorns, because I don't believe the existence of a God is that impossible or ever, I DO believe that the claim of God is, at least in this current stage of scientific discovery, an un-falsifiable hypothesis. You certainly can't prove him, but you can't disprove him. I feel it definitely down-plays rationality, and that is why I don't believe. There's no evidence.

My answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?" would be something along the lines of, "Not really, no." "Are you open to proof?" "A definite yes, but I don't see the proof."

Just thought I would make this, because I see a lot of sixes and even a few sevens, but can't really find any fives. I know there are plenty of "Dawkins Scale" threads, but again, just wanted to explain my view.

-Jacob

By the sounds of it I am a 9 as a materialist.

Dawkins scale - Hmolpedia

 

[Rival]

1.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not sure where that scale comes from, nor why it puts apatheism as "beyond atheism", but in any case I am an apatheist and a strong atheist. By the OP's classification that puts me at the penultimate category at least.

Why is it called "Dawkins scale"?

Edited to add: oh, it seems that Dawkins actually proposed it. Not his best informed work. It is really too crude, too reductional.

In any case, going by Dawkins scale - Hmolpedia , I am a ten. I don't quite get the description of level ten as proposed in the OP, though.

Also, I must underscore that agnosticism and apatheism are almost entirely separate dimensions of this vastly overstated subject matter.

My being a 10 does not make me less of an agnostic nor of an apatheist. It just makes the agnosticism a mere detail with no practical significance, and the apatheism more constant and natural.

 

[Jumi]

When people keep adding new numbers to an already arbitrary scale maybe the scale was not that useful in the first place.

 

[savagewind]

I am certain, but the ONE who I know exists might not be God.

Maybe Dawkins can help us define GOD?

 

[omega2xx]

Disclaimer: This mostly focuses on monotheistic representations of God. It may not fit with you.

Just a warning before-hand, this is more subjective, and doesn't really contain any completely objective feelings toward God. And that reminds me. When I talk of God, I do mean a general deity or supreme being. Now, if you're still interested, here's some useless talk about my views.

If anyone is wondering about the Dawkins Scale, here it is:

Apparently the scale sooner or later extended to ten-point range.

(Beyond 110% sure there is no God)

There's apparently one between the two here.

(No God, no spirituality, yes morals, and thinks of the entire debate like a debate about a flat Earth)


So anyways. I'm a number five. I do not believe in God, but I believe we cannot know at all really. Nevertheless, I remain skeptical to the last. I do not make any claims on God, either as a fairy tale, or just plain non-existent. I don't believe that God is entirely improbable, just at the most unneeded, and I do not equate God to fairies or unicorns, because I don't believe the existence of a God is that impossible or ever, I DO believe that the claim of God is, at least in this current stage of scientific discovery, an un-falsifiable hypothesis. You certainly can't prove him, but you can't disprove him. I feel it definitely down-plays rationality, and that is why I don't believe. There's no evidence.

My answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?" would be something along the lines of, "Not really, no." "Are you open to proof?" "A definite yes, but I don't see the proof."

Just thought I would make this, because I see a lot of sixes and even a few sevens, but can't really find any fives. I know there are plenty of "Dawkins Scale" threads, but again, just wanted to explain my view.

-Jacob

Unless you have a better explanation for the origin of the universe---the heavens are still telling of the glory of God. Put me down as a 1

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apparently the scale sooner or later extended to ten-point range.

(Beyond 110% sure there is no God)

That's Laplace's (attributed) response to Napoleon. I don't think it's right to say that it's "beyond atheism" or "beyond 110% sure that it is no God." It's more like "I don't even see the problem that you think invoking a god will help you solve."

Most of the time, I'd say that this is my position, as well as being something like either a 6 or 7 on the scale, depending on the god in question. I agree with @George-ananda - the way the scale is phrased is too Abrahamic-focused. There's more to theism (and therefore atheism) than classical monotheism.

However, I'm more interested in the question "is belief in gods justified?" than I am in "do gods exist?" (BTW - thanks, @Sunstone for reminding me of this)

I also think that it's worth pointing out that when I do leave philosophical room for the possible existence of gods, it's the same sort of philosophical room I leave for leprechauns or Kempenfelt Kelly*, so theists shouldn't get too hopeful.


*Kempenfelt Kelly is the lake monster that supposedly lives in Kempenfelt Bay on Lake Simcoe. It was apparently invented as a marketing ploy by the local business community as an attempt to get some of those Loch Ness-style tourism dollars. Still, even though it's a transparent fabrication with no evidence to support it whatsoever, I can't be perfectly certain that there doesn't coincidentally happen to be a lake monster in Lake Simcoe that nobody knew about.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

As others have pointed out, the scale is founded in ignorance. But what else can one expect from a journalist?

In my case,
1. I know there are gods from experience.
2. I think it probable that there may be a creator, on the basis of philosophical reasoning.
So where does that put me on his scale?

 

[Acim]

I went with the majority, or 1. How can you not?

 

[Animore]

As others have pointed out, the scale is founded in ignorance. But what else can one expect from a journalist?

In my case,
1. I know there are gods from experience.
2. I think it probable that there may be a creator, on the basis of philosophical reasoning.
So where does that put me on his scale?

I don't see the problem here. You would be a one, right?

 

[Animore]

I went with the majority, or 1. How can you not?

Well, it's a claim that requires evidence, first off, in which I doubt anyone has, at least objective, empirical evidence.

 

[Acim]

Well, it's a claim that requires evidence, first off, in which I doubt anyone has, at least objective, empirical evidence.

What would evidence look like to you?

Like saying "you know the physical world exists" and then being asked to back up that claim, without using anything that your physical body can sense. Good luck!