The Dawkins Scale and Why I'm a Five

[Animore]

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!

I don't see why we should call it God if it either doesn't care to show us physical evidence or if it can't show us physical evidence.

 

[Acim]

I don't see why we should call it God if it either doesn't care to show us physical evidence or if it can't show us physical evidence.

Maybe cause God is Spirit, and the physical is illusion.

 

[Animore]

Maybe cause God is Spirit, and the physical is illusion.

Or maybe because He's apparently too weak to show himself. Or perhaps such a God doesn't exist? I don't know, Bertrand Rusell's arguments sure do make sense...

 

[Acim]

Or maybe because He's apparently too weak to show himself. Or perhaps such a God doesn't exist? I don't know, Bertrand Rusell's arguments sure do make sense...

That's okay, I do know.

Perhaps the evidence is closer than your nose?

 

[Animore]

That's okay, I do know.

Perhaps the evidence is closer than your nose?

Then it's a waste of time if we can never reach such evidence. Again, you think a God would be, well, godly enough to give us some evidence we can reach.

 

[Acim]

Then it's a waste of time if we can never reach such evidence. Again, you think a God would be, well, godly enough to give us some evidence we can reach.

Depends on what you're reaching with? If reaching with an illusion, then you'll probably grasp illusion. If reaching with mind, then you'll find evidence. How you interpret that is up to you. Thank God.

 

[Animore]

Depends on what you're reaching with? If reaching with an illusion, then you'll probably grasp illusion. If reaching with mind, then you'll find evidence. How you interpret that is up to you. Thank God.

I don't see how hallucinations and dreams can prove God's existence. People hallucinate. People dream about things they think about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pure Agnostic

 

[illykitty]

Since the OP did mention a god concept, 5 is probably the number I'd chose.

If I were to be more specific, that number is for monotheistic god concepts from various religions. I'm a 4 for other types of gods or concepts (Deism, Pantheism, etc). They don't seem verifiable but don't seem as implausible to me. I don't think I can judge all the concepts on the same level.

I'm highly sceptical of the claim of a supernatural creator god that is personal and interferes in our lives. Other types of gods do not cause me to feel as sceptical even if I may not find personal value in them (intellectual curiosity aside).

I might even be considered a "sexed-up atheist" as described by Dawkins' own words, with my reverence of the cosmos and natural world. I guess it depends on one's definition of god/deity and other similar terms. Either way I am comfortable with calling myself agnostic, since it is how I feel about deity concepts, even though I do revere certain things.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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

Ehh......scale is kind of arbitrary and a bit stupid if you ask me, but I voted five as well, although I am probably between five and six. Also, there is no such thing as beyond 100% certain, so any category beyond "seven" is pointless.

 

[Animore]

Ehh......scale is kind of arbitrary and a bit stupid if you ask me, but I voted five as well, although I am probably between five and six. Also, there is no such thing as beyond 100% certain, so any category beyond "seven" is pointless.

I concur, it is pointless, but I wasn't the one that thought up them.

 

[Soundwave99]

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.

The term "agnostic atheist" (or even agnostic theist) also seems to be based on this weird idea that if you don't include an "agnostic" disclaimer before your label of theist/atheist, then you're 100% certain of your (dis)belief or that you're making a positive claim. Which is obviously false. Unless someone is claiming that a god exists or does not exist, then no positive claim (or negative claim, respectively) is being made. Belief or lack thereof is not a positive claim itself.

Edit: Added "negative claim"

 

[Windwalker]

I know there are plenty of "Dawkins Scale" threads, but again, just wanted to explain my view.

Oh for god's sake. I've never heard of the "Dawkin's Scale" until now. What complete rubbish. He is truly a clown's Clown.

 

[Sapiens]

Strong 7

 

[Animore]

Oh for god's sake. I've never heard of the "Dawkin's Scale" until now. What complete rubbish. He is truly a clown's Clown.

Yeah, haha, I did a search on this site a day ago with it as the key word and it came back with nothing but my post. Guess I just assumed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

The spectrum of atheistic probability

1. Strong atheist. 100 per cent probability of accident. In the words of Dawkins: “The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.”
2. De facto atheist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in coincidences and live my life on the assumption that it explains everything."
3. Leaning towards atheism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in spontaneous flukes creating everything
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "the existence of a naturalistic mechanism for all creation, and it's non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards theism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether this materialist model exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto theist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think naturalism is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that it does not account for reality'
7. Strong theist. "I know there is no naturalistic lotto machine, with the same conviction as Dawkins knows there is one."

In my life I have progressed from 1 to 7. . know it to the extent that I can know anything, and so I still acknowledge faith in my beliefs, I do not look down on those who believe in atheism. We all believe in something. The most important thing is that we acknowledge those beliefs such.

 

[Acim]

I don't see how hallucinations and dreams can prove God's existence. People hallucinate. People dream about things they think about.

Understanding the nature of dreaming, from spiritual perspective, can (help) lead to proof of God's existence. It's partially philosophical reasoning, but if not applying certain principles, then it remains theoretical / intellectual.

 

[YmirGF]

9.5 here

 

[David T]

"I know God exists" has zero to do with theism as it's expressed in its huge modern accedemic intellectual variety both atheistically and religiously. Bpth are suburbane/urbane nonsense, amd Both agree the cranium is God. One projects it directly (religion)one projects it scientifically so which projection is correct? which crAnium projection is valid? I stick to music and hiking it dances. At leAst church has music, although no dancing is allowed that is of the devil!!!! Seems confused.n

 

[Balsamous]

I call myself a six, however i don't know for certain what i am. All am sure of is that i don't believe in a God for a specific religion. However, perhaps there might be a higher power ' a creator' so what am i from 1 to 7?