Dawkins Scale of Belief

[Zzyzx]

.
Comments?

[undeterred]

I had to vote 6, but I'd go for 6.7 -

Although that's close to 7, I have to leave the margin.

Nobody knows how we, or all the freaky sh*t around us, began in the first place. There remains a tiny, tiny, chance that some sort of intelligence is behind it all (infinite regress notwithstanding). I am otherwise convinced however, that the universe is purely natural and that mathematics is at the core of all things (to put it somewhat clumsily). God (or gods) are invented concepts - products of the human brain which has evolved to be uneasy without answers.

As such I believe we are purely matter, acted on by natural laws finely calibrated by the fact that nothing else could exist in any manner, except to exist in the manner that it does.

Or something like that.

- U.D.

[McCulloch]

I voted 6. If the discussion was with regard to the Abrahamic God in its Jewish, Christian or Islamic form, my vote would be infinitesimally close to 7 (think Planck distances), but I cannot be quite so sure about the Deist concept of God.

[Zzyzx]

.

I voted 6.

I had to vote 6, but I'd go for 6.7 -

#6. I have slowly progressed from #5 in the last 3 years or so.

6 leaning towards 7.

I also chose #6 although I have elsewhere indicated 5.5 to 6.0 (and that range should probably be extended to 6.5).

Has this forum influenced your position? If so, how and why?

[Beto]

Zz, we all know that "God" is an inherently subjective concept with a myriad of personal interpretations, ranging from the bearded-man upstairs to energy anthropomorphized, so I have to ask what is the actual value of a poll around an undefined "God"? What useful conclusion do you think can be drawn from a poll as subjective as the concept itself? Aside from some people going "hey look at all them god-believing folks out there!" as if it validates their own perspective.

[bernee51]

.

I voted 6.

I had to vote 6, but I'd go for 6.7 -

#6. I have slowly progressed from #5 in the last 3 years or so.

6 leaning towards 7.

I also chose #6 although I have elsewhere indicated 5.5 to 6.0 (and that range should probably be extended to 6.5).

If there was an 8 to choose from that would be me.

Has this forum influenced your position? If so, how and why?

Discussions with the like minded and the un-like minded have helped in the gelling of my position. This has been secondary however to conclusions arrived at through a continuing seeking of knowledge and an on-going and deepening meditation practice.

[Fallibleone]

Has this forum influenced your position? If so, how and why?

This forum has been instrumental in moving me upwards on the scale. It has provided non-theist arguments the strength of which has made them very difficult for me to dismiss. Likewise, the arguments of many believers I have found to be comparatively weak, and occasionally even silly or dishonest, if I'm being perfectly candid.

[Zzyzx]

.

Zz, we all know that "God" is an inherently subjective concept with a myriad of personal interpretations, ranging from the bearded-man upstairs to energy anthropomorphized, so I have to ask what is the actual value of a poll around an undefined "God"? What useful conclusion do you think can be drawn from a poll as subjective as the concept itself?

The concept of god(s) exists and is influential no matter how an individual defines the term. It can be useful to know what part of a given group acknowledges ascribing to the concept.

It is also useful to know in what ways, if any, the ideas of members of the group (in this case responders to this thread) are influenced by this forum.

Also, I thought it would be interesting to see the balance of responses and to read the comments.

[realthinker]

I voted 7, but I have a caveat. I am entirely convinced that any suggestion of what God is or the creator expects of Man can be dismissed. The stories we have are, from my perspective, entirely false.

But then, none of them, that I am familiar with, talk about a creator who created the universe and set it in motion and has no further interaction with it. I'm not going to discount that possibility. I'm OK with a creator, but I also believe that there's nothing substantial to suggest there is one. The idea of God is based on our (perhaps primitive) understanding of matter and time. The idea of God simply supplies some consistency of thought for those who need to get over the fact that we don't know where all this matter came from. It's a place holder. When we know where the matter of the universe came from and why it behaves as it does, then I'll throw out the creator idea entirely.

My time in this forum has lead me to the notion that while God and religion may be false, they are not ideas without value. In fact, I believe they have been critical elements in the evolution of our societies. And furthermore, it's the fact that God and religious consequences for death are unprovable that make them so valuable to social evolution.

The exchanges on this forum have also given great support to my understanding of "truth" and how it affects people's ideas and behavior. It's sometimes said that one side or another is being "illogical", but that's not generally the case. Most often they're simply applying very appropriate logic to two different notions of truth. They're arguing from different "facts". Truth though includes both those facts we can observe directly plus those ideas that fill in our basis of reason. Those ideas don't have to be objective truth be useful.

[Furrowed Brow]

100% convinced. No God.

100% convinced. There is a God

Double with a

[undeterred]

Has this forum influenced your position? If so, how and why?

My position has led me to this forum.

I've been pursuaded up the scale by some brilliant posts on another forum, though. I daresay my experience there was much like fallibleone's on this site.