(not an answer) Richard Dawkins's scale of theism "He tells of 7 degrees of theism (and atheism) 1 - 100% - God exist. 2 - 99% - I can’t prove God, but I’m all but certain that he IS. 3 - 51% - I’m agnostic, but God sounds good. 4 - 50% - Pure agnostic, completely neutral. 5 - 49% - Agnostic, but… God? 6 - 1% - Atheist, but can’t disprove God. 7 - 0% - God does NOT exist." Source: http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/

7.

I think I fall somewhere around 2.1 or 2.2

Definately 5

Definately 6.

4, i think.

.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hehe :)

666 lol

6 1/2 .

3 to 5 depending on the day of the week and season. However, this is in general relation to the question of a deity or deities. With regard to the Judeo/Christian dogma I am on the high end of the scale.

One.

I guess I would be "5 - 49% - Agnostic, but… God?"

I am a 6. In my opinion, anyone in category 1 or 7 is either lying or hasn't thought it through.

I am as certain in the NON-existence of god as I am in the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy. My only question is more or less philosophical- I grant that there might be some realm in which all things possible are actual. I'm pretty damn sure not - but not 100% +5

6.9 I'm as sure God doesn't exist as I am sure that we don't live in a Matrix-like simulation world. But hey, anything's possible, right?

1 My 2 cents.

I am a 7; God doesn't exist. Dawkins disagrees -- he says that any good scientist would allow for the possible existence of something, even without evidence, or explanatory power. He rates himself a 6, or sometimes a 6.9 -- responsibly allowing for the possibility that real evidence of God might someday come. I am a 7 because, beyond the merely empirical, physical view of the universe (in which the presence of a Biblical God would be superfluous and contradictory), I also have a view of history and culture which makes clear why God arises as a human fiction. It's one thing to say that something unknown might exist...OF COURSE anything can exist. But God is not an unknown possibility. He is a known cultural artifact. If we can learn about God's existence as a lie, the product of a historical and social force, why would we wonder if perhaps it might also be a truth? The contemporary idea of God only emerges in a narrow range of cultural conditions -- and in others, the idea is absent or radically different. We detect no evidence or testimony of God's existence until about 800 B.C.E. at the earliest, and maybe not until as late as 600 B.C.E. And we know that as an authority figure, supposedly giving laws and scripture to large groups of sane, healthy people, God didn't hang around much beyond the beginning of the medieval era. We can see clearly that official God-contact, resulting in helpful hints on how to live life, were endangered, and almost extinguished, by the rise of education, observation, reasoning, basic introspection, and human rights. That doesn't disprove his existence, but since lots of monotheistic religions (not just 2 or 3) emerged at the end of the ancient era, and no new ones except Mormonism (a known fraud) emerged after Islam, we do have a responsibility to explain the brisk narrowness of that phenomenon. Theists and agnostics will argue "well, hey, yes, God was a lie, but in addition to being made up, there might also be something very much akin our made-up God, something that happens to exist independently of our lie." This would be something like believing a manipulated white curtain to be a ghost, and then learning later that a real ghost was coincidentally and arbitrarily floating behind the fabric. TO SAY THAT A GHOST MIGHT BE BEHIND THE CURTAIN IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT OUR BELIEFS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRUE...the question of atheism and theism is, in this metaphor, the equivalent of the question whether or not the sheet was a ghost. It wasn't. To put this less metaphorically -- yes, there are many things unknown to us, and among the things unknown to us there maybe something *like* the God that we made up, something out there that has never presented itself to us in any way, a thing the presence of which explains nothing about the world around us, and a thing which has never made its existence apparent. But that is not God. God is an invented character that appears in a few loosely related traditional books. The word "God" is filled with social meanings, filled with history and social power, filled with implicitous meaning that we can observe, filled with an elaborate sense of purpose. All that is falsehood. I am a 7. A student of physics can allow that the missing spaces in the universe could contain *anything*, anything at all. But a student of history and literature can see that those spaces don't contain God. God is a thing written, not a thing observed, and God wasn't written into the universe, he was written into the blood of slaves, the bruised faces of stoned women, and the paradoxical perpetuation of rich mens' claims to absolute power. We have seen it written, and we can un-write what we know to be a fraud. If a Godlike force, or two or three Godlike forces, visit our world sometime later, we will give the phenomenon a different, and more noble, name.

well if we are talking about the god of the bible im a 7- if we are talking about some intelligence creating the universe .... shit i forgot the scale- but i'll say there is a chance so i guess a 5 or 6.

About 2.5

I would call my self a 5 to 6.

I'm a 5.5.

6.999

8: God does not exist AND it's a stupid concept to begin with. . . . I'm a 9.

I'm 50% exactly.

6 how can anyone be 7.

I can't really answer this question, Iwnit. I find his scale too narrow. For one thing, Dawkins seems to be stuck, like so many, on the Judeo-Christian concept of deity (if his use of the gender pronoun "he" is an indication). There are conceptions of godhead that have nothing to do with old men, sitting up in the sky, meting out "justice" and answering peoples' silly prayers to let their home team win the big game. +6 to you though for an interesting question! :)

7. There is no god however the divine is pretty damn cool.

Seven, definitively seven. I mean, anything can happen, but I believe that the term 'god' is a man-made construct and that no being, regardless of how mentally or technologically advanced they might be, deserve to be called a god.

lim x->(+)0 one can't, in all neutrality, completely rule out deism. however the more we discover, the less necessary, and thus likely, such a conclusion becomes.

I am a 1 :) My belief in God stems from (among other things) the sheer impossibility of God not existing.

Without a doubt, 1.

6.9%.

0 should have said "a god " or "any" god or at least included it .