If you're a 7 you might be harboring resentful instincts...

.Let it go.

Being 99.99% sure puts you in cat #5 or 6.

The religious are #religulous... Watch Bill's Movie and you'll feel better.

Your religious parents didn't pressure you to hurt you.....they indoctrinated you because they were indoctrinated by their parents, and on and on going back.

Don't hate for that...feel sorry for their dogmatic ways.

No, I'm only 99.99% sure because I don't feel I have the necessary information about all of the universe, space, time, and the nature of reality to say with absolute certainty that some sort of god-like entity does not exist.

And I think your interpretation of the chart/list differs from mine.

I don't hate my parents. You seem to have drawn a conclusion about me based on your own views. No idea where you came up with that but it comes across as a bit rude.

Ah... now that I read a few more of your replies I see that people have responded where they feel they fit on that list... and then you reply where YOU think they fit on that list. How about letting people decide for themselves?

Beyond 6 - and you're showing hatred and resentment.

Watch this and eat a Snickers.... You'll feel better...

@Robecology Why must everything be reduced to an emotional level. Aren't humans (some at least) supposed to be superior because of our sense of reason? My L partners motto was discipline first then love which meant reason first then emotion. I do agree that often there has to be some emotion to provide motivation but that should be all.

That's between 5 and 6.

This is Richard Dawkin's quote.

I consider him to be the best authority on Agnosticism/Atheism. Here's a couple of his quotes;

@Robecology Dawkins has many clever quotes, and a few bad ones. Overall I'm a fan. He just missed on the definition of agnostic:

agnostic: noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

There is nothing in the definition that states the probability of God existing is 50%.

@BD66 I think you're just arguing semantics;

"neither faith nor disbelief in God." is pretty much the same as "God's existence and non-existance are exactly equiprobable".

Dawkins is British....and you know those Brits have a way with the "English" language. But -IMO- you and he are saying the same thing. Here's a clip of him stating the obvious....

@Robecology I have a PhD in statistical signal processing, and Dawkins has a PhD in Biology, so he knows a lot more about Biology than I do, but he's extremely sloppy in talking about statistics and probabilities. If you express an Agnostic's belief in pure probability terms, and Agnostic believes:

The probability that some form or God (or some controlling entity) exists is between 0 and 1.

Dawkins has stated that an Agnostic believes:

The probability that some form or God (or controlling entity) exists is 0.5.

That's why his definition is terrible.

@BD66 So his use of the word "exactly" bothers you?

@Robecology To the first statement I would even go further - the number could easily approach infinity.

@Robecology "exactly" and "equiprobable" both bother me.

@BD66 Let's just remember the basic breakdown of the word, "Agnostic"...a....not. Gnostic...."knowing, aware, knowledgeable". I think Dawkins was just was being too "officious" - some would call it a British POV, as I had suggested earlier.

@Robecology I'm a big fan of Dawkins. He just came up with a very sloppy definition of Agnostic.