I’ve never seen anything to even hint at a god of any type whatsoever. When you study the history of religion you see humans trying to answer questions, understand the world, control other people etc. what I don’t see is a god.
There is no difference in my mind between the god of Abraham, Thor, Zeus, Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
A little nit-pickery here. Actually the god of Abraham would be more akin to Odin than Thor. 
Well Jesus then as in the son of god not the actual flesh Jesus who may have actually walked this earth.
Why not just call yourself a 7, and make 7 louder? Oh, right: your scale goes up to 8.
A lot of people in here are calling themselves 7, but then say things that suggest they’re actually a 6 on the scale. If you’re open to evidence, then I don’t think you’re a 7, by the scale’s own definition: 7 means that there is no evidence that could convince you otherwise.
I’m pretty comfortable in the 6 range. Sure, many of the concepts of God put forth are incoherent or logically impossible, as far as I can tell; but maybe I haven’t thought them through carefully enough. The idea of curved space also strikes me as incoherent, but I accept that as true, because there’s evidence to support the idea.
Give me evidence of God’s existence, or of leprechauns, or of the great ice-cow who licked the world free of the primordial glacier, or whatever, and I’ll believe.
No, I won’t conclude that I’m insane, because that’s a strange loop: why not conclude instead that I was previously insane? What would make me think that my previous judgments were sane and my current ones were crazy?
Like I said, I voted 6. I might even be a 6.9, but I will never be a 7. I’m only 100% sure about ONE thing in this life, and that’s my own consciousness existing… How can I be 100% sure if a god exists if I’m not even 100% sure that my own body is real?
If “God” = a “Creator of everything we know to be ‘real’”, I can’t for sure say that this whole universe wasn’t conceived, (even accidentally), by something else that we have no concept of. The closer we come to becoming “Gods” or “creators” ourselves, the more I wonder if there isn’t something “bigger” out there.
That’s why I can’t be a 7.
That said, I’m sure there’s no God like I’m sure there’s a computer screen in front of me right now.
I think DT’s posting history here demonstrates that his scale goes to *at least *8. 
(From as soon as I opened this thread I was waiting for a reply from Der Trihs, and having an internal bet with myself as to how high the scale would go).
Although I cannot muster up the same commitment I can appreciate someone whose attitude towards the omni-max concept of god appears IMO to be: Does not, Should not, Cannot, and Must not exist… and if it, somehow, inconceivably, did exist, then it would deserve an ass-whooping of truly epic proportions! 
You don’t need Rosaries, use the built-in one.
There’s a woman who takes the subway at about the same time I do, and sings and expounds on deformed Biblic stories all through the trip. She might be worth half a dozen 7s all on her lonesome, merry self…
I chose 3 because, while I do have a certain idea/belief node which I call God, my ethos wouldn’t change if there was no such person. It would be more of a “well, that’s a pity, what with all the things I would have liked to as someone like that if they existed!” than “oh noes, that can’t be, aaaaaaargh!” - but of course, having a reaction requires me to still exist when I found out whether there is or is not, and if there is not, I won’t be so I won’t have a reaction. Blurf, that was convoluted!
The word “atheist” is, like “agnostic”, in itself a religious term. I miss option 8) I am completely irreligious.
Yet another 6.5. What a shocker!
Something along the lines of .5sin(t)+6.5 should work.
I’ll even it out by voting for 6 even though I mean 2.
DT is always one-upping his fellow atheists because his holy atheistness is better than your typical run-of-the-mill atheists.
BTW, has anyone on the other side of the fence claimed to be a .5 or a 0?
I voted 7.
The notion that you can’t be a 7 because, well, you can’t know for 100% sure, is just silly. The odds of God existing being a quadrillion to one means God doesn’t exist; there’s no sensible difference. Meaning no disrespect to MyFootZZZZ and others, fretting about making a priori assumptions beyond one’s own consciousness is just rhetorical mumbo jumbo. It’s fun to banter about philosophy and the nature of truth and existence, but when we get up and go about our lives we have to start acting like grownups. Some things are true, some are false, some things are entirely subjective, and some are debateable. It’s true that 2+2=4, it’s false that I have eight eyes like a spider, it’s subjective as to whether you prefer orange juice or apple juice, and it’s debatable as to what the social and economic effects of rent control policies are. In my mind “God exists” is just plainly false.
If God were to appear in my room right now and speak to me, I would assume I was having some sort of psychotic delusion, and I would seek psychiatric help. (This is not to say that I think all religious people are psychotic; most have arrived at their beliefs through indoctrination or some other personally influential sequence of events. However, if I were to see God, that would be psychosis.)
There is quite literally no evidence I can think of that would convince me of God’s existence. That’s a 7. Saying “oh, no, I’m a 6.9” is just holding back.
Then Dawkins himself is ‘holding back’.
Although I voted myself a 6.99999999 or thereabouts, I think your point is well taken. I’ve said in many GD threads that I don’t think we could distinguish between “God” and “some very advanced alien”. And so I am, like you, of the mind that there is no evidence I can think of that would convince me of God’s existence. I should be a 7 since there is no operational difference between “I am certain God does not exist” and “there is nothing that would convince me God exists”.
I don’t feel as though there’s any way to rate my belief/disbelief duality as a probability scale. It’s more like a Schroedinger’s cat - there either is or isn’t, but since the way you determine probability on a quantum level is by statistical analysis, the only way I’d have an idea of the odds is if I knew how a statistical sampling of previous universes had resolved the question.
So I believe/disbelieve but not in a quantifiable way. None of the answers is appropriate.
Evidence for a God = zero. Evidence that humans created the idea of a God to explain the hitherto inexplicable = 100%
I put a 7. It’s been 7 since I was a teenager.
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
Abraham Lincoln
Yup. I don’t think some British biologist is the final word on atheism. I liked “The God Delusion” and all, but it’s rife with questionable arguments.
If convincing tangible evidence was presented to me, I’d be flabberghasted and dumbofunded, but I’d have no choice but to accept it. However, I am 100% confident there is no such evidence.
That is a distinct difference to being unconvinced by any evidence no matter what. That’s just obstinacy, and I don’t think I would be such if the evidence was strong enough. I just know that strong a level of evidence will never be forthcoming.
The thing is, too, that a scale of 1 to X (1 to 7, in this case) is pointless if Dawkins, or whomever, then employs the rhetorical device that you can’t achieve a score of 7 because it’s always theoretically possible that you might change your mind at some future date, and so the maximum score is 6.9. Which means the reverse must also be true; nobody could be a 1, since it is always theoretically possible they could be convinced they’re wrong. So the scale doesn’t really go from 1 to 7 at all. It goes from 1.1 to 6.9.
Well, that’s just the opposite of Der Trihs’s Spinal Tap rant. If it only goes to 6.9, then why not make 6.9 equal to 7 and turn it to that?