If you make it general, such as any god or gods, then I would be square on #4, with an asterisk. That asterisk would read that I'm not 100% uncertain about what I believe (I know what I believe), I just have no belief either way and don't care to. I don't believe a god exists nor do I believe no gods exist — and I'm agnostic.

If the scale is based on the Judeo-Christian god, then I'm a 7 (6.99… to be technical).

I like to view the universe and our knowledge of it from a position of neutrality. " We just are." The Universe just is." From there, as humans, everything begins to fall in place according to how proven it is. I picture it like a circle where truth is in the center and all that we know and observer falls outside us. So if you are atheist, 1+1=2 is very close by, evolution is further out (perhaps half way out of the circle and Christianity is all the way on the edge of this circle. Face it, they can't prove anything they believe.

The way I see it, we need to frame this argument as what is provable? Unfortunately, we are forced to argue with "Believers" as though they stand on solid ground when in fact, their positions are so far outside our ability to explain. Even though we have mountains of provable and predictable science, they hold their "beliefs" up as possible and they do so as though their positions are equal to all the scientific knowledge that has been defined.

Is there a god? I would put my answer to this question 7/8th way out. For one, it's unimportant and two, the mere question has been defined by the Christian Authority that has ruled for so long (too long) and three, I don't think we are to the point where we can totally disprove it. However, I don't think we are really all that prepared to define what it is we think this god is to begin with; everyone has a different opinion so proving something that we can't even define is a bit nutty.

It burns me up when these Intelligent Designers pretend to be working in science; it's a farce and I don't think we should continue to accept their rules. These rules were set down thousands of years ago and they've entrenched themselves into our discourse.

Whichever way you view a/gnosticism, IMO it only serves to muddy the waters when it comes to discussing religion. Religion is purely about faith, and it is farcical to start talking about religion in terms of true knowledge, as it doesn't exist, and will never exist. Imagine if there was a predictable, replicable procedure that would confirm the existance of a Judeo-Christian god (for example)- faith would be null and void as it would simply become a case of "Do I want to live in heaven for eternity" or "Do I want to burn in hell for eternity".

Not that I necessariy disagree with your scale (although the "apatheist" part is a little bit ropey, those folks don't care either way which really adds a fourth dimension to the debate), I just think that it detracts from more important matters.

Love the blog by the way.

I feel like most people I've known in my life are a 4 (Apatheist), but when pressed about the subject, would then act as if they were a 3 or a 2. It's like 98% of the time they don't even think about God or his existence, and live their lives like they don't care either way, but when asked, they would still say they believe, and would refuse to be labeled an agnostic or atheist, yet probably don't even know why. Weird.