I'm a level six on the Dawkins scale. I do not deny the possibility of a God, I just see no reason to believe there is one. I think most of us here are level 6, as is Dawkins.

I am a strong agnostic atheist I have never been presented any evidence of a god but I am not denying the possibility. If one were to exist I can assure you every religion on this planet has it WRONG!

Now.... how about you? What kind of theist are you?

Deist, pantheist, baptist, mormon, buddhist, evangelical, westboro twat, janist, hindu, catholic, orthodox catholic, jew, orthodox jew, sihkist, shinto, zoroastrian, pagan, neo-pagan, unitaria-universalist, sunni islamic, sh'ite islamic, rastafarianist, episcopalian, pentacostal, methodist, lutheran, or another I did not feel like typing out?

Understood!

Good answer. The thing is... it's okay not to know.

I also never believed in an anthropomorphic biblical 'god', I was raised catholic but the indoctrination never 'stuck'. I always had a hard trying to force myself to believe, then I realized it was okay to lack belief. 

Strong Agnostic

I think that anything about anything supernatural (including god and whether or not he/she/it/they exist) is unknown and impossible to know. If a god or gods exist I think they have made it pretty clear they don't want us to know anything about them.

I'm also agnostic about most things. I reject the idea that knowledge is possible about anything (except my own existence in some form). We just have layers of assumptions that give us various degrees of certainty.

I go with the highest certainty. I accept for now that the world my senses percieve is real as the other options are less likely. I accept that there is no god as it is, given the evidence, the most likely option. This makes me also a weak atheist. The difference I see is that my atheism is a direct result of my agnosticism.

My position is basically "I don't know and neither do you, but most likely there is no god."

I'm also antireligious. I think that religion helps our species in the past but it is now doing more bad than good. It is time for humanity to outgrow religion. Noone has the answers so it's time to stop making laws, killing people and disowning children based on answers you dont have.

I have no problem with people having faith in something supernatural, I have my own (possibly some form of deism or pantheism, I'm happy to leave it undefined) so it would be hypocritical to deny others theirs. It's when faith becomes organised and forced on others that it becomes a problem.

None of the above?

And what is a Westboro Twat? Never heard of that one. 

I'm just an atheist.  I've never been presented with any evidence of a higher/supernatural diety.  Plain and simple.  I don't see any sense in revolving my life around something that I have no idea even exists. 

Ahhh. That guy. Twat is too kind. There are very few that earn my utter contempt. He is one. 

The Dawkins scale:

1. Absolutely sure God exists.

2. Think God probably exists and live as if he does.

3. Think it's more likely God exists than not, and live like he does.

4. Think it's equally likely for God to exist as not.

5. Think it's more likely God does not exist.

6. Think God probably doesn't exist and live as if he does not.

7. Absolutely sure God does not exist.

I'd be a 6, but leaning toward a 7. As far as the Christian god is concerned I'd be a 7.

1 and 7 are immediately ruled out for me. The only thing of which I am certain is that my understanding of reality is incomplete and needs work. 2 sounds too close to Pascal's Wager. I believe god exists and act accordingly, but not out of some sense of obligation or fear of retribution. So how about 2i (2 * square root of -1)?

You'd be a 2 then. It doesn't say anything like Pascal's wager - just that a 2 thinks it is much more likely god exists than not.

I think I answered my own question. The Dawkins’ scale, while interesting, does need context. From a revealed perspective, I am easily approaching a 7. From an atheist perspective, I could be as low as a 2, since I definitely do not rule out being a deist (small d).

This has all been very interesting and thank you everyone for your replies so far. They have been helpful and insightful.

Oops, I meant to add 'religion'. From a revealed religion perspective, I am easily approaching 7.

Funny how this scale goes all the way to degrees of theism on one end.  I'm not an atheist but it's such a clearly denominating scale I just want to answer for the heck of it. 

Because Dawkins centralises on purely 'thinking' I am a number (4). As far as thinking goes (1) is kinda out of reach; you can't think your way to there IMHO, you'd be fooling yourself about something if you did, I'm quite sure of that. 

There is just as likely is a God as not is my 100% cognitive position. The extra variable weighing in to put me over the line as a theist is choice, I choose it.

I'm unsure of where I would fall on the Dawkins scale that others are using. My position is that if I had never been introduced to the term god (leaving aside for the time being whether or not there is even an actual concept that the term denotes) I would have no reason to even begin to question whether or not one exists. It seems to me that it is only because of the poor understandings of natural phenomenon by our ancient ancestors that the term exists. That the term has been repeatedly rationalized and re-rationalized through the ages to correspond to the underrstandings of the times has provided it longevity to endure and be a part of the society in which I live but that is not reason enough for me to actually cvonsider it a possibility withoutfirst having some reason to introduce the term into my thought processes. I have never come across this reason and am therefor of the opinion that there is no reason to consider the existence of a 'god' a possibility.

There is also the problem that I skirted earlier with what is actually meant whewn one uses the term god. Since it is used by traditional believers to refer to something for which there does not seem to be a coherent concept for anyone to believe seems impossible to me. They can believe in something, but to label this something a god really doesn't say anything other than that they needed a label to apply to a mystery.