Talk:Spectrum of theistic probability

message: I would like to suggest an expansion on the discussion on atheism and agnosticism.  There is another perspective whereby agnosticism and atheism are quite distinct concepts. The first dealing with knowledge and the later with belief. Therefore agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and agnosticism (although a "pure" agnostic could be defined as an agnostic who is not an atheist or a theist), but that agnosticism and theism can coexist ("I don't know, but I believe in God") just as agnosticism and atheism can coexist ("I do not know, but I believe that there are no gods"). Conversely one can claim full knowledge and be either an atheist or a theist.
</br>
For a good discussion of this check ==> about.com's Austin Cline discusses agnosticism vs atheism
</br>
If anyone has primary sources it would help greatly.
Ibrmrn (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  on agnosticism and theism 

message: Is this notable enough for an article on its own? As a Dawkins invention, this is not enough for a Wikipedia entry, and especially under this title. Is the phrase "Spectrum of Theist Probability" even used by Dawkins?  There is hope for this article because this idea is hopefully not a Dawkins neologism, but we need to find a suitable name for this, and supplement this article with more sources, if this should be kept at all... --Merzul 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I expanded this a bit, I looked at where this occurs in Dawkins's book and it is in the section on "The Poverty of Agnosticism". I'm thinking of redirecting merging this into the article on agnosticism, either as "Criticism of agnosticism"; or simply "Spectrum of probabilities", simply adding something that Dawkins argues that Huxley "seems to have been ignoring the shading of probability." I'm often very brutal in making moves and mergers like this. So if there are no objections within a few days, I'm going to do this. --Merzul 16:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this 

message: I'd like to suggest a diagram be added showing this concept visually. Something to go at the top that should give the reader a very quick summary of the concept. It would basically just be an image of a linear scale going from theism to atheism, with agnosticism in the middle. Something like green = theism, cyan = agnosticism and blue = atheism, for example. There would of course be intermediate colours, highlighting the continuous nature of the issue. Richard001 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram

message: I have added redirect articles so that a search on
"Dawkins scale", "Dawkins scale of belief" and "Dawkins scale of atheism" all redirect to this article.
--WickerGuy (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects added 

message: Anyone who's read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins is aware that he puts a lot of stress in how one should use the scale to gauge one's beliefs; and provides a sound line of thought regarding how most self-labelled agnostics wouldn't actually define themselves as believing in a 50%-50% probability of God existence, so the most unpopulated number after 7 should be 4. That's the point Dawkins is trying to make -that agnosticism is actually a form of intellectual non-commitment, a way of avoiding social stigmas, or a misunderstanding of the scaled measurements of atheism or of the term itself. Therefore, I think this section must be revised by providing more quotations from Richard Dawkins - or the page, when read by public unfamiliar with Dawkins' work, will draw the wrong conclusions on what the author meant.
I also believe this article should at least reference the school of thought named by Stephen Jay Gould as NOMA, or Non-overlapping magisteria - although I must state, least should I be accused of having my own agenda by trying to introduce an inherent counterargument in the article, that I personally don't believe in it, neither as a layman on spiritual subjects nor as a trained physicist. A new section depicting NOMA as opposed to Richard Dawkins' views would greatly clarify the magnitude and importance of the page, and would also provide new grounds for further entries that are currently blocked by the lack of different approaches to the subject.
Jordissim (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adding that I'd agree both with clarifying the article further with Dawkins' quotes, but also mentioning NOMA. Maybe if I read the book again soon I'll get an opportunity to write an edit. --Topperfalkon (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectrum scale unexplained, and NOMA 

message: You need a consensus before deleting anything Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Restoring the stable version of an article does not require consensus.  Consensus is required for the material you added that changed the stable version. WP:CONSENSUS  Edit Warring will result in you being sanctioned or blocked.  I have already warned you on your talk page.  I am stepping away from the article for a few days to let additional editors respond.  Ping me if you like... Lipsquid (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lipsquid