[Alex]

The criteria for intermediate values on Dawkin's scale aren't well defined so it is hard to be very precise in placing myself on it. But since it is his scale and I am very close agreement with him on the major points (1. I've had no personal experience that suggests the existence of such an entity; 2. I see no gaps or contradictions in our understanding of the universe that suggest no other possibility than that such an entity exist in order to be reconciled; 3. The existence of such an entity would contradict everything we think we know about the nature of the reality around us; 4. When examined, every real world evidence of such an entity claimed has proven vaporous; 5. The odds of such an entity existing seem vanishingly small.) so I guess I would be near an 8.7 as well.

Perhaps helpful would be to look at how "atheist" I am on other items.

Unicorns: 7 on the existence of the form, 9 on their magical properties. The existence of unicorns would not violate any physical properties of the universe. However, the initial reports of such creatures are known to be the result of faulty observation and it is unlikely that there remain many large mammals to be discovered but it does still happen leaving open the door for discovery of a creature matching the physical description of unicorns.

Homeopathy: 9.2. A theory that exists entirely within the realm of scientifically testable hypotheses and yet fails conclusively. The theory was developed from philosophy rather than evidence based need and its validity would violate everything we know about reality around us.

Sub-atomic structures: 2.0. Theory derives entirely from observation and filling gaps. Allows for predictions about the reality around us to be made that are then demonstrated through testing. However, much of it relies on indirect observation which heightens risk of misinterpretation of root cause or that only a subset is being described and in a way that is technically incorrect (like how Newtonian physics is correct within its realm but missed relativity and quantum mechanics). Also, ultimately I am relying on the expertise of others as the expertise necessary for personal discovery is quickly beyond me.

Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories: 6.5. If forced to choose I still fall on th side of accepting that Oswald was a lone gunman. However, many conspiracy theories do not lie outside the realm of physical possibility though suffer for relying on questionable evidence or simply Argument from Personal Incredulity. However, I would not be at all surprised if I eventually have to accept I'm on the wrong side of this one.

Quality Full House Episodes: I've seen them all so personal experience argues solidly against the evidence of any good episodes of Full House. Bob Saget and David Coulier are involved and so any quality resulting would violate known physical properties of the universe.