Richard Dawkins.

[Princess Rose]

Dawkins rails against the evils of following religion and believing in a figure attempting to convey the word of God by...

Asking people to follow his beliefs while being a figure attempting to convey the word of Science.

This. So much this.

OT: I've largely ignored his works, but I can feel his impact. He's turned many Atheists from calm, rational individuals into loud, annoying individuals as bad as the Right Wing people they oppose.

I also find it annoying that he paints all religion with the same brush. It is possible to have faith and not be a nut-job.

 

[goldendriger]

Who?

 

[SonicKoala]

It's as likely as God existing. And yet you keep saying "No, you can't say that's false!"
Your argument is the same as saying "You can't say evolution is true, maybe Satan is tricking us!" You can question the validity of the evidence of gravity or evolution by saying "Maybe *insert random thing here* happened that made you see that!"

Falls away? That's a laugh when you keep trying to argue against the idea of saying "God doesn't exist" when God has no evidence.

I'll reiterate this point one more time - I am fully aware that there is no direct evidence for God, and as a result, the claim that "there is no God" becomes a very likely possibility. Let me re-emphasise that - very likely. See how I used the bold face there? However, without direct evidence proving God's non-existence, the statement "there is no God" cannot be treated as factual. It is not verifiable. Yes, as you've so cleverly pointed out, a huge array of things aren't verifiable. This happens to be one of them.

The entire reason I made my initial post was that it is troublesome to see people use the phrase "there is no God" as if it were fact. It isn't. As you have pointed out, for all intents and purposes, it might as well be, but that doesn't retract from my original point. The point I am trying to make is on the conclusiveness of the matter - this is not a subject which can be concluded, and therefore it is pointless and illogical to claim that either of these statements: "God exists" or "God doesn't exist", are factual. If these sentiments are to be expressed, they should be expressed as beliefs, not as facts. Facts are supported by evidence. Neither of those statements has any evidence whatsoever.

And no, I can't say that about evolution, because evolution is supported by hard evidence. Let's be hypothetical for a moment, and say that I did say "maybe evolution isn't real and Satan is tricking us." At that point, an informed individual could come up to me and show me fossils which clearly trace the evolution of a number of species. Now, all of a sudden, the integrity of that "maybe" has been severely compromised. Instead, the statement can now be re-worded to "evolution probably is real and Satan probably isn't tricking us". In reality, so much evidence has been collected to substantiate evolution that a more accurate description of your original line would be "Evolution is a very well-supported concept with mountains of evidence to substantiate it, while the notion that Satan is tricking us is an unfounded, unsupported claim".

However, let's take the statement "Maybe God exists". What direct, tangible evidence can one provide to either support or refute that statement? The answer would be none. This is a claim which cannot be supported in anyway. However, let's take that phrase's opposite - "Maybe God doesn't exist". What direct, tangible evidence can one provide to either support or refute that statement? The answer would also be none. In this case, we are left with a situation where neither claim can be substantiated. All we have is lack of evidence, and lack of evidence can't prove (and this is a technical term) jack shit. Concluding that God doesn't exist because there is no evidence for his existence is just as logical as concluding that God does exist because there is no evidence refuting his existence.

 

[cheese_wizington]

He's a real smart guy and what he has to say is interesting, but he does come off as a bit of a prick.

 

[fenrizz]

As for this evidence you want I'll have to disappoint you, for there is no evidence against god and religion.

I don't listen to religious leaders because there is no god, simple as that.

Those two statements aren't compatible. It is highly likely that there is no God, but to assert outright that there is no God is fallacious in nature. Please note that I'm not suggesting absence of evidence is evidence in and of itself - all I'm saying is that nobody can say with absolute certainty "there is no God". Surely someone who evidently prides themselves on their use of logic and rationale should be aware of such a thing.

I am aware.

Absolute certainty is not possible in this matter, because the concept of god is by it's very design impossible to prove either way.

I could point out the the bible contains, amongst other things, factual errors, inconsistencies and contradictions.
But one can easily dismiss that on account to it begin written by humans, which according to the bible are inherently flawed.

But no matter what arguments if present, it still boils down to the simple fact that such an extraordinary claim cannot possibly be verified or debunked.

And you're right, one cannot claim with absolute certainty that god does not exist.
But neither can one claim with absolute certainty that there is no unicorns or no flying spaghetti monster.

 

[C. Cain]

<spoiler=SNIP>

Especially with how often alternative medicine kills. Or, at the very least, seriously physically damages people.

I mean, I'm not a fan of religious motivated nutjobs targeting minorities, but you don't even have to hate to hurt someone with alternative medical practices.

though we could combine the two and crusade against faith healers. I caught the end of the 700 club a couple of times, and Pat Robertson would do it via the TV, encouraging people to do stuff like "Throw your inhaler away, you don't need it anymore."

And ostensibly, if you follow that advice and die from an asthma attack, your lack of faith in Jesus was the problem.

Indeed. I totally forgot about those blokes. We don't have to many of them over here.

We occasionally do get some of those devout fanatically deluded parents who won't seek any form of treatment when their children are ill, though. According to them it's their deity's decision whether their own kids should live or die and noone should interfere.

Or parents who attempt to convince others to not vaccinate their children. Mostly because they believe that the Hg compounds found in some vaccines cause Asperger's.

It's depressing to think about.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

He's brilliant. He's a very smart guy indeed.

 

[RatRace123]

I agree with a few of his points but he just comes off as a self assured jackass to me. He seems perfectly fine to appease those who already think like he does and look down on those who don't.
I don't have any real problems with him, but his methods just seem too extreme, for lack of a better word, in my opinion.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Certain things he oversimplify and he makes a lot of generalsations that I disagree with, but other than that I agree more or less with him.

 

[Womplord]

I believe in Dawkins with all of my heart. I swear to follow the teachings of the omnipotent Richard Dawkins who created the universe and has an indiscriminate love of all His creations.

But seriously, I respect him and think he makes a lot of good points about religion, and I think every scientist deserves respect for dedicating their lives to the advancement of knowledge.

 

[Something Amyss]

Or parents who attempt to convince others to not vaccinate their children. Mostly because they believe that the Hg compounds found in some vaccines cause Asperger's.

Yegads, we have our share of that, too. The crazy is strong with these folks.

 

[C. Cain]

Yegads, we have our share of that, too. The crazy is strong with these folks.

IIRC, it first appeared in the US and was later exported across the Atlantic. I read about it on Respectful Insolence before the first European cases cropped up. Or I might have only become aware of them due to said blog. Who knows? It's crazy either way.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

Can we PO BOX a copy of his book and or one of his documentary videos to every creationist in the world?

 

[Vivi22]

However, let's take the statement "Maybe God exists". What direct, tangible evidence can one provide to either support or refute that statement? The answer would be none. This is a claim which cannot be supported in anyway. However, let's take that phrase's opposite - "Maybe God doesn't exist". What direct, tangible evidence can one provide to either support or refute that statement? The answer would also be none. In this case, we are left with a situation where neither claim can be substantiated. All we have is lack of evidence, and lack of evidence can't prove (and this is a technical term) jack shit. Concluding that God doesn't exist because there is no evidence for his existence is just as logical as concluding that God does exist because there is no evidence refuting his existence.

The trouble with this line of thinking is that in the absence of any evidence of something existing, we must default to the hypothesis that it does not exist as being the most highly probable scenario. The statement that God does exist is inherently less likely than God not existing since there is no evidence he exists. And from a purely scientific stand point, the hypothesis that there is a God is worse than useless since it doesn't do anything to help further our understanding of how the Universe works, nor is it testable by any known means, and therefore unprovable.

It's a bit like saying that we can't say Unicorns don't exist with any certainty because there's no conclusive evidence that they don't. But no one says they might exist because there's no evidence that they don't. We say that they don't exist because there is no evidence that they do now, or ever have.

So no, we can't prove conclusively that God does or doesn't exist. But until we find some evidence indicating that a God does exist, something that can't be explained in any other way than with the existence of some all powerful Universe creating deity, it's most likely that such a being doesn't exist. At least not in any form worth concerning ourselves about.

 

[Something Amyss]

IIRC, it first appeared in the US and was later exported across the Atlantic. I read about it on Respectful Insolence before the first European cases cropped up. Or I might have only become aware of them due to said blog. Who knows? It's crazy either way.

I only became aware because the media over here is stupid and any celebrity championing a cause is treated as an expert in the field. So Jenny McCarthy or whatever decided to do the talk show circuit, and suddenly it's gospel.

It's bad enough it's dumb, it's worse it became a phenomena because of some idiot celebrity who claims she can cure autism, but will neither share the "cure" nor allow her "cured" son to be tested.

But then, we elect public officials who believe 9-11 was a controlled demolition.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

----------------

 

[JoJo]

Smart guy. Utter prick. I wish he was not idolised by "Free-Thinking" atheists who do not think for themselves.

As an atheist, I strongly agree with this. Insulting people or acting condescending is the worst tactic possible for trying to convert them to your belief system or even just earn respect. There's nothing wrong with a bit of humility and open-mindedness, something I think Dawkins seriously lacks.

 

[Togs]

He's a good writer, the God Delusion helped me clarify some things I was having trouble with and his concept of memes was brilliant.
Though gotta say his slightly bullish way of arguing does him more harm then good, even if it is fun to watch.

 

[Batou667]

I'm athiest. I think that sometimes Dawkins goes all-out on the attack and sometimes it resembles a bit of a sandcastle-kicking contest, and I think "Why can't Dawkins just live and let live?"

...and then I remember that if it wasnt for people like Dawkins throughout the ages - people who are willing to call the Emporer naked, to challenge the ignorance of the ancients and the superstitious status quo - then we'd be living in a world that looks very different from the pleasant and affluent mostly-secular democracy that we have today. The religious fundamentalists aren't pulling any punches, so why should the secularists just roll over and accept it?

Despite being an athiest I honestly don't think I have the endless patience, energy and conviction to do what Dawkins does.

So we'll hate him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero...

Aah, you can see where this is going

 

[AnarchistFish]

I don't have any claims. As I said, I'm agnostic. But that doesn't mean I don't think people, including atheists, should actually back up their arguments and their attacks on religion. Because the "there's no evidence for a god" argument doesn't work, especially on its own like that.

Agnostic isn't a statement of belief. It's a statement of knowledge, your position is that we cannot know whether a god exists or not. If you haven't been sufficiently convinced that there is a god (enough so to believe in it) then you are a non-believer or, atheist.

No. Atheism only applies when you are certain there is no god. I'm agnostic in that I haven't been convinced for sure either way.

Well, sorry to say but you're not exactly correct.

Atheism is non-belief in a god. You can have strong atheism where you are sure there is no god, but weak atheism is also atheism.

Weak Atheism being of course, you're not convinced that there is a god.


If someone told me there was an apple sitting on the table in one room, but I was in another room, I could either insist the person is wrong, accept what they are saying, or not be convinced enough to make a decision.

If I haven't been convinced enough to make a decision, by default, I don't believe there is an apple. I lack belief in that apple.

I'd recommend this video for you:

Well it really doesn't matter either way because I know what my opinion is.

You cannot honestly expect me to disprove the existence of god.

Such a feat is impossible.

You're not listening. The fact is, there is some evidence which would suggest the possibility of a god which Dawkins ignores, and the arguments Dawkins makes in his books are badly made and generally inaccurate.

The Celestial Teapot was used to show that the burden of proof should be on the one making an extraordinary claim. You missed his point.

No I didn't. My point is he's just repeating things that he's been told and isn't trying to argue back at what arguments for a god there are.

The whole "indoctrination" argument is pretty stupid too since you can be raised religious or atheist.

It really infuriates me when people just talk about "common sense" when it comes to religion.

What is this evidence for God? I'd love to see it. And he isn't just repeating what he is told. The Celestial Teapot is a valid point that he brought up. Have you read any of Dawkins' material by chance? I'll wait for that evidence.

Quite a lot of people reporting spiritual experiences. Especially during near death experiences. Unexplained feats that could be seen as miracles. The proof of a man called Jesus. And it's one possible explanation for the creation of existence. I mean, I'm not saying that science is wrong but we still don't know quite a lot and it could explain why everything happened in the first place.
Of course, none of it is concrete, but you can't dismiss it completely.

And yes, I have gone threw The God Delusion briefly. It really didn't help my opinion of him.

Oh another thing about Dawkins. When he shows himself going to confront Christians, he always picks the idiotic, extremist evangelists and represents those as a typical Christian. His techniques are underhand and he doesn't seem to want to confront the core of Christianity, just the easy pickings. He also acts ilke an atheist zealot whilst seemingly accusing Christianity of doing the same, whereas most Christians aren't and just want to be kept in peace.