Richard Dawkins.

[Vivi22]

Quite a lot of people reporting spiritual experiences. Especially during near death experiences.

None of that is evidence of the existence of God. "Spiritual experiences" can, and often do have other rational explanations. Even if we can't explain them right now that wouldn't be evidence of the existence of God. It would be evidence of some process which occurs in the human body under certain circumstances which we've yet to explain. Nothing more.

Unexplained feats that could be seen as miracles.

Such as? Mind you, even if you give examples of feats which are unexplained, that does not mean they are evidence of supernatural intervention, as I stated above.

The proof of a man called Jesus.

A man called Jesus having existed at the time and place that the New Testament supposedly takes place is proof of nothing since it's my understanding the name was quite common then.

And it's one possible explanation for the creation of existence.

Except it's not really an explanation for anything. Saying God created the Universe is up there with a Wizard did it on the list of useless explanations since it is both untestable, and does nothing to even hypothesize the method of creation, nor explain how and why the universe works. It's a non-theory.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Quite a lot of people reporting spiritual experiences. Especially during near death experiences.

None of that is evidence of the existence of God. "Spiritual experiences" can, and often do have other rational explanations. Even if we can't explain them right now that wouldn't be evidence of the existence of God. It would be evidence of some process which occurs in the human body under certain circumstances which we've yet to explain. Nothing more.

How do you know that for sure? You can't say that evidence for something is wrong, it's just that you "don't know why yet". By your logic, a witness's testimony in court is irrelevant.

Unexplained feats that could be seen as miracles.

Such as? Mind you, even if you give examples of feats which are unexplained, that does not mean they are evidence of supernatural intervention, as I stated above.

I can't think of many on the spot. Miracle cures from people who have recovered from a terminal illness with no aid from medicine, for one.

The proof of a man called Jesus.

A man called Jesus having existed at the time and place that the New Testament supposedly takes place is proof of nothing since it's my understanding the name was quite common then.

The man that's written about in non-religious documents fits his description.

And it's one possible explanation for the creation of existence.

Except it's not really an explanation for anything. Saying God created the Universe is up there with a Wizard did it on the list of useless explanations since it is both untestable, and does nothing to even hypothesize the method of creation, nor explain how and why the universe works. It's a non-theory.

Maybe. But who knows? Our understanding of creation is still very small. Who knows what started it up in the first place?

 

[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.

Which statements by him do you base this on? Or are you just making up your mind with no basis whatsoever because of some things you've heard others say about him?

Well, he's been described, by himself no less, as a militant atheist; an attitude, which I find for the most part to be kinda extreme. He's also criticized creationism and the people who follow it, but the part that I disagree with the most is that he's said that religion is a dangerous, and in part responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Here's his actual quote on the subject:

Spoiler

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

And here's the article itself where he was quoted: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/11/afghanistan.terrorism2

It's obvious that he wants people to see his way of thinking, but to me he seems to completely shut out and criticize other ways of thinking. Despite the fact that I agree with a lot of his points, particularly those on evoultion; religious or non religious, I just think it's a dick move to go around touting your belief as the only correct one.
Hell, even if it is the correct one, if having faith makes people happy and gives them some comfort of their place in the world, then I say let them have it.
And I just don't agree with him when he says religion itself is inherently dangerous, it's just a set of ideas; the people who twist those ideas to serve their own purpose are the ones who are dangerous.

 

[Vivi22]

How do you know that for sure? You can't say that evidence for something is wrong, it's just that you "don't know why yet". By your logic, a witness's testimony in court is irrelevant.

What I'm saying is that just because we can't explain something does not mean it is evidence that God or any other higher power exists. It is simply evidence of something we haven't found an explanation for yet. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not imply nor support the existence of any God in and of itself.

I can't think of many on the spot. Miracle cures from people who have recovered from a terminal illness with no aid from medicine, for one.

Again, simply because we don't have an explanation does not make it evidence of a higher power. Which is what you were arguing in the original post I quoted. In fact, to jump to some sort of devine intervention as a possible explanation for something we've yet to explain is inherently silly since no such devine intervention was ever required, or even hinted at in the explanations we've found for physical processes we understand very well.

The man that's written about in non-religious documents fits his description.

Again, so what? It simply indicates the existence of someone resembling the biblical Jesus who was also named Jesus. This is not evidence that some sort of biblical messiah ever existed as described in religious texts, performing the sort of "miracles" which people credit to Jesus Christ. I think you're confusion here is a result of not really understanding what constitutes credible scientific evidence.

Maybe. But who knows? Our understanding of creation is still very small. Who knows what started it up in the first place?

We're not sure what kick started the Universe. But with the complete lack of evidence for any sort of deity to date in all of our explorations of how the Universe and our world work, there's no reason to assume that some mystical being simply willed it into existence.

 

[C. Cain]

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.

Hah, way to inspire confidence in the US. And I thought today's predominance of the Tea Party v Occupy Wall Street discussion in the Religion and Politics forum was awful enough.

Oh well, I think we've derailed this thread for long enough. Maybe we should carry on in the appropriate forum? Although I don't think there'll be much of a discussion. I doubt anyone will actually argue in favour of "alternative medicine".

 

[AnarchistFish]

How do you know that for sure? You can't say that evidence for something is wrong, it's just that you "don't know why yet". By your logic, a witness's testimony in court is irrelevant.

What I'm saying is that just because we can't explain something does not mean it is evidence that God or any other higher power exists. It is simply evidence of something we haven't found an explanation for yet. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not imply nor support the existence of any God in and of itself.

If the person who experienced it thinks it is, why isn't it?

The man that's written about in non-religious documents fits his description.

Again, so what? It simply indicates the existence of someone resembling the biblical Jesus who was also named Jesus. This is not evidence that some sort of biblical messiah ever existed as described in religious texts, performing the sort of "miracles" which people credit to Jesus Christ. I think you're confusion here is a result of not really understanding what constitutes credible scientific evidence.

I hear quite a lot of people who attack religion using the line "Jesus didn't exist". It's pretty obvious that those people haven't actually thought or read anything through if that's their tag line. No, it's not evidence for a god, but if Christianity's right about the existence of Jesus, who's to say that the rest of what it says are just fairy tales?

Maybe. But who knows? Our understanding of creation is still very small. Who knows what started it up in the first place?

We're not sure what kick started the Universe. But with the complete lack of evidence for any sort of deity to date in all of our explorations of how the Universe and our world work, there's no reason to assume that some mystical being simply willed it into existence.

But there's no reason to be 100% that there wasn't.

Do you actually have any sources for what you're saying?

No. This is stuff I've absorbed over the years from things I've read and heard on TV. But don't say that I'm wrong just because I don't have any links to what I'm saying.

 

[Vivi22]

If the person who experienced it thinks it is, why isn't it?

Someone who experienced any of the things you mentioned such as a near death experience is not in a position to determine the cause simply because they experienced it and believe it's supernatural. They are neither objective, nor can they provide any evidence through their personal account of what happened other than they "believe" it was supernatural in nature. Their belief is worthless as objective evidence.

I hear quite a lot of people who attack religion using the line "Jesus didn't exist". It's pretty obvious that those people haven't actually thought or read anything through if that's their tag line. No, it's not evidence for a god, but if Christianity's right about the existence of Jesus, who's to say that the rest of what it says are just fairy tales?

The fact that there is no reliable evidence for any of the supposed miracles Jesus performed, or any other supernatural occurrence described in the bible it's safe to say that the claims made in the bible are unreliable at best. The fact that it may be interspersed with some degree of genuine historical fact, or descriptions of people who actually existed does not validate every claim the bible makes, nor is it evidence that it is true.

But there's no reason to be 100% that there wasn't.

No, but plenty of reason to be certain enough that God didn't do it that we can, for the time being at least, state that there either is no God or we live in a Universe which is functionally indistinguishable from one where there is no God. Again, in the complete absence of any evidence that God exists the rational and logical assumption is that he doesn't exist, until proven otherwise. Just as the rational assumption is that Unicorn's don't exist.

Do you actually have any sources for what you're saying?

No. This is stuff I've absorbed over the years from things I've read and heard on TV. But don't say that I'm wrong just because I don't have any links to what I'm saying.

This basically sums up what your argument is worth in a nutshell. Here's the thing: if someone is going to make the positive claim that their is evidence that God exists, they need to back it up. If you can't present evidence for people to examine, critique, and pick apart which supports your claim, then there's no reason to discuss it any further since it basically boils down to a he said/she said argument in the absence of your supposed evidence.

 

[zehydra]

Dawkins is aggressive and unnecessarily condescending, but I still think he is a good guy and I'm glad that he's around. Shouldn't this thread belong in the Religion section though?

This is my main issue with Dawkins, is the kind of condescension he has towards religion, yet remains a staunch ideologist.

 

[Von Ribbentrop]

Those intrested in whether Jesus existed at all or not, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Now, as intresting the subject may be, as I see on my screen the topic of this discussion was about Richard Dawkins.

Spoiler

Now back to the topic of the OP's question, I think Dawkins is surely a smart man, and good scientist in the field of biology, but a big jerk at the same time.

 

[The Lunatic]

I think Anti-theism has just as much right to be aggressive as theism has been for years.

A good number of anti-theists and generally those people who don't like religion being shoved down their throats just don't speak up about such things. It's a lot easier to just accept it. To accept your government spending a good chunk of money, in a time of recession on a visit from the pope.

Where as, he stands up and is more than willing to be counted and heard. Takes guts. Might not be for everyone, but, if somebody doesn't call people out on these things, who will?

 

[Flight]

As brilliant as he is, his aggressive tone sort of makes me look at him sideways sometimes, so to speak. To each their own beliefs, but his constant hostility towards religious beliefs sometimes strikes me as not much better than the reaction of religious fundamentalists to people not of their own belief system. I think he could stand to take a step back at times. I do respect him as a scientist, however.

 

[oktalist]

He's a great biologist but he needs to stay the fuck away from Philosophical debates about God. It's not his field and he should stay out of it.

True. But then whose field is it? Who on this planet is qualified to evaluate the unknowable?

Dawkins doesnt seem to think that growing out of being an antagonistic prick, actively seeking to insult millions, nay, billions of people, is something that you should do.

he just comes off as attacking all religion. He's an anti-theist, and I really don't respect those who can't respect others themselves.

Attacking the notion of religion is NOT the same as attacking religious people.

I just came across this clip which I feel is fitting after all the talk in this thread about being offensive and not respecting beliefs:

Spoiler

Also this, just for epic value:

Spoiler

 

[manic_depressive13]

I don't know. I haven't read his books but I have seen a few clips on youtube involving him and, well, I like his accent.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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.

One, we don't know for certain that Jesus existed. Two, even if he did, he wasn't performing magic. Three, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YmEkCJ87s&feature=player_detailpage#t=138s
Near Death Experiences explained. Four,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
And The Selfish Gene is his most important work.
And don't try to tell me what an atheist is. I'm tired of some Christians doing that. I think that I know what I am better than you do.

 

[martin's a madman]

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.

Well again, and I am sorry to say, but your opinion doesn't change the meaning of words. So, I think I would be doing you wrong to not politely tell you that you are mistaken.

If you choose to continue being mistaken that's fine, it doesn't bother me, but it means that you will end up with an inconsistent view of the world.

 

[vivster]

he's a science guy so i have to like him by principle

 

[AnarchistFish]

Because thinking it is has nothing to do with whether it actually is or not.

You could apply that to anything.

Oh so if I write a book that involves, say, Attila the Hun as our Lord and Savior that suddenly gives me extra credibility just because Attila is in it?

Well it would prove that the gospels aren't completely made up and there'd then be no proof to say the rest of it was.

There's only as much reason to not believe it as there is to not believe that we're all alien puppets.

Maybe we are. The point I'm trying to get across here is not that god must exist because we haven't proved he doesn't, but that we shouldn't say he doesn't just because there's no, or little, proof to say he does.

The lack of links is a good reason not to trust anything you say. People can say whatever they like on TV. I saw a show on the History channel about how there were special crystal skulls. And when it was pointed out that they had signs of modern technology to make them the response was along the lines of "It proves that there was extremely advanced technology that made them thousands of years ago!" So yeah, you playing telephone for the fricking TV is a terrible kind of evidence.

And people can't do that on the internet? There was one, specifically, which was a news item in France about Lourdes and how they decided if healings from terminal illnesses there were miracles or not. Healings there that were recorded as miracles were extremely rare because the guidelines for one being categorised as a miracle were pretty strict. I.e. the person who was healed couldn't have been taking any kind of medication, even if it wasn't for the disease in question. This doesn't reek of being unreliable evidence.

One, we don't know for certain that Jesus existed.

But evidence suggests he did.

Two, even if he did, he wasn't performing magic.

Ok I'll take your word for it.

Three, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YmEkCJ87s&feature=player_detailpage#t=138s
Near Death Experiences explained.

NDEs aren't the only way this happens and there have been some supposed pretty incredible ones that are only massive coincidences otherwise.

Four,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"The point I'm trying to get across here is not that god must exist because we haven't proved he doesn't, but that we shouldn't say he doesn't just because there's no, or little, proof to say he does."

And don't try to tell me what an atheist is. . I'm tired of some Christians doing that. I think that I know what I am better than you do.

hahahahahaha holy shit. Ok, firstly I'm not a Christian. Secondly, I wasn't the one who started telling other people what their beliefs were.

Look, I can post links:
http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=612
http://cherylthewriter.hubpages.com/hub/Do-we-have-any-scientific-proof-that-Jesus-existed-or-is-it-just-our-faith
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Whether he existed or not is irrelevant if there are arguments that he did.

It really doesn't matter whether there is a god or not, because that isn't what this is about. The original point is that why should someone try to pressurise their opinion onto others just because they don't look at things the same way as those people? Yeah, maybe there isn't enough evidence to prove there's a god, but if we don't know 100% for sure, why try to force onto people that there isn't?

Actually there's a book which argues the existence of god call Is There A God? by Richard Swinburne(?)

 

[Zach of Fables]

I think Anti-theism has just as much right to be aggressive as theism has been for years.

A good number of anti-theists and generally those people who don't like religion being shoved down their throats just don't speak up about such things. It's a lot easier to just accept it. To accept your government spending a good chunk of money, in a time of recession on a visit from the pope.

Where as, he stands up and is more than willing to be counted and heard. Takes guts. Might not be for everyone, but, if somebody doesn't call people out on these things, who will?

It's one thing to say that anti-theists have the right to be jerks, and that they should speak out when religious people try to push them around. It's another thing to go out of your way to talk down to people, which is what Dawkins does and why it bothers me.

I am an atheist, but some atheists (including Dawkins) annoy me almost as much as religious people. Some of them hold their beliefs and stand up for themselves, yes. But other people only enter the conversation so that they can sneer at religious people for being "stupid" and then talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster a lot just to piss people off. This also somewhat applies to atheist societies with pretentious names like "Society for Free Thinkers."

I am against this for tactical reasons, i.e. that you catch more flies with honey then with vinegar, but also because it does reflect badly on atheists as a whole. The reality is that we are the vast minority in America, and if we want acceptance than we our attitude to be presentable. It shouldn't have to be that way but it is. I appreciate Dawkins' work in making "aggressive atheism" more in the spotlight, but I think there is room for improvement as well.

 

[SonicKoala]

snip

I completely agree with everything you said - honestly, I've forgotten why I initially got into this argument in the first place.

 

[The Dutchess]

I pretty much agree with everything he says and I did a degree in genetics so I love his books but he does have a tendancy to be unto athiesm as a bible-thumper is unto christianity.
Loved the London Bus adverts though.