Richard Dawkins.

[SonicKoala]

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.

You might as well complain if someone asserts that they don't have a stalker. Because that stalker might be invisible and intangible. Or that an election wasn't rigged. Because maybe mind controlling aliens rigged it. Or that there is no Illuminati plot to take over the world because you can't know for sure.

Any example you give, no matter how ridiculous, does not change the fact that what I originally said was accurate.

 

[afroebob]

Honestly I think he has a valid argument about evolution. For the most part you can see the proof of it just by looking at your parents and the traits they passed down to you.

P.S. to everyone who thinks that evolution and God go against eachother


<---- Christian

 

[afroebob]

Oh, sorry I edit myself. I confused him for Charles Darwin for a minute.

 

[BaronVonBob]

I Dont Believe in anything, I just think we could all just be freinds? Regardless of belief. And theres no need to go around saying " I Am right, theres no God you are wrong" Because that's just rude. Ok, You dont have to worship anything if you dont want to - But other people might do and you have to respect that. Telling them that they are wrong, is not right and very very rude. And if you noticed i said Zelots are just as bad as he is, I agree with you - forcing your religon apon to others is wrong. But Telling someone who is, for example : Christian that their religon is wrong and that you are right is just as damn well bad.

I think it's kind of a two way street, you either accept others' beliefs and ask they accept yours, or you act like a total asshole about it and don't complain when others try to rip yours to shreds. It's a step backwards when we can't criticise each other any more, though, flaws need to be pointed out so things can be improved.

 

[latiasracer]

I Dont Believe in anything, I just think we could all just be freinds? Regardless of belief. And theres no need to go around saying " I Am right, theres no God you are wrong" Because that's just rude. Ok, You dont have to worship anything if you dont want to - But other people might do and you have to respect that. Telling them that they are wrong, is not right and very very rude. And if you noticed i said Zelots are just as bad as he is, I agree with you - forcing your religon apon to others is wrong. But Telling someone who is, for example : Christian that their religon is wrong and that you are right is just as damn well bad.

I think it's kind of a two way street, you either accept others' beliefs and ask they accept yours, or you act like a total asshole about it and don't complain when others try to rip yours to shreds. It's a step backwards when we can't criticise each other any more, though, flaws need to be pointed out so things can be improved.

That's all very well, but this will never happen - These are humans we are talking about here. Anyway, my idea is that we all just Forget about this. The universe exsits, theres no reason to know why or how, it just does. I Could totally start a religon!

 

[SonicKoala]

It's worthless to say "Maybe it could happen" when there's no reason to think it would. When you give even the most unreasonable possibilities a "Maybe" then the whole idea of "Maybe" becomes worthless. Maybe we're all brains in a jar.

Once again, how are you disproving my original claim? If one is going to make an assertion - any assertion, particularly one as broad and all encompassing as "there is no God" - evidence needs to be provided to substantiate that claim. The process of presenting evidence to prove a claim is fundamental to the learning process. The claim "there is no God" should not be an exception to this, particularly when the very notion of "God" is itself contested and transitory.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the act of even bothering to provide evidence against God's existence is itself a frivolous task; why would one even bother providing evidence for something which is so ridiculous? Mind you, it is a point well taken, but I would suggest that it is a point founded in the rejection of God via logic or philosophy, since there is no direct, tangible evidence which can be used to prove God's non-existence.

My only point is that the assurance with which people often assert "there is no God" is unfounded. Are these people wrong in believing there is no God? Absolutely not - however, their strict adherence to such a belief is no less a form of "faith" than the faith exhibited by people who do believe in God.

 

[BaronVonBob]

That's all very well, but this will never happen - These are humans we are talking about here. Anyway, my idea is that we all just Forget about this. The universe exsits, theres no reason to know why or how, it just does. I Could totally start a religon!

You're right, I probably talk in theoretical too much. You never know though, one day humans might evolve to become tolerant. But there is reason to know how and why, the greatest scientific advances of the last ever have been made by people wanting to understand how things work. I'm not going to sit around and become a passive observer of the universe, never thinking or wondering or desiring to know anything. I don't want to be an ITV2 viewer.

 

[latiasracer]

That's all very well, but this will never happen - These are humans we are talking about here. Anyway, my idea is that we all just Forget about this. The universe exsits, theres no reason to know why or how, it just does. I Could totally start a religon!

You're right, I probably talk in theoretical too much. You never know though, one day humans might evolve to become tolerant. But there is reason to know how and why, the greatest scientific advances of the last ever have been made by people wanting to understand how things work. I'm not going to sit around and become a passive observer of the universe, never thinking or wondering or desiring to know anything. I don't want to be an ITV2 viewer.

Ewwww, I feel ill - Please don't mention ITV.
Anyway, youve got a point but what i meant is the creation of the universe thing, Causes alot of Conflict and arguments. So thats why it would just be a good idea to say "IT HAPPENED. DEAL WID IT." Because then everyone would just magically become friends, and we would ride Unicorns of into the magical rainbow forest. So by all means, dont be a ITV viewer and just watch the universe go by - But im sure humanity will accept this and we can finally just stop fight...Oh Crap.

 

[Lord Kloo]

I don't know much beyond his hatred of religion so I'll assume all that sciency business is all well and good..

Now his business with hating religion on the other hand is a bit off.. his entire argument is based on the idea that everything that exists around us and everything you can see with your own eyes is real and that faith in anything else is wrong..
True he makes his opinions with facts but he makes the same mistake of everybody who sticks to evolution disproving all of religion.. there is no proof that anything is as linear as science thinks everything should be, for all we know human life could have started whenever God did create the world (4000 years ago or something) and he just put all the stuff there to make us do something different..

To cut a long story short.. he replaces a faith in god with a faith in science.. and yes its a faith until he goes and talks to the creator or studies how everything began (not just the big bang business as in who put matter in the universe, etc.) and then I might believe him, assuming our take on science is actually right of course and not some religion..

Personally I think we're all in the Matrix.. ha disprove that..

 

[kyllmikael]

Douglas Adams liked him so I like him.

 

[SonicKoala]

snip

What evidence do you have supporting your assertion that God does not exist? And don't say "there is no evidence supporting the existence of God, therefore I don't need to provide evidence to the contrary". Lack of evidence for something does not prove conclusively that it is false.

 

[-Dragmire-]

If he were to state his opinions in a more neutral manner, I'd probably like him but he comes across as too much of a jerk for my tastes.

 

[SonicKoala]

snip

What evidence do you have that your dog is not God?

I never made any claim suggesting that God exists - you are the one claiming he does not exist. And therefore, I ask you - where is your evidence for God's non-existence?

 

[Vhite]

I have to say, while I respect Dr. Dawkins immensely for the work he has done to further science and weed out ignorance and pseudo-science, his aggressive anti-religious adherence is a bit off putting.

I'm not one to come out in support of religious dogma or anything, but there is indeed something inherent in the human system which seeks higher meaning in an abstract and metaphysical sense. Certainly, religious thought is not the only way to seek this metaphysical longing (I myself have constructed my own theories on the nature of reality), but it is a primary part of many people's lives. It is tied to their culture and self-identity.

When someone comes along to deliberately and aggressively shake your belief structure, it's not just shaking your belief. It can come as an assault on your culture and indeed, your identity within that culture. It is INSULTING.

I'm sure Dr. Dawkins only means to spread the practice of scientific inquisitive thought to replace superstitious thinking, but critical thinking can and does exist within the confines of spiritual life.

I'm not a religious man myself, nor would I call myself particularly spiritual, but I respect a person's background and, while I may call things into question about their thoughts on observable phenomena, I leave matters of faith alone. I personally cannot find reason enough to believe in the sanctity of any particular dogma, but I cannot tell another person that their long held belief is totally wrong when I have NO REAL SUBSTITUTE. Physics and Metaphysics are pretty different.

The best that you can do is inspire true critical thought in people and lead them to come up with their own questions about their particular faith. If a person cannot bring themselves to question their faith THEMSELVES, then they merely have not yet gained that basic scientific epistemology that we can truly KNOW nothing. Perhaps that is the divide that most separates the devout from the secular.

The tenants of science are indeed important and ever-present in human logic and should be spread far and wide, but only in conjunction with a healthy respect for culture and context.

I think I love you now.

 

[SonicKoala]

snip

I'm sorry, but why is it that you think disingenuously snipping people's posts out and not addressing anything they said is a good way to behave?

Practically everything you said in your other post amounted to the same thing - that there is no evidence for God. Why would I bother to address that, when that isn't the point of this discussion? I'm not trying to prove the existence of anything - my original point was highlighting the logical flaw in making a claim without providing any sort of evidence to substantiate it.

You have inadvertently made a claim - that god doesn't exist. So I ask you again - where is your evidence to support this claim?

 

[hazabaza1]

He always seemed like a bit of a cock to me, to be honest.

 

[SonicKoala]

snip

I'm sorry, but why is it that you think disingenuously snipping people's posts out and not addressing anything they said is a good way to behave?

Practically everything you said in your other post amounted to the same thing - that there is no evidence for God. Why would I bother to address that, when that isn't the point of this discussion? I'm not trying to prove the existence of anything - my original point was highlighting the logical flaw in making a claim without providing any sort of evidence to substantiate it.

You have inadvertently made a claim - that god doesn't exist. So I ask you again - where is your evidence to support this claim?

Congratulations on your inability to read my other post. It said more than that. And it explained the reasoning.

You keep asking a question that has an answer. Why are you so dishonest that you can't read the damn post I made already that addressed that idea? Is it impossible for you to have any integrity or something?

Your evidence for God's non-existence, according to your other posts, is the absence of evidence for his existence. That is not conclusive evidence proving God's non-existence. You do not have direct, tangible evidence disproving God. However, I take your point that until there is evidence to suggest God may exist (which will probably never happen), then it is not a point even worth considering.

 

[SonicKoala]

I never made any claim suggesting that God exists - you are the one claiming he does not exist. And therefore, I ask you - where is your evidence for God's non-existence?

Did he ever, even once, claim that it is a verifiable fact that god doesn't exist?

Could you point me to that statement, because I seem to have missed it.

"Not really, no. It is for all intents and purposes as true a statement as you're going to get it. The amount of questioning that can be done about its accuracy amounts to quibbling over the exact amount of atoms between two objects."

This was a statement made by him in response to my claim that one cannot assert something as sweeping as "there is no God" without having evidence to support that claim. He might as well have claimed it to be a verifiable fact.

 

[aenimau5]

He seems like a decent scientist although he's a bit... abrasive when it comes to religion, he makes good points but he just comes across as though he thinks he's superior to everyone else

 

[SonicKoala]

It's funny how you whine about accuracy, yet fail to notice little things like "for all intents and purposes". That is not the same as claiming it is a verifiable fact.

So you admit it is not a verifiable fact? Because that's essentially the point I've been trying to make this entire time. "There is no God" is not a verifiable statement, and is therefore not a statement which should be regarded as factual.