It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


Quoting the bible is not evidence. The same as quoting Harry Potter isn't evidence of Hogwarts existing.....




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by schadenfreude
reply to post by miniatus
 


I'd love to see that "evidence" you're referring to. Please post it.


The evidence for a god not existing is the lack of evidence that one does.



edit on 24-2-2012 by Garfee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Borag the Horse
 


It is the types that cling to these things that are the most closed minded, ironically also the ones thinking they are the most open minded. I also wonder why they put so much importance in this mans 000.000.1%. What if Dawkins came out right now and said he believed in god ,would anyone be any closer to having proven his existence to anyone else, would it enforce their own believes in a god? All it shows to me is uncertainty in ones own faith.

The mere fact that this man's opinion and views are so misconstrued and abused just in a effort to validate ones own shows exactly that. Uncertainty,doubt,fear.


Why else would this mans opinion attract this sort of behaviour.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
One can be Atheist and not be certain that God doesn't exist.

He is what is called an Agnostic Atheist. He does not believe there is a God, but he is not certain of it.

There are actually 4 archetypes in the spectrum of Theism.

1. The Gnostic Theist. This person is 100% certain that a creator exists.
2. The Agnostic Theist. This person is not 100% certain that a creator exists.
3. The Gnostic Atheist. This person is 100% certain that no creator exists.
4. The Agnostic Atheist. This person is not 100% certain that no creator exists.

Richard Dawkins clearly fits into the Agnostic Atheist category, as does most any credible scientist, as one cannot be 100% certain of anything.

What exactly is the news story here?
edit on 24-2-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I have no doubt in existence of God because i don't need any sensual proof.
Science, logic and all are just sensual proofs.
So i will say that i don't have faith in God but i 'love' him and he loves me.
I consider logic and science as mere amusements which delude us if given too much importance as everything born out of senses is conditionally real.
Closing thought, why we always fight on a english word like 'God' ???
Words have no significance for anyone who dosen't understand the meaning.


edit on 24-2-2012 by deepankarm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Dawkins has NEVER said he was certain God does not exist. EVER. You can never be 100% certain of anything. What he has said is that he believes that the existence of God is highly improbable/unlikely. What people need to understand (like the op) is that most atheists are open to all claims, you just have to be able to provide evidence for those claims. In the case of the existence of God there is not a shred of evidence. Zilch. This is not breaking news. Its not even news. It IS, however, something believers love to parade around as if it is a point in their favor. But really, he is just co-aligning his beliefs with science and common sense. So no point for you. You just look like morons.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Rafe_
 


Well if Dawkins said there is a god, I would expect him to show evidence to his statement. I have never heard him make a statement in which he cannot back up. This is why i respect him, religious or not.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


I just find it so odd that he chose 6.9 out of seven. Now if I am wrong isn't 7 considered a good number and 6 not?

6 is 2x3 which to me is 23 but 2x3 none the less
9 is 3 x 3 or 3 3 3

so if we have 2 three and 3 threes we essentially have...

.3 3
3 3 3 a pyramid? with a space for a...all seeing eye?

its like he is proclaiming in his sub-conscientious that he is the opposite of the good sign 6.9:7 or evil:good idk I am way too out there for this thread lol


edit on 24-2-2012 by sykonot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
This cracks me up, simply because all the people that would say Dawkin's says this and Dawkiin's says that and you don't know. But now he has arrived at a true answer, he has no proof of his beliefs as I do for mine.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Borag the Horse
 


True and good point.
I was talking hypothetically of course but true point.




edit on 24-2-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Borag the Horse
 


How can you respect a man that actively goes out of his way to try and destroy the peace of mind and comfort that believers have in the existence of God.

Not that a true believer would be swayed by the ramblings of an ignoramus like Dawkins, or any scientist for that matter. For those who say there is no proof or evidence for the existence of God, just clear your mind, Look around you and allow what you see to actually sink in, it really is not that hard.


edit on 24-2-2012 by kennyb72 because: Too much faith in my grammar



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Given the fact that reality is not what it seems (thanks to quantum physics),

and given the fact that history is not what we were told (thanks to a plethora of authors and television shows)

and given the fact that we've been lied to since the moment we were born (thanks to the NWO and all of its facets)

I've never really been sure of ANY truth.

I am not a religious sort, but I DO believe in something.

Since I don't trust what I've been told, I can only believe what I think I know. Through study. Research. and Intuition.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
I consider logic and science as mere amusements which delude us...


You have just pretty much declared to this website that you disagree with it's mission statement?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
The rational approach would be to accept that we can never be 100% certain - though i've yet to find a practising Christian who would even entertain the notion or remote possibility that there may not be a god....


Not true. People doubt...even i doubted and fell away for 14 years and became an agnostic, but i was called back and due to the circumstances i was called back from i am more certain now than i ever was that Yahweh and Jesus both exist. Once you ask him to open your eyes so that you can see him, you see him in everything. Sometimes people need proof in some fashion. I needed proof and he gave me what i needed to believe again.

The difference with christians is, we choose to believe and have hope for a resurrection. We lose nothing from believing and having hope allows us to be better people.

Better to die with hope than die hopeless. Believing in Jesus and having that hope gives us inner peace most people never achieve in their entire lifetimes. That hope allows us to banish our fears and face the death we all know is coming for us. If were right, then we get resurrected and live forever. If were wrong then we lose nothing, but if you're wrong where will that leave you? You cannot prove God and heaven do not exist, are you really going to take that gamble knowing theres a chance you could lose? You lose nothing by believing, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose because youre going to die anyway and you can have redemption for the awful things you said and did to hurt loved ones, you can have that forgiveness and peace.
edit on 24-2-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Rafe_
 


Of course and my reply goes with your hypothesis, is why i also respect your point on debate.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kennyb72
 
If you want it badly enough, your mind will give in. Unless there's factual proof for the existence of God we should not follow ancient (and heavily modified) writings from ages ago. Peace of mind, comfort? Can we say delusions? C'mon believers, it's the same old crap we get "feel your heart, look in to it" "accept the possibility and love it" yeah and once you do that all sense goes down the poop shoot.

Religion is for the weak, faith is for the blind.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kennyb72
 


1. He is not trying destroy the peace of mind and comfort that people get from religion. What he, and many like him, are trying to do is stop the heinous injustices that religions impose on society. This should be rather apparent to you if you have ever heard the man talk or read one of his books. He doesn't argue the utility of religion, it is obvious that people are comforted with their spiritual insurance plans. But Dawkins will not tolerate world religions dictating what is moral and immoral, especially when things like slavery, stoning unruly children, killing apostates, and degrading women are advocated in holy books.

2. Open up your eyes and let it sink in? This is proof of God? If it is, if you have this subjective proof that God exists, which God is the real God? The Muslim God? The Christian God? Zoroastrianism? Please enlightened one, which God of the THOUSANDS OF RELIGIONS is the right one?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Meaningless
 


And a sad, lonely and regretful old age with inconsolable grief and hopelessness awaits those who mistook faith for weakness.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kennyb72
 


Why, because you think they would need religion to cling to?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Meaningless
 


"Religion is for the weak, faith is for the blind."

Looks like somebody just cracked one to deep left and this one AIN'T COMING BACK

A star for your homerun post.




top topics



 
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join