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: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kennyb72
 


I don't understand how that can be a proof of the existence of God.

There are thousands of gods that people believe from 'clearing their mind', what makes your god the true god? Dawkins never makes certainties unless it has been irrefutably proven. To believe in something without justifiable evidence is in my opinion blind faith. As many Athiests I used to be christian, and still study different forms of theology as literature, not the literal, if someone told me something then i would go out and find the proof of it rather than believing.

It shouldn't be an arguement one way or the other. Bring forward evidence and peer reviews from that evidence and then you will have a form of standing in the community.

All Dawkins is doing is showing creationists that there is no real evidence that what they believe is true. I have seen enough videos that Dawkins has put a well thought point across towards a theist where they cannot explain their logic, that is when it fails. And the theists (in trying to support their belief) go off on a tangent which is irrelevant to the point Dawkins is making.

There is no justifiable reason why Dawkins questions peoples faith. What i find justifiable is theists attacking certain sentences he states and not reading onwards or reading the whole paragraph in which that sentence comes from. In the Bible god is a very selfish god, and even the fact of understanding the bible, there is theists that pick and choose what they believe from it, then go on to say they believe the bible is literal proof. Which is hypocrisy. And that from what i can gather is Dawkins reason to why he attacks creationists (which I do not also consider all Christians as).




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by HotCopperSkull
 





In the case of the existence of God there is not a shred of evidence. Zilch.


There is evidence, you just choose to discount the testimony of the hundreds of thousands of people Jesus converted instantly when he performed his miracles, and the accounts of his very own disciples who had the courage to die believing in him and be crucified, men who walked with him and learned from him. You also discount the dozens of generations of christians who willingly died for their beliefs in him and loved him more than their own lives.

Millions of christians died at the hands of the Roman Empire, being fed to lions and thrown to gladiators for sport. Caesar Nero would dip christians in boiling pitch and then set them on fire to light his garden at night and he called them "Roman Candles" (where the modern firework gets it's name). Yet millions of christians lined up to take the place of those who died. Nero figured out how to discover christians and he devised a test. Nero would take the suspected christian and try to force them to worship pagan gods and to verbally renounce Jesus the Christ and if the people refused then they were christians. Do you really think that all those christians then and today would die for something we thought could be a lie? Do you think this is blind devotion? No, we can see him and you cannot. We were predestined to believe in him before the foundation of the earth was laid, we were predestined to love him, when no one else would and accept him when everyone else laughed at him and cursed him and spit on him. He who died for us, our King, our master, our friend and our brother who loved us more than anyone possibly ever could.

Now you know why we can die for him and in his name. Not a one of us can think about what the Romans did to him without feeling the anguish and the sorrow and pain of what he went through when he was innocent. Not a single one of us can think about his blood being spilled without tears welling up in our eyes. No one can understand us but our own brothers and sisters. You just do not know.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by HotCopperSkull
 


There is only ONE God and he/she has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Religion is a vehicle for control and manipulation by week minded power hungry individuals. A bit like Dawkins really who is the antithesis of organized religion, You only have to hear him preach to realize that.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Nice story that we all knew already.

Just because someone believes something and is a martyr for this belief, does not make what they believe in any more real.

Admirable though.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by HotCopperSkull
 





In the case of the existence of God there is not a shred of evidence. Zilch.


There is evidence, you just choose to discount the testimony of the hundreds of thousands of people Jesus converted instantly when he performed his miracles, and the accounts of his very own disciples who had the courage to die believing in him and be crucified, men who walked with him and learned from him. You also discount the dozens of generations of christians who willingly died for their beliefs in him and loved him more than their own lives.

Millions of christians died at the hands of the Roman Empire, being fed to lions and thrown to gladiators for sport. Caesar Nero would dip christians in boiling pitch and then set them on fire to light his garden at night and he called them "Roman Candles" (where the modern firework gets it's name). Yet millions of christians lined up to take the place of those who died. Nero figured out how to discover christians and he devised a test. Nero would take the suspected christian and try to force them to worship pagan gods and to verbally renounce Jesus the Christ and if the people refused then they were christians. Do you really think that all those christians then and today would die for something we thought could be a lie? Do you think this is blind devotion? No, we can see him and you cannot. We were predestined to believe in him before the foundation of the earth was laid, we were predestined to love him, when no one else would and accept him when everyone else laughed at him and cursed him and spit on him. He who died for us, our King, our master, our friend and our brother who loved us more than anyone possibly ever could.

Now you know why we can die for him and in his name. Not a one of us can think about what the Romans did to him without feeling the anguish and the sorrow and pain of what he went through when he was innocent. Not a single one of us can think about his blood being spilled without tears welling up in our eyes. No one can understand us but our own brothers and sisters. You just do not know.


Just because some ruler committed atrocities or the fact a multitude of people hold a belief does not equal empirical evidence for the god dilemma. Does the massive amount of children believing in Santa Claus make the fantasy character anything but a story? Did the blind following, pain, anguish and, sadly, genocide at Waco, TX prove Koresh's divinity?

Dawkins is humble on his approach to the God question. Unlike religious zealots, he holds a scientific, mature approach not dabbling in blind absolutism. Humility goes hand in hand with keeping an open mind. Closed minds are the avatar of ignorance. I suggest you follow his example.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
6.9 Out of 7 eh...


THAT SHOULD PRETTY MUCH SUM IT ALL UP.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Wow. Stories you've read in a book and it's evidence. Nope. Sorry. You're a fool if you think this is evidence. Name one person of the hundreds of thousands that gave their testimonies. One. "I read about this happening so it must be real!" Laughable.

The people above me summed it up nicely regarding the martyrs. You have no idea how idiotic that actually was, do you? I'll bet a pretty penny you thought you had a killer point, too.

KennyB, So if everybody experiences in their own subjective way the same God, why do we have so many different types of Gods? Could it be you have no idea what you are talking about?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


What does it matter what Dawkins thinks? His first book was proven to be mostly wrong about the greed gene.

I am agnostic and could have told you the same thing he did.
edit on 24-2-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
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



One of the more hilarious posts I've read on ATS.

Thank You



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HotCopperSkull
 




KennyB, So if everybody experiences in their own subjective way the same God, why do we have so many different types of Gods? Could it be you have no idea what you are talking about?


Wait and see for yourself, hopefully later rather than sooner but you will still be sentient and lucid when you discover the truth.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
i dont see how what one guy thinks will impact my life or anyone elses life. but if you wanna believe some great being is watching us in his high chair then by all means.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
You know, originally I wasn't going to say anything, but then I kept seeing this phrase repeated: "no one can be 100% certain of anything"
I can tell you, I am 100% certain I am a woman. I have a uterus, ovaries, eggs, menstrual cycles, breasts, and all of the other functions of a woman. That I am 100% certain of.
I am 100% certain one of my dogs is male. He had testes before we cut him, he has a penis, no ovaries, no eggs, he had sperm. Therefore, I am 100% certain he's male.
So, in essence, there are some things you can be 100% certain of.

Little off topic, I admit, but relevant nonetheless.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Hes doing a copout. I am 100% sure god exists. Why can't he be sure of his beliefs. He is a hypocrite. Anyone can say you can't be 100% sure and when proof is discovered say well I didn't say 100%. He is only a biologist and does not know anything about physics, quantum theory, general relativity, cosmology, etc..


You're 100% sure god exists?

Have you seen him? Met him? Anything tangible about god you want to share with us?

If any of these answers is affirmative, you're skipping medication.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Dawkins suggests that god is highly improbable and the belief in a god is irrational. As far as I know he and most atheists (including myself), do not claim to be able to prove that god does not exist. That would be silly - because you cannot prove that something does not exist when it is scientifically untestable.

I keep on seeing people not knowing what atheism is or what the position of atheists like Dawkins actually is. Then when atheists clarify them they think it was the atheist who was changing their position. No. That is a cop out. You just didn't understand their position in the first place. If you're going to talk about atheism please give us the courtesy of actually understanding us.



Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

en.wikipedia.org...


I could claim there is a Flying Spagetti Monster (FSM) right behind every single ATS member and that each FSM is actually invisible and from another dimension, so it cannot be detected by any means. This is essentially what god is. Does that mean it's true? Nope. Should it be up to the non-believers of FSM to prove that it doesn't exist? Nope. I should have to be able to prove it. Else it probably doesn't exist. Point is, it should be up to the religious to prove that god exists and that god holds the same view as them if they want others to belief or force their laws on others, bully people like Jessica Ahlquist, or waste my time by telling me that I'm going to burn in hell or whatever. Until that happens, I don't care what you belief, just keep it to your self - if not, then atheists will be as loud as possible about it.

Dawkins is an athiest just like he always was. I am not familiar with much of what Dawkins has written so I am not defending anything else that he has said.

Atheism is a religion in the same way as OFF is a TV channel or abstinence is a form of safe sex.

Q: Whats it like being an athiest......A: hmmm well do you believe in Thor?.. its like that.
edit on 25/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 25/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
There cannot be a valid, conclusive and traceable evidence for God. But how can we conclude that there is no God?
Someone has pointed out that you cannot claim the existence through religious holy books. I ask, if holy books are meant to be just that- educate about the existence of God, how can one simply 'not' quote it?
Science is a tool for understanding the workings of our Universe and the same can be said for holy books that are meant to prove the existence of a super power. So to say that religious books are invalid is simply silly and lacks logic.

How can quoting religious books disproves or makes God irrelevant? I hope educated people could find fairy tales and religious books different. The argument that holy books are fairy tales requires a complete no non-sense disapproval of all the texts which has not been done yet. The religious characters are not only traceable but have a deep spiritual value and goes through strange experiences. The problem with most of the atheists is that they fail to get the spiritual nature of these texts. It is very relevant to say that atheists are against God being a person
rather than God being a collective conscious.

This shows that the human ego is falsely attached to the 'after effects' of this Universe and not the cause itself. It ridicules everything that is above our perception and limits human understanding of Time and Space through material means. To sum it up, Science is more of a how than a why. No one knows why and we only know very little of the how.

edit on 25-2-2012 by radkrish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I think that deep down most people will at least consider the possibility of the existence of a Divine Creator. Maybe not in the sense that organised religion teaches us about God, but rather that there is a Creator that designed life and all the complexities that go along with it. It's a shame so many people direct their anger at this potential Creator just because they strongly disagree with religion and its interpretations.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


I can tell you that God has personally affected my life in many ways over many years. I've experienced so many out of the ordinary occurrences which left me chuckling to myself after I realized what had happened. I couldn't even begin to explain them to others because they would never understand in a million years. Yes there is a God, and I am 110% certain of it.
edit on 25-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Brothers... calm down!!! No heated arguments necessary.... Just ask God Who He is




posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
This graph should make things clearer.


Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. This is not a valid position to adopt because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and the nature of belief itself. It also happens to reinforce popular prejudice against atheists.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.


atheism.about.com...



edit on 25/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 25/2/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
There is a creator, whether that is us or something else remains a mystery. That's relevant to this discussion because anyone who is objective, sincere, and semi-intelligent comes to this same conclusion.

There are many psychological arguments to be made but the crux is religion nor atheism is truth, rather truth lies somewhere in between. Yet because one false apex exists and thrives, its antithesis exists and thrives.

Simply, the white (religion) creates black (atheism) while truth lies in the grey (agnostic)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join