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: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder

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



www.telegraph.co.uk


He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.


Ask a man who has just lost his youngest child if he believes in a god.

Evil we can see all around us.

On your deathbed what will you wish for your youngest child?
edit on 25-2-2012 by ImpartialObserver because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
This is an indication of growing maturity, IMHO.

I don't have a problem at all with Dawkins being an atheist; but I did have a big problem with him insisting that everyone else was wrong, because the reality is that he doesn't know. Him admitting that, is likely to be as beneficial for him, as for everyone else who looks up to him.

He's earned some respect from me, for this.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Big deal. This has always been his position.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
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)


Wow... you must be a really special snowflake... I mean, from all the 7 billion people in the world, god CHOSE YOU... I'm speechless... just dont tell me you're a reincarnation of joan of arc... cause she was chosen also, and she was also pretty much nuts.

So... out of 7 billion people, why did god chose you, since there are a lot of people in a lot more trouble and way more in need of god than you? Are you... special? Or is god just incompetent and has issues with priorities? Considering the state of the world... god is not really doing his job. In any company or institution he would have been fired already... yet he has the time to help... you.

I'm in awe...



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


Why doesn't god heal amputees? Well it's pretty simple really. To pray requires one to put their hands together. And uh, well if they don't have hands... then they cannot pray to god. That's why you need limb insurance. I have limb insurance so that if I ever lose my limbs I can have them donated to me so I can still pray to god.


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



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by reaxi0n
Technically speaking I think everyone should be agnostic, as no one can be 100% sure of anything.


If you can't be 100% sure of anything you can't be 100% sure that no one can be 100% sure of anything.

Thus we need to be agnostic about the claim that everyone should be agnostic.
edit on 25-2-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
Wow... you must be a really special snowflake... I mean, from all the 7 billion people in the world, god CHOSE YOU... I'm speechless... just dont tell me you're a reincarnation of joan of arc... cause she was chosen also, and she was also pretty much nuts.


This sort of vindictiveness is completely unnecessary, and doesn't do anything other than give atheism a bad name. It's also pretty much pure emotionalism, making a very thin attempt at masquerading as logic.

Atheism requires not only intelligence, but also dispassion and emotional discipline, in order to be effective. If you don't have both of those characteristics, then I'd recommend that you don't bother trying; because the only thing you're going to do, is make yourself look like a fool with an obsessive vendetta.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by reaxi0n
Technically speaking I think everyone should be agnostic, as no one can be 100% sure of anything.


Seriously?

What's 2 + 2?

Can you answer that question with 100% certainty?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
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)


paranormal experience does not equal god
it equals paranormal experiences.

a deity...a creator of the universe is highly unlikely to stop his..creation thing in order to make a glass move or whatever experience you may have had.
Keep things in perspective. To say you know on things you don't only paints you out to be disingenuous.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
Wow... you must be a really special snowflake... I mean, from all the 7 billion people in the world, god CHOSE YOU... I'm speechless... just dont tell me you're a reincarnation of joan of arc... cause she was chosen also, and she was also pretty much nuts.


This sort of vindictiveness is completely unnecessary, and doesn't do anything other than give atheism a bad name. It's also pretty much pure emotionalism, making a very thin attempt at masquerading as logic.

Atheism requires not only intelligence, but also dispassion and emotional discipline, in order to be effective. If you don't have both of those characteristics, then I'd recommend that you don't bother trying; because the only thing you're going to do, is make yourself look like a fool with an obsessive vendetta.


Yes... but... I'm not an atheist so now... your theory is... all of a sudden, pretty damn hollow isnt it?

Must feel bad to let all those fine words go to waste.

"Atheism requires not only intelligence, but also dispassion and emotional discipline, in order to be effective."? What is that? A martial art or something...? Atheism needs to be... "effective"? You trying to evangelize people into "atheists"? It kinda sounds like a paradox now... you're talking about atheism as if it was a "cult" that has to convert the maximum number of people and has to be done right in order to be "effective"...

You sure you're a good atheist?



Oh the irony...



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee

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?

Yes surely.
You can't 'deny ignorance' until you know what is real.
Everything is just relative truth.
At every moment of time, we are as ignorant as the previous moment.
It's the basic law of this creation.
This creation is an ocean of infinite knowledge. Your knowledge will always remain constant i.e. nil.
It's our ego and pathetic logic which breeds arrogance and that leads us to judgement of others as ignorant and fools.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Proof God or "Something" exists:

What you need.
1: Alpha-White light source (Welding tourch will work)
2:White light source.(Pen light)
Construct arrangment that has pen light stationed approx. 12.02.02.02.00- inches from welding tourch flame (side of flame) after 20 mi. you will be able to observe the following result.

EOCOFeFeOCOOFeFeOCONOCONNOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOONOCOOOONOCOOOOONOCOOOO
OOOOFeFEOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFeFeOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFeFeOCOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOCOOFeFeOCOOOOOOOOO
OOOOCOOFeFeOCOOOOOOOFeFeOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFeFeOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOCOOOOOOOFeFeOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOCOOCOOCOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[ OCOFeFeOCOO----------------------------------------------------->OCOPbPbOCOFeFeOCOOFeFeOCOOO
OCOOOOOOOOOOO] Whala, a marker for LIFE beyond anything we known.. (Explore Brain tumor CURE potential)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
lol! What a dumb thread predicated on flatulence gas!


What would news worthy is if he said he DID have confirmation there was no 'god'.


The lack of evidence for something not existing is not in and of itself evidence for its existence.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sablicious
lol! What a dumb thread predicated on flatulence gas!


What would news worthy is if he said he DID have confirmation there was no 'god'.


The lack of evidence for something not existing is not in and of itself evidence for its existence.


The implication of the Telegraph article is that because he won't say with absolute certainty and without regard to the evidence that 'God doesn't exist', like the religious say with 100% certainty that God does exist, Dawkins is unsure and therefore wrong, and that religion 'won'. The opposite is true - it's his willingness to admit the possibility of uncertainty that marks him out as a rational human being with a rigorous approach to scientific proof. He'll do for me.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
The implication of the Telegraph article is that because he won't say with absolute certainty and without regard to the evidence that 'God doesn't exist', like the religious say with 100% certainty that God does exist, Dawkins is unsure and therefore wrong, and that religion 'won'.

The definition of this is 'retardation'.


The opposite is true - it's his willingness to admit the possibility of uncertainty that marks him out as a rational human being with a rigorous approach to scientific proof. He'll do for me.

Obviously.


But what I opined still stands--what a load of trifle. People who flag this thread are outing themselves as being pretty dumb.

I can't be certain the Easter Bunny isn't real either. Should I too create a topic and flag / star fish?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by reaxi0n
Technically speaking I think everyone should be agnostic, as no one can be 100% sure of anything.


Seriously?

What's 2 + 2?

Can you answer that question with 100% certainty?


Math is not religion....lol



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
 

Yes! And this has been stated several times throughout this 14 pages long thread. Still people manage to ignore it! This thread is a prime example for the major communication failure between the realm of reason and the realm of ignorance.
edit on 25-2-2012 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by reaxi0n
Technically speaking I think everyone should be agnostic, as no one can be 100% sure of anything.


If you can't be 100% sure of anything you can't be 100% sure that no one can be 100% sure of anything.

Thus we need to be agnostic about the claim that everyone should be agnostic.
edit on 25-2-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


That might make sense if you knew the definition of agnosticism....


1 ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by reaxi0n
 


But then the the statement you made is illogical, as demonstrated. You can't be 100% certain that people can't be 100% certain of everything. The only thing you can claim is you do not know, not that others do not know.
edit on 25-2-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


It's not illogical because agnosticism refers to religion, not everything else. You're trying to attribute that term to the whole of reality.




top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join