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

Originally posted by reaxi0n

Originally posted by Annee

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

Everyone is Agnostic - - whether they want to admit it or not.

Every Atheist is an Agnostic Atheist. Because logically and scientifically - - - god can not be proven or dis-proven.

Its a straight forward logical answer.

No surprise.

I guess what I meant to say is everyone should admit they are agnostic instead of being stuck in the "absolute" sides of the spectrum.

OK.

Yes admitting would be refreshing.

reply to post by reaxi0n


its all quite stupid really what a person labels themselves,, what they make themselves consistently believe,,, and how these things effect their behavior with others.... that one word god, is interpreted by everyone differently,, this human existence on earth is interpreted by everyone differently,, yet is there not only one truth of the way things are; What the universe is and how it was formed,,, and the fact that humans exist on this earth sharing the burden of exiting from similar universal causes, if not the same cause.

reply to post by reaxi0n


Thanks for that. Should have watched the video earlier. Its good. Thanks for the prompt

[should probably have used a carriage return above rather than having to type this 2nd line].

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by reaxi0n

Originally posted by Annee

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

Everyone is Agnostic - - whether they want to admit it or not.

Every Atheist is an Agnostic Atheist. Because logically and scientifically - - - god can not be proven or dis-proven.

Its a straight forward logical answer.

No surprise.

I guess what I meant to say is everyone should admit they are agnostic instead of being stuck in the "absolute" sides of the spectrum.

OK.

Yes admitting would be refreshing.

I look at all differently - I think everyone is atheist. In that people are just looking for the truth, unfortunately agnostics and religious kooks are looking for it with a god slant. Where as us atheists are just looking.

reply to post by justwokeup


No problem. It helped me put a few things into perspective as well

Originally posted by Visitor2012
Consider a piece of pure white paper that is bigger than your entire field of vision. You're looking at this white color and from your perspective, you would see absolutely nothing, because there is no contrast or form with which you can see something in comparison to "other".

Now, if a black dot appeared in the middle of this vision, you would alas, see something. You would say that the black dot "exists". But in reality the black dot isn't a "thing" or an object. It's an illusion, something that only "exists" because it has contrasted itself against a background. But in reality, you are still looking at the white piece of paper.

Apply this to the idea of God. If God is EVERYTHING, then God does not experience existence unless he contrasts himself against the other parts of himself. Without separation, there can be no experience of existence. Therefore, as you look at any component of creation (planets, stars, people, animals etc) You are only looking at the different forms of the whole. YOU are a dot on this white paper of creation. You think that you are separate from creation or (God) and that you exist as separate from everything else, but in reality, you are just a contrasted form of GOD, an illusion created to experience existence.

Dawkins doesn't see this. He searches for a form or thing that is called God, a unsolvable quest. If you could see God, as a form or an entity, then what is outside of his borders? However, if you are truly aware, you would see that every form of creation is a perceived contrast against the whole. You would see that you and everyone/everything around you, is God.

I don't think Dawkins has a problem with those who believe that god is everything. If god is everything, then it would be impossible, as you suggest, to separate god out for a clear definition. I'm sure if you told Dawkins that god is everything and everywhere, and he (Dawkins) is part of god too, he would shrug his shoulders and say, "Maybe."

But, does this giant piece of white paper talk to you? Does it order certain commandments and have human emotions, such as jealously, and make demands of love, loyalty and obedience? Does this god have people here on earth who represent his position and did it make a hell for those who don't listen to them?

Does this piece of paper, you call god, give one the right to judge others, take their money and otherwise coerce?

See where I'm coming from?

It's called being a scientist. He would never have an absolute stance on most things. Especially an abstract, and widely varying concept as "god".

This debating wether god does or does not exist is a rather lame progression does not one think. I mean one would first need to define what god is in order to even come close to understanding his/her/it in the first place....I mean what if it is like what some people in the physics community say....in the off chance we are actually just looking for that god particle.

the one thing that led to the creation of this entire universe.....I mean one we actually come up with what a GOD might actually be within it's own right then we might actually be able to decide if god really does exist in itself.

Kinda like Santa(quickly moves the N to the end...SATAN) does he exist ...and if he does in what form does he exist....is it in a whole form...or is it in a particulate form where he may be in all places at once...I mean how does he reach all those homes in time for christmas day.

Now because an atheist says that he is not 100% god does not exist ...does that make them any less of an atheist...I would think not....i would say he believes there is not god....a singular being....as single creator....but does that mean that if we come up with what a god might actually be then there might be a possibility we could all end up changing our minds if god does actually exist.

I know some will look at my Avatar and go....Oh God.....he belives in god.....LOL.....but this is not me...this is Brother nethaneal.....and if you would like to know more of him just go on my 911 thread. I for do not believe in god in the sense of god as some omnipotent being who created all as we know it....But i do think GOD serves as a viable purpose in the control of the human race...as in we were created from what already existed on this very planet of which we live....God is a necessary evil to control the slaves that were created to exist here in this hazardous enviroment...to which was in hospitable to the creators themselves.....heck....the weight of the world was on their shoulders....(gravity).

Gravity is a horrible burden for any offworlder...and it should be removed in oder to make this planet much more pleasent.......I really don't know why they did not shut down those damned atmospheric generators in Egpyt at an earlier time......That was such a mistake to let them run for so long.....but then GOD is not perfect afterall is he/her/it.

Okay on a serious note though.....as far as Richard Dawkin goes.....so what if he has a bit of a change of heart....and also what makes him such an outspoken atheist.....I mean really....all one needs to do is say...."I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD"

reply to post by plube


what makes him an outspoken atheist? search his name on youtube and you will find many debates against religious people,,, he also has thick books expressing his speaking out on atheism.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Not quite what i was implying...as i have read much of his thoughts..books and seen interviews and comments by him....what i am saying is...when one says ..."i Do Not Believe in God".....It automatically puts one on par with what an outspoken atheist is.....just as when a person says..."I Believe in God".

They are both statements about a Beleif....niether comment is based on Fact.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Visitor2012
Consider a piece of pure white paper that is bigger than your entire field of vision. You're looking at this white color and from your perspective, you would see absolutely nothing, because there is no contrast or form with which you can see something in comparison to "other".

Now, if a black dot appeared in the middle of this vision, you would alas, see something. You would say that the black dot "exists". But in reality the black dot isn't a "thing" or an object. It's an illusion, something that only "exists" because it has contrasted itself against a background. But in reality, you are still looking at the white piece of paper.

Apply this to the idea of God. If God is EVERYTHING, then God does not experience existence unless he contrasts himself against the other parts of himself. Without separation, there can be no experience of existence. Therefore, as you look at any component of creation (planets, stars, people, animals etc) You are only looking at the different forms of the whole. YOU are a dot on this white paper of creation. You think that you are separate from creation or (God) and that you exist as separate from everything else, but in reality, you are just a contrasted form of GOD, an illusion created to experience existence.

Dawkins doesn't see this. He searches for a form or thing that is called God, a unsolvable quest. If you could see God, as a form or an entity, then what is outside of his borders? However, if you are truly aware, you would see that every form of creation is a perceived contrast against the whole. You would see that you and everyone/everything around you, is God.

I don't think Dawkins has a problem with those who believe that god is everything. If god is everything, then it would be impossible, as you suggest, to separate god out for a clear definition. I'm sure if you told Dawkins that god is everything and everywhere, and he (Dawkins) is part of god too, he would shrug his shoulders and say, "Maybe."

But, does this giant piece of white paper talk to you? Does it order certain commandments and have human emotions, such as jealously, and make demands of love, loyalty and obedience? Does this god have people here on earth who represent his position and did it make a hell for those who don't listen to them?

Does this piece of paper, you call god, give one the right to judge others, take their money and otherwise coerce?

See where I'm coming from?

edit on 24-2-2012 by windword because: ocd

Judgment and every action that stems from it, is a symptom or result of duality. In other words, every thought and action that stems from the delusion of separateness is the product of the delusion itself.

Judgment can not exist without dualism. There is a judge (you or they) and a judged (you or they), therefore, these things can not be "commanded" by the non dualistic whole or GOD.

reply to post by silent thunder


Im 99% sure that transdementional purple unicorns arent stealing my underwear.

But can i be 100% sure... no, because their transdementional.... and unicorns have been written about in the past.

hes got bigger eggs than any religious person... whos to deluded to concider their god might not exist. Thats the differance.

Dawkins is a scientist and scientists tend not be anything 100%. Always worth looking at a newspaper headline and then comparing to the actual statement in the scientific report, the newspaper says it as fact, the scientist says it as best an option using usually fully of woolly non committal words.

Dawkins is an outspoken aetheist and has proved to be a figurehead for aetheists all over. If you listen to his language, it is extremely loaded with emotional language that will either make you cheer or sneer - but not sit on the fence.

His words come as no surprise, he is a brilliant geneticist and evolutionist who has seen proof / evidence of evolution many times over. It is this that negation of proof that really winds him up. If it was in particle physics - the evidence accumulated would be accepted with open arms. Instead, he is fighting a battle not only to get the evolutionary evidence recognised but to be actually able to teach this at school.

If anyone has read his book 'The God Delusion' you would know that he never claimed to be a 7.0 on his atheism scale. This isn't a huge revelation and definitely not news to anyone who follows him...

I've watched a lot of Richard Dawkins interviews and I've also read his books, and he's always been like this.

He's always said that he can never be 100% sure that god does not exist. He's just 99.9% sure because being 100% sure would be ignorant

This man, should he retain his atheist beliefs, is basically calling all of the mathematicians who created the "Law of Probability" fools, and the Law of Probability itself (which puts the chances of the Earth forming at less than 0.000000001 of a chance) a lie.

If you can't rely on math (and apparently, Dawkins doesn't) then all you have left is religion.

Sweet, sweet irony...

Originally posted by silent thunder
Well this is an interesting development and significant in several ways.

It's not a new development, Dawkins has ALWAYS admitted this. He doesn't believe in God, but he admits that he can't prove with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist.

EDIT to add- somehow I missed that this thread was already 5 pages long (thought it was 1) and that I'm just repeating what others have already said- story of my life arriving late to the party

Originally posted by izero
I look at all differently - I think everyone is atheist. In that people are just looking for the truth, unfortunately agnostics and religious kooks are looking for it with a god slant. Where as us atheists are just looking.

Not me. I gave up looking for the "truth," because that concept is every bit as fuzzy and poorly defined as "God." The truth is whatever you can live with that will get you through the day.

I have enough answers to my questions. Why are we here? No reason. Is there a purpose to life? No. Is there a life after this one? It doesn't matter.

Glad I could help out.

Here we go again. A scientist states , quite rightly, that he is only 6.9/7 certain of something. This is absolutely the correct thing to say. The only way any scientist can ever state anything is 100% is they have the knowledge of the entire universe.....which nobody has. The problem is an awful lot of people are totally ignorant of how science works. Just read some of the threads here on ATS!!

Now, for me, based on the knowledge I currently have, the experience I currently have the observation of those around me I am 100% certain that god does NOT exist. That statement in now way contradicts the one above for the simple fact that is based on my limited knowledge.

People of faith do not need facts they believe in "x" irrespective of facts hence the word "faith".

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
Here we go again. A scientist states , quite rightly, that he is only 6.9/7 certain of something. This is absolutely the correct thing to say. The only way any scientist can ever state anything is 100% is they have the knowledge of the entire universe.....which nobody has. The problem is an awful lot of people are totally ignorant of how science works. Just read some of the threads here on ATS!!

Now, for me, based on the knowledge I currently have, the experience I currently have the observation of those around me I am 100% certain that god does NOT exist. That statement in now way contradicts the one above for the simple fact that is based on my limited knowledge.

People of faith do not need facts they believe in "x" irrespective of facts hence the word "faith".

So...you "know" this, do you? If you "know" this, then you can prove it.

Wait, what's that? You can't prove it? Then you are either psychic, or you just very firmly believe there is no god. And science doesn't support psychic theories...

Which makes it b) you believe very firmly in it.

I'd like to state here, for the record, that the reason you don't believe in god is because you are restricting yourself to the Christian version of god. Haven't you figured out yet that OUR definition is bogus?

Just because our definition is faulty, doesn't make God nonexistent. And the Law of Probability states that it is statistically impossible for Earth to form the way it did. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning ten times during the same storm...than Earth did of forming. Fate is just nice like that? Bull#.

Food for thought.