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: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

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.


I feel sorry for you...I really do. You must live a thoroughly miserable life if it all comes down to survival and then dying. How utterly depressing.

And narrow-minded.




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Material science can not affirm nor deny an immaterial absolute. So Dawkins is actually being honest, and Im not a fan of 'the god delusion' he is just admitting there is always doubt, because skepticism and doubt is the root of all science. I actually respect him more for this, only a fundamentalist would say they were 100% sure of absolute truth.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

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

Dawkins has long been what some might consider an "aggressive athiest," using his public position to argue heatedly and pointedly against religion. So when he qualifies what was previously a very staunch and hardline view in this way, it is significant, given his self-embraced "king of the athiests" role.


It's not a development of any kind.. Dawkins has always said this, how is this news? ... Dawkins is a man of science, he's always said he can't be sure there is no God .. science doesn't work that way, science will also tell you it can't be sure there is no God.. What it can say is there's no evidence of a God .. and that is the line Dawkins follows.. he's said something in the past that he's 99% sure there's no God ( paraphrasing ) .. but without evidence he can't make a conclusion..

It doesn't take a genius to understand what he's saying..
he's not changed his views



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Material science can not affirm nor deny an immaterial absolute. So Dawkins is actually being honest, and Im not a fan of 'the god delusion' he is just admitting there is always doubt, because skepticism and doubt is the root of all science. I actually respect him more for this, only a fundamentalist would say they were 100% sure of absolute truth.


Exactly right .. the thing that frustrates me with this thread is that it's being posted as if it's some kind of new thing or a change of heart by Dawkins.. I must confess, I'm a huge fan of his .. I've seen countless interviews and read most of his work .. he's never blatantly denied the existance of a God and has said before that he can't claim there is absolutely no God, there's just no way a man of science could ever make such an absolute claim..



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Material science can not affirm nor deny an immaterial absolute. So Dawkins is actually being honest, and Im not a fan of 'the god delusion' he is just admitting there is always doubt, because skepticism and doubt is the root of all science. I actually respect him more for this, only a fundamentalist would say they were 100% sure of absolute truth.


I will admit, there is no absolute proof. However, science does tend to be fond (in these sorts of matters) of the "probability" of it being true.

In this case, the probability says there is a very strong chance that a divine intelligence influenced the creation of the universe...and by extension, our planet.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:33 PM
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..




He's being open minded whereas you are being closed minded as you don't really know God exists, yet you believe 100 percent just because of faith, faith does not make fact.

I don't believe in God but I admit there's a possibility, I just seriously doubt it, although I would prefer it if there was one, it's just that I'm not going to believe in such an amazing concept just because other humans wrote a book saying that God is real. That's not enough to go on considering the enormity of the claim. Most people here only believe because it's been pushed into their minds from an early impressionable age.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I've known of Richard Dawkins take on religion and atheism for several years now, and for him to suddenly take this u-turn says to me either he accepts that science cannot truly explain the human conciousness and there may be a more supernatural explanation, OR, he has had some sort of experience that has made him question his convictions.

Anyone else remember him in South Park, with "MRS" Garrison, lol, that bedroom scene made me shudder.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


I understand your frustration with this thread that it may be slanted, but consider this: i am a believer and not really a fan of Dawkins, but i can see how he is being smeared here and so i actually respect him more for his honesty and dont believe he is some evil free thinker. Call it 'god' working in mysterious ways.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
I've known of Richard Dawkins take on religion and atheism for several years now, and for him to suddenly take this u-turn says to me either he accepts that science cannot truly explain the human conciousness and there may be a more supernatural explanation, OR, he has had some sort of experience that has made him question his convictions.

Anyone else remember him in South Park, with "MRS" Garrison, lol, that bedroom scene made me shudder.


If you've known dawkins take on religion and atheism for several years then you'd know what you just said is not correct .. Dawkins has always had this opinion.. he's a scientist, and as it's been said numerous times in this thread.. a scientist would never be 100% on something like this .. Dawkins has always said he's 99.9% sure there's not a God but that he can't prove it .. that is just a scientist being honest.. this is nothing new .. he made this same statement in his book "The God Delusion" long ago..



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Whenever I have seen him in documentaries or on the TV, he has always been adamant that there can be no God. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I have never heard him say otherwise, until now.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by miniatus
 


I understand your frustration with this thread that it may be slanted, but consider this: i am a believer and not really a fan of Dawkins, but i can see how he is being smeared here and so i actually respect him more for his honesty and dont believe he is some evil free thinker. Call it 'god' working in mysterious ways.


Well the point of fact thing is that his statement is just how science works.. he's a man of science, and he's actually always had this opinion .. NO scientist in the world can prove there is no God.. and on a humorous note, Dawkins likes to also state that science can also not prove that Zeus, Thor or the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either... in his mind, and in my own.. the possibility of God existing is absolutely equal to the possibility that the tooth fairy exists.. I'm 99.9% sure it doesn't, but science requires evidence to form facts.. that is the heart of what Dawkins actually means..
edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by miniatus
 


Whenever I have seen him in documentaries or on the TV, he has always been adamant that there can be no God. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I have never heard him say otherwise, until now.


You've not read his books I suppose
..

Dawkins is a very emotionally charged atheist .. he has NEVER said there is no God in absolute terms however.. not once... he will say he doesn't believe in God, and he will say there is overwhelming evidence of evolution, but he's not a man to say there's no God.. if you find a clip, share it.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Sounds like he is thinking rationally, why is everyone making a big deal out of that? I know little about dawkins but as an atheist myself I dont need help with doubt from a "world famous atheist", no one can be 100% certain of anything without absolute evidence.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 


edit on 24-2-2012 by strafgod because: Them sneaky typo ninjas



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


There is no material proof of an immaterial thing so the only probability is in the field of metaphysics, no other science can adequately explain it.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


you think overwhelming evidence of evolution is overwhelming evidence against an intelligence establishing a universe?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by miniatus
 


you think overwhelming evidence of evolution is overwhelming evidence against an intelligence establishing a universe?


Nice wording...

I believe simply that a) there's overwhelming evidence of evolution and b) there's no evidence for a god, scientifically speaking.. therefore I'm right with dawkins... I'm 99.9% against the belief of a God but cannot prove it.. of course, and I never can... much like, as I said, i can't prove there's no tooth fairy..

I am the atheist who's also a legally ordained minister .. =)
edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


No one can be sure. It's closed minded and ignorant to rule out the possibility 100%.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by IanPaul
reply to post by silent thunder
 


This is interesting! I agree that it is a true sense of humility being that he knows that he cannot know for sure, because there is no way to prove 100% either way... I believe that he isn't necessarily changing what he has always "preached" about at all; rather, being honest with himself and his peers about the fact that there is no 100% in this case.

Thanks!

No thanks! Oh, so you think that the mark of true humility lies in being uncertain, unsure, and ignorant of ways to come to a conclusion? You are just as bad as today's Christian, peddling the belief that they'll escape the coming wrath without bearing fruits worthy of repentance.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
While I do believe there is SOMETHING divine behind all existence, I am 100% sure in my conviction that NO human religion has it even close to being right.

They are all just GUESSES, often based on the ramblings of men who lived 1000's of years ago who devised systems to keep their people in line. These guesses then get caught up with all kinds of magical rituals (and yes, that's EXACTLY what they are folks, symbolic magic rituals) and rules to follow, that have absolutely nothing to do with being a good human being.

I'm more of an adherent to the Golden Rule that is a foundation of most religions. Do unto others as you would have done to you. Live by that, and if there is some great judge at the end of this life, then well, I'll just have to hope my actions have spoken louder than my guesses on who's in charge.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:26 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....
Shrugging your shoulders is the height of intelligence eh? I don't think so. I AM 100% certain that God is real. I have no desire whatsoever to prove anything to anyone and I don't care who isn't satisfied, people ought to seek their beliefs rather than be spoon fed by money hungry preachers priests and pastors.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join