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

Originally posted by monsterofearth13
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)

Could you elaborate? That makes no sense

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by addygrace
100% faith is different than 100% knowledge. Dawkins is not answering this question as a scientist, he's answering as an atheist.

You're making an assumption.. basically you're hearing/reading him as an atheist and rejecting him as a scientist .. that's foolish.. care to prove it?

Are you serious? Richard Dawkins isn't talking about God from a scientific point of view. He is answering the question as an athiest. He's stating his beliefs of God being possible. If he was actually using science to make the 98.5% statement, then he would have some kind of scientific inquiry regarding the subject, yet he just flat out states his opinion on the subject. And you know what they say about opinions.

Really. Creationists do not make a good impression when they reach like this.

Dawkins would be a pretty poor scientist if he claimed 100% knowledge that a god did not exist. He is 6.9 out of 7 that there is no god. That 0.1 does not prove god exists.

What it shows me is there are a lot of people desperate to bolster their faith with any crumb available even if it is Dawkins that supplies that morsel.

The advantage creationists have over science is you dont need proof. You need faith and it looks like you are less sure of the existance of god than Dawkins is that there is no god.

Originally posted by colin42
Really. Creationists do not make a good impression when they reach like this.

Dawkins would be a pretty poor scientist if he claimed 100% knowledge that a god did not exist. He is 6.9 out of 7 that there is no god. That 0.1 does not prove god exists.

What it shows me is there are a lot of people desperate to bolster their faith with any crumb available even if it is Dawkins that supplies that morsel.

The advantage creationists have over science is you dont need proof. You need faith and it looks like you are less sure of the existance of god than Dawkins is that there is no god.

This doesn't make any sense.

Dawkins isn't claiming any kind of knowledge about the existence of God. He is stating his belief on the subject. This has nothing to do with science. He is in a debate about God, not as a famous scientist, but as a famous atheist.

Also this isn't creationist jumping on Dawkins for the change in heart. The Telegraph printed the article because he is seen as the world's leading atheist, and then answered the question of God from an agnostic point of view. That's huge to some people.

I think he was humble and spot on.





Nobody knows one way or the other...

Whether someone believes or not is another matter.


There were concessions from both sides in this debate.... With Rowan Williams (The Arch-Bishop) stating that he "believes in" Evolution....


Where's the headlines there??



Here is the full video.






Dawkins has ALWAYS argued that the belief in God and organised Religion cause suffering and misery, not that the suffering is caused by whether God exists or not.


Nobody on this planet knows whether whether there is a God or not... NOBODY.

There is absolutely no evidence for God and it's highly likely that it is nothing more than a concept borne out of fear and persecution of people several thousand years ago.

BUT nobody can be 100% sure either way.


Religious people love to talk about Atheists or Agnostics who convert or hedge their bets... like it's some sort of competition.

Just get on and live your lives and treat others well.

Simple.

Originally posted by blupblup
There is absolutely no evidence for God and it's highly likely that it is nothing more than a concept borne out of fear and persecution of people several thousand years ago.

Can someone who's read Dawkins tell me what his definition of "God," is? I'm honestly not attempting to troll, here; the Judeo-Christian interpretation of God the Father isn't the only one that exists.

Does he mean that he doesn't believe in anything that deliberately/intentionally created the known universe, irrespective of what that "anything," might be, specifically?

reply to post by petrus4




I can't remember if he ever defines god to be honest?
As I said he mainly argues against the irrationality of religion and the atrocities carried out in its name.
Religion is dangerous and stupid.... that is mainly what his argument is.


Here is a quote from Dawkins about various Gods

"I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, The golden calf, and the Flying spaghetti monster. I just go one God further"


So his God or description of God is ANY God.

They are all as valid, fanciful and (ir)relevant as each other.

Neo Serf: I cant be sure that square circles do not exist.

If I was to guess I would say he outright dismisses what people commonly think of as "God". He wants to admit he doesn't know and there's no dishonor in that. After all do you really think that our perverted imaginations have managed to accurately remember god through the ages, if in fact something like that exists? If there is some omnipotent being, I doubt he is worried about a bunch of idiots fighting about what color his skin is or how many arms he has.

What's the realistic difference between an atheist and an agnostic anyways? Most religious people think the same of both and most non-religious people think the same about all religions. Atheists are just pissed off agnostics, agnostics are just atheists who could care less. Religion comes with a lot of crap you have to do and believe and stuff, some people label themselves with a religion anyways without doing anything and agnostics just do the same without the label.

Now that Dawkins up and says openly that he isn't sure about god, I would like some champion televangelist to come out and openly say there is a possibility that god doesn't exist... Yea right, they'll mock Dawkins on saturday, go to church on sunday and preach about it, then count the cash on monday. Sometimes I think the non-religious people are actually the former religious, religion just got hijacked by idiots so most of the truly good people left religion.

reply to post by addygrace
Of course it makes sense.

He said that he is 6.9% sure there is no god. Yep based on his opinion but then how can you base the existance of god any other way?

That means his is 0.1 out of 7 that he may be wrong. Anyone with any brain at all on this subject cannot claim 100% there is no god.

He also said that others have called him an atheist but he has never made that claim

The article may be by the telegraph but the grasping at straws is coming from those on here that are trying to make somthing out of nothing. Pretty apt really.

reply to post by petrus4
Doesnt a belief that there is nothing actually mean you believe in something?

Could it be posssible that someone in this modern day could live quite happily without any type of god or religion ever being something they consider important other than witnessing the carnage caused by those who believe it is?

I think it is a progression ..I first believed there was a God despite my living as though He didn't exist ..I then went looking for evidence to the contrary and only found more prof that He did ...As I grow in the knowledge of Him I am more convinced ..Don't ask me to quantify it as I would have to quantify my doubt ..As I grow I know doubt decreases and my faith gets stronger ...Just the way I look at it and seems to be the way faith works for me...peace

I don't think that Dawkins really grasps the idea of impersonal "god".. or such abstract ideas. He always seems to think that we're talking about some man on a cloud.

Not that it really matters if "god" exists anyway. To us, some bacteria on some random planet.

That 6.9% will increase the closer to death he becomes you can be sure of that!

reply to post by EvanB
Oh right. The fear of the unknown is the only reason for belief in a god.

Fair enough.

reply to post by silent thunder


Dawkins already said this stuff didn't he? How is this news to anyone?

I'm only a very casual follower of Dawkins, personally I find him a bit pretentious and I don't like the idea that believers might get in their heads that Dawkins is some kind of atheist leader or anti-Pope.

However even I know that Dawkins has his own SCALE for belief/unbelief called the Dawkin's Scale and when he originally announced it he put himself at a 6, the scale goes up to 7, 7 being absolute certainty that no gods exist. So seeing as how he didn't put himself as a 7 meant he reserves some room for doubt, some room that indeed there MIGHT be a deity out there somewhere or other. Most people who think Dawkins, and all atheists, are just closed-minded uber-skeptics, should actually pay attention to what is being said by them.

Room for uncertainty isn't uncommon among atheists as most atheists are also agnostic at least in regards to un-falsifiable God concepts (aka God's who are simply UNKNOWABLE or who are defined in a nebulous and vague way).

Unbelief can become even more nuanced than that however. For instance I would consider myself a Gnostic Atheist in regards to certain gods, like Zeus, Yahweh or Isis, this is because these god concepts are well defined by mythology, defined specifically enough to rule them out as fictional due to lack of evidence and evidence that directly contradicts them. Those Gods I would say I not only don't believe in but KNOW they do not exist. But in regards to gods like the Deistic "Watch Maker" god I am agnostic because their god is, at least usually, unknowable and does not involve itself in human affairs.

I'm not sure how any of this comes as a surprise to anyone who knows anything about the atheism versus theism debate. The common conception of all atheists as people who just deny the existence of deities altogether is a misconception spread by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I am an agnostic atheist.

Being an agnostic atheist simply means applying a sceptical/rational viewpoint to the question of whether or not a god exists. To characterise it as a belief that god does not exist is to miss the entire point of the position.

The accurate description of my view of god is that i have been given no sufficient evidence to cause me to believe a god exists. It is not a choice to not believe any more than it is a choice for most people to not believe the moon is made of cheese or that ghosts and goblins exist.

Similarly I have not been given evidence that would convince me of the existence of a god.


If i lower the bar of evidence to the point that say I would take the bible to be proof of god then i have to accept the same level of proof offered by others religions, all of which is based on oral tradition and written tradition. The problem comes when you realise that by lowering the bar of evidence that far, the exact same proof that a religion is correct is based on the exact same information that shows it to be incorrect. The exact same level of proof that the mythical Christian god created the world in 6 days disproves the creation myth of the shinto religion, while at the same time the reverse is true, in that the creation myth of the shinto religion by virtue of existing offers the same level of proof that it is correct thus disproving the christian bible myth. And every other creation myth is equally provable.

When you create this position, where you drop the bar of evidence to a point where multiple mutually exclusive solutions are equally likely you have reached a point where your argument for something can prove anything. And an argument that can prove anything proves nothing. When you raise the bar of evidence back up to requiring demonstrable scientific proof all religions fail the test, along with santa and faeries.


That makes me an atheist. And since i cannot disprove the existence of a god being in some form that makes me an agnostic atheist, however this also makes me agnostic on the faeries. That does not mean I am 50/50 between between 'believe' and 'non belief' , it means that currently I have 0 evidence to suggest a god exists and will maintain that position unless some pretty spectacular scientifically testable evidence comes along.

However when I die I will probably become either a gnostic atheist corpse or a gnostic theist phantasm. I say probably in that if I become a phantasm and there is an afterlife but still no sign of a god in charge of it, I will be an agnostic atheist phantasm.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by reaxi0n

 

Many people with physics degrees (like myslef) know that god exists. You would know that too if you got your degree.

Not avoiding anything, Let me get home then I will make a nice answer for you.

edit on 112929p://2America/ChicagoFri, 24 Feb 2012 11:55:09 -0600 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

I am also looking forward to your 100% sure proof of god using physics, known only by secret cabal of people with physics degrees. Bring it on, dont you cop out now!

reply to post by blupblup


Nobody on this planet knows whether whether there is a God or not... NOBODY.




That's not true , numerous people have died and have been brought back to life only to report having met God , I being one of them. People like you just discount our experiences as to some chemical reaction on our. Dying brains.


The fact f the matter is xthat people turn a blind eye to the evidence of God and trust only in science when science itself proves that it is impossible for even the simplest protein strand to occur spontaneously in nature, given the fact you need tens of thousands of these to construct a strand of DNA the odds increase expideniously .

I believe the odds for DNA to occur randomly in nature is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 , Science considers something impossible with odds at 1in 10 to the 50 power.

So for all you so called scientists on the monkey train good luck with that

Oh holy Biggest Bangus,, We pray to you,,, we are thankful for thy physics and bread.........