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

I'm 100% sure that god doesn't exist. Can I be the most recognizable athiest now?

reply to post by silent thunder


Duh. Congrats to him for figuring out what agnostics have always known.
Atheism is just as much of a faith as Christianity.

reply to post by The_Zomar


That isn't something you can be sure of. That would be embracing ignorance.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Varemia

 

Not home right now, will post your answer when I get the chance. I might even make a thread about it. Stay tuned.

Did you flake out on us?
Where's the thread of 100% proof?

Don't think I have forgotten

reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes


Good question. I like that you called Him my friend.... that's a good thing.

To answer your question.... yes, sometimes we do lie to ourselves. Some more than others. You can probably guess what I'm going to write next: "The only way you would know for sure is to try it for yourself". It's actually the only way that anyone ever finds out about God... No-one ever loses and argument and then concedes to 'believe in God'. That kind of logic is not logic. So just ask... and see what happens. That's the best (the only) way to know. Just do it in sincerity, and God will honor that.

Originally posted by Borag the Horse
reply to post by schadenfreude

 

Quoting the bible is not evidence. The same as quoting Harry Potter isn't evidence of Hogwarts existing.....

8 stars for Borag the Horse. The bible came as a result of a belief in obedience to God, therefore it is evidence for the belief in God's existence. Quoting Harry Potter is no big thing, those books are labeled under fiction, whereas the authors of the bible wrote of life experiences of people who were alive and truths relevant today and was never intended to be labeled fiction.

That's because he's an intelligent man and it would be ignorant to 100% rule out God. It's called agnostic atheism.

Basically, there are only 4 schools of theological thought:

Gnostic theism
You believe 100% in God(s) and do not accept the possibility whatsoever that you are wrong.

Agnostic theism
You believe in God(s) but can accept the possibility that either A) there is no God(s) or B) the specific God you believe in is wrong, but there may be different one out there.

Agnostic atheism
You do not actively believe in God(s), but do not rule out the possibility of Godlike beings existing somewhere in the massive, infinite universe(s).

Gnostic atheism
You 100% do not believe in any God(s) and will not entertain the idea of any existing whatsoever.


Most thinking atheists are agnostic atheists. Most thinking theists are agnostic theists. Those who do not think are those with closed minds.

I am somewhere between the middle 2. I do not actively believe in any God(s), but I do believe that somewhere there are Godlike beings.

reply to post by OrphenFire


Pearls before swine.

No one is reading the thread. It is all diatribe.

That sentiment has been posted at -least- three times.

No one cares because it ends the thread.

Originally posted by Wonders

Originally posted by Borag the Horse
reply to post by schadenfreude

 

Quoting the bible is not evidence. The same as quoting Harry Potter isn't evidence of Hogwarts existing.....

8 stars for Borag the Horse. The bible came as a result of a belief in obedience to God, therefore it is evidence for the belief in God's existence. Quoting Harry Potter is no big thing, those books are labeled under fiction, whereas the authors of the bible wrote of life experiences of people who were alive and truths relevant today and was never intended to be labeled fiction.

Well the bible certainly can't be labelled as non-fiction so where exactly should it go?

The only logically justifiable position is agnosticism. Atheism is just a childish response to Theism. While the latter is understandable, the former is entirely and unabashedly arrogant.

our very existence should us that anything and i mean anything is possible. the fact that we live on a giant malteser in the middle of black space is weird as f@@k? so why cant the be a god or some form of good (god) or evil (devil) after death and reachable during life?

And I can't be 100% sure that the universe wasn't created by Colin the giant immortal intergalactic lobster.

Is there any proof that the universe wasn't created by Colin the giant immortal intergalactic lobster?

No, of course not but the argument is exactly as a universe created by god.

Jog on kitty, nothing to see here.

reply to post by silent thunder


Richard is just being honest - 6.9 out of 7 isn't that big -
An honest athiest would state he didn't 'know' because the whole athiest thing is about not knowing or belieiving if there is a god - They would love proof either way -

No one knows if there is or there isn't - Some of us choose to believe there is a god - some of us choose not
to believe there is a god - You might think you know, but in fact, you don't know, you just believe -

I don't think Richard is hedging his bets or copping out - He is being an honest Athiest - That's it -

I believe there is a 'god' a 'creator' an 'ultimate being/essence' - But I don't KNOW that, I just believe it -

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..

So only certain branches of science can comment on whether God exists or not? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being open-minded and saying God could exist.

This is what I dislike the most about extreme believers in atheism or religions. That being, if you're unsure of something as monumentally complex as the existence/non-existence of God then you're somehow a fool or an intellectual coward.

Really, don't give your hopes up religious folks of ATS, Richard Dawkins has never ever stated once that he 100% believes there isn't a God and has always claimed it is "Highly unprobable", he also in some cases he has said he is "99% sure" whereas as I've seen somebody here say he is 100% sure God exists which is beyond ignorant.
I mean I am 99% sure Odin & Thor watch over us, it doesn't make it true no matter how many writings claim it, I also think most other atheists would also claim to be 99% sure as nobody will ever be sure what lays beyond although we may have a ton of evidence to support a side.

Yes he has stated 99% but most of you are forgetting that it's still 99%... it doesn't make him any less of an atheist but maybe just a slight agnostic atheist, he is and always will be opposed to the idea of intelligent design. In one case he has swore to record his last days on his deathbed to prove he will never convert or come to the idea of God in his end days, www.youtube.com...

In essence I think everybody is making a big hoo-har over nothing, any fan of Dawkins or long running atheist would know Dawkins has never claimed anything to be 100% certain as would most atheists, move along nothing to see here.

I really dont think Dawkins ever claimed 100% on the God thing.

Its an interesting topic though, I must say.

One of the things I have noticed is comparing God to something like "Colin the giant immortal intergalactic lobster." If "Colin the giant immortal intergalactic lobster" created the universe, he would inevitably be God, no? In any case, that just might explain why lobster tastes so great its almost sacriligious (or maybe it is!)

Now, we actually can be certain that any human concept would not 100% encompass what God "is," meaning that ALL human beliefs are limited by our lack of omniscience. Technically, this could also be taken to mean that anyone worshipping the concept of God they have in their mind (which is inevitable) is worshipping a false idol, as it is only contained within one mind of one person. The scriptural (pretty much any religions scripture) God can not logically exist in such a way, solely. It is also a bit of an issue to say that such a being's true characteristics would ever be contained fully within writing.

As has been said by many, the first step would be in defining God. As such a nebulous term, one can pretty much define it in the way that supports ones current perspective of "truth." I would say this sort of thing is done pretty much innately by our nature. This presents an issue, of course, in bias confirmation regardless of stance.

The psychology involved on what leads to a more atheist or theist stance is inevitably built upon in supportive ways by further information received. However, as to whether God "exists," it all comes down to how one defines it. And one will tend to define it in the way that will confirm what they know to be true. One thing we can do is define "it" in the most logical parameters, still retaining "creator-level" characteristics (omnipotent, omnipresent), and see if we can apply it to the cultural stance we find most accurate (i.e. science, religion).

Could those characteristics (lets say.. omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal) apply to anything we know within science? Could they apply to anything we know within religion? Are there any similarities to the universe that "science,", "christianity," "buddhism," and all other perspectives describe? One might say that all these things are just a human concept based on the very same thing. The similarities, across such differing borders, would seem to best illustrate the "true" nature of the universe within and around us. It seems that such a way of cooperation (harmony) is considered sub-par to conflict (duality) in explaining something none of us can truly comprehend in its entirety.

So, ill propose a different way to look at it; All atheists could easily define God to exist in a way that would fit into their cultural story logically and rationally, and all theists could easily define the God they know to not exist by virtue of the fact "that" God only exists within their mind.

Originally posted by old_god


You many not believe there is someone, of authority, above you but just look at the scale of the universe, there could be life forms out there that make us look like dust and they will be nothing in comparison to whoever created this known universe.

Logic is one thing, and science will use it as an instrumentation device (engineering term for measuring stuff and reading things like voltage, forces, waves...) but you also have to balance that side with common sense and the big questions mark, the unknown factor that can never be truly calculated out of an equation.

So take out religion, meta science and the "hippies" out of the equation, you can't rule out that something much grander, be it god or whatever made the known universe with absolute precision and purpose - that thing must be VASTLY SUPERIOR than us.

That is the problem with us humans, we are too afraid to admit that something potentially amazing or terrifying out is out there that we simply cannot comprehend.

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

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

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

There is something out there and its NATURE we dont need a god, now long ago when people couldn't work out why things happen thats when they needed god(s) .

Thats why round the world we have sun gods,rain gods, the god of thunder etc etc it was their way of giving a reason to why things they could not understand happened.

MAN is very good at creating god(s) just look here.

www.lowchensaustralia.com...

Thats a list of some of the gods from around the world, these people in all areas of the world also had creation stories for the universe,earth and us they are all different they CAN'T all be right but they CAN all be wrong

Why did this so called mighty creator allow this to happen I mean if he created everything then making sure that all the people on the earth knew of him would be a piece of cake to him/her/it

Or is it not obvious that because of the people who first thought of their god(s) did not know about people in other parts of the world thats why everywhere has its own system for god(s).

MAN created god(s) not the other way and judging by the list of them MAN was pretty good at it

reply to post by petrus4

That is why, however, that on the rare occasion when a member of this faction's leadership circle *does* express a balanced or sane opinion, it's a fantastic thing.

I don't follow much of Dawkins or the late Christopher Hitchens but I do pay attention to what Sam Harris is doing from time to time. To my knowledge Harris makes a lot of very sane arguments though I'm sure if I followed him more closely I'd find things to disagree with I think his material about morality, the Moral Landscape, is excellent. It always frightens me when religious folks claim that without God and the Bible or the Koran we'd all be lost as far as morality is concerned.

That might be pantheism, perhaps; but I'm not sure.

Definitely sounds like a brand of pantheism. After I could no longer call myself a Christian I drifted between a sort of deism and a sort of pantheism with a bit of reincarnation mixed in but eventually I had to admit to myself that I had no reason to believe in that either. Really I was just believing at that point to stave off the fear of death and keep my hopes up that there was something greater, better, than us pitiful mortals. I'm an atheist now.

Either way I'd be doing what I can to argue against religion and try to free minds. The way I see it I managed to escape Fundamentalism and Creationism, the least I can do is try to help others who were in my situation, or folks who might be on the fence, escape as well. Some say that makes me a militant atheist, or even an Evangelical atheist but really I'm just trying to help people escape the indoctrination and start thinking about these things.

Not surprisingly I don't get in many arguments with pantheists or deists. Your God concept is not falsifiable because it's too nebulous, I can't argue against it.

The "new" atheist movement is hit or miss, sometimes they just piss people off, other times they hit the nail on the head.

Originally posted by truthinfact
Am I really the only one who thought,

"Who the Hell is Richard Dawkins?"

He's the foremost evolutionary biologist in the world, one of the most famous scientists alive in any discipline.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Varemia

 

Not home right now, will post your answer when I get the chance. I might even make a thread about it. Stay tuned.

I am still waiting for the proof too. Come on: spill the beans