Without addressing every single point by every single person who has quoted me, I will address your post since it is the most rational and level headed.
Mako SOLDIER said:
You are right on that, however the problem with Atheism (not that all Atheists are as bullish on this as others, I don't in any way mean to generalise) is that it can be interpreted in two ways : simply a belief that science can explain everything,
I don't think this is a typical view for either atheists or scientists (who are, incidentally, groups you should not conflate)
or an active belief that all religion is false (a delusion, in Dawkins' own words).
It certainly doesn't divide into those two.
Then I must concede that my experience of atheism has been a sad misrepresentation of the belief on a most fundamental level. My experience of atheists (in person primarily, although I would be lying if I said that interviews on topical newscasts etc* haven't had a part) has been fallen pretty strongly into these definitions. I suppose that makes them no more atheist than a handful of idiots who choose to interpret a small part of their holy book as an instruction to blow people up, so if I am indeed wrong on that then I concede it. This, of course leaves many of my arguments as merely statements of opinion rather than points against atheism. I'm still going to respond to some of your other points too, but mainly for purely academic reasons, ie I think this could be an interesting, civil discussion.
*Thankfully I have never watched Fox News and stick entirely to Channel 4 and the BBC, so while some of the people may have some sort of personal agenda, the actual stations and shows are fairly neutral (if perhaps on the liberal side at times).
I am not confident that science can explain everything (though I think it's the best tool we have right now), and while I don't "actively believe" (whatever that means) that religion is "false", I also believe it isn't true. I take the post-positivist view that things that are unfalsifiable exist outside of epistemology. That is, if you cannot prove something to be false, then it should be rejected. Not rejected because you believe it's false, but rather because you believe it is irrelevant.
In short, do I believe in God? No. Do I believe there isn't a God? Formally, no, but for all practical purposes, yes. The question of whether or not there is a god does not inform any decisions I will make about my life. In effect, I live my life as though he doesn't exist, so, in an informal sense, you could say I believe he doesn't exist.
I completely respect your belief, and so long as it comes without judgement then I have absolutely no problem with it. Perhaps titles like 'The God Delusion' don't do Dawkins any favours (and unfortunately, you don't see much by way of other prominent Atheist authors in pride of display, so they kinda jump out at you), but it's that aggressive "I do not believe it and those who do are wrong/stupid/ignorant" attitude that I believe does nobody any favours. I suppose I have generalised based on the aforementioned experience/media/etc, but I suppose that (much like with religious groups) it's the aggressive minority that maintain the highest profile.
An analogy: What if I told you the world was going to end tomorrow? Would you believe me? I wouldn't, if I were you. Let's say, for sake of argument that you didn't believe me. Would you say that you "actively" believe the world will NOT end tomorrow? Perhaps you wouldn't. But would you live your life today as though it were going to end tomorrow? Certainly not. So informally, one could conclude that you believe the world will not end tomorrow.
That's how I feel about God. There is equal proof for the existence of God as there is that the world is going to end tomorrow. However, neither premise can be conclusively disproven (though in the latter, I guess we'll find out tomorrow, but by then, it will be too late).
Another good point, but I put it to you that the two things are significantly different in scope. Seismological studies, predictions based upon our current knowledge of physics, etc can bring us pretty close to a solid prediction that the world will not end tomorrow. Of course, chance is a pretty significant variable too, so it couldn't be absolutely certain. Other than supposition, we have no way of testing the idea that (hypothetically of course, I don't personally believe this) some natural force we have yet to discover didn't methodically create the conditions for the big bang or contribute the catalyst to start it off. Now, as you say, we probably won't ever be able to conclusively prove or disprove that, but I would certainly say it puts some distance between the two statements.
These are two very different conclusions, and only one of them is scientific.
Atheism is not directly related to science. Some people are atheists for reasons having nothing to do with science (for example, the Problem of Evil) and others are atheists despite having no particular scientific training or mindset. There is a correlation between the two, probably, but only because people who reject religious teachings tend to have a mind that lends itself well to scientific thinking.
Again, this relies upon my misconception of Atheism as a whole. My apologies. I wouldn't say that rejection of religious ideas and a scientific mind necessarily go hand in hand, as inquisitiveness about the nature of things lies at the heart of both ideals. Religious belief taken to rigid extremes is certainly rather irreconcilable with scientific thinking, but I'm sure there are plenty of excellent scientists who have some sort of religious belief.
The big bang theory is a good example. We all (as do I) take it as true because it is currently the most feasible of several theories, but it has not yet been proven.
This statement suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of science. It is commonly believed that scientific theories can be proven correct. They cannot. They can only be proven incorrect. The Big Bang Theory has held up well to scientific scrutiny and has made many correct predictions while never encountering evidence that disproves it. Thus it is, scientifically, a good theory.
Well, yes, I certainly do not see it as a bad theory, but at the time that 'A Brief History of Time' was written (or was it one of Hawkings essays from 'Black Holes and Baby Universes...'? It was a while ago that I read them to be honest) there was still a divide in opinion on whether that was the best possible theory. Something to do with the curve of space (I think) and how depending upon one factor a completely different theory was equally feasible. I see your point about needing to disprove rather than prove a theory, but I took the opposite stance here because I've heard so many "Just because science can't disprove god doesn't mean that he/she/it exists" arguments that I thought I'd go in with a perspective that conceptually counters that to begin with. I suppose I probably should have thought that through a bit better.
No. At least no more than any scientific theory is inconclusive.
Absolutely, no argument there.
Science can attempt to disprove certain specific religious dogma but it has yet to prove anything either way regarding the mere concept of a 'greater force' or whatever you want to call it.
And it likely never will. In fact, any phenomena that we could observe and verify would be the basis for a change to existing scientific models (or their rejection and the formulation of a new model). For something to be truly supernatural, it would have to obey rules that are not of this universe, which is something we would not be able to conclusively distinguish. Science, therefore, is completely incapable of identifying supernatural phenomena. All phenomena look natural in the eyes of science. As opposed to the pantheist, who takes the polar opposite view and sees god in everything.
Just to play devils advocate, what is your view of those beliefs (such as certain modern polytheistic ideas) that see god in everything but view deity as a convenient way for the layman to express the physical and chemical processes that govern our universe in a manner that they can better connect with? For instance, some branches of paganism hold masculine and feminine as separate divine forces, but see them as simple interpretations of the duality that dominates pretty much everything from reproduction to the charged particle pairs (to glibly simplify molecular physics, although I'm sure there are exceptions within what we currently understand)
By this rationale it is completely justified to believe that there is none. However, to tell others that they are wrong, to question their intelligence etc on that basis, is very wrong indeed.
Well, it is rude, certainly.
Certainly, and it is this attitude that I take issue with. Heck, I don't care if someone believes that the Smurfs created the world and will one day rule over it, just so long as they don't pointedly disparage the beliefs of everyone else in the process.
Sure, I could say that there is an invisible bar of soap floating in the middle of the room, but it is not only ludicrous, the hypothesis can also be tested.
Perhaps it is. You could probably move a sheet through the room on the theory that it would still be a solid object that would interact with the sheet. But what if the bar of soap also dissolves instantly when it comes in contact with matter? Perhaps then you could seal the room, put it in a vaccuum, weigh it, and then calculate painstakingly how much it would weigh without a bar of soap in it. Ok, what if I suggested that there was an elf removing the bar of soap right before you weigh the room and adding it back immediately after? Well, then I suppose you'd have to find some way to conclusively prove there was no elf doing that.
Do you see how the goalposts can be endlessly moved to make it impossible to disprove something?
Yeah, sadly I do. I also see how that could apply to schools of thought like "It happened because it was god's will", which is unfortunately another reason why (as we seem to agree) inflexibility of belief is such a bad thing. However, it doesn't really apply to a general "I believe in some sort of greater power/consciousness" type of faith.
If I said "How did the universe reach the state it was in before the big bang?" or even just "Why does the universe exist at all", science does not yet have the necessary information to properly test those hypotheses.
Furthermore, science does not concern itself with why. "Why" is a question for philosophers. "How" is a question for science.
Yes, but (just to nitpick) aren't "Why did the big bang happen?" and "How did the correct conditions for the big bang come to exist at the time that they did?" essentially the same question? To me it seems that "Why?" is just the question of "How?" taken back a step in the logical sequence.
It probably will do eventually imo, but at the moment we certainly don't have enough evidence to persecute people who do believe it could be part of some grand design.
Why would we persecute them at all? People should be free to believe whatever they want to, whether it is reasonable or not. Not that they should have the freedom to *act* on that belief however they want to, but we should not persecute people for belief alone.
I couldn't agree more. Again this goes back to my (apparently misrepresentative) experiences with Atheism where there has seemed to be a certain pretty strongdisrespect towards religious people. Unfortunatly judging from a few of the "Lolz, why would I vote for a fictional person?" type of comments in this thread alone, there are certainly people out there giving Atheism a bad name. I guess that's the unfortunate part of a belief system that takes a stance that specifically believes the notion of religion to be incorrect - everyone who takes the same contrary stance falls under the same heading regardless of what type of person they are. Sure, some of those posters may have simply been from non-christian backgrounds, but I'd imagine it's unlikely, since I think most world religions recognise Jesus, even if they don't believe he was a prophet/deity.
Hmm, thinking about it, even someone who has no belief in any religion would likely recognise that Jesus could well have been a common name at the time and as such, there was bound to be someone by that name, even if he was actually a serial arsonist who wore a turnip for a hat. Perhaps the real problem is simply intolerant people who enjoy stirring up trouble.
