Richard Dawkins.

Recommended Videos

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
Fagotto said:
What evidence do you have supporting your assertion that God does not exist? And don't say "there is no evidence supporting the existence of God, therefore I don't need to provide evidence to the contrary". Lack of evidence for something does not prove conclusively that it is false.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
If he were to state his opinions in a more neutral manner, I'd probably like him but he comes across as too much of a jerk for my tastes.
 

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
Fagotto said:
SonicKoala said:
What evidence do you have that your dog is not God?
I never made any claim suggesting that God exists - you are the one claiming he does not exist. And therefore, I ask you - where is your evidence for God's non-existence?
 

Vhite

New member
Aug 17, 2009
1,980
0
0
Velvo said:
I have to say, while I respect Dr. Dawkins immensely for the work he has done to further science and weed out ignorance and pseudo-science, his aggressive anti-religious adherence is a bit off putting.

I'm not one to come out in support of religious dogma or anything, but there is indeed something inherent in the human system which seeks higher meaning in an abstract and metaphysical sense. Certainly, religious thought is not the only way to seek this metaphysical longing (I myself have constructed my own theories on the nature of reality), but it is a primary part of many people's lives. It is tied to their culture and self-identity.

When someone comes along to deliberately and aggressively shake your belief structure, it's not just shaking your belief. It can come as an assault on your culture and indeed, your identity within that culture. It is INSULTING.

I'm sure Dr. Dawkins only means to spread the practice of scientific inquisitive thought to replace superstitious thinking, but critical thinking can and does exist within the confines of spiritual life.

I'm not a religious man myself, nor would I call myself particularly spiritual, but I respect a person's background and, while I may call things into question about their thoughts on observable phenomena, I leave matters of faith alone. I personally cannot find reason enough to believe in the sanctity of any particular dogma, but I cannot tell another person that their long held belief is totally wrong when I have NO REAL SUBSTITUTE. Physics and Metaphysics are pretty different.

The best that you can do is inspire true critical thought in people and lead them to come up with their own questions about their particular faith. If a person cannot bring themselves to question their faith THEMSELVES, then they merely have not yet gained that basic scientific epistemology that we can truly KNOW nothing. Perhaps that is the divide that most separates the devout from the secular.

The tenants of science are indeed important and ever-present in human logic and should be spread far and wide, but only in conjunction with a healthy respect for culture and context.
I think I love you now.
 

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
Fagotto said:
SonicKoala said:
I'm sorry, but why is it that you think disingenuously snipping people's posts out and not addressing anything they said is a good way to behave?
Practically everything you said in your other post amounted to the same thing - that there is no evidence for God. Why would I bother to address that, when that isn't the point of this discussion? I'm not trying to prove the existence of anything - my original point was highlighting the logical flaw in making a claim without providing any sort of evidence to substantiate it.

You have inadvertently made a claim - that god doesn't exist. So I ask you again - where is your evidence to support this claim?
 

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
Fagotto said:
SonicKoala said:
Fagotto said:
SonicKoala said:
I'm sorry, but why is it that you think disingenuously snipping people's posts out and not addressing anything they said is a good way to behave?
Practically everything you said in your other post amounted to the same thing - that there is no evidence for God. Why would I bother to address that, when that isn't the point of this discussion? I'm not trying to prove the existence of anything - my original point was highlighting the logical flaw in making a claim without providing any sort of evidence to substantiate it.

You have inadvertently made a claim - that god doesn't exist. So I ask you again - where is your evidence to support this claim?
Congratulations on your inability to read my other post. It said more than that. And it explained the reasoning.

You keep asking a question that has an answer. Why are you so dishonest that you can't read the damn post I made already that addressed that idea? Is it impossible for you to have any integrity or something?
Your evidence for God's non-existence, according to your other posts, is the absence of evidence for his existence. That is not conclusive evidence proving God's non-existence. You do not have direct, tangible evidence disproving God. However, I take your point that until there is evidence to suggest God may exist (which will probably never happen), then it is not a point even worth considering.
 

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
Elcarsh said:
SonicKoala said:
I never made any claim suggesting that God exists - you are the one claiming he does not exist. And therefore, I ask you - where is your evidence for God's non-existence?
Did he ever, even once, claim that it is a verifiable fact that god doesn't exist?

Could you point me to that statement, because I seem to have missed it.
"Not really, no. It is for all intents and purposes as true a statement as you're going to get it. The amount of questioning that can be done about its accuracy amounts to quibbling over the exact amount of atoms between two objects."

This was a statement made by him in response to my claim that one cannot assert something as sweeping as "there is no God" without having evidence to support that claim. He might as well have claimed it to be a verifiable fact.
 

aenimau5

New member
Dec 19, 2010
133
0
0
He seems like a decent scientist although he's a bit... abrasive when it comes to religion, he makes good points but he just comes across as though he thinks he's superior to everyone else
 

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
Fagotto said:
It's funny how you whine about accuracy, yet fail to notice little things like "for all intents and purposes". That is not the same as claiming it is a verifiable fact.
So you admit it is not a verifiable fact? Because that's essentially the point I've been trying to make this entire time. "There is no God" is not a verifiable statement, and is therefore not a statement which should be regarded as factual.