Richard Dawkins.

[Sanguich]

Seriously though, Richard Dawkins makes no sense to me. He seems like a man desperately trying to prove that his work has no meaning.

From my point of view, it doesn't really matter weather God exists or not. I look at the big picture and see that either:

A) There is some sort of deity that created the universe for a reason.
or
B) All reality is a cosmic accident without meaning or purpose, and one day in the far future there will be no evidence that our lives, culture, country, or planet EVER existed at all.

There are a ton of good points Dawkins makes for B, but why would I want to believe that?

In fact, it was SCIENCE that helped make me think this way! Scientists are pretty agreed that the sun will run out of fuel, and entropy will lead to the heat death of universe.

Maybe I'm just less evolved than you guys, but I need option A to feel any good about life.

You need option A to feel any good about life? I'd propose that if you'd never heard of option A you wouldn't care in the first place. You made some kind of absurd attachment to the notion and now depend on it unreasonably.

Because it's not that hard to come up with your own purpose and be satisfied with it.

So... it's all relative? Any old purpose is as good as another? Does it not matter? Can that statement not be turned around on your or anyone elses view?

Maybe I phrased that badly. Let me put it this way:
There were two options. One was immeasurably depressing, the other offered hope.

I picked the latter.

 

[tmande2nd]

Dude is no better than a youtube troll to me.
He just get pays for his trolling.

I have read far better arguments for atheism than anything he has ever posted.
Also they have a lot less ego, and condescension in them as well.

Dawkins: ANYONE WHO DOES NOT FOLLOW ME IS STUPID!!
Other works: Well here is a good reason and case for my side.

Hell he even titles his works like attacks against religion.
I see zero cause to agree with a man who makes it a personal crusade to mock someone so terribly.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Dude is no better than a youtube troll to me.
He just get pays for his trolling.

I have read far better arguments for atheism than anything he has ever posted.
Also they have a lot less ego, and condescension in them as well.

Dawkins: ANYONE WHO DOES NOT FOLLOW ME IS STUPID!!
Other works: Well here is a good reason and case for my side.

Hell he even titles his works like attacks against religion.
I see zero cause to agree with a man who makes it a personal crusade to mock someone so terribly.

Works? Most of the the stuff that he writes concerns his field.

 

[Agayek]

But there is no available evidence. Concluding, based on no real evidence at all, that something exists is not valid at all.

And yes, everyone has the right to criticize them for it. People have the right to call others out on being irrational.

You're missing the point. Yes, there is no hard evidence that their religion is true.

There's also no evidence that their religion is not true.

I happen to agree with you on the topic, believe it or not. I rather firmly believe that religions are idiotic structures used to control the masses that evolved from man's need to understand his surroundings.

If someone else were to draw a different conclusion, that's their right. We looked at the same evidence (aka, none whatsoever), and if they concluded that was enough to believe in a religion, that is their prerogative. You can debate the merits of their choice all you want, but the fact remains that both viewpoints are supported by equivalent evidence, and therefore equally valid.

Now, letting that belief (or lack thereof) influence your behavior in any way is one of the more agonizingly stupid things you can do, but that's a different matter.

 

[mrblakemiller]

If I remember correctly, he wrote in The God Delusion that it made no sense that Matthew and Luke's gospels give different genealogies for Jesus. So either he didn't understand that one goes back farther (among other things), or he didn't want to give full disclosure because that would prevent him from using this particular datum in his attack on the Bible.

In other words, he unapologetically obfuscates the truth to promote his agenda. He has forfeited his right to be listened to.

 

[Agayek]

The logical conclusion is that God does not exist. You recognize that. So how do you not recognize that the logical thing to do is to dismiss the claim outright until evidence is shown?

That's what I have done. I, personally, see the notion as absolutely ridiculous and put no stock in it. I go to great lengths to debate religion with my theist friends and colleagues and the like. I actively try to get people to examine their beliefs and what drew them to such.

The difference is that I'm not personally offended when someone draws a differing conclusion from mine. You can rant and rave about how your viewpoint is the only valid one all day, but that won't make it any less unprovable. You have no evidence to support your views, they have no evidence to support theirs. Occam's Razer dictates that God does not exist, but in the absence of evidence, it's all a matter of degrees of probability.

PS - The physical evidence of our government not being run by secret reptile men is in medical files, background checks, and all sorts of fancy investigations that have been and continue to be done on just about everyone involved in the government, by a surprisingly large number of citizens or other interested parties.

Beyond that, the point was less "here is some physical evidence" and more "it is a physical thing, and therefore has physical evidence for or against its existence". Metaphysics don't enjoy that particular benefit.

 

[Belaam]

The Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker are amazing.

The man coined the term "meme", for Odin's sake!

That said, I think he's a better science writer than a religion or sociology writer. Give me Hitchens or Harris for views on Atheism over Dawkins any day.

But if you're looking for science, he's your guy.

 

[Agayek]

You're missing the point that if there is no evidence either way the most logical solution is to just dismiss the claim until evidence is actually provided. It is not 'equal'.

And you're missing the point that either way, ones belief in a religion has no bearing on anything whatsoever. It's a wholly metaphysical concept, and as such it is wholly personal. I happen to agree with your chain of logic, but others can draw a different conclusion, and because of the metaphysical nature of it, it's no less valid than yours.

Quit the 'It's their right' BS. It's my right to give away everything I own. The question is not whether it's my right, the question is whether it is a valid option.

And no, equivalent evidence doesn't make it equally valid. Because one is a claim that something exists and one is a claim that it doesn't. It's rather obvious what no evidence supports. Further, Occam's Razor.

I'm not going to quit the "it's their right" thing, because it damn well fucking is. It's a wholly metaphysical concept that has no bearing on reality or anyone else. Everyone has the right to believe in whatever the fuck they want.You have no more right to tell someone what they can or cannot believe than I have the right to control what you eat. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings after all.

No, it really isn't. Because if you believe in something you should act on it. That means it influences your behavior. If you do not believe something you should refrain from acting on it. That is also an influence on your behavior.

Yes it is. Believing a religion and acting in a specific fashion are very separate things. I could be a Christian and not go to Sunday mass or be confirmed or whatever the other bullshit of the religion is. Belief and behavior are two very separate and distinct things, and allowing your religious beliefs to dictate your behavior is an idiotic, foolish, and dangerous thing to do.

Nothing should ever be taken on faith, and we should always be questioning what we believe. Anything less is a failure on every possible level. Letting a religion dictate your behavior is no different from letting a government do the same. Examine the evidence and draw your own conclusions. Believe all you want, but never let it affect your behavior.

 

[Hoplitejoe]

I myself have never read any of his Biology but have heard it is quite good so that is fine. What I object to is his attempts at philosophy. It has long been postulated (and often held that)you can not find god in science. Religion is not a science so why should it be treated as one? He seems to not only ignore this line of though but also to attack people who hold religious beliefs so that many atheist philosophers end up defending there religious counterparts.
I was talking to a friend who told me that he thought that a Christian can't hold a sensible view, I can't help but think with out Dawkins this ignorant view might not be as prominent.

 

[Belaam]

If I remember correctly, he wrote in The God Delusion that it made no sense that Matthew and Luke's gospels give different genealogies for Jesus. So either he didn't understand that one goes back farther (among other things), or he didn't want to give full disclosure because that would prevent him from using this particular datum in his attack on the Bible.

In other words, he unapologetically obfuscates the truth to promote his agenda. He has forfeited his right to be listened to.

Quick question. Was Joseph's father named Heli (Luke 3:23) or Jacob (Matt 1:16)?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I myself have never read any of his Biology but have heard it is quite good so that is fine. What I object to is his attempts at philosophy. It has long been postulated (and often held that)you can not find god in science. Religion is not a science so why should it be treated as one? He seems to not only ignore this line of though but also to attack people who hold religious beliefs so that many atheist philosophers end up defending there religious counterparts.
I was talking to a friend who told me that he thought that a Christian can't hold a sensible view, I can't help but think with out Dawkins this ignorant view might not be as prominent.

Actually, he just challenges the view that questions of religion are outside of the realm of science.

 

[Hoplitejoe]

Religion is not a science, but really people shouldn't go around believing grand claims from something that is so very unscientific.

I quite agree with that but should that not be applied both ways?

 

[Agayek]

But for some reason you do not recognize the problem here.

I recognize what you perceive as the problem, specifically that what evidence you have and the application of logic to same, supports a specific viewpoint. You therefore have decided that it is the only possible correct one. I'm not trying to suggest religions are true, nor am I suggesting anyone should join one. What I've been trying laboriously to get at is that religion, by its nature, is unknowable and unprovable, and beyond that, wholly personal. Religious belief has absolutely no bearing on fact, inference, imagination or reality. It's a belief in a metaphysical concept that has no possibility of ever being proven correct or incorrect.

If people choose to believe in that, it's their business, and only their business. No one else has the right to it.

You can lie all you want, but pointing out why something isn't valid isn't ranting and raving.

True, but I think you're missing the point in favor of the specific words used, which is partly my fault. The point was that it's impossible to prove definitively, and refusing to acknowledge the fact that the possibility, no matter how slight, that you're wrong exists is far more harmful than any amount of religious belief.

Human beings are not perfect. We are flawed beings and we make mistakes. We could both be mistaken, and some religion could actually be the correct one. It's not likely, and I choose not to believe it in the face of the evidence, but it's fully possible.

You are rather vehemently criticizing a choice someone else made, that has absolutely no bearing on you or your life, because it differed from yours. If you can't see the problem with that, then we'll never come to a conclusion on this debate.

In the absence of evidence there is only one logical way to act. As if it's false.

You are quite correct. When finding no evidence of the existence of a physical thing, it's logical, reasonable and correct to assume it does not exist.

That said, "higher beings" are not a physical existence though, and that's where the problem is. Most religious beliefs are centered around the fundamental forces of creation, not a distinct physical being. As such, it's reasonable, if not quite logical, for some to conclude that said metaphysical beings exist.

Irrelevant if you lack the ability to provide the physical evidence.

Except you can. I pay no attention to the lizard man claims, but whatever they are, you can rather quickly find evidence in favor or against them with a bit of effort. There's all sorts of things one can look for. Eggs, altered brain chemistry, skin sheddings, etc etc. If I knew more about it I could go into more detail, but the key point is that they physically exist. Because of that, there is evidence of their existence, no matter how minute or remote. You can therefore use that to prove their existence of lack thereof.

Metaphysical things like God or whatever simply do not have the same luxury. They do not exist physically, and therefore cannot be proven or disproved. If God was an actual physical being, sure we could then prove its existence. It's not though, or at least not in any conventional way we would understand. As such, we can't prove a thing.