February 24th, 2012, 02:14 PM #1
Dawkins claims he isn't sure God doesn't exist.
link: Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist - Telegraph
By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor
7:19AM GMT 24 Feb 2012
He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.
What do you think? Is he really having a religious crisis?They say technology slows down for no one. I know it outruns my wallet. I figure its because my wallet isn't light enough yet.
TechIMO Folding@home Team #111 - Crunching for the cure!
dulce bellum inexpertis
February 24th, 2012, 02:33 PM #2
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- almost Virginia
- Blog Entries
Well there you go. If he can be swayed to the possibility of god then everyone else should just believe.
Truth be told, you can't in all good conscience deny the possibility of god.
February 24th, 2012, 02:37 PM #3
Vern you are reading way to much into this as he has never changed his tune in his lack of belief.
He bases his agnosticism on his 7 point scale which can be found in his book, The God Delusion. He even says in the video that he is a 6.9 which relates his opinion to that of probability such as found in the concept of science that 99.9% probability is as near certain as you can boast about any scientific claim.
Here is his position on the scale of 6.9.
6.De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7.Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
If you want I can scan the page from the book.
Nothing new here.“Religion: Together we can find the cure.”
February 25th, 2012, 09:31 AM #4
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Burning in Florida
- Blog Entries
And this is why I applaud and respect him. He shares a very similar belief to me in the sense of almost 100% certainty, but understanding that you cannot guaranteee it as you simply just do not know.
I consider those who are 100% certain on EITHER side of the fence to be nuts, as even with all the proof you think you have, you just don't know and cannot prove without a doubt it/he/she does not exist, nor does exist.
I suppose we will all find out when we are laid to rest. (or assuming the thoughts of a non-believer, will we?)Main PC: AMD FX-9590 / 16gb DDR3 2400 / AMD R9 290X @ 1100 Core & 1350mhz Mem / Win7 Pro 64bit
Linux Boxr: AMD FX-8120/ 4gb DDR3 1866/ Nvidia GTS450/ Ubuntu 12.04
Laptop: HP-Compaq nc8430/ Intel CoreDuo T2400 / 2gb DDR2 667/ Ati x1600 / WinXP Pro 32bit
February 25th, 2012, 11:07 AM #5
At 99.9999999% sure that there isn't, I'll take the odds that something doesn't exist and is nothing more than a thought experiment gone wild for some. The odds aren't good and it's all due to a little thing called evidence. There's a total lack of evidence of there ever being any gods. The Christian god suffers the same scrutiny that the other gods suffer in this respect.“Religion: Together we can find the cure.”
February 25th, 2012, 07:24 PM #6
Heck, you could even bring the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle into it. Try to look at things too closely and you just can't. :-)Never send to know for whom the bell tolls . . .
February 25th, 2012, 10:40 PM #7
Oh the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, right. I was just thinking of that...
February 26th, 2012, 12:20 AM #8
Are you making fun of me, Auntie Surreal? :-)Never send to know for whom the bell tolls . . .
February 26th, 2012, 01:37 AM #9This is the way of the righteous, such as they are. As I have already pointed out, the concept of doubt is a double-edged sword with the religious. I find it amusing that if an atheists acquiesces even a sliver of self-skepticism, then they must, must, must concede that all the myths, legends and fairy-tales – no matter how ridiculous – should receive the same treatment.
They posit that anyone who exhibits anything less than a complete 7 on the Dawkins scale is obligated to consider the possibility that everything else that comprises the bible and religious theology should, by default, be considered for debate. This mindset was the catalyst for all the batshit crazy stories that have been littering the ether and airwaves over the past few days that gist toward the theistification of Dr. Dawkins, when, in fact, over the years he has become an even stronger atheist.“Religion: Together we can find the cure.”
February 26th, 2012, 06:58 AM #10
February 26th, 2012, 08:45 AM #11
I don't get it
This is just another example of the media reporting about some dude running his mouth about his religious( or NON ) beliefs.
Is he supposed to be on the same level Jesus Christ ?????
The Nation which forgets it's defenders will itself be forgotten
You cannot make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them–wipe them out!
February 26th, 2012, 08:55 AM #12
Actually, Richard is on a different level. We know he exists.“Religion: Together we can find the cure.”
February 27th, 2012, 11:58 AM #13
March 2nd, 2012, 10:39 AM #14I don't like signatures.
March 2nd, 2012, 01:25 PM #15
March 2nd, 2012, 01:47 PM #16
"Almost all scholars agree"
Apologetic scholars will agree maybe but there is a real case against the historical Jesus. The evidence for is exclusively Christian. The writers of the gospels are admittedly not of the same time period proposed for the historical Jesus. The writings in the current Bible have been re-written so many times you can't get an accurate date for anything written in the Bible. There are so many inconsistencies in the Bible that you really have to take anything it says about history with a large grain of salt. Most of this type of talk comes from Bible scholars that are and aren't religious. Their main goal is to record what is known and what isn't. They have come up with very little actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
So to say most scholars would actually be saying, most theologians I would suspect. Those are historical scholars. They dare Christian propaganda peddlers.
You should read a little G.H. Wells or Richard Carrier for a more accurate view of what is and isn't valid historical evidence.
The jury is still very much out on this one.“Religion: Together we can find the cure.”
March 2nd, 2012, 01:55 PM #17
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- almost Virginia
- Blog Entries
As for him existing??? Was Jesus an an un-comon name?
Joseph Smith performed miracles before thousands.
He healed many people of sickness, many of which were close to death. One non-member women with a withered hand came to visit with Joseph and several other people, and Joseph suddenly got up, walked over to her, and commanded that her hand be made whole. Several people witnessed this first miracle, and marveled that her hand became fully functional.
March 2nd, 2012, 02:02 PM #18
March 2nd, 2012, 02:08 PM #19
But I guess we both see in the evidence what we want ourselves to see.I don't like signatures.
March 2nd, 2012, 03:44 PM #20
It's what is verifiable. Got any links to your evidence? I’ll see what is known and verifiable or where apologetics has written in something.“Religion: Together we can find the cure.”
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Gomer in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 109Last Post: November 26th, 2007, 02:03 PM
By Gomer in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 239Last Post: November 23rd, 2007, 04:48 PM
By Beemer in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 0Last Post: May 29th, 2007, 12:14 AM
By Beemer in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 7Last Post: January 18th, 2007, 11:09 AM