If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The dictionary provides a number of definitions of faith. Two of which are:
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
I would consider atheistic faith the former of the two, and religious faith the latter. I don't believe either that an atheist's faith is "just as much faith" as a religious person's faith.
Richard Dawkins has never claimed to be an atheist; a straw-man which is oft used when attempting to discredit him.
Of course science doesn’t know everything, and can't prove much unequivocally either, but the suggestion by some people that what science doesn't know infers religion, is absolute lunacy.
Can anyone prove that Tooth Fairy doesn't exist?
I can certainly prove that the money under my pillow didn't come from her.
You can't proove a negative in the case of God, but it is also impossible to proove a positive.
People asking me to proove the existence of God seem to be missing my point. Their is no possible way to proove his existence or lack of it. To suggest because you cannot prove his existence he doesn't exist seems to be as equally based on a logical fallacy as that because you cannot prove he doesn't exist he exists.
If you want to claim that your argument is based on rationality and logic, it seems to me that the only possible outcome is to be an agnostic. We do not have enough knowledge either way.
Of course he has!!! All the time. He is an ardent and outspoken atheist. He is a Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society, vice-president of the British Humanist Association and a Distinguished Supporter of the Humanist Society of Scotland. The Richard Dawkins Award is instituted by The Atheist Alliance International in his honour.
Depends on your definition of Atheism i guess. I'd call his position agnostic.
The probability of a deity existing is not 50-50. In fact the probability of the existence of "God" is very low, and even more so if you believe in the God described in the books of the various religions that can be found on Earth.
Is there more than one core definition of Atheism other than it is the disbelief in the existence of any deities?
However, more importantly, what is HIS position on the definition of Atheism?
I would suggest that the amount of links and references to Atheism that appear on his website (http://richarddawkins.net/), would indicate that he is far happier with the term 'atheist' to the term 'agnostic'.
How do you calculate probability? Are you dead? Do you have experience of the afterlife? Or were you around to see Jesus's miracles and pronounce them as a conjuring trick?
Unless you have more evidence you cannot even begin to calculate the probabilities.
It is highly improbable that there is a god because he himself must have been created by somebody. It doesn't make any more sense than belief in a magical creature that takes your tooth away and leaves change in its place.
I can calculate the probability of Santa because I have small children. I can calculate the probability of the tooth fairy because when I was little I caught my Dad slipping a 10p beneath my pillow.
The probabilities about God are slightly more complex, because our knowledge isn't good enough. The Bible and Koran both have sections which have been independently verified by other archelogical and historical evidence, so to suggest that they're the same as the tooth fairy shows the closed mindnessness atheists seems so keen to deny they have.
even the argument that God must have been created by someone just shows the limitations of the human mind, rather than proof. We as humans are simply unable to contemplate infinity and need some belief that something started somewhere. To use that as proof isn't evidence, its doctrine.
Do you not see the irony of using that statement to make an argument for the existance of a creator? If we say that God must have had a creator because the human mind cannot comprehend infinity, then you are also saying that we say that the universe must've had a "creator" because we cannot comprehend infinity. I personally have no problem comprehending the idea that the universe is infinite, so I don't feel the need to make up a creator for it.
That the human mind cannot comprehend certain things is one of the very reasons some people believe in God. Religion and faith are the easy way out- they actively seek to stop people from thinking of alternatives and accept their version of events.[/QUOTE]
Can you prove that? Because one criticism of atheism is exactly the same. That atheism is a response to people's inability to concieve of a being who's existence is outside normal human perimeters.
Once you begin to admit that there is a possibility about the existence of God, you cease to become an atheist. Welcome to the world of rational thinking beings.
The existence of God and whether he is the God of the Bible are two different things. And one again which we don't know the answer. If he exists he may be a loving God who forgives our sins or he may be a vengeful God
ETA the quoting seems to be fucked...
Not quite. Even though I admit there is a possibility of a deity existing I don't believe in it. Just as I admit there is a possibility of the Tooth Fairy existing (however infinitesimal) but I don't believe in it.
The God described in any of the three main religions cannot possibly exist because:
a) is described as a perfect being
b) is described as an egomaniac, despot, sexist, cruel, murdering and vengeful being
which would make him a very imperfect being indeed
It's straying from the point of the thread slightly but this is bang on.
Humans are unique in that we have the ability to ask "why?" and "how?" and to seek answers. God-botherers attempt to collectively hold back the advancement of mankind by opting for the Fisher Price solution instead of using the intelligence we have to question things.
Think your being a little harsh there. God isnt just something to beleive in, or a way to explain our existence as humans Its a way of life. Im skeptical over any actuall higher power, but if it gives people strength an ultimaley makes them a better person, then you cant blame them for the beleif.
Agnosticism is the way forward lads. :thumb:
All Religions are not about this single deity.:mad:
And before any more of you go saying that No religion is based on scientific evidence.
The old Norse beliefs, written before scientific theories and existing as spoken tradition long before the time of Christ, are quite scientific.
Norse texts are designed to put across ideas that are hard to comprehend by telling someone straight out. As such they are not meant to be taken literally.
The norse belief has 9 worlds, the same as we have in our solar system (unless you start counting the even further out 'planets' (scientists don't even know what to classify them as). And these people did not have a telescope according to science. How then do you see the other eight worlds without one? Some can be seen but only those closest to us.
The Norse beginning of the universe explains the Big Bang in metaphorical form. And these beliefs have been about for well over 2 thousand years.
The lesson in this post is to not Tar all religions with Monotheism's Brush.:thumb:
Now that that's done I have decided to include a set of questions of how to argue against the Evangelist Argument you get from door to door God Squads and Street Preachers. Hope these help those who have to deal with such people on a regular basis. Act like you are interested in what they have to say and then start asking them questions like these:
1. If God is omnipotent then why did he take 6 days to create the world? And why did he need to rest?
2. If we are created in his image (as it says in the bible), how come women walk this earth? Why does man need woman to help create life? Surely if this 1 God can make life on his own and man is created in his image then we'd be able to do the same.
3. God is supposed to be all good and Satan all evil. Then why is it that God has killed literally millions in the bible and Satan so few?
4. (linked to 3.) Now that you know your 'accurate' holy book shows God committing Murder and Genocide, who has sinned more you or God?
5. (linked to 4.) If you still say you, why? What have you done that's worse than killing millions of people?
6. If the bible is entirely accurate, as you say, then where does it mention dinosaurs? They are something that is proven to have existed long before humans were on this planet.
7. If God is omnipotent and loves all his children, like you say, then why were people like Hitler able to carry out their atrocities?
A lot of the time these will be enough to make them leave or stop throwing scripture about at least. :yippe:
I’ve never come across anyone who has “blind faith” in the non-existence of God.
What makes this whole debate laughable is that while non-believers apply rational and critical thought to the problem, believers use the fact that scientific theories are just that, to prove the existence of God. It’s absolutely bonkers.
Just because gravity is an imperfect theory, doesn’t lend credence to a giant pink bunny with a massive water magnet who hides on the dark side of the moon controlling the tides.
The "You can't disprove the existence of God" argument is another beauty. You’re right; I can’t unequivocally prove he’s not there. That doesn’t for one second mean that childhood indoctrination and blind faith are an equal basis for argument as constant research and revised theories are.
The reason that science and religion constantly clash is because one is a thinking mans realm, and the other, quite frankly isn’t.
Yes that's true, so do many agnostics yet they don't put the ball in either side of the court. Atheism is the belief there is no god, not that "there might or might not be so lets try and find out if there is one" which makes a lot more sense to me.
Who advocated childhood indoctrination? As far as I'm concerned that's a matter for the parents of a child and children should be given exposure to both sets of arguments in order to make a final decision in later life.
There are scales of belief in all camps. I'm agnostic going on athiest. I accept that there is a fantastically remote possibility some old bearded dude created the universe in seven days, but it's almost so ridicoulous as to not be taken into account.
Every parent who's brought their child up in the same religion as them?
My point being that just because someone's parents told them what to believe at an early age, it doesn't make that a credible argument when debating the likelihood of a deity existing.
Who believes in an old bearded man in the sky? Certainly not any religious people I know.
It's their child, their choice. If everyone in the world was so indoctrinated by religion then there would be no atheists in the first place. People make their own decisions later in life, if a parent wants their child to grow up in a Christain environment and go to a Christain school then so be it.
However, there's a difference between knowing something and believing in it. Unless someone has found proof for one of the two, it would be stupid for him/her to say (s)he's sure God exists or that there is no God. However, they can believe either.
An agnostic isn't someone who isn't sure if God exists, if it was like that everyone who can think rationally would be an agnostic by definition. it's someone who believes there's no reason to believe either.
Plenty of people believe that God created the world in seven days. Hell, plenty of people believe that the world is 10,000 years old because they added up all the ages of people in the bible; even more people believe the Koran is the literal word of God. It’s borderline insanity. God actually dictated the words in the Koran – genius.
Generally if you route around in the beliefs of religious person for long enough you'll find crazy. It’s almost always there; whether it be dinosaur fossils being put here to test our faith, or the heinous sin of homosexuality, it’s all there.
Bollocks is it their choice. Every child should be presented with the facts about religion, nothing more. Indoctrination of a child instantly starts a process of segregation and the retardation of rational thought. And don’t get me started on religious schools.
As for people making choices later in life, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Only 1 in 8 (I’ll find you a source when I get home) people manage to break away from the religion of their parents. A fact which flies in the face of the notion people outgrow the religion of the previous generation.
Nuff said.
Religion is merely the institutionalisation of a natural human compunction. That's all.
In addition you could also suggest that if there is a god and he's anything like the gods described in the big monotheist religions he would have intervened often either to perform miracles, avert disasters, or perhaps more probably, inflict his wrath on entire peoples and towns, which is something that he was supposed to be doing on an almost daily basis according to the various holy books. But nothing. Nada. Either the chap doesn't give a shit or he's dead (which is an argument proposed by some).
Everything points out to the non existence of a god. But since we're never going to be able to do anything else to find out, I suggest one thing: the whole of mankind, or as many of us as possible, should demand that God makes himself known to mankind at a preset date and time, or 'his children' will renounce him however.
Fan of the film Dogma then?
No a fan of Lewis Carroll actually.