4 ms·

He gives lip service to being agnostic, but like most atheists, doesn't really see the difference. Evolution really has nothing to do with god. The only people

He gives lip service to being agnostic, but like most atheists, doesn't really see the difference. Evolution really has nothing to do with god. The only people who think it does seem to be ones like Dawkins and creationists that discount it completely. The rest of us don't see the conflict. Evolution does not allow one to come to a conclusion that there is no god. Nor does it create - in any critical assessment- the environment to say you don't believe in god, and that this belief is supported by science. Only faith allows for that.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
You ought to read The God Delusion to better understand the argument you're trying to refute. That book isn't centered around evolution; I don't actually recall evolution being discussed in it. The arguments were about biblical contradictions; hypocrisy amongst self-professed believers; and a contrast between the morality preached by various religions relative to the sort of world that such a system might create. And as I said, Dawkins freely admits that his disbelief is not supported by science: he cannot scientifically prove that there is no god. Rather, he identifies himself as an agnostic who believes that the likelihood of there actually being a god is extremely low -- but he can't prove it.
- keefe 17y ago
  What is the rationality of vehemently holding a belief that you cannot prove? He's proving himself on a par with the zealots he likes to criticize. The whole point of religion goes down to faith : either everything is accident and life doesn't matter or there's a larger plan. An individual may feel there is more than this life and have faith in that, but it is inherently something that cannot be proved. This has absolutely nothing to do with modern religion - which is so often little more than the most angry book club ever. Biblical contradictions are simply not relevant to any discussion of atheism - many times in the bible it talks about how Jesus uses parables so people can understand, you should probably take the bible about as literally as any other great novel with a deeper meaning.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    "What is the rationality of vehemently holding a belief that you cannot prove?" There is a crucial difference between actively believing there are no gods, and not believing there are any gods. I think Dawkins states the latter. There are many things not worth believing because of a lack of evidence, and one need not provide counter evidence in order to rationally withhold belief when there is no evidence to support a claim.
    - keefe 17y ago
      I understand agnostic... but I find his stuff to be very skewed against religion and spirituality, Dawkins is a well known, self professed atheist. I find spending so much time and effort on these particular topics just so strange... I don't see a contradiction between faith in the existence of a greater intelligence and rationality and faith only makes sense when there is no evidence. It's an emotional thing not an intellectual thing. We can all believe whatever we want and when we die, we'll find out what the real deal is.
      - CWuestefeld 17y ago
        I believe that I heard him referring to himself as a "tooth fairy agnostic" was in this video, toward the end: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_milita... He is also quite clear in The God Delusion that by any rigorous definition, he an agnostic and not an atheist. So I don't get why people keep arguing as if he's making a factual statement about the (lack of) existence of a god. He talks about (a) how it can't be proven, but (b) it seems highly unlikely that there is a god.
        keefe 17y ago
        Yes, he acknowledge the fact that he actually has no idea and then continues to talk authoritatively about how it is "unlikely" that there is a god. I find him to basically be an ass, I've seen vids and read articles. He talks quite often of atheism, just google him... here's a qoute : "An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.[67]"

CWuestefeld 17y ago

You ought to read The God Delusion to better understand the argument you're trying to refute. That book isn't centered around evolution; I don't actually recall evolution being discussed in it. The arguments were about biblical contradictions; hypocrisy amongst self-professed believers; and a contrast between the morality preached by various religions relative to the sort of world that such a system might create. And as I said, Dawkins freely admits that his disbelief is not supported by science: he cannot scientifically prove that there is no god. Rather, he identifies himself as an agnostic who believes that the likelihood of there actually being a god is extremely low -- but he can't prove it.

keefe 17y ago
What is the rationality of vehemently holding a belief that you cannot prove? He's proving himself on a par with the zealots he likes to criticize. The whole point of religion goes down to faith : either everything is accident and life doesn't matter or there's a larger plan. An individual may feel there is more than this life and have faith in that, but it is inherently something that cannot be proved. This has absolutely nothing to do with modern religion - which is so often little more than the most angry book club ever. Biblical contradictions are simply not relevant to any discussion of atheism - many times in the bible it talks about how Jesus uses parables so people can understand, you should probably take the bible about as literally as any other great novel with a deeper meaning.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "What is the rationality of vehemently holding a belief that you cannot prove?" There is a crucial difference between actively believing there are no gods, and not believing there are any gods. I think Dawkins states the latter. There are many things not worth believing because of a lack of evidence, and one need not provide counter evidence in order to rationally withhold belief when there is no evidence to support a claim.
  - keefe 17y ago
    I understand agnostic... but I find his stuff to be very skewed against religion and spirituality, Dawkins is a well known, self professed atheist. I find spending so much time and effort on these particular topics just so strange... I don't see a contradiction between faith in the existence of a greater intelligence and rationality and faith only makes sense when there is no evidence. It's an emotional thing not an intellectual thing. We can all believe whatever we want and when we die, we'll find out what the real deal is.
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      I believe that I heard him referring to himself as a "tooth fairy agnostic" was in this video, toward the end: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_milita... He is also quite clear in The God Delusion that by any rigorous definition, he an agnostic and not an atheist. So I don't get why people keep arguing as if he's making a factual statement about the (lack of) existence of a god. He talks about (a) how it can't be proven, but (b) it seems highly unlikely that there is a god.
      - keefe 17y ago
        Yes, he acknowledge the fact that he actually has no idea and then continues to talk authoritatively about how it is "unlikely" that there is a god. I find him to basically be an ass, I've seen vids and read articles. He talks quite often of atheism, just google him... here's a qoute : "An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.[67]"