ChatterBank16 mins ago
Richard Dawkins V Rowan Williams Round Two
116 Answers
When; Tonight
Where; Cambridge Union;
'To be filmed and made available on line.' In round 1 Prof. Dawkins admitted that there was a (remote) possibility that God existed. Will he acquiesce further against the full power of Williams's intellect, no longer Archbishop? Oh, to be there!
Where; Cambridge Union;
'To be filmed and made available on line.' In round 1 Prof. Dawkins admitted that there was a (remote) possibility that God existed. Will he acquiesce further against the full power of Williams's intellect, no longer Archbishop? Oh, to be there!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, but that's probably because a dictionary is "A book which explains or translates, usually in alphabetical order, the words of a language or languages (or of a particular category of vocabulary), giving for each word its typical spelling, an explanation of its meaning or meanings, and often other information, such as pronunciation, etymology, synonyms, equivalents in other languages, and illustrative examples."
You won't find "hideously embarrassing" in the dictionary either, but it still accurately describes your point.
You won't find "hideously embarrassing" in the dictionary either, but it still accurately describes your point.
WaldoMcFroog, there is no doubt about what agnostic means. My schoolboy Greek tells me that it means 'one who does not know'. When applied
to the existence of God this includes everyone on the planet. Nobody can know. Theists believe in God as a matter of pure faith i.e blind credulity. An atheist dismisses the idea as nonsense.
So agnosticism is nothing of particular interest
to the existence of God this includes everyone on the planet. Nobody can know. Theists believe in God as a matter of pure faith i.e blind credulity. An atheist dismisses the idea as nonsense.
So agnosticism is nothing of particular interest
@ Khandro - I haven't read all the answers to your OP yet= but could you pretty please point to where Richard Dawkins has ever categorically stated that god cannot possibly exist? Citations or links perfectly acceptable.
I am betting you cannot.And we have been down this track before, too, I seem to recall.
It is not as if he was forced into recanting some position of complete and utter denial by quality of the argument; rather, like any good scientist, he recognises it would be scientifically irresponsible to make such categoric statements for which we cannot provide objective empirical evidence either four or against.
He graded levels of theism and atheism - from 7 being 100% certain there was a god or 100% certain there wasn't, down to level 1 which was essentially agnostic. And he put himself ( and always has put himself) at level 6.
Certainly based around what i have seen of the last debate between the 2, I thought Richard Dawkins made the better points.
http://
I am betting you cannot.And we have been down this track before, too, I seem to recall.
It is not as if he was forced into recanting some position of complete and utter denial by quality of the argument; rather, like any good scientist, he recognises it would be scientifically irresponsible to make such categoric statements for which we cannot provide objective empirical evidence either four or against.
He graded levels of theism and atheism - from 7 being 100% certain there was a god or 100% certain there wasn't, down to level 1 which was essentially agnostic. And he put himself ( and always has put himself) at level 6.
Certainly based around what i have seen of the last debate between the 2, I thought Richard Dawkins made the better points.
http://
Every questionnaire I have ever seen allows for 3 answers; Yes, no, or don't know. The same principle applies to God. I believe, I don't believe or I am not sure. The 'codswallop' is bringing in notions such as 'atheist agnostics' completely different grammatically from your "hideously embarrassing". You cannot be a little bit atheist any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. WMF. I invite you to tell us just where you stand.
LG. -later
LG. -later
I don't believe there is a god.
I'd be a poor scientist if I said there is no god. Why? Because I would need to provide objective, peer reviewed, repeatable proof and I'd be lying if I said I could.
The weight of evidence for and against a god existing however is monstrously weighted towards his/its/their non-existence.
I'd be a poor scientist if I said there is no god. Why? Because I would need to provide objective, peer reviewed, repeatable proof and I'd be lying if I said I could.
The weight of evidence for and against a god existing however is monstrously weighted towards his/its/their non-existence.
If a trillion people fail to proove that God exists . Then any logical person would say ' for that reason I believe God does not exist. Now for all practical puposes , that is proof. However that is still not 100% proof ,
it may be 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999........certain
but there maybe a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000.......1 chance.
that they are wrong .
That is the difference between the Atheist and the Theist
The atheist accepts that there may be a infinitly remote chance they are wrong. The theist wont accept the reverse .
it may be 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999........certain
but there maybe a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000.......1 chance.
that they are wrong .
That is the difference between the Atheist and the Theist
The atheist accepts that there may be a infinitly remote chance they are wrong. The theist wont accept the reverse .
@Khandro - And there was me thinking you had some appreciation of the subtleties of life - but I guess that is only when it suits your argument eh?
It would be, from a scientific perspective, simply inaccurate to pronounce on stuff with 100% certainty- science, chaos and everything else always allow for the infinitesimal probability.
As for a graded scale - To be honest, i care little whether you think it should just be 3 options - There is always a more nuanced approach, as can be seen from the perspectives offered in this thread.
Regardless, once again in your OP the chip on your shoulder is once again showing wrt to Atheism and Dawkins; And once again you misquote Dawkins position- it is getting embarassing for you, Khandro.
Read modellers post. Sums it up perfectly.
It would be, from a scientific perspective, simply inaccurate to pronounce on stuff with 100% certainty- science, chaos and everything else always allow for the infinitesimal probability.
As for a graded scale - To be honest, i care little whether you think it should just be 3 options - There is always a more nuanced approach, as can be seen from the perspectives offered in this thread.
Regardless, once again in your OP the chip on your shoulder is once again showing wrt to Atheism and Dawkins; And once again you misquote Dawkins position- it is getting embarassing for you, Khandro.
Read modellers post. Sums it up perfectly.
WaldoMcFroog; //What are you finding difficult to understand?//
What is an 'atheist agnostic'? Please answer, or stop prevaricating.
Others; If my schoolboy mathematics still serve, Dawkins's evaluation of there being a 6 out of 7 chance, in his thinking, that God might exist, must be somewhere near an 80% chance against, which are much lower odds than the usual 99.999% bandied about by by our resident pundits. Put another way Dawkins says the chances are around 20% in favour. So who wants to go further than Professor Richard Dawkins and state that they are categorically 100% atheists?
Please stand up and identify yourselves.
What is an 'atheist agnostic'? Please answer, or stop prevaricating.
Others; If my schoolboy mathematics still serve, Dawkins's evaluation of there being a 6 out of 7 chance, in his thinking, that God might exist, must be somewhere near an 80% chance against, which are much lower odds than the usual 99.999% bandied about by by our resident pundits. Put another way Dawkins says the chances are around 20% in favour. So who wants to go further than Professor Richard Dawkins and state that they are categorically 100% atheists?
Please stand up and identify yourselves.
Its more like a geiger scale; an exponential scale of belief or lack of it, rather than some linear relationship.
So the class 7 would be 100% certain based upon available evidence. Class 6 would be something like 99.999 % certain, based upon the available evidence, and that is where I would place myself.
As a scientist, I could not commit myself to an absolute statement of certainty, given the infinitesimal possibility that their might be a god.
So the class 7 would be 100% certain based upon available evidence. Class 6 would be something like 99.999 % certain, based upon the available evidence, and that is where I would place myself.
As a scientist, I could not commit myself to an absolute statement of certainty, given the infinitesimal possibility that their might be a god.
In the context of whether I believe there is a god, I'd like to be able to honestly say I am 101% an atheist . . . however, to say I am even 99% rational (or even 80% for that matter) would probably be stretching the truth a bit. All the same, what one believes says very little about why one should believe anything or why, which is what really matters in that beliefs are the underlying factor on which we base and determine our subsequent actions.
To say that "God does not exist" is just as meaningless as to say "God does exist". It is only through an understanding of what the term "God" is intended to refer to and that which in reality substantiates or precludes it that one phrase acquires any more meaning than the other.
God is not simply a delusion but one of the most prolific authors of delusion. God exists only as an arbitrary construct to fill the void of ones own lack of comprehension of that which does exist, a comprehension which to the extent it has been achieved invariably demonstrates why any such an entity is at the very least unnecessary if not in contradiction to ones knowledge of existence whereupon one realises it can not possibly exist in reality.
God is a perversion of and stumbling block to the process of reason leading to an understanding of that which does exist and how one knows it. One can only confirm non-existence through an understanding of that which in reality precludes its existence. Belief in the arbitrary is a departure from the process of reason essential to ones ability to distinguish ones arbitrary beliefs from ones knowledge of what is real.
To believe that god exists is to abandon the process by which one determines what to believe and why, filling the void of ones knowledge and understanding instead with the need to avoid the realisation that you have rendered yourself incapable of comprehending reality, in desperate need of the assistance of a god who was never there in a world you've helped bring to ruin for the sake of an arbitrary belief.
To say that "God does not exist" is just as meaningless as to say "God does exist". It is only through an understanding of what the term "God" is intended to refer to and that which in reality substantiates or precludes it that one phrase acquires any more meaning than the other.
God is not simply a delusion but one of the most prolific authors of delusion. God exists only as an arbitrary construct to fill the void of ones own lack of comprehension of that which does exist, a comprehension which to the extent it has been achieved invariably demonstrates why any such an entity is at the very least unnecessary if not in contradiction to ones knowledge of existence whereupon one realises it can not possibly exist in reality.
God is a perversion of and stumbling block to the process of reason leading to an understanding of that which does exist and how one knows it. One can only confirm non-existence through an understanding of that which in reality precludes its existence. Belief in the arbitrary is a departure from the process of reason essential to ones ability to distinguish ones arbitrary beliefs from ones knowledge of what is real.
To believe that god exists is to abandon the process by which one determines what to believe and why, filling the void of ones knowledge and understanding instead with the need to avoid the realisation that you have rendered yourself incapable of comprehending reality, in desperate need of the assistance of a god who was never there in a world you've helped bring to ruin for the sake of an arbitrary belief.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Music25 mins ago
Climate Change Robs Family Of Life...
ChatterBank31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Star Wars Quix...f A O Mozz....
Film, Media & TV38 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.