Richard Dawkins V Rowan Williams Round Two

[Khandro]

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!

[WaldoMcFroog]

"What is an 'atheist agnostic'? Please answer, or stop prevaricating."

An agnostic atheist is someone who claims that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not a deity exists, but believes that they do not.

Wasn't that entirely clear from the previous definition given? Again, I'm struggling to think which bit of that is giving you so much trouble.

[Khandro]

I have seldom come across so much shuffling of feet ! However, I'm pleased to learn that when it comes down to the wire, there seem to be NO real 100% atheists on here at all, - this is very gratifying.

[naomi24]

Khandro, you're making a twit of yourself.

[goodlife]

Like all atheists like to wave the banner of science over their camp, but the fact is that neither atheism nor theism rest purely on science. Both involve faith—atheism in purposeless blind chance; theism in an intelligent.

[naomi24]

^^ //theism in an intelligent. // :o)

[LazyGun]

@Khandro - what you claim to be shuffling of feet is actually a lot of people once again having to clarfiy your misperceptions and misrepresentations.

I have not changed my position on the likelihood of a god one jot - the concept remains just as unlikely, just as infinitesimally possible as it always has.Nothing has changed, and science and scientists can never assert a 100% certitude about anything - a situation often exploited by know nothings to represent uncertainty or false balance.

The balance of probablity remains the same, atheism remains the only rational stance.

[goodlife]

Naomi@ You are quick!
Just testing! Meant intelligence.

[naomi24]

Goodlife, whatever you meant, the sentiment remains nonsensical.

[RATTER15]

Goodlife, //theism in an intelligent.//

So how do you work out that the belief in something that is totally unsupported by any reliable evidence is "intelligent"

Do me a favour and learn the meaning of the word "intelligent" because I think you are a little confused.

[keyplus90]

/////Ah, the old, “You'll find out you're wrong when you're dead” routine eh? Haven't you learnt by now that making statements like that just makes you look like a complete buffoon? Threatening atheists with the sick, delusional notion of hell (or heaven) does nothing to support your position but does a great deal to undermine it./////

That does not make me a complete buffoon but tells many about a very common sense that if you can't prove either way then might as well stop wasting your time and wait and see. So what's wrong in that my little birdie?

[keyplus90]

I am not a scientist but do know that many scientists are still unable to explain many things that happened in the past. And I also know that there are many things that were not known to people only few decades ago. Does that mean they never existed? As I said before, "We do not know" and "it does not exist" are completely two different things.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, // there are many things that were not known to people only few decades ago. Does that mean they never existed?//

No, it means that, unlike religion, science isn’t stagnant.

//"We do not know" and "it does not exist" are completely two different things.//

You missed the most rationally absurd option out there. “It definitely exists”.

[chakka35]

You know, I often wonder why we bother to discuss gods at all considering that they are only inventions of early man who could not explain things and automatically invented a god to fill in the blank.

For anyone in the 21st century to be taking the idea seriously is equivalent to a group of modern doctors still trying to understand the evil spirits that were supposed to cause diseases, or the Royal Society discussing the mechanism of the spells that witches used to turn people into frogs.

[Khandro]

LG. being a scientist does not give someone the privilege of having a get-out clause to any definition. If you say you are 'almost' certain of something that means you are 'uncertain', (just try pulling that one in a court of law!) and in this context it means you are an agnostic. 'Atheism' defined in my various dictionaries;
Chambers: Disbelief in the existence of God. Collins: from Greek - atheos - Godless, doctrine or belief that there is no God. Websters: The belief that there is no God. None of them add 'Unless you are a scientist'.
My Websters weighs in at about 5 kilos and contains relevant quotations along with it's definitions. After 'Atheism' it quotes Edward Young; "By night an atheist half believes in God". Could it be he had a point?

[beso]

Dawkins entertains the remote possibility that God exists. Meanwhile Williams continues with his ignorant dogma.

Where is the problem exactly?

[Khandro]

^//ignorant dogma.// Yet more sloppy use of language.

[mibn2cweus]

If you were expecting an intelligent meaningful conversation regarding 'an entity that does not exist' as anything other than an arbitrary abstraction based on nothing more than a presumption of what is possible within the confines and limitations of a reality that preclude its existence and for which one prefers instead to remain ignorant, perhaps it is your expectations that should be drawn into question.

We learn about the nature of existence by studying that which exists . . . not by dressing it up with imaginary friends, departing from the path of objectivity and making it up as we go along.

[Khandro]

“No one can draw more out of things, books included, than he already knows. A man has no ears for that to which experience has given him no access.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche.