World's most notorious atheist "Richard Dawkins" admits he is in fact agnostic

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist'

Well well ! what we have here? Richard dawkins started to believe in god?An intelligent man with vast knowledge thinks there is an intelligent being?

__________________________________________________

If I told you that the device you're using right now to read my Thread was created itself from nothing after an explosion at a factory you would say I'm affected with madness. But of course, how can a small, complex, well organised device which is made perfectly for us to use be made by chance and without any intelligent designer. It's absolutely stupid to say such a thing. But when I say that the Universe and everything in it, with all its beauty and incredibly complex systems which is beyond human comprehension but so perfectly designed and precisely regulated and provides for every one of our needs, was created by an All-Powerful Being, Who is Sustaining this Universe every moment, Who is Most Gracious and Merciful, you say I'm mad? LOOL, kiss my chuddies.

reply to post by DumbTopSecretWriters


How did you get "I can't be sure god can't exist" and turn it into "God exists"?

Damn big leap of faith (lol) if you ask me!

In my opinion, atheism requires as much faith as believing in God.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

18-page thread about this.

reply to post by DaTroof


My bad

Thanks

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by DumbTopSecretWriters

 

How did you get "I can't be sure god can't exist" and turn it into "God exists"?

Damn big leap of faith (lol) if you ask me!

edit on 26/2/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Reverse psychology

reply to post by smyleegrl

Atheism is not a belief; it is a lack to believing in something with no evidence. I hate the term atheist though; I wouldn’t want someone to label me a non-flying elephant believer if there is no proof of flying elephants. It does not require any belief for me not to belief in a God just, logic an understanding of the many contradictions found throughout religions.

reply to post by DumbTopSecretWriters


He doesn't say he believes in God he's just saying that you can't prove His non-existence, just as you can't prove his existence, scientifically speaking.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
In my opinion, atheism requires as much faith as believing in God.

Hardly, there is no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent supernatural being who is supposedly responsible for all we are and see, therefore it's logical to assume he doesn't exist, whereas people who have faith are deliberately putting aside rational thought and simply choosing to 'believe'. Atheism is rational thinking, Theism is not, plain and simple.

reply to post by OwenGP185


I disagree. I understand your point, so maybe its just semantics.

To say "There is no God" requires as much belief as saying "God exists.". The aethiest is convinced of his belief; to me, that is a form of faith.

It's just my personal viewpoint and I mean no insult.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


If one claims to be atheist and bases this "belief" on something, like, say the big bang theory, then there is a certain amount of faith involved, since firstly, it is a theory and secondly the average lay person wouldn't have the faintest clue on how to verify the theory.

Of course, simply believing there are no deities requires no faith.

John Safran says it best I think...



FTR: I'm agnostic.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
In my opinion, atheism requires as much faith as believing in God.

Yep. HC atheists are pretty much as nuts as religious fundamentalists. Even Christopher Hitchens was an agnostic.

reply to post by DumbTopSecretWriters


1. as someone else already replied, this topic was covered on ATS already
2. as was the case in the other post, this post shows a lack of understanding of the scientific method. We scientists know nothing "for sure". That's the prerogative of the believers. I explained this in my replies to the other post (in short: read Popper on the falsification principle)
3. Dawkins doesn't admit that he is agnostic, that's a false deduction.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by smyleegrl
In my opinion, atheism requires as much faith as believing in God.

Hardly, there is no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent supernatural being who is supposedly responsible for all we are and see, therefore it's logical to assume he doesn't exist, whereas people who have faith are deliberately putting aside rational thought and simply choosing to 'believe'. Atheism is rational thinking, Theism is not, plain and simple.

Again, I disagree.

Religious belief is primarily a personal choice. A person who believes does have "proof" as far as they are concerned. Said proof is mostly anecdotal and therefore unacceptable to many, but that hardly matters to someone who believes he's experienced something divine.

Theism is a belief in god. Atheism is a belief in a lack of god.

Just my opinion. I've seen threads on ATS go on for pages debating it, so I'll stop now.

Final thought: agnosticism is the only thing that makes sense to me.

My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Yes, John Saffron does religion - very well...
Add Father Bob to the mix and you can't help but smile.

( about due for a re-emergence hopefully )

(I always keep these on hand for when someone takes Dawkins out of context)

If you actually listen to him, his agnosticism doesn't at all contradict his stance. His standpoint has never been that he can prove there is no god, just that there is no evidence or reasons why it's a justified belief.

It does not change a single thing. He's an agnostic atheist.

"I can not prove there is no god" does not equate to "I must believe their is a god". Dawkins also cannot prove Russell's teapot, leprechauns don't exist, but he doesn't believe in them either.

~
I respect that he's agnostic. It makes what he says far more credible. Anyone who's gnostic, whether a gnostic theist or gnostic atheist, is arrogant and stupid. It's impossible to know anything 100%. Anyone who's convinced they do know 100%, don't know the limitations of their knowledge, and are in no good standing place for accurately assessing information.

He would not be exorcising critical thinking to say he knows with absolute certainty there is no god. Just as religious people who claim to absolutely know there is aren't using critical thinking. The first step is to realize you never know anything 100%.



~

He said: 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.' Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed was a '6.9', stating: 'That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.'

For one, this is the daily mail. Can't trust them, especially on religious issues. For two, they did give this quote. It really illustrates his point.

Agnostic is not a belief. It's an adjective describing the belief. Richard Dawkins is an atheist. However, he's agnostic about his atheism, because he knows better than to believe he can ever know the world 100%. I'd suggest you realize you are agnostic as well. There's many possible ways(Even if you consider them incredibly unlikely) that you could be wrong about your beliefs. Anything higher than a 0% chance, and you're agnostic.

reply to post by smyleegrl

Final thought: agnosticism is the only thing that makes sense to me.

Amen to that.

Both Theists and Atheists may disagree, it is impossible to 100% prove that 'God' either exists or doesn't exist.
As a result the issue is moot and completely irrelevant.
So why worry oneself about it.

And if this omniescent being does have his Judgement Day to determine admittance or not to his After Life Private Members Club then I'm sure 'he'll' judge me on my acts and deeds rather than adherence to some random man made rules and regulations.
And if 'he' doesn't exist well I hope I would have lived a decent and respectful life without causing too much hurt and misery etc to others.

It doesn't suprise me that Dawkins is coming round to the Agnostic viewpoint - the blind faith and passion displayed by some extreme Atheists is very similair to that shown by the most extreme Theists.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
In my opinion, atheism requires as much faith as believing in God.

Odd. Since when can objective claims be opinions?

It is my opinion, that I'm using a pizza oven to make this post on ATS. That's my opinion, you can't disagree.

I had someone tell me on Thursday, that I was wrong about what part of speech a certain word was. I was told I was only asserting my opinion. I was flustered that someone can dismiss facts as opinions so easily.

~
Opinions can't be wrong. However, when you make an objective claim like that, it can be wrong. And it's already wrong for being mislabeled as an opinion in the first place.

~
Though the specific claim that atheism requires faith, has been dealt with on this forum before. And would be worthy of it's own topic. So I shall refrain from posting a rebuttal here.

reply to post by DumbTopSecretWriters


being an atheist I would remain silent every time a believer assumes the existence of god. it's not my job to define your imaginary friend. it's my job to explain why i think this isn't but a pile of delusions. that's it.