Richard Dawkins: Not Sure God Doesn´t Exist - Page 3

ILOVEJESUS · 02-26-2012, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Stargazer wrote

No, it's a slippery slope. Non existent until proven to exist. The whole God story is so flimsy that the one sane thing to do is to regulate it to fiction, as the Iliad was supposed to be about a fictional city until Schliemann discovered Troy.

When and if concrete evidence is presented, we can revisit the story in that light. But not until then.

I agree, but you have to accept the possibility, however slim is that what we don't know may exist don't you?

Eternal · 02-26-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

ILOVEJESUS wrote

I agree, but you have to accept the possibility, however slim is that what we don't know may exist don't you?

I would think it dishonest to discount the existence of something that is yet to be, or is only very loosely defined. Whenever Dawkins states this he does so in a very general way. If someone asked if he thought that the Catholic god existed, or Jesus Christ as per the gospels, I think he would give a very definitive no.

The correct answer (although much longer) would probably be to ask the person asking to define god first.

Stargazer · 02-26-2012, 05:38 PM

Quote:

ILOVEJESUS wrote

I agree, but you have to accept the possibility, however slim is that what we don't know may exist don't you?

In this case, no. Do we have to accept the possibility that the Tooth Fairy exists? NO. We can wait until (IF) proof is presented to even consider it. Some things are too preposterous to give the benefit of the doubt to. If you start on that slippery slope, the next thing to do is accept Pascal's Wager. And after that, there's no stopping. You've given the God people an "in."

Wait until there IS proof. THEN consider the possibility, for things that are as ridiculous as Santa, the Easter Bunny and Jesus. The "evidence" presented so far does not deserve that kind of consideration.

Kinich Ahau · 02-26-2012, 08:37 PM

I think we should imagine ourselves in Dawkin's shoes. He has been at the forefront of the battle against superstition for years now and it looks to me that he hardly ever shirks confrontation and the responsibility he has given himself as a spokesperson for common sense.

It can't be easy and he must get pressure from all sides, sometimes he is accused of being intolerant and extreme. By theists he is always vilified, I'm sure that means an endless stream of nasty mail and even threats to his well being. He is the poster boy for atheists but also the poster boy for religious hate. If he has yielded a little to make his life slightly easier and perhaps soften his image, I say fair enough it's up to him, or perhaps as a scientist he needs to hold that stance, it's not like he has recanted his belief in rationality and the scientific method.

Kinich Ahau · 02-26-2012, 09:05 PM

That's the problem with superheroes, one day they will to tuck their cape into their underpants.

orangeitis · 02-26-2012, 09:40 PM

I doubt he done if because he was so antagonized by theists. I think that he just wanted to clarify his position more.

ILOVEJESUS · 02-27-2012, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Stargazer wrote

In this case, no. Do we have to accept the possibility that the Tooth Fairy exists? NO. We can wait until (IF) proof is presented to even consider it. Some things are too preposterous to give the benefit of the doubt to. If you start on that slippery slope, the next thing to do is accept Pascal's Wager. And after that, there's no stopping. You've given the God people an "in."

Wait until there IS proof. THEN consider the possibility, for things that are as ridiculous as Santa, the Easter Bunny and Jesus. The "evidence" presented so far does not deserve that kind of consideration.

Tooth fairies are not the same. You can leave a tooth under a pillow and monitor with cameras to see your mum put 50p under your pillow. God is undefined, how the theists twist things so. It just means that you cannot offer 100% their is no god till you know fully what its is your 100% certain about. Just my opinion, and I think the way of thinking Dawkins was talking about.

Sol · 02-27-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

ILOVEJESUS wrote

Tooth fairies are not the same. You can leave a tooth under a pillow and monitor with cameras to see your mum put 50p under your pillow. God is undefined, how the theists twist things so. It just means that you cannot offer 100% their is no god till you know fully what its is your 100% certain about. Just my opinion, and I think the way of thinking Dawkins was talking about.

Shrly that is the point, ILJ .
God Inc. is defined, squillions of people have him defined and his profligate Son and the spooky ghost thing. Folks go to special buildings designated for the purpose of God mumbling. They point in certain directions, stick their collective arses in the air and gibber to the specially defined God Geezer.

God is the most defined thing ever imagined by delusional meat bags that have only just come down from the trees.....

God is Uber-defined.............. THEREFORE we can ascertain (from the definition) and at an alarming rate of 100% that GOD IS NOT REAL....

(Special dispensation is given for leprechauns due to their definition not being subject to inverse reality projections... i.e. they do exist... but aren't real)

ILOVEJESUS · 02-27-2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Sol wrote

Shrly that is the point, ILJ .
God Inc. is defined, squillions of people have him defined and his profligate Son and the spooky ghost thing. Folks go to special buildings designated for the purpose of God mumbling. They point in certain directions, stick their collective arses in the air and gibber to the specially defined God Geezer.

God is the most defined thing ever imagined by delusional meat bags that have only just come down from the trees.....

God is Uber-defined.............. THEREFORE we can ascertain (from the definition) and at an alarming rate of 100% that GOD IS NOT REAL....

(Special dispensation is given for leprechauns due to their definition not being subject to inverse reality projections... i.e. they do exist... but aren't real)

I am not advocating that there is a god, I would argue that the definition of "god" Is all over the place. Being 6 out of 7 sure isn't that big a deal.

Sol · 02-27-2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

ILOVEJESUS wrote

I am not advocating that there is a god, I would argue that the definition of "god" Is all over the place. Being 6 out of 7 sure isn't that big a deal.

Didn't mean to give the impression that I thought you were, bud...

I just get a little irked with god for being "undefined"

My personal opine is that 6 out of 7 is for pussies. Dawkish should sack up and grow a pair and use reason and logic, instead of swishing about in a frock being Professor Reasonable Nice Guy.

Oh, and writing a decent book for once would be nice.

Am I going too far ?

Kate · 02-27-2012, 03:52 PM

Yes.
Balls=manly=logical

Frock=woman=illogical

Stargazer · 02-27-2012, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Sol wrote

Shrly that is the point, ILJ .
God Inc. is defined, squillions of people have him defined and his profligate Son and the spooky ghost thing. Folks go to special buildings designated for the purpose of God mumbling. They point in certain directions, stick their collective arses in the air and gibber to the specially defined God Geezer.

God is the most defined thing ever imagined by delusional meat bags that have only just come down from the trees.....

God is Uber-defined.............. THEREFORE we can ascertain (from the definition) and at an alarming rate of 100% that GOD IS NOT REAL....

(Special dispensation is given for leprechauns due to their definition not being subject to inverse reality projections... i.e. they do exist... but aren't real)

I agree, Sol. The evidence presented so far for God is so inadequate that we are under no obligation to give such silliness the benefit of the doubt. If they ever do come up with something reasonable, THEN we MIGHT admit the possibility of God, depending on said evidence.

In the meantime, God people will try to wrangle an inch of admission from an atheist, and then wiggle in and argue them into admitting God. Not falling for it.

I will just ask them again, where is your concrete proof for the existence of God?

Sol · 02-27-2012, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Kate wrote

Yes.
Balls=manly=logical

Frock=woman=illogical

NO..

Sol + whisky over time = Drunk

Drunk + keyboard = Twat

Your calculations are incorrect.....,
I'm more of a Twat than I am gender biased

However, consider me both atheistically penitent and rebuked

Sol · 02-27-2012, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Stargazer wrote

I agree, Sol. The evidence presented so far for God is so inadequate that we are under no obligation to give such silliness the benefit of the doubt. If they ever do come up with something reasonable, THEN we MIGHT admit the possibility of God, depending on said evidence.

In the meantime, God people will try to wrangle an inch of admission from an atheist, and then wiggle in and argue them into admitting God. Not falling for it.

I will just ask them again, where is your concrete proof for the existence of God?

that's the style, never give em an inch and leave them with no doubt.

Let them up their game...

Stargazer · 02-27-2012, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Sol wrote

that's the style, never give em an inch and leave them with no doubt.

Let them up their game...