Richard Dawkins: Not Sure God Doesn´t Exist

[DyingStrong]

Dawkins, from being atheist to being agnostic...what´s next...preacher for Christians, trying to collect money...? ahhh...these times, amazing what economic recessions do to some people´s minds, huh?

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.
The two men were taking part in a public “dialogue” at Oxford University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the role of religion in public life in Britain.
Last week Baroness Warsi, the Tory party chairman, warned of a tide of “militant secularism” challenging the religious foundations of British society.
The discussion, in Sir Christopher Wren’s Sheldonian Theatre, attracted attention from around the world.

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

[DyingStrong]

Money makes the world go around the world go around....

...who´s there?....hunger!

CABARET

[West491]

This is nothing new. Dawkins has stated his position on god-belief many times.

p.s.- you do recognize that the vast majority of atheists are agnostic-atheists, right?

[Irreligious]

Richard Dawkins is sincerely uncertain as to whether or not a magical white man is at the helm of alleged creation, and he is conceding that as a probability?

Well, since he's so famous and vocal, I guess we all better follow suit.

[Irreligious]

West491 wrote

This is nothing new. Dawkins has stated his position on god-belief many times.

But he's stepped in it this time.

West491 wrote

p.s.- you do recognize that the vast majority of atheists are agnostic-atheists, right?

I don't concede that as a probability. Then again, maybe I'm apart from the vast majority.

[West491]

Irreligious wrote

Richard Dawkins is sincerely uncertain as to whether or not a magical white man is at the helm of creation, and he is conceding that as a probability?

With so much of the universe still untouched, are you saying that you are, with intellectual honesty, prepared to claim knowledge on the non-existence of a god?

Granted, the probability is so low that you may as well live your life as if the claim is false, until proven otherwise.

Irreligious wrote

I don't concede that as a probability. Then again, maybe I'm apart from the vast majority.

So you have evidence that god doesn't exist? Please let me hear/see it.

[lostsheep]

Maybe he was trying to be accommodating?
Honestly, I am not sure 100% that a god of some sort doesn't exist in some way. That's pretty vague, I know, but since I am only capable of understanding very little of so much about our world, I think it would be foolish of me to think that I am smart enough to thoroughly investigate and dismiss every eventuality.
But I think that the chance that the god described by current world religions exists is less likely than the chance that our sun will go supernova tomorrow.
My understanding is that Dawkins feels the same way: he said on a scale of 1-7 he is a 6.9 (7 being 100% certainty that no god exists).

[Eternal]

A lot of fuss about nothing. Clearly the person who wrote that has a real dislike of Dawkins and took it almost like some sort of personal victory.

[West491]

lostsheep wrote

Maybe he was trying to be accommodating?

Of course.

lostsheep wrote

Honestly, I am not sure 100% that a god of some sort doesn't exist in some way. That's pretty vague, I know, but since I am only capable of understanding very little of so much about our world, I think it would be foolish of me to think that I am smart enough to thoroughly investigate and dismiss every eventuality.
But I think that the chance that the god described by current world religions exists is less likely than the chance that our sun will go supernova tomorrow.
My understanding is that Dawkins feels the same way: he said on a scale of 1-7 he is a 6.9 (7 being 100% certainty that no god exists).

Yep, exactly.

[lostsheep]

Irreligious wrote

Richard Dawkins is sincerely uncertain as to whether or not a magical white man is at the helm of alleged creation, and he is conceding that as a probability?

Well, since he's so famous and vocal, I guess we all better follow suit.

I didn't get that from this link. Keep in mind, Einstein, Jefferson, and many other historically respected individuals are misquoted or quoted out of context by theists to suit their own agenda, that being that such individuals were highly religious when in fact their many written opinions show that they were either deists or outright atheists.

[lostsheep]

Eternal wrote

A lot of fuss about nothing. Clearly the person who wrote that has a real dislike of Dawkins and took it almost like some sort of personal victory.

I was thinking this too.

[Irreligious]

West491 wrote

With so much of the universe still untouched, are you saying that you are, with intellectual honesty, prepared to claim knowledge on the non-existence of a god?

Apart from the common depiction of the Christian god as a man with unlimited powers of manipulation, it's a thoroughly undefined tern. There is no burden on me, whatsoever, to entertain the probability of an allegation so vague or, as for the former, so preposterous.

West wrote

Granted, the probability is so low that you may as well live your life as if the claim is false, until proven otherwise.

Would that I could, but the god-botherers won't hear of it.

[Irreligious]

lostsheep wrote

Maybe he was trying to be accommodating?

Too accommodating, in my opinion. Why does no one ever ask these people what a god is supposed to be before conceding that one cannot know the unknowable?

lostsheep wrote

Honestly, I am not sure 100% that a god of some sort doesn't exist in some way.

Why are you required to be certain if you don't even know what an alleged god is? I'm not 100% certain pixie dust doesn't exist, but then I also have to concede that I don't know what that is.

lostsheep wrote

That's pretty vague, I know, but since I am only capable of understanding very little of so much about our world, I think it would be foolish of me to think that I am smart enough to thoroughly investigate and dismiss every eventuality.

You certainly can't investigate theists claims' of an alleged god. They can't either.

lostsheep wrote

But I think that the chance that the god described by current world religions exists is less likely than the chance that our sun will go supernova tomorrow.
My understanding is that Dawkins feels the same way: he said on a scale of 1-7 he is a 6.9 (7 being 100% certainty that no god exists).

I'm sorry, but placing a probability on such an absurdly unknowable claim is the same thing many of us here derided Jerry for doing. I respect Dawkins' intelligence and his decades long battle to wage the good fight in support of science over unfounded superstition, but I'm not going to applaud him on this one.

[orangeitis]

I don't think whomever wrote that article(or just the one talking to Dawkins) knew what they were talking about. I addressed the issue of atheism/agnosticism just the other day.

orangeitis wrote

Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. Theism & atheism refers to belief, as there's only a belief of lack of belief If one's unsure that a deity exists, they're an atheist. Gnosticism and agnosticism refers to knowledge. If you think you know for sure, you're gnostic,and if you think you don't know for sure, you're agnostic. For instance, Ex is a "gnostic theist", and I am an "agnostic atheist".

Don't take my word for it, look it up on Wikipedia or Dictionary.com.

[Irreligious]

lostsheep wrote

I didn't get that from this link. Keep in mind, Einstein, Jefferson, and many other historically respected individuals are misquoted or quoted out of context by theists to suit their own agenda, that being that such individuals were highly religious when in fact their many written opinions show that they were either deists or outright atheists.

Maybe I'm just in an especially prickly mood today. However, I came across this story yesterday and was thoroughly annoyed then, too.

I don't know. I guess I just expected the esteemed professor to be a much better debater than to fall into such an obvious trap when there was never any burden on him to define what these god-botherers won't.