Richard Dawkins Admits He Is In Fact Agnostic

1. 71

   AEvansposted 12 years ago

   If you are familiar with Richard Dawkins he now admits he cannot disprove that God does not exist. On a scale of 1 to 10, he states he is a 6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ostic.html
   
   
   Interesting not trying to sway anyone, but this is an interesting article. Your thoughts on this topic.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, it's on a scale of 1 to 7 that he rates himself a 6 (or, rather, a 6.9).
      
      It's been a few years since I read his book, but I don't think this is a departure at all about his beliefs.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         AEvansposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I completely agree with you when it comes to his beliefs. Here is the same man that also believed in Darwinism at one point in his life. Maybe he is just trying to stir the pot a little. Mmmmmm....

         replyreport
         1. 85

            rebekahELLEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I think he is simply stating that no one can know with absolute certainty, thus, the 6.9. I don't think it changes his beliefs at all.
            
            I think also God has a different meaning to 'agnostics'. The religious portrayal of a supreme being who floats in the heavens is not what everyone believes about what a God force may or may not be. God could be energy, a universal force, etc.  I think he makes a strong point when he talks about highly educated, skilled theologians disputing many of the stories in the Bible.  A talking snake?
            
            I read an interesting article the other day about a 298 million year old forest found under a Chinese coal mine. http://gizmodo.com/5886774/extraordinar … -coal-mine (the paintings are reconstructions of what it would look like)
            
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/2 … 90578.html

            replyreport
   2. 70

      aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think it shows that there is still hope for his coming to faith (and what a day that would be, millions of angels rejoicing on heaven, and millions of atheists in the dumps)and that possibly the death of his chum Hitchens gave him something to think about.
      
      There is also the fact that his family wealth and position derived from the slave trading and owning they did... just maybe he is finally beginning to hear God speaking to him.
      
      I would relish a 'Road to Damascus' coming to faith.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This isn't even news, Dawkins has never claimed he can disprove any god and has always maintained that position.
      
      And, he has always been honest about that, contrary to believers who lie about their gods claiming they do in fact exist.
      
      At the very least, this thread brings to light the moral differences between Dawkins and believers, despite the fact believers constantly denounce and deride him.
      
      Again, hypocrisy abounds.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         hy·poc·ri·sy   [hi-pok-ruh-see]
         noun, plural -sies.
         1.a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
         2.a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
         3.an act or instance of hypocrisy.
         
         Now lets see:
         
         Dawkins' published books stating that God is a delusion.
         Dawkins' is the self proclaimed 'messiah' of atheists.
         Dawkins' neglected to mention that his wealth and education originated from slavery.
         
         Hmmm, yes I see what you mean.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You are fundamentally misunderstanding a position based on science not faith.
            
            Faith= I just know and I am certain.
            
            Science= If there is no objective proof something exists, don't believe it.  But be open to that proof being found.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry, is that some sort of refutation because I really have no idea what you're talking about.
            
            Sure, Dawkins has published books stating ALL gods are a result of delusion. How does that disprove gods don't exist?
            
            He has never proclaimed to be the "messiah of atheists"  - that is a lie.
            
            His wealth and education originated from slavery? <--- coveted double laughie award for that one.

            replyreport
      2. 71

         AEvansposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         We do not believe in Gods, I believe you are misconstruing the word in its entirety. In Corinthians when speaking of 'Gods' it talks about worshiping 'False Idols'. We do not worship 'Gods' we have but one 'God' and he is the Alpha and Omega. I on a personal level have never denounced what I believe. Just like Dawkins has never truly denounced his belief.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Contradict much?
            
            That's like saying you don't believe in bowling, but you have a place in which you roll large, heavy balls down narrow wooden floors in order to knock down pins.

            replyreport
      3. 59

         Vladimir Uhriposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Believing or not believeing in God, both are belief systems. God is not matter or time one cannot be proved anyway. In the side of God the faith is essential, which was trashed in the Paradise.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps, but I hold neither beliefs nor do many others.
            
            
            
            But, you will believe in God that cannot be shown to exist nonetheless. Funny how you contradict yourself.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               AEvansposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               May I ask you why, you only take clippings of someone's word and then run with it? Responding to someone in a discussion is best when you read the entire thing first.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Sometimes, but I find it important to respond to comments and claims specifically made that are the relevant "meat and potatoes" of the post. If a persons words cannot stand on their own whether in portions or as a whole, then they aren't valid either way.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     AEvansposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     But the response was not place here in whole and the "meat and potatoes" was in the complete sentence. I understand that you are trying to validate what you believe and that's okay too.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        *sigh*

                        replyreport
   4. 74

      vrbmftposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I have thought about responding to this forum all morning!  LaoTsu says the wise man is quiet.  I finally decided to be UNwise and give in to my "addiction" to speaking.  As my Dad would say, "talking to hear myself talk."  I wish I would have known enough then to have said, "Of course, Dad, why else would I talk?!"
      
      Science does not always have objective facts for its THEORIES.  Show me electricity, for example!  You can measure the effects of electricity, you can make an assumption, perhaps a good assumption, nevertheless an assumption, that electricity exists and so on and so on.
      
      I don't think that Evolution is considered by scientists to be a fact, but a theory to interpret the data.  I think it is a good theory and only enhances the wonder of God, by the way.
      
      If I live in a world of being right and others being wrong, my capacity to enter into genuine relationships is diminished, whether those relationships be with friends, lovers, family, scientists, or even the folks at the end of the freeway offramp.  By the way, I consider them as part of the working class.  It's HARD WORK, humiliating work, standing out there  collecting money.  Try it sometime!  Okay, back on track,
      
      If my capacity to BE in relationship with people is diminished, because I put a framework of I'm right and you're wrong around everyone, then my capacity to be in relationship with God is also diminished and my capacity to bring to my relationships the EXPERIENCE of God is also diminished.  So most of us in our pursuit of being right and implying or outright BELIEVING that Mr. Dawkins is wrong will not do anything to bring to Mr. Dawkins the irrefutable experience of God.
      
      Alright.  I am back to being wise.  HUSH!
      THANKS FOR LETTING ME BE A PART OF THIS ENERGETIC FORUM!  O GOD!

      replyreport
      1. 59

         A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         Done.
         
         
         
         Yes, it is considered fact by scientists.
         
         
         
         Evolution contradicts the "wonders of God", by the way.

         replyreport
   5. 84

      Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Atheism isn't about proving that God(s) don't exist. It's about being unsatisfied with any and all arguments that have been given, proclaiming the fact of existence.
      
      If you're an atheist, it simply means that you see no reason to believe in a God as of yet.
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0Kt … embedded#!

      replyreport
      1. 70

         aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Appreciate the "as of yet."
         
         Will now watch the video.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Very good video, makes some excellent points.
            
            My faith relates to the experiences I have had with God, through Christ, not on any scientific evidence, just personal experience, which I cannot deny to myself, or anyone else.
            
            But a good video to show more clearly aspects of atheism that are generally misconstrued.
            
            Thanks,
            
            John

            replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   It's good to hear he has wised up.

   replyreport
3. 65

   aka-djposted 12 years ago

   Believers have consistently said there is no such thing as Atheists.
   No-one can know, with absolute certainty, there is no God.
   It is (more) honest to say "I don't know if God exists", than to assert the outright definitive, "there IS NO God".
   
   Whether he places the odds at 99.99999%, or at 6 out of 10, or even a 6.9 out of 7, there remains the sufficient doubt to leave room for him to be WRONG.
   
   Humanity does not have 100% knowledge about 100% of everything there is to know.
   Therefore, God can (and does, IMO) have plenty of room to "exist" just outside of our scope of knowledge.
   This then leaves room for only one real possibility. God must reveal Himself to humanity, lest He "run the risk"  of not being found.
   This, in fact is exactly what He has done (through Jesus Christ), and is what Christians have been saying for two thousand years.
   
   So, we are right back where we started. IE, DO YOU BELIEVE?

   replyreport
   1. 87

      livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What do you say about those zealots who say "I don't believe God exists, I KNOW he exists"? Their usual evidence is that they hear people talking to them.
      
      It seems to me everyone really is agnostic, although beliefs, naturally, vary.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I don't have to say anything to them.
         They can make that assertion based on their experience.
         
         I liken it to trying to prove to you that my wife loves me.
         
         Anyone can show they have a wife, but showing her love for you is a different matter. I have experienced her love, so I KNOW it's real. You, on the other hand haven't, so you don't.
         
         What's needed is for you to have a wife who loves you, and you experience that love, so, it will be REAL, to you.
         You will KNOW!
         
         
         If there was NO SINGLE human being on this earth who ever experienced God, then the atheist, or agnostic would have a case to argue. But, the reverse seems to be the case, therefore they should take note.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I didn't write say *to*, I wrote say *about*.
            
            Saying that you love someone or knowing that someone else loves someone is different from asserting that you know that something that has no corporeal presence whatsoever exists. No one knows.
            
            Some probably think that such a being would be impressed by devoted obsequience, but that's a human model (monarchs have always demand servile devotion from their subjects).
            
            Maybe, again like in the human model, then constant fawning attention is an attempt to curry favor and gloss over other things that God is "on the record" of disliking...

            replyreport
4. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   Saying you can't prove a negative just makes you a scientist--or possibly a Muslimchristianjewishrastafarianeverythignelseian.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      AEvansposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Now that is an interesting new word you just created. lol! Love it!

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         An atheist is a lack of believe in God
         
         Dawkins is like an Fundy Atheist with a Intellectual war on Religion, in which sells a great deal of books and videos
         
         What ever is between the Pope and Dawkins, you will find me in the middle, like some kind of spiritual sided grounds.

         replyreport
5. 80

   skyfireposted 12 years ago

   Most of the atheists are agnostic based on scientific inquiry, so I don't understand how believers are making it out as if it's change of belief.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Randy Godwin
      
      In the defense of all Christianity, get your myth facts straight
      
      There is only 10s of thousands or up to 100 thousand Gods on earth , not counting the zillion other planets out there.

      replyreport
6. 59

   Randy Godwinposted 12 years ago

   Nothing new at all!  It's like challenging believers to prove there aren't literally millions of gods instead of only one as they claim.  LOL!
   
   
   
   
                                    
   

   replyreport
7. 57

   MelissaBarrettposted 12 years ago

   Here's what I see (not only here but other places)
   
   1. Christians rubbing their hands together in hopes that an atheist admits he is wrong.  Which, while understandable, isn't exactly the most pleasant of human emotions.  I'll be the first to admit that wanting to see someone humbled is attractive at times, wanting to see someone give up their strongly held ideals just to prove you were right is kinda... well unchristian. Neeneer  Neeneer Neeneer isn't exactly taught in the bible.
   
   2.  Atheists defending Dawkins to the death... Which is also kinda sad.  How would him throwing his hands in the air and shouting "Praise Jesus" in any way affect you?  (Other than point one making the Christians in your life even more insufferable)  Most atheists I know pride themselves on being free thinkers.  What Dawkins believes shouldn't effect your own conclusions...if you came to them on your own that is.
   
   Anyway... Just my two cents.  I don't really have a dog in this fight.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Most the great man/women I study in the world's nature and in human history. You will find most of these great people somewhere balanced in the middle of the extreme of Atheists and Religious fundamentalist
      
      The middle bed, is just right , AHHHHHHH for me

      replyreport