Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

[Abracadabra]

Is there anyone who is sure that god doesn't exist? I'd like to see the evidence, personally.

Well, I ran into an atheist on this very forum who goes around proclaiming that science has ruled out any spiritual essence to reality. So there are atheistic fruitcakes to be found who erroneously believe that they can disprove a spiritual essence to reality altogether. Forget about any specific Gods. They rule out everything even remotely close to being mystical.

Of course those kinds of people are just the polar opposites of religious fundies. Pretending to know things that can't be known.

I personally feel that I can rule out Hebrew mythology just as most people have accepted that Greek mythology can be ruled out. The Hebrew mythology itself is simply to absurd to be an accurate picture of a God. It's riddled with contradictions to the point where it clearly can't be true.

Besides the ultimate contradiction of Christianity is the very idea that some supposedly benevolent would consider having his son butchered on a pole as 'payment' for the sins of mankind.

If that's not the most asinine idea I've ever heard, I don't know what is.

It just flies in the very face of anything that could be considered "divine" IMHO.

How absurd does a religion need to be before we rule out out on those grounds alone?

A supreme being who's so crude and ruthless to demand that someone be nailed to a pole to pay for people's sin wouldn't even be a "God" as far as I'm concerned. On the contrary, such a being would be an evil demon unworthy of anyone's respect.

So, I can rule out the Christian God as being a valid "God". If it exists at all, it would only prove that demons exist.

[fr0d0]

The funny thing about the news item is that it's meant to strike the supposed new atheist majority (it just recently discovered that it was) as game changing. I wonder how the dork isn't totally bored with the subject.

[Aardverk]

No one has mentioned yet that Richard Dawkins proposed a 7-point belief scale. He claims to be 6.9 on that scale.

1. Theist: I know God exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I can't be absolutely sure God exists but I believe he does.
3. Weak Theist: I am uncertain, but am inclined to believe in God.
4. Agnostic: I don't know if gods exist or not.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether gods exists but I’m skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I think gods are unlikely to exist. I assume that they do not.
7. Atheist: I am absolutely sure that there are no gods.

My wording is unlikely to be precise.

[Nine]

No one has mentioned yet that Richard Dawkins proposed a 7-point belief scale. He claims to be 6.9 on that scale.

1. Theist: I know God exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I can't be absolutely sure God exists but I believe he does.
3. Weak Theist: I am uncertain, but am inclined to believe in God.
4. Agnostic: I don't know if gods exist or not.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether gods exists but I’m skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I think gods are unlikely to exist. I assume that they do not.
7. Atheist: I am absolutely sure that there are no gods.

My wording is unlikely to be precise.

I quoted it directly from the book. tho couldn't be bothered to write the whole thing just where he fit in.

[Aardverk]

I quoted it directly from the book. tho couldn't be bothered to write the whole thing just where he fit in.

Sorry, I obviously missed that.

[Nine]

I quoted it directly from the book. tho couldn't be bothered to write the whole thing just where he fit in.

Sorry, I obviously missed that.

Hehe. Np mate.

[Minimalist]

Is there anyone who is sure that god doesn't exist? I'd like to see the evidence, personally.

I'm sure that none of his followers have the slightest bit of actual evidence for his existence. Otherwise, I agree with Dawkins that one cannot prove a negative... one can merely compile evidence why the negative is nonsensical.

[Whateverist]

Is there anyone who is sure that god doesn't exist? I'd like to see the evidence, personally.

I'm sure that none of his followers have the slightest bit of actual evidence for his existence. Otherwise, I agree with Dawkins that one cannot prove a negative... one can merely compile evidence why the negative is nonsensical.

But to what end? It will never add up to objective evidence and you'll never convince those who don't want to be. You don't need any more convincing yourself. So to hell with it.

[fr0d0]

It will never add up to objective evidence and you'll never convince those who don't want to be.

You will never convince those ignorant enough to believe that evidence is important that evidence actually never factors.

[Epimethean]

Because those are not the ignorant, so your evangelism falls upon deaf ears, Fr0ds. It does matter, because the deluded masses make such a huge issue of it regarding the rights of others, from birth control to artificial insemination (love the pope's recent talk on that, btw), to abortion, to educating children (creationism has NO place in a secular classroom unless we are also going to teach ancient Navajo myths as very real, too), to showing up at funerals to harass those mourning their dead.