Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 2, 2014 at 3:49 am (This post was last modified: May 2, 2014 at 4:03 am by ManMachine.)
(May 1, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:
None of these are bombshells.
But you are incorrect on Dawkins, unless you want to play semantics games.
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: 1. Darwin never once uses either the word ‘ape’ or ‘apes’ in his work ‘On The Origin of Species’, so he could never have said Humans were descendants of or shared a common ancestor with apes.
This should be more surprising to creationists.
It is true, he does not mention human evolution in 'The Origin...". He does in "The Descent of Man", however.
Quote:2. Richard Dawkins has never called himself an atheist, he actually considers himself to be agnostic.
This is incorrect. He states that he is a '6' on his "Spectrum of Theistic Beliefs" scale.
6. "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Quote:3. Early on in Dawkins’ book, ‘The God Delusion’, he points out that no one can have total certainty that God does or does not exist.
This is the position of the majority of atheists.
I do not claim to know with certainty that a god does not exist. But I do not believe one does. This makes me (and Dawkins) an agnostic-atheist.
Quote:4. Darwin had little faith in fossil records ever proving his theory of Evolution, he considered them too incomplete.
So...
Darwin also got a lot of other things wrong about evolution. We've come along way in the last 160 + years since Darwin. But everything that has been discovered since Darwin has completely confirmed his central thesis, random mutation and natural selection drives changes.
Hell, he didn't even know about DNA.
Quote:5. Sir Isaac Newton had an interest in the occult, he studied alchemy and believed he would discover The Philosopher’s Stone, a material capable of turning base metal into gold. He also believed that metals ‘possessed a sort of life’.
Very true. Other than his monumental works in math, his other beliefs were batshit crazy.
"... There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did."
I think there are certain Christian groups that would want to categorise him as an atheist to justify their own simplistic view of the issues, and Dawkins certainly has anti-theist views (The God Delusion' case in point) but in his own words he is agnostic with anti-theist views. I'm not calling him agnostic, I'm just reporting that he calls himself agnostic.
MM
(May 1, 2014 at 9:08 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote:
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Following on from a recent post in another thread I decided to drop a few very interesting bombshells.
None of which were bombshells, but continue...
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: These can all be verified with a little effort (I'm not doing all the work for you).
Clearly not since I'm going to correct you.
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: 1. Darwin never once uses either the word ‘ape’ or ‘apes’ in his work ‘On The Origin of Species’, so he could never have said Humans were descendants of or shared a common ancestor with apes.
We're all cousins, not just with apes, so not only does he not have to specify anything about apes, but common descent covers all lifeforms. I'm pretty he did go through apes in The Descent of man and he certainly did in other work. He did come to the conclusion that we came from a common ancestor, despite not having all the evidence we have today. It was still brilliant enough evidence to publish a book that stood as the cornerstone of modern biology until we learned more in the next century.
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: 2. Richard Dawkins has never called himself an atheist, he actually considers himself to be agnostic.
Such bullshit, he has said he is both, you can be both. I could pull up videos but I'll just link you to his site.
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: 3. Early on in Dawkins’ book, ‘The God Delusion’, he points out that no one can have total certainty that God does or does not exist.
How the is that a bombshell? you don't have to be certain to be an atheist.
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: 4. Darwin had little faith in fossil records ever proving his theory of Evolution, he considered them too incomplete.
No kidding, because there wasn't as much information in the fossil record yet, hell he didn't even know about genetics yet. But the logical inference was STILL common descent.
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: 5. Sir Isaac Newton had an interest in the occult, he studied alchemy and believed he would discover The Philosopher’s Stone, a material capable of turning base metal into gold. He also believed that metals ‘possessed a sort of life’.
Did you just watch Cosmos or something? I'm willing to bet most of us already knew Newton had crackpot theories and religious woo.
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Enjoy,
MM
Did not enjoy,
QT. (because writing your name at the end is so unique and original)
Aww, Mr Grumpy.
I don't understand why you are arguing with me, I'm just a messenger, these are facts, what you chose to do with them is up to you. If you have an issue with Dawkins' agnosticism then take it up with him, he said it, not me.
You need to redirect your ire where it will better serve you.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
(May 2, 2014 at 3:49 am)ManMachine Wrote: I think there are certain Christian groups that would want to categorise him as an atheist to justify their own simplistic view of the issues, and Dawkins certainly has anti-theist views (The God Delusion' case in point) but in his own words he is agnostic with anti-theist views. I'm not calling him agnostic, I'm just reporting that he calls himself agnostic.
Yes, but the "fact" you posted claims that he never called himself an atheist, and that's obviously not true. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. The terms are not exclusive; only an anti-theist cannot also be an agnostic.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
(May 2, 2014 at 3:49 am)ManMachine Wrote: I think there are certain Christian groups that would want to categorise him as an atheist to justify their own simplistic view of the issues, and Dawkins certainly has anti-theist views (The God Delusion' case in point) but in his own words he is agnostic with anti-theist views. I'm not calling him agnostic, I'm just reporting that he calls himself agnostic.
Yes, but the "fact" you posted claims that he never called himself an atheist, and that's obviously not true. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. The terms are not exclusive; only an anti-theist cannot also be an agnostic.
Why is it 'obviously not true'? An anti-theist can be agnostic, a non-theist cannot.
Can you post a quote form Dawkins where he either claims to be an atheist or an agnostic-atheist? I've seen many people attribute that to him but not heard it from the man himself. As far as I am aware (and I could be wrong) he has always considered himself to be agnostic with anti-theist views. I would be interested to see what context might cause him to make a statement like that.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
May 2, 2014 at 7:48 am (This post was last modified: May 2, 2014 at 7:53 am by Sejanus.)
Being not completely certain of god(s) non-existance does not make you agnostic, as you seem to think. It means you're an agnostic atheist. Which is what I think Richard Dawkins and most atheists are. If you knew with complete certainty that said god(s) did not exist (which is impossible, as deistic gods are unfalsifiable hypotheses), you would be a gnostic atheist.
~1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.~
~Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Jesus Christ.~
(May 2, 2014 at 5:29 am)Tonus Wrote: [quote='ManMachine' pid='662535' dateline='1399016979']only an anti-theist cannot also be an agnostic.
I think it's possible to be an anti-theist and not claim to know if god exists.
I've always thought an anti-theist was basically someone who finds the idea of theism/religion/belief repugnant and would not wish to be a theist/religious/believer even if it were true. It's almost the opposite of someone who quotes Pascal's wager and wishes to live their life as if their particular god exists, even if it doesn't.
Anyway I consider myself to be agnostic, atheist and anti-theistic. What makes you say they are not compatible with each other?
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Following on from a recent post in another thread I decided to drop a few very interesting bombshells.
These can all be verified with a little effort (I'm not doing all the work for you).
1. Darwin never once uses either the word ‘ape’ or ‘apes’ in his work ‘On The Origin of Species’, so he could never have said Humans were descendants of or shared a common ancestor with apes.
2. Richard Dawkins has never called himself an atheist, he actually considers himself to be agnostic.
3. Early on in Dawkins’ book, ‘The God Delusion’, he points out that no one can have total certainty that God does or does not exist.
4. Darwin had little faith in fossil records ever proving his theory of Evolution, he considered them too incomplete.
5. Sir Isaac Newton had an interest in the occult, he studied alchemy and believed he would discover The Philosopher’s Stone, a material capable of turning base metal into gold. He also believed that metals ‘possessed a sort of life’.
Enjoy,
MM
1 - I'm about 1/2 way through that book right now. No mention of human evolution yet. Also, don't see how this is a "bombshell".
2 - On his own scale, he said he's a 6.9/7. He said he's just as sure gods don't exist as he is that fairies and leprechauns don't exist.
3 - Yep. And?
4 - Yep. I actually got to that part. The fossil record is, by its very nature, incomplete. But evolution can be proved without a single fossil, just based on DNA evidence.
5 - He also believed in astrology and Yahweh. He was a genius, but also a product of his time.
I'm a bitch, I'm a lover
I'm a goddess, I'm a mother
I'm a sinner, I'm a saint
I do not feel ashamed
(May 2, 2014 at 7:31 am)ManMachine Wrote: Can you post a quote form Dawkins where he either claims to be an atheist or an agnostic-atheist? I've seen many people attribute that to him but not heard it from the man himself.
Quote:But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs.
Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, "I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low."
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
May 2, 2014 at 11:28 am (This post was last modified: May 2, 2014 at 11:31 am by Simon Moon.)
(May 2, 2014 at 3:49 am)ManMachine Wrote:
(May 1, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:
None of these are bombshells.
But you are incorrect on Dawkins, unless you want to play semantics games.
This should be more surprising to creationists.
It is true, he does not mention human evolution in 'The Origin...". He does in "The Descent of Man", however.
This is incorrect. He states that he is a '6' on his "Spectrum of Theistic Beliefs" scale.
6. "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
This is the position of the majority of atheists.
I do not claim to know with certainty that a god does not exist. But I do not believe one does. This makes me (and Dawkins) an agnostic-atheist.
So...
Darwin also got a lot of other things wrong about evolution. We've come along way in the last 160 + years since Darwin. But everything that has been discovered since Darwin has completely confirmed his central thesis, random mutation and natural selection drives changes.
Hell, he didn't even know about DNA.
Very true. Other than his monumental works in math, his other beliefs were batshit crazy.
"... There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did."
I think there are certain Christian groups that would want to categorise him as an atheist to justify their own simplistic view of the issues, and Dawkins certainly has anti-theist views (The God Delusion' case in point) but in his own words he is agnostic with anti-theist views. I'm not calling him agnostic, I'm just reporting that he calls himself agnostic.
But he does called himself an atheist.
As I previously posted, he considers himself at level 6+ on his own scale.
Here's the entire scale:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." 6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Calling himself an agnostic does not alter the fact, nor does it conflict with the fact, that he is also an atheist, according to his own scale.
Dawkins comments, in his 2008 book, as to his own position on the scale, that he is in the 6 to 7 range: [1]
“I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7. I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
As others have pointed out, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
May 2, 2014 at 11:45 am (This post was last modified: May 2, 2014 at 11:58 am by Mister Agenda.)
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Following on from a recent post in another thread I decided to drop a few very interesting bombshells.
These can all be verified with a little effort (I'm not doing all the work for you).
1. Darwin never once uses either the word ‘ape’ or ‘apes’ in his work ‘On The Origin of Species’, so he could never have said Humans were descendants of or shared a common ancestor with apes.
2. Richard Dawkins has never called himself an atheist, he actually considers himself to be agnostic.
3. Early on in Dawkins’ book, ‘The God Delusion’, he points out that no one can have total certainty that God does or does not exist.
4. Darwin had little faith in fossil records ever proving his theory of Evolution, he considered them too incomplete.
5. Sir Isaac Newton had an interest in the occult, he studied alchemy and believed he would discover The Philosopher’s Stone, a material capable of turning base metal into gold. He also believed that metals ‘possessed a sort of life’.
Enjoy,
MM
2. Dawkins puts himself as a six on the Dawkins Scale. which he labels as 'de facto atheist'. He is an agnostic atheist, like most of us here.
(May 2, 2014 at 3:49 am)ManMachine Wrote: [i]"... There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did."
Which would not have been news to anyone who read The God Delusion, where he spelled out his position in such simple terms that a child could understand it. Care to conduct a poll to find out how many people here didn't know Dawkins is agnostic? Care to conduct a poll to find out how many atheists here are also agnostic?
(May 2, 2014 at 3:49 am)ManMachine Wrote: I think there are certain Christian groups that would want to categorise him as an atheist to justify their own simplistic view of the issues, and Dawkins certainly has anti-theist views (The God Delusion' case in point) but in his own words he is agnostic with anti-theist views. I'm not calling him agnostic, I'm just reporting that he calls himself agnostic.
There's nothing Christian groups would like better than to label Dawkins as 'not-an-atheist', which is why they got so excited about him being an agnostic. Thanks for the report, but it isn't news here.
(May 2, 2014 at 3:49 am)ManMachine Wrote: Aww, Mr Grumpy.
I don't understand why you are arguing with me, I'm just a messenger, these are facts, what you chose to do with them is up to you. If you have an issue with Dawkins' agnosticism then take it up with him, he said it, not me.
You need to redirect your ire where it will better serve you.
MM
I don't see how ire isn't appropriately directed at someone too oblivious to get that no one here has a problem with Dawkins being agnostic, and likely no one here was unaware of it.
Maybe you shouldn't assume that other people are ignorant of things you've just discovered.
(May 1, 2014 at 5:11 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Following on from a recent post in another thread I decided to drop a few very interesting bombshells.
These can all be verified with a little effort (I'm not doing all the work for you).
1. Darwin never once uses either the word ‘ape’ or ‘apes’ in his work ‘On The Origin of Species’, so he could never have said Humans were descendants of or shared a common ancestor with apes.
I didn't know this one. I disagree that it can be verified with little effort. You'd have to read the entire book.
Quote:2. Richard Dawkins has never called himself an atheist, he actually considers himself to be agnostic.
I disagree with this one:
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
Quote:3. Early on in Dawkins’ book, ‘The God Delusion’, he points out that no one can have total certainty that God does or does not exist.
Not exactly a bombshell.
Quote:4. Darwin had little faith in fossil records ever proving his theory of Evolution, he considered them too incomplete.
5. Sir Isaac Newton had an interest in the occult, he studied alchemy and believed he would discover The Philosopher’s Stone, a material capable of turning base metal into gold. He also believed that metals ‘possessed a sort of life’.
![[Image: Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=actok.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FAgnostic%2Bv%2BGnostic%2Bv%2BAtheist%2Bv%2BTheist.png)
![[Image: thfrog.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img577.imageshack.us%2Fimg577%2F6942%2Fthfrog.gif)
![[Image: 3qbj.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=imagizer.imageshack.us%2Fv2%2F800x600q90%2F191%2F3qbj.jpg)
