5 bombshells some atheists are not aware of

[Rampant.A.I.]

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.

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.

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.

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

I knew these, but they may be surprising to some.

Not surprising AM doesn't know how to do a Google search.

And to 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.

You'd have to not understand a single word of this very simple sentence.

[Brian37]

1. Darwin not using the word apes did not negate his theory that we shared common ancestors with other primates. Not a bombshell at all.

2. If Dawkins likes to call himself an "agnostic" it still does not change the fact that he does not hold a belief in any god. I think he needs to adjust to the term "agnostic atheist".

When a scientist or atheist agrees that we "cant know anything with 100% certainty", that is not the same meaning as a layperson uses. In science and good use of logic you speak in terms of statistical probability.

I am sure that Dawkins would put the possibility of a god existing at 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 probability. Especially not all currently held god claims.

So the "cant know" merely is a semantic statement referring to any possible future discoveries.

[MJ the Skeptical]

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

Why did you even bother responding with this tripe. I refuted you point by point and you're going to pretend that you have solid facts when you were wrong or misconstrued on every point. That's why I'm arguing with you, you think you have bombshells and it's ridiculous. Dawkins has called himself an atheist before, I even linked you to a page. Intellectually dishonest little guy.

[ManMachine]

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.

In the following story (with embedded video) where he admits to being agnostic, he reminds the audience that he remains an atheist:

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."

I'm going to use this post to close out my point on the Dawkins /atheist/agnostic issue.

What has been posted here (in Tonus' post) is a video of the entire debate alongside some journalistic comment.

Many of the responses I have been given are based on journalistic bias and not what Dawkins is actually saying. Which is astonishing to me because the video is there for you to hear it from Dawkins himself. This also puts his comment on the 'seven point scale' into it's proper context.

So to use Dawkins' actual words transcribed from the video in the context they were made;

(Video clip at 01:11.33)

Anthony Kenny: Since he [Rowan Williams] has been sporting enough to bring god into the discussion, and you I think, Richard, believe you have a disproof of god's existence.

Richard Dawkins: No, I don't, I don't, that... you were wrong when you said that. I constructed in The God Delusion a seven point scale of which one was I'm... I know god exists, uh, seven was I know god doesn't exist and I called myself a six.

AK: Why don't you call yourself an agnostic then?

RD: I do. Um, but I thinks it's of, I think it's rather, I think it...

AK: You're described as the world's most famous atheist.

RD: Well, not by me. Not by me.

AK: Well, can I ask you to spell out your argument, your Boeing...

RD: Alright, I'm a six point nine.

[laughs]

AK: But you have your Boeing 747 argument to show it's highly improbable there's a god

RD: Yes, I mean, I believe that when you talk about agnosticism it's very important to make a distinction between 'I don't know whether x is true or not, therefore it's 50/50 likely or unlikely, and that's the kind of agnostic which I, which I don't, which I'm definitely not. I think one can place estimates of probability on these things and I think the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low so let's say I'm a six point nine. Um, but that still doesn't mean that I'm, that I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.

...

[the debate continues on Darwin]


And there you have it. I said Dawkins considers himself to be agnostic, which is a fact. I'm not giving my opinion here. I'm not offering an interpretation, I'm just reporting the facts.

MM

[Rampant.A.I.]

It's because there's an atheist prejudice against agnosticism as being "soft" or "wussy," when the only scientific answer from the lack of sufficient evidence is to withhold judgement, and that is the proper stance for a debater to take.

The individual can say "I believe with confidence there is no God because there isn't evidence of any," but the theists even in this forum have a field day with that -- without supporting their own beliefs, and pretending to require evidence for everything except their God belief.

Just look at the pocket pool party Frodo had in a thread about atheists stating they personally disbelieve God, or any other proposition lacking evidence.

And yet. when asked to qualify how he "rationally" disbelieved the evidence of other supernatural entities yet swallowed a load of beliefs about his personal deity whole, he just gulped and pretended not to gag on the hypocrisy.

[Sejanus]

Again, as has been explained to you on numerous occasions, atheism does not mean claiming to know a god doesn't exist, that would be a subset of atheism - Gnostic atheism. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. How hard is it to understand? were you dropped on your head as a child or something?
In your quotation from the debate, look at what Anthony Kenny defines atheism as;

Anthony Kenny: Since he [Rowan Williams] has been sporting enough to bring god into the discussion, and you I think, Richard, believe you have a disproof of god's existence.

He's saying atheism is "having a disproof of a gods existence". That's blatantly false, and only refers to Gnostic atheism. When RD says he's an agnostic, he's not saying "I'm an agnostic, but not an atheist", he's saying that he is indeed agnostic, but not an atheist (a Gnostic atheist) under AK's faulty definition. He then uses his 7 point scale to describe his position clearly as an agnostic atheist.

[ManMachine]

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

Why did you even bother responding with this tripe. I refuted you point by point and you're going to pretend that you have solid facts when you were wrong or misconstrued on every point. That's why I'm arguing with you, you think you have bombshells and it's ridiculous. Dawkins has called himself an atheist before, I even linked you to a page. Intellectually dishonest little guy.

You need to relax more.

You are so intent on driving this thread to your own agenda you are completely missing the point in my OP. To spell it out for you, I'm not interested in your agenda and I'm not going to engage with it.

I'm not being ignorant, I have responded to you. That I have not jumped on your 'band waggon' is your issue, not mine.

MM

---

Again, as has been explained to you on numerous occasions, atheism does not mean claiming to know a god doesn't exist, that would be a subset of atheism - Gnostic atheism. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. How hard is it to understand? were you dropped on your head as a child or something?
In your quotation from the debate, look at what Anthony Kenny defines atheism as;

Anthony Kenny: Since he [Rowan Williams] has been sporting enough to bring god into the discussion, and you I think, Richard, believe you have a disproof of god's existence.

He's saying atheism is "having a disproof of a gods existence". That's blatantly false, and only refers to Gnostic atheism. When RD says he's an agnostic, he's not saying "I'm an agnostic, but not an atheist", he's saying that he is indeed agnostic, but not an atheist (a Gnostic atheist) under AK's faulty definition. He then uses his 7 point scale to describe his position clearly as an agnostic atheist.

You and Quantum Theorist should go to a spa together.

MM

[Mudhammam]

Xtians don't seem to know that Darwin believed in a creator.

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.

Origin of Species, Bk XIV

One of the few things he got totally wrong.. although I'm sure that now he would gladly admit it.

He also expressed grave doubts about God's existence in his personal writings.

[Sejanus]

You and Quantum Theorist should go to a spa together.

MM

So you've nothing of worth to add? disappointing. Not surprising, but disappointing.

[MJ the Skeptical]

You need to relax more.

Being stern with you =/= Not being relaxed.

You are so intent on driving this thread to your own agenda

What agenda is that? Pointing out how stupid you are?

you are completely missing the point in my OP.

That Darwin didn't say apes in Origin of Speices? which doesn't negate anything. Or that you thought Dawkins never called himself an Atheist and I clearly proved you wrong, dumbass. At least have some humility to admit when you've been proven wrong.

To spell it out for you, I'm not interested in your agenda and I'm not going to engage with it.

Yet, you replied anyway. The irony meter is going off the chart.

I'm not being ignorant, I have responded to you.

No, you ignored my responses to straw man my feelings. You are being ignorant by not objectively considering that you've been fallible. Especially calling these bombshells, very dramatic, nice touch.

That I have not jumped on your 'band waggon' is your issue, not mine.

You're a moron. There is no bandwagon and you didn't even identify any agenda.