My 'Athiesm'

[DarthFritz82]

Hello all,

This is my first post and I thank you all for allowing me to join your forum, as well as the gracious welcome i received.

So I guess that I have always been an atheist or at the very least this is what I have always been labelled by others.

For me I would suppose that I would be a solid 7 on the Dawkins scale for atheism and give the notion of an invisible cosmic wizard no credence whatsoever.

I was lucky enough to not have any religious indoctrination at all and my parents never discussed it nor dismissed it.

I suppose these days with logical and rational arguement, I tend to be careful in my turn of phrase as I know that the claim is completely unfalsifiable from both ends of the spectrum and cannot be proven or disproven.

However for me it is akin to not being able to dismiss the theory that fluorescent rabbits may orbit within the rings of an exoplanet.

I may not be able to prove my point but I know its garbage.

What are your positions on atheism? Do you to take a careful position given the logical arguements put forward that it cannot be proven nor disproven?

Where do you see yourself on the Dawkins Scale?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Oh, nice.  You come in here - a newbie, fer chrissakes - and you seek to destroy my cherished belief in extrasolar, fluorescent lagomorphs.  I won't have it, I tell you!!

I mean, erm, welcome to the forum.  Enjoy.

Boru

[EgoDeath]

Hello all,

This is my first post and I thank you all for allowing me to join your forum, as well as the gracious welcome i received.

So I guess that I have always been an atheist or at the very least this is what I have always been labelled by others.

For me I would suppose that I would be a solid 7 on the Dawkins scale for atheism and give the notion of an invisible cosmic wizard no credence whatsoever.

I was lucky enough to not have any religious indoctrination at all and my parents never discussed it nor dismissed it.

I suppose these days with logical and rational arguement, I tend to be careful in my turn of phrase as I know that the claim is completely unfalsifiable from both ends of the spectrum and cannot be proven or disproven.

However for me it is akin to not being able to dismiss the theory that fluorescent rabbits may orbit within the rings of an exoplanet.

I may not be able to prove my point but I know its garbage.

What are your positions on atheism? Do you to take a careful position given the logical arguements put forward that it cannot be proven nor disproven?

Where do you see yourself on the Dawkins Scale?

I'm glad you've never dealt with any sort of indoctrination. I had religion pushed on me a little bit in my youth but I would say it was nothing too extreme.

I'm also a 7 on the Dawkin's scale and consider myself, effectively, a gnostic atheist. I know god isn't real in the same way I know the fluorescent, planet orbiting rabbits aren't real and give both concepts about the same amount of respect as scientific proposals. Despite the small amount of indoctrination my family imposed on me I was able to see through the veil at a pretty young age; around 14 years old. The massive amount of push-back I got from my father when I used to naturally question things as a child was the main thing that made me suspicious.

This, along with a few other factors lead me to become an agnostic theist, then an agnostic deist, then agnostic atheist and finally gnostic atheist.

To be honest, it's not an idea I have too much interest in exploring more until some actual evidence is presented for the idea.

But there's plenty of cool people here to discuss a number of things with and I hope you decide to stick around.

Welcome!

[brewer]

Welcome Woof.

What's a Dawkins scale?

[EgoDeath]

Welcome Woof.

What's a Dawkins scale?

In The God Delusion, Dawkins created a 7-point scale for belief in god, with 1 being absolute certainty that god exists and 7 being absolute certainty that there is no god.

[fredd bear]

Welcome Woof.

What's a Dawkins scale?

 Good question.


I wouldn't bother about it.

Richard Dawkins is a public intellectual. His discipline is evolutionary biology, in which I understand he is considered competent by peers, but in  no way a leader or major figure..

Using his discipline, Dawkins  demolished  the notion of irreducible complexity. (a  disingenuous way of trying to argue intelligent design from a slightly different direction) Apparently not hard for anyone with some actual knowledge about evolutionary biology.

 I've haven't read his book, but have seen a good number of interviews. The main impression I got from the interviews was that of an arrogant and rather unpleasant man.

From what I have been able to discover, Richard Dawkins is not considered to be a  considered to be a good( not fantastic) scientist, but a bad philosopher. I quote only one  article, from "The Philosopher's Magazine".  I recommend the article., but there are many more online 

"The broader point is that I think Dawkins has been sliding down ever since he became a (very) popular spokesperson for atheism. Which is highly unfortunate, because atheism does need good spokespeople. But the most effective ones, I would think, are those that come across as reasonable and articulate, and who are very careful about what they say in public, especially on social media. Dawkins is articulate, but doesn’t come across (to non atheists, and indeed even to some atheists) as reasonable. And he’s definitely not careful about his public statements, as we’ll see below.

So, to recap my thinking so far: not a leading evolutionary biologist (never been); a top notch science popularizer (until The God Delusion); a problematic public intellectual (after The God Delusion)."


https://www.philosophersmag.com/footnote...rd-dawkins

[bennyboy]

This is a forum about atheism, not athiesm.

[Peebothuhlu]

Hello!

[Belacqua]

This is a forum about atheism, not athiesm.

Sometimes we fight about being "athier than thou."

[brewer]

Welcome Woof.

What's a Dawkins scale?

In The God Delusion, Dawkins created a 7-point scale for belief in god, with 1 being absolute certainty that god exists and 7 being absolute certainty that there is no god.

Does it require a polygraph test?