Dawkins interview on some sort of God channel...

[nath]

...and it's remarkably polite, well mannered and nice.

YouTube - Revelation TV Interview Richard Dawkins

I'm about 10 minutes in and enjoying it quite a bit so far.

 

[nath]

Guh, nevermind. Turns out the interviewer for Revelation TV is an absolute moron. It looked like Dawkins arguing with porridge.

 

[Krazeh]

Guh, nevermind. Turns out the interviewer for Revelation TV is an absolute moron. It looked like Dawkins arguing with porridge.

To be honest I think porridge could have probably made a better argument for a belief in god.

 

[nath]

This one looks more promising so far:

YouTube - Does God Exist? (Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens)

 

[Ctuchik]

Why this sudden interest in religious mumbo jumbo nath?

 

[Wij]

Jesus touched his peepee.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Believe or not, i can still wish that the world had gods, magic and pink dragons of death. Would make it a lot more interesting

It's hard to find(video or live) a good conversation with a person of belief and respectively, with no belief, as often the both hold adamant ground on the issue.

I myself believe in a deity(plural infact), but i also entertain the idea of nothing after life(not as scary as it sounds, as you won't care.). Find it a bit boring if it was so, but, in the imortal words of einstein;

Time will tell. Sooner or later, tmie will tell.

But more to the point, the simple reason that i have a belief in some form of deity, already sets(i can see it via the internets), few of you on the backfoot, preparing the witty insults and such. That is the problem, people who read that i have belief and instantly, without any knowledge, with extreme assumption, take a stance on who i am. Think about it.

I've actually learned that the hardest question to someone who doesn't believe is this; "What if you're wrong?". Work with believers too, but more so with non-believers, they get so angry most the time

Agnostics are cool, anyone who takes a stance of "I don't really give a f*ck" is fine in my books

 

[Raven]

Its near impossible to have intelligent debate with someone religious because their argument has absolutely no backing, except for "because it is" I really don't know why he bothers.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You can have some interesting discussions, for example with someone who has studied the book for years. You can ask about stuff, even some tricky ones, but if you go in with a mindset of "I'll prove this fecker wrong!" or "I'll just ask proof for god", it's not going to be that interesting.

It's kinda like if you go to a COD forum and say "Well it's a bit of sh*t isn't it?"

People often forget, me included have toi say, that a discussion is a two way street and if you act like a dick, you'll get treated as a dick.

Then again, some treatments to dicks are quite nice.

 

[Wij]

Well, having watched the whole thing in OP, Dawkins wasn't being a dick. He occasionally got a little frustrated as did the other guy but on the whole he gave him a very good crack of the whip. His argument though boiled down to, 'because it says so in the bible' and when asked what reason he had to believe it he responded with 'well it's supported by another bit in another part of the bible.'

Dawkins tried to point out something of the history of the bible like how the books were written individually and how the final selection of books that were canonical was chosen but the guy just went back to his 'I'm only a simple man routine.' Really he had no coherent argument.

 

[PLightstar]

Randomly I enjoy discussions with Jehovah's when they come to the door. I still find it interesting how/why they believe what they believe. I don't get angry or accusing its a discussion pure and simple. The Jehovah's always tell me they enjoy the discussion, even if they know I won't pursue their religion.

When I was younger I used to love arguing with religious types and got quite angry with them, even reducing a Christian to tears. But as I have gotten older I have mellowed and my viewpoint has changed. Yes I still get angry at extremists of any religion or Atheism for that matter as they do more harm then good, for their respective beliefs.

 

[Scouse]

I'm pulling out bits of your post Toht. I'm not taking you out of context tho - I want to answer the first quote by talking about the second.

people who read that i have belief and instantly, without any knowledge, with extreme assumption, take a stance on who i am.

You can have some interesting discussions

Sure, they're interesting the first few times, with the first few people who hold religious belief. But I find that, irrespective of religion, it's the same conversation that I've been having for 30+ years.

All the connotations have been well explored, debated to death, really very seriously considered from all angles. So the reason people take a stance on your religious views (rather than the whole "you") isnt that they lack knowledge or are making "extreme" assumptions - it's that they've already explored the religious question in depth and come to their well-considered conclusion:

Religion's full of shit

 

[Deebs]

I just cannot believe in anything other than science. Seriously, if God existed and loved his creations so much why put them through so much pain with war and acts of nature?

As Scouse said, religion's full of shit. There is no God, well apart from the one snuggled up in my pants.

 

[ford prefect]

I have always found Dawkins quite ironic; he is probably one of the most influential leaders of faith in the UK.

 

[mooSe_]

That christopher hitchens debate was quite good, although he did seem to ignore lots of the christian guy's points and just talk about what he wanted to talk about Some of the arguments the christian guy made were standard arguments which have standard responses though anyway so it would be a bit of a waste of time debating over that I guess

 

[nath]

Why this sudden interest in religious mumbo jumbo nath?

I've actually always been interested in this stuff. I just started checking out Reddit.com yesterday and found www.reddit.com/r/atheism and /r/skeptics and found some interesting chat/vids.

That christopher hitchens debate was quite good, although he did seem to ignore lots of the christian guy's points and just talk about what he wanted to talk about Some of the arguments the christian guy made were standard arguments which have standard responses though anyway so it would be a bit of a waste of time debating over that I guess

I thought that too. Turek was asking some fairly easy to shoot down questions, but Hitchens seemed to sideline them. He also seemed to focus on organised religion more than the simple question of does God exist. There were masses of arguments to rip apart Turek's points but he just seemed to skip that. Odd.

I have always found Dawkins quite ironic; he is probably one of the most influential leaders of faith in the UK.

Because he's a polarising figure that makes the religious more religious? Because you consider evolution 'faith'? Wat?

Time will tell. Sooner or later, tmie will tell.

But more to the point, the simple reason that i have a belief in some form of deity, already sets(i can see it via the internets), few of you on the backfoot, preparing the witty insults and such. That is the problem, people who read that i have belief and instantly, without any knowledge, with extreme assumption, take a stance on who i am. Think about it.

I've actually learned that the hardest question to someone who doesn't believe is this; "What if you're wrong?". Work with believers too, but more so with non-believers, they get so angry most the time

First of all, I'm not sure that Red Alert was historically accurate .

I agree, if people hear that you believe in a deity/deities they might form an unfounded opinion on you. However, if you believe in a deity then there is one opinion someone can form that is simply factual. You're willing to believe in something that lacks evidence. Whether or not you think that's a bad thing is an entirely separate issue.

It's like if someone says "I like CoD!". It's safe to say "that guy likes an FPS called CoD!".

Your final point is actually a very well known question - it's called Pascals Wager. However the counter point is - what if *YOU'RE* wrong. What if you believe in the wrong God and you get punished for it. Perhaps that same God respects people who don't believe in him at all - but hates people believing in false deities. It all sounds like a load of bollocks, but the "what if you're wrong" goes both ways. You're not statistically any safer believing in one choice of deity than I am in lacking belief in any of them.

 

[mr.Blacky]

I just cannot believe in anything other than science. Seriously, if God existed and loved his creations so much why put them through so much pain with war and acts of nature?

free will, so humans as a specie can learn maybe?


For some people it is just comfort, a security blanket to get through a tough day.
oh and bible does not equal god, god has more meaning that some old book

 

[ford prefect]

Because he's a polarising figure that makes the religious more religious? Because you consider evolution 'faith'? Wat?

Partly perhaps, but mainly because Dawkins is a man of uncompromising faith. His faith is simply happens to be Atheism and he is incredibly passionate about it. He cannot disprove the existence of a god/gods, he relies on faith as much as any Christian, Muslim or Jew. The acceptance that anything metaphysical is ultimately unknowable and therefore unimportant would make him agnostic; but Dawkins never chooses that path - his views are uncompromising and quite narrow-minded really.

 

[old.Tohtori]

First of all, I'm not sure that Red Alert was historically accurate .

I agree, if people hear that you believe in a deity/deities they might form an unfounded opinion on you. However, if you believe in a deity then there is one opinion someone can form that is simply factual. You're willing to believe in something that lacks evidence. Whether or not you think that's a bad thing is an entirely separate issue.

It's like if someone says "I like CoD!". It's safe to say "that guy likes an FPS called CoD!".

Your final point is actually a very well known question - it's called Pascals Wager. However the counter point is - what if *YOU'RE* wrong. What if you believe in the wrong God and you get punished for it. Perhaps that same God respects people who don't believe in him at all - but hates people believing in false deities. It all sounds like a load of bollocks, but the "what if you're wrong" goes both ways. You're not statistically any safer believing in one choice of deity than I am in lacking belief in any of them.

First off; Big points for reference notice

And on the rest i agree, firstly that it is a case of belief, ghosts, paranormal, magic, seadragons, whatnot. That little bit of blind belief in something special. As you said, it being a good/bad thing can't really be said. Options-> preferences.

And yes it goes both ways, both sides have people who will get outraged by it. Statistics however, well, with everything being unproven, can't really say even

In the end it's a cosmic crap stable.(intentional ). That's why i've come up with a new "religion" i believe in, but won't share because i'm a selfish bastard and want the afterlife goodies and wenches to myself!

 

[nath]

Partly perhaps, but mainly because Dawkins is a man of uncompromising faith. His faith is simply happens to be Atheism and he is incredibly passionate about it. He cannot disprove the existence of a god/gods, he relies on faith as much as any Christian, Muslim or Jew. The acceptance that anything metaphysical is ultimately unknowable and therefore unimportant would make him agnostic; but Dawkins never chooses that path - his views are uncompromising and quite narrow-minded really.

I think you've misunderstood his (and many others) atheism. There's a term "atheist agnostic" which is actually what Dawkins is. He doesn't profess to know that there is no God, just that there's absolutely no evidence and so has as much believe in a Deity as he does in Santa, Unicorns etc.

Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Strong atheists *believe* there is no God, and that is a form of faith I guess. Weak atheists or atheist agnostics *lack* a belief in a deity and that's as far as it goes.

 

[ford prefect]

I think you've misunderstood his (and many others) atheism. There's a term "atheist agnostic" which is actually what Dawkins is. He doesn't profess to know that there is no God, just that there's absolutely no evidence and so has as much believe in a Deity as he does in Santa, Unicorns etc.

Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Strong atheists *believe* there is no God, and that is a form of faith I guess. Weak atheists or atheist agnostics *lack* a belief in a deity and that's as far as it goes.

Not really, I am a big fan of his scientific work, and have read all of his books, but he does describe himself as a militant atheist and rationalist, each of which require certain assumptions and acts of faith in there own right. Rationalism requires the assumption that everything has a rational basis or explanation and Dawkins specific brand of Athism requires faith that science can or will ultimately disprove the existance of god, or that the current lack of evidence is proof enough that god doesn't exist.

 

[nath]

Not really, I am a big fan of his scientific work, and have read all of his books, but he does describe himself as a militant atheist and rationalist, each of which require certain assumptions and acts of faith in there own right. Rationalism requires the assumption that everything has a rational basis or explanation and Dawkins specific brand of Athism requires faith that science can or will ultimately disprove the existance of god, or that the current lack of evidence is proof enough that god doesn't exist.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that his brand of atheism is actually faith based. It's scientifically reasonable to completely throw out the idea of God until there's evidence for it, that doesn't mean you *actively* believe that there's no God - just that you have zero belief that one DOES exist. It's a subtle but important distinction.

 

[Krazeh]

Not really, I am a big fan of his scientific work, and have read all of his books, but he does describe himself as a militant atheist and rationalist, each of which require certain assumptions and acts of faith in there own right. Rationalism requires the assumption that everything has a rational basis or explanation and Dawkins specific brand of Athism requires faith that science can or will ultimately disprove the existance of god, or that the current lack of evidence is proof enough that god doesn't exist.

Actually if you read 'The God Delusion' he talks about the existence of god being essentially a matter of probabilities and that you can place human judgements about the existence of god along that spectrum of probabilites with the two extremes of opposite certainty at either end. He breaks the judgements down into 7 categorys with the first being the belief that there's a 100% probability that god exists and the last being the belief there's a 100% probability that god doesn't exist. He then speaks about his place on his scale and says that he would fit into the category he placed at number 6 which is-

Very low probability, but short of zero. De Facto Atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

He doesn't actually talk at any point about there definitely not being a god, he talks in terms of it being unlikely that god does exist and that there is no evidence to support a belief in the existence of god. I don't see that he takes the view that god definitely doesn't exist nor necessarily believes it's necessary for science to definitely disprove the existence of god, even if he may believe it'd be nice if it could do so. He merely holds the view that belief in an entity for which there is no evidence is misguided.

 

[Scouse]

oh and bible does not equal god, god has more meaning that some old book

Oh *wink wink* eh? We all know deep down that you're talking sense.

You don't even believe in your own argument enough to state it. 'cause *wink wink* deep down you don't really believe it.


Oh. Sorry....



Oh, and:

He cannot disprove the existence of a god/gods

You cannot disprove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, fordy me old mucker.

But, trust me, it *does* exist.

 

[Septima]

Religion(s), god(s) and religious organisations are three different things to me.
First of all, most of the religions build the morality that makes this world not being "uncivilized". Most religions have what we consider good feelings (love, help each other, respect etc etc) and cannot be considered that bad in regards of what we became now.

All religious organisations are for me just bad, imposing ways of life, taking away from us free will and claiming that they are the only ones that knows the truth about what is god will. it's just bullshit and leads to extremism.

God or Gods....well like a lot of things in life it's a leap of faith, you feel it or you don't. Can't be proved can't be discarded, so as a cientist i will just wait till i have a proof in one or the other way.

For myself, i like to believe there is something else that connects all this energy thru the universe in one way or the other, be it god or something else, but it's my very personal way of view and i don't intend to start a new religion

 

[nath]

Can't be proved can't be discarded

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

The above quote sums up my feelings as to why it's ENTIRELY appropriate to discard thoughts of a deity.

 

[Krazeh]

First of all, most of the religions build the morality that makes this world not being "uncivilized".

So before someone first came up with the idea of 'religion' there was no morality in the world? I'm sorry but what a crock of shit. Any morality present in religion stems from pre-existing morality at the time the religion in question was first thought of; there is no requirement for religion in order to have morality, they're two completely separate things.

God or Gods....well like a lot of things in life it's a leap of faith, you feel it or you don't. Can't be proved can't be discarded, so as a cientist i will just wait till i have a proof in one or the other way.

Do you feel the same way about other fairytale creatures? Do you think we need proof one way or another before we can say that unicorns don't exist? Or fairies? Or winged flying horses? Or any other mythical creature written about by someone down the ages?

 

[old.Tohtori]

The above quote sums up my feelings as to why it's ENTIRELY appropriate to discard thoughts of a deity.

For now atleast. t's ofcourse completely appropriate, but even in the scientist community, there's some things that aren't proven, but some feel could be proven. Also where a lot of proof stems from i think.

Long ago the line was more religion heavy, now it's science heavy, in the future it might be maybe heavy(which is a healthy attitude also).

People really should rally to two camps in the matter, to stop all the silly arguing and to get some f*cking peace; extremist and regular.

Because we can alla gree that extremism in any form is not good(regarding the issue at hand).

Oh and, just a lil *trollface* here; Without religion in the world, there wouldn't be atheists so you're welcome!

Do you feel the same way about other fairytale creatures? Do you think we need proof one way or another before we can say that unicorns don't exist? Or fairies? Or winged flying horses? Or any other mythical creature written about by someone down the ages?

Actually unicorns do exists even to this day. The magical properties of these mutated antilopes(etc) can be argued though. Their superiority stems from the headbutting, where two regulars would hit horns, the unicorn would hit right in the middle.

Also the reason why unicorns can be found in mythos all over the world.

 

[Krazeh]

Oh and, just a lil *trollface* here; Without religion in the world, there wouldn't be atheists so you're welcome!

Of course there would. Without religion everyone would be an atheist.

Actually unicorns do exists even to this day. The magical properties of these mutated antilopes(etc) can be argued though. Their superiority stems from the headbutting, where two regulars would hit horns, the unicorn would hit right in the middle.

Also the reason why unicorns can be found in mythos all over the world.

Please, go find me a unicorn if you're so certain they exist.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Of course there would. Without religion everyone would be an atheist.

Not as such, no. The very concept of an atheist these days comes from religion. Without it, the concept in itself wouldn't exist.

Please, go find me a unicorn if you're so certain they exist.

Read what i wrote again.