Dawkins interview on some sort of God channel...

[nath]

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).

Science can be entirely maybe heavy - it's just that the maybe's posited need a bit more than "wouldn't it be interesting if...", they need some sort of evidence. Nothing wrong with evidence, in fact evidence is very good. Evidence is your friend.

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

Indeed, the only difference being, without religion there'd be no atheist 'label'.

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

The concept may not exist, but we'd all be atheists simply because people would lack belief in any religion. We'd just not call it anything.

 

[Krazeh]

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

As Nath has said, just because we wouldn't have come up with the concept doesn't mean that atheists wouldn't exist. It'd just be everyone would be one so we'd have no reason to name it.

Read what i wrote again.

Which bit? The bit where you claimed that unicorns exist even to this day? Or is this one of those cases where you've been misunderstood and that by saying unicorns exists you're really saying they don't?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Science can be entirely maybe heavy - it's just that the maybe's posited need a bit more than "wouldn't it be interesting if...", they need some sort of evidence. Nothing wrong with evidence, in fact evidence is very good. Evidence is your friend.

The concept may not exist, but we'd all be atheists simply because people would lack belief in any religion. We'd just not call it anything.

Yeap, though some scientists still hold a nice amount of "wouldn't it be interesting if...", which i find is a good way to go too. It's not like it hurts if you think what if.

Yeah, hensh the *trollface* there

Ofcourse if compared to this world, yiou could say there are atheists, but since the concept of it does't exist, it could be said it doesn't exist in that world. Speculation though, all of it really.

Krazeh, if you're talking about a magical flying unicorn of fairytales, then no, ofcourse they don't exist. Never claimed that now did i? But the origin of the unicorn story does not come from those either. The origin most likely is from goats/antilopes with mutations.

 

[Turamber]

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.

If a building is in a poor state of repair does this mean it wasn't built by somebody? If a child goes through the discomfort and long term recovery required by a serious operation does this mean that it doesn't have a parent?

Mankind has free will to choose its course but that free will also requires accountability for its own actions and choices.

 

[nath]

If a building is in a poor state of repair does this mean it wasn't built by somebody? If a child goes through the discomfort and long term recovery required by a serious operation does this mean that it doesn't have a parent?

Mankind has free will to choose its course but that free will also requires accountability for its own actions and choices.

True, questioning God's motives is not a reason to discard belief in a deity. Lack of evidence for one is the only robust reason that I can think of.

 

[ford prefect]

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.

Actually Dawkins has daid on numerous occasions that even if a plausable theory of god was put forward, such as a being that set things in motion and them simply sat back and let the be, he would still be unable to give the idea creedance, because of his inherent disbelief in god.

Science requires a completely objective view, it is eqaully as important to disprove something as it is to prove it. The Dawkins methodology requires us to follow completely rational systems to their extreme, which as we all know works just fine for large things in nature, but for things at a quantum level, that kind of rationalised thought process becomes redundant. The fact that Dawkins approaches science with the fundmental belief that a god cannot exist, makes him a man of faith.

 

[Krazeh]

Actually Dawkins has daid on numerous occasions that even if a plausable theory of god was put forward, such as a being that set things in motion and them simply sat back and let the be, he would still be unable to give the idea creedance, because of his inherent disbelief in god.

Science requires a completely objective view, it is eqaully as important to disprove something as it is to prove it. The Dawkins methodology requires us to follow completely rational systems to their extreme, which as we all know works just fine for large things in nature, but for things at a quantum level, that kind of rationalised thought process becomes redundant. The fact that Dawkins approaches science with the fundmental belief that a god cannot exist, makes him a man of faith.

Do you have a source for this? I would love to see anything where he's actually said that if a theory, presumably one which is falsifiable and backed up with evidence, was presented for the existence of god he still wouldn't believe it. As I said previously i've not seen anything to suggest that he takes the position that a god cannot exist, merely that the probability of one existing is so low that there is no reason to believe one does.

 

[Wij]

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.

You don't understand the word faith. Things don't require faith just because they can't be proven beyond doubt. Only if they are unlikely to be true do they need faith. Believing things things to be untrue which are obviously not likely to be true does not require faith. I don't need faith to believe that there wasn't a paralympics on the moon last week but I can't prove it. There are an infinite number of unlikely propositions which we all believe to be false without actual proof. To say that all of these are faith positions is to reduce faith to a trivial truism.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Faith is pretty much a form of trust, though it should be used more towards expectations then belief.

 

[nath]

More Atheism based vids, not worthy of its own thread.

YouTube - Muslim girls collide with Hans Teeuwen - Subtitled

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU

 

[Ctuchik]

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

But i'm not wrong, there is i don't know how much evidence floating around out there that without a doubt prove that NOTHING in the bible is accurate, and as the bible is the only "evidence" that god ever existed its further more also proof that there is no god.

If (and that is a VERY big if) there is something like a "god" out there, he has yet to provide any evidence what so ever to show its existence.

The bible is (in my opinion obviously) nothing more then a lunatics self biography gone horribly horribly out of hand.

There is no god, there is no hell. Plain and simple.

 

[Ctuchik]

Faith is pretty much a form of trust, though it should be used more towards expectations then belief.

Personally i think Faith is a way to get away from the real life. They just need something else to believe in and needs an excuse to what they do and think.

And claiming that "god told me to" is a pretty handy excuse...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well can't really say no god exists, as it's neither proof wise. Bible isn't the ony book of truth, and "the god" isn't the only one.

I meant faith as a general term, not religion alone.

Ctuchik, i have a big feeling in my gut that if you hear the word religion, for example if i said i'm religious, you'd instantly think jesus, bible etc?

If so, need to adjust that view

 

[Scouse]

Ctuchik, i have a big feeling in my gut that if you hear the word religion, for example if i said i'm religious, you'd instantly think jesus, bible etc?

If so, need to adjust that view

Why should he? Seriously.

Religious people don't adjust their views in light of overwhelming evidence about the roots of their beliefs so why should Ctuchik adjust his religion = jebus view simply to make the other batshit-crazy dung-mongers feel better about their chosen sack of wank?

 

[Raven]

I have always said that if "god" or "gods" were to show themselves I would believe in them.

Until then it's bullshit.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Why should he? Seriously.

Religious people don't adjust their views in light of overwhelming evidence about the roots of their beliefs so why should Ctuchik adjust his religion = jebus view simply to make the other batshit-crazy dung-mongers feel better about their chosen sack of wank?

Well even on the danger that you get on your zealot rants again, same reason why i shouldn't consider everyone british as;

You putting every religious person in the same box is another show of lesser intellect really. Nothing wrong with atheists, plenty of wrong with dumb ones.

 

[Scouse]

same reason why i shouldn't consider everyone british as;

<pic of chavs>

You putting every religious person in the same box is another show of lesser intellect really.

I disagree - it's a show of the highest intellect.

Religious people do have one thing in common - they perform the act of believing.


It doesn't matter what they believe in - just the fact that they do it. Therefore sticking them in the same box is just fine. Intellectually speaking.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Lucky for other atheists, i don't put them in the same box as you.

If you don't differencentiate between christianity and hinduism for example, you're just being closeminded. Closeminded is not intellectual and got humanity nowhere.

 

[Chosen]

bla bla bla bla

Raven where are you? Get back onto minecraft

 

[Scouse]

If you don't differencentiate between christianity and hinduism for example, you're just being closeminded. Closeminded is not intellectual and got humanity nowhere.

Trying to paint me with the ignorant brush is weak. I've in-depth knowledge and first-hand experience of both of these religions.

Its easy to differentiate between christians and hindus. The differences in their beliefs are stark.

However, it's where they're the same that is of greater importance.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't have to paint it.

But then again, you must believe that all atheists are the same.

 

[Scouse]

Aww Toht. Are you finding it hard to counter the factual argument I've put forward that all religious people perform a common action.

Would I lump the British people in one bucket? Well, only in the bucket that says "currently lives in Britain".

Would I lump all Indian's in one bucket? Again, only geographically.

Would I lump all religious people in one bucket? Yes. They all perform one action that non-religious people don't.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Stating the obvious isn't exactly something to counter.

Even if different religions all believe, it doesn't mean that when talkinga bout religion, it should be taken as "you're talking about jebus/bible".

So to "counter" your "intelligent" point; "All these people believe", i could say "And?"

 

[Scouse]

Nice to see you finally agree with me that all religions can be lumped into one bucket because they require their followers to perform the same action.

There, wasn't that hard was it?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Nice to see you finally agree with me that all religions can be lumped into one bucket because they require their followers to perform the same action.

There, wasn't that hard was it?

No i don't agree that all religions can be lumped into one bucket, i agree that they have a similar feature attached.

Much like i could say that germans and english could be lumped into one bucket 'cause they eat sausages.

Pointless.

 

[Scouse]

Nice backtrack. But I'll humour you 'cause I'm in that sort of a mood.

"Similar feature"? Do they not all perform the action of believing?

As I said, the action is important, not what the belief is in.

Just to be absolutley, completely, utterly specific:

be·lieve
  –verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

A feature of all religions? No?

 

[old.Tohtori]

There's no backtracking, just correcting you as you put words in my mouth.

I'm not however continuing the argument of a blatanly obvious feature of religion as it has nothing to do with what was said.

What you linked is not religion spesific either, plenty of other areas that even atheists believe in. Not to mention that believing is not an activity no more then breathing is.

Especialyl since i think you were the one who was delusional about not believing in anything. Wasn't it you who said "I believe in nothing at all".

 

[Bugz]

Bringing the conversation back around to intelligent discussion, I noticed some people discussing probability and thought I would take it further. Further as such to comment on why I feel probability breaks down in regards to the existence of a God.

If we introduce Bayes Theorem, which states that we can form 'posterior' beliefs on a given topic by observing the probabilities of two events and how they interlock, we can begin to see why there is no fallable way to prove God's existence in terms of likeihood. An example: given that there are clouds in the sky, what is the probability of rain? To answer this we would need to assess the relative probabilities of both events occuring together, marginalised by the probability of there being clouds. So we need to consider the probability of God existing, conditional on the 'current state of the universe,' as I see no other non-biased conditions we can use. But the problem is, we simply do not know the probability of God existing and the universe being in the current state it is in. We have no means to cycle between other alternate states of the universe to assess this probability and we have no way to consider the opposite scenario: no God given the state of the universe. I guess we can (theoritically) calculate the probability of the state of the universe by considering the history of the universe and the different courses it could take but it still would not pass us any knowledge onto the original question.

Probability is very strong in that you can have a missing piece of information and be able to deduct it from analysing the pieces of information you do have. This is how a lot of theorycrafting works for many many subjects. But the pieces of information we have avaialble to us in relation to God have characteristics we simply have no information [such as covariances] on and which lose more and more [possible] correlation with God's existence as Science develops (if we assume Science to be the counterpart of God).

It is hard to put anything more than faith into the existence of something that fails the basic probability tests. Science is hugely dependent on Bayes Theorem - the ability to form new beliefs on some piece of evidence, coupled with our original hypothesis allows Scientists to question the validity of their observations. But what can religion say? The major piece of evidence [the Bible] IS the belief.

If we gave religion a break and considered the Bible's validity as a direct correlation to the true existence of God and considered the probability of the Bible being correct GIVEN x,y and z pieces of evidence then we would have a [very, very] rough indication of God's existence. But considering a lot of the Bible's events have yet to be proved or have been disproved, in fact, we will find the conditional probability tending to 'undefined.'

People are more than welcome to compare Science to Religion and contest their similairities and their differences. But what Science does can always be represented in probability-form. If we can't assign a number >0 and different to 'undefined' to an event, it basically means that the event does not occur [given current assessment]. Things from this point can only go downhill. Consider the probability of God existing given that the previous assessment was wrong => the numbers are only going to get more neglible.

This is obviously a very skewed argument and more theoritical than practical but that is the problem: God can't be expressed practically. It's why the word 'belief' is so prominent in society and why the counter argument of 'prove there isn't a God' is so frustrating to hear. We can't give you the probability of that BECAUSE we can't even assign a fkin probability to God existing. BUT we can form probability on the Big Bang and evidence which conflicts against the Bible and calculate the probability that the world exists given the Big Bang. If that alone isn't a counter-act to God then I'm not sure what we can practically calculate that would be.

Just some thoughts from me anyway.

EDIT - I realise the comments I have made are sloppy mathematically but the point itself stands. If I had the willpower to, I would present my view in a Game Theory-esque way but my easter holiday started on Friday so Game Theory is void until June exams.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Way to start off with a condecending line

Interesting thoughts though.

I do find the bible flawed as such, especialyl if looked from a 100% bible is proof POV; it's written by men so it's influenced by the devil.

Can't really be word of god if the very basis indicates that the devil effects men.

 

[Bugz]

Way to start off with a condecending line .

I didn't mean it condescendlingly as such. I really enjoyed reading the conversation (your comments included) up until the last page where you and Scouse were arguing something that you both know was true yet Scouse decided to be particulary anal about it [I've been following the nuclear thread closely and I am eagerly awaitting his return to it]