Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Richard Dawkins: well, okay...maybe   (telegraph.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Professor Richard Dawkins, can't be sure, human languages, origin of life, Archbishop of Canterbury, image of God, god, party chairman  
•       •       •

21244 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2012 at 10:23 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



449 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-02-26 12:11:03 AM  
So Dawkins admits that his position is the same as 99.9% of atheists and the religious somehow consider this a victory.

How can you argue with people who have such a feeble grasp on logic and reason?
 
2012-02-26 12:11:36 AM  

Ford Perfect: I just tell people that I don't believe in the gods of men because more than likely, men created them.
As for any other, I dunno.


Man created the idea that God is something separate to alleviate responsibility.
 
2012-02-26 12:13:31 AM  

s2s2s2: Cpl.D: Just ignore s2s2s2. It's fairly obvious at this point he's just trolling.

An atheism thread is original thought, to be sure.


Try harder, tryhard.
 
2012-02-26 12:13:38 AM  

Farking Canuck: How can you argue with people who have such a feeble grasp on logic and reason?


It's as impossible as arguing with people that cling to logic and reason.

Epicurus: If the world is logical and reasonable...
 
2012-02-26 12:13:54 AM  

Farking Canuck: How can you argue with people who have such a feeble grasp on logic and reason?


Why should we?
 
2012-02-26 12:14:19 AM  
Why would an atheist need to be 100% certain that a god doesn't exist? Most atheists I know are atheist because there is no proof of the existence of a god, but there is also no proof that it doesn't exist. Among atheists there are differing opinions as to the likelihood of a god existing.
 
2012-02-26 12:14:24 AM  

gimmegimme: The problem is that you can't prove a negative. There may be an invisible Russian unicorn in my girlfriend's basement, but the likelihood is so remote that it's not worth exploring. (Not to mention the fact that no two people describe the Russian unicorn in the same way.) No one can ever be sure that the Russian unicorn doesn't exist, but only a moron believes in it without proof and dedicates their life to pleasing the invisible Russian unicorn.


Are you American gimmegimme? Because, if you are, that unicorn is far more likely to be Mexican!

/unless you live in Alaska ... then it is definitely Russian
 
2012-02-26 12:15:15 AM  

Cpl.D: Try harder, tryhard.


Who's trying? I'm just pointing to the obvious. Know you know what the natives that couldn't see the ships feel like.
 
2012-02-26 12:17:20 AM  

MeinRS6: you would have to think yourself something of a god.


www.aydrid.com

I'm a god. I'm not *the* God... I don't think.
 
2012-02-26 12:17:22 AM  

Farking Canuck: gimmegimme: The problem is that you can't prove a negative. There may be an invisible Russian unicorn in my girlfriend's basement, but the likelihood is so remote that it's not worth exploring. (Not to mention the fact that no two people describe the Russian unicorn in the same way.) No one can ever be sure that the Russian unicorn doesn't exist, but only a moron believes in it without proof and dedicates their life to pleasing the invisible Russian unicorn.

Are you American gimmegimme? Because, if you are, that unicorn is far more likely to be Mexican!

/unless you live in Alaska ... then it is definitely Russian


I happen to be American. This is why I always mention a Russian Unicorn (new window).
 
2012-02-26 12:17:24 AM  

s2s2s2: Cpl.D: Try harder, tryhard.

Who's trying? I'm just pointing to the obvious. Know you know what the natives that couldn't see the ships feel like.


You're trying waaaay too hard. It was semi-believable at first. Thank Poe's law for that. Now you're just trying way too hard to troll.
 
2012-02-26 12:18:25 AM  

bronaugh: Dawkins or no Dawkins, I'd still be an atheist.

What I particularly object to is the efforts of (largely monotheistic) religious people to muddy the waters and otherwise lead people away from knowledge and into their own historical and provably incorrect views on evolution, the formation of Earth and the universe, and so on. I appreciate Dawkins' efforts to try and un-muddy the waters.

There's nothing wrong with beliefs in God and other intangible phenomena (life after death, etc) -- the problems begin when religions make claims about the physical world, someone proves them to be bogus, and the religion then goes to great lengths (including murder) to prevent others from changing their views and thus drifting away from the religion.


"Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!" -- Richard Dawkins
 
2012-02-26 12:19:26 AM  

Cpl.D: s2s2s2: Cpl.D: Try harder, tryhard.

Who's trying? I'm just pointing to the obvious. Know you know what the natives that couldn't see the ships feel like.

You're trying waaaay too hard. It was semi-believable at first. Thank Poe's law for that. Now you're just trying way too hard to troll.


Apparently not as you and many others keep responding.
 
2012-02-26 12:21:27 AM  
Only morons and zealots insist they are unfailingly correct about something that can't be proven.

I'd be curious if the Archbishop would have been willing to concede he might be wrong, too.
 
2012-02-26 12:21:44 AM  
As a 6.9 / 7 agnostic, I for one would love to find out that god exists, and to await judgement day, only because I know for a fact my values are derived out of applied logic and not some kind of obscure set of beliefs derived by someone's incentivized book. I'm betting money I'd get into heaven before most of you self proclaimed god fearing hypocrites.

wait, is gambling is a sin? no matter...
 
2012-02-26 12:24:09 AM  
Ctrl + F
Bevets
Phrase not found
Leaving sad :(
 
2012-02-26 12:24:27 AM  

Fromageball: Why would an atheist need to be 100% certain that a god doesn't exist? Most atheists I know are atheist because there is no proof of the existence of a god, but there is also no proof that it doesn't exist. Among atheists there are differing opinions as to the likelihood of a god existing.


For all the things that man has ever imagined, including the tooth fairy and santa clause, there is no proof that they don't exist. What we choose as our own beliefs is based on a ponderance of both the available evidence and of the distinct lack of evidence (where applicable).

So, in the cases of the tooth fairy, santa and god (and a near infinite list of other things man has imagined over the centuries), we do not have hard evidence of their non-existence (nor will we ever). What we do have is a distinct lack of evidence of their existence.

This lack of evidence is not absolute. But it is reasonable to say, after all these centuries, if any of them existed there should be something. And, since there is absolutely nothing, disbelief is a reasonable position to take.

/much better than the position of: Man has invented 1000+ religions but my mommy and daddy believe in this one so it must be true.
//which is how most religious people pick their religions
 
2012-02-26 12:27:46 AM  
I believe in gods. There's no sense in believing in true things. True things are true whether or not one believes in them. But indeterminate and false things are fun to believe in. So I believe in gods, because it's fun to do so. I make it a point to believe in five impossible things every day before breakfast.

Science is a way to discover truth. Religion is a way to have fun with truth, falsehood, and indeterminacy.
 
2012-02-26 12:28:11 AM  

Farking Canuck: This lack of evidence is not absolute.


Yes it is. Until there is any tangible evidence, there's no point in really contemplating these ideas.
 
2012-02-26 12:28:52 AM  

PeregrineBF: I believe in gods. There's no sense in believing in true things. True things are true whether or not one believes in them. But indeterminate and false things are fun to believe in. So I believe in gods, because it's fun to do so. I make it a point to believe in five impossible things every day before breakfast.

Science is a way to discover truth. Religion is a way to have fun with truth, falsehood, and indeterminacy.


So you don't care whether or not what you believe is true.

I'm glad you have the integrity not to vote.
 
2012-02-26 12:30:07 AM  

gimmegimme: I happen to be American. This is why I always mention a Russian Unicorn (new window).


Damn ... that was so awesome I now believe in god!!
 
2012-02-26 12:30:08 AM  

s2s2s2: FormlessOne: ignostic

Clever, or inadvertently clever?


Look it up. Basically, we assume far too much when discussing the subject - we don't really have a sufficient definition of theism, and so I can't even indicate what it is that, in theory, I'm either for or against. Ignostics aren't agnostics - an agnostic goes along with all the silly-ass assumptions, but isn't sure if they're for or against those assumptions. A theist goes along with and believes in those silly-ass assumptions, while an atheist goes along with and does not believe in those silly-ass assumptions. I maintain that they're silly-ass assumptions and refuse to play along.
 
2012-02-26 12:31:34 AM  

gimmegimme: PeregrineBF: I believe in gods. There's no sense in believing in true things. True things are true whether or not one believes in them. But indeterminate and false things are fun to believe in. So I believe in gods, because it's fun to do so. I make it a point to believe in five impossible things every day before breakfast.

Science is a way to discover truth. Religion is a way to have fun with truth, falsehood, and indeterminacy.

So you don't care whether or not what you believe is true.

I'm glad you have the integrity not to vote.


*Snert* Somebody hasn't read his Lewis Carroll.
 
2012-02-26 12:33:21 AM  

Cpl.D: Now you're just trying way too hard to troll.


You are wrong on both counts.

I know what I am saying. I know what I mean. I am not being obtuse. I am not being false for the purpose of getting a response.
 
2012-02-26 12:33:59 AM  

gimmegimme: Ford Perfect:

Because just fighting it is stupid. Banning it is as stupid as banning gay marriage, or our liquor laws, or any other laws that are religious in nature. We have to understand it and work with it, because there are a lot more of them than there are of us. We know we cannot use logic on believers; if that worked there would be no believers. This is inherent in our species. We need to have a bit more tolerance. Not too much, just a bit. We need to quit riling them up with these stupid "get rid of that town seal because there is a cross on it" BS. Sure, fight where there is a real conflict, but leave this petty BS alone. I have seen alot of these kinds of stories on right wing blogs and it just makes them mad because it seems to threaten their culture. Yes we need to keep them from creating a theocratic state; no we dont need to attack traditions that no one thinks about until you try to ban it or make a federal case out of it.
We need to understand them, and they us, and draw a line that we both don't cross.

I do love your thoughtful comment, but the line has already been crossed (sometimes hundreds of years ago). You mention liquor laws. Well, religious blue laws determine who can buy what liquor and when and where. Most atheists would rather magically undo the religiously motivated Iraq War than the Pledge challenges, given a choice. The Republican candidates are trying to force America into a war with Iran to fulfill their Doomsday theology.

Attacking all of the works of the theocrats helps to prevent a theocracy.

The "line that we both don't cross" was tried in the First Amendment. Umm....it didn't work. If you didn't know that, dig into your pocket and look at some of your money.


Just for my own curiosity, can you give me the quotes from the Republican Candidates, and the polls of religious people who believed that the War with Iraq was religiously motivated. I'm curious. I never see these mentioned by the right wingers at all. Don't assume I will buy those stories.

Know your enemy, that's all I'm saying. If I had the answers I'd be out there doing it. As it is, I'm just an atheist who lives in the Bible belt trying to understand these strange people around me.
 
2012-02-26 12:34:57 AM  

FormlessOne: Basically, we assume far too much when discussing the subject


A: Clever.

Very, very good.
 
2012-02-26 12:37:37 AM  

Ford Perfect: Know your enemy, that's all I'm saying. If I had the answers I'd be out there doing it. As it is, I'm just an atheist who lives in the Bible belt trying to understand these strange people around me.


Good luck with that. I grew up with a real devout family. I memorized the passages I was supposed to and ignored the ones they wanted me to. My grandmother made the mistake of giving me my own bible as a present when I was six. I've always been a voracious reader. So I read the thing front to back. I haven't been a believer ever since. I'm glad that was well over twenty years ago... nowadays I'd probably have classmates threatening me with death.
 
2012-02-26 12:38:17 AM  
What this really proves is that Richard Dawkins does not have a Babelfish.
 
2012-02-26 12:38:34 AM  

StoneColdAtheist: gimmegimme: PeregrineBF: I believe in gods. There's no sense in believing in true things. True things are true whether or not one believes in them. But indeterminate and false things are fun to believe in. So I believe in gods, because it's fun to do so. I make it a point to believe in five impossible things every day before breakfast.

Science is a way to discover truth. Religion is a way to have fun with truth, falsehood, and indeterminacy.

So you don't care whether or not what you believe is true.

I'm glad you have the integrity not to vote.

*Snert* Somebody hasn't read his Lewis Carroll.


I'm aware that he/she was referencing Carroll. I get defensive in religion/atheism threads because religious people DO believe in many impossible things before breakfast.
 
2012-02-26 12:38:41 AM  
Dawkins, unlike the late and ironically named Christopher Hitchens, is clever enough to recognize that atheism requires as much "faith" as theism. You cannot "know" God doesn't exist you can only "believe" that God doesn't exist. Also, before you guys start with the "unicorns" analogy it doesn't hold water. The idea of a creator, or at least, a directing force in the universe may be inferred from observable fact i.e. the origin of life, the creation of the universe ab initio, the complexity of the cell, the riddle of consciousness, the fact that DNA is a language and there is no other example of language in the known universe outside of life and that designed by man, and that life shares far more characteristics with things which have been "designed" than it does to items which have not been designed, all, while not conclusive, at may lead to the inference of such an force or entity. Every evolutionary biologist, including Dr. Dawkins will acknowledge the preposterously remote chances involved in the formation of life on Earth. Moreover, in an infinite universe, in a possibly infinite number of such universes in is axiomatic that what ever is not impossible will occur.

This is not an argument for the existence of God or any particular God only for the possibility of God.
 
2012-02-26 12:40:48 AM  

retrograde: Dawkins, unlike the late and ironically named Christopher Hitchens, is clever enough to recognize that atheism requires as much "faith" as theism.


Bzzzzt. Completely wrong.
 
2012-02-26 12:40:52 AM  

Ford Perfect: gimmegimme: Ford Perfect:

Because just fighting it is stupid. Banning it is as stupid as banning gay marriage, or our liquor laws, or any other laws that are religious in nature. We have to understand it and work with it, because there are a lot more of them than there are of us. We know we cannot use logic on believers; if that worked there would be no believers. This is inherent in our species. We need to have a bit more tolerance. Not too much, just a bit. We need to quit riling them up with these stupid "get rid of that town seal because there is a cross on it" BS. Sure, fight where there is a real conflict, but leave this petty BS alone. I have seen alot of these kinds of stories on right wing blogs and it just makes them mad because it seems to threaten their culture. Yes we need to keep them from creating a theocratic state; no we dont need to attack traditions that no one thinks about until you try to ban it or make a federal case out of it.
We need to understand them, and they us, and draw a line that we both don't cross.

I do love your thoughtful comment, but the line has already been crossed (sometimes hundreds of years ago). You mention liquor laws. Well, religious blue laws determine who can buy what liquor and when and where. Most atheists would rather magically undo the religiously motivated Iraq War than the Pledge challenges, given a choice. The Republican candidates are trying to force America into a war with Iran to fulfill their Doomsday theology.

Attacking all of the works of the theocrats helps to prevent a theocracy.

The "line that we both don't cross" was tried in the First Amendment. Umm....it didn't work. If you didn't know that, dig into your pocket and look at some of your money.

Just for my own curiosity, can you give me the quotes from the Republican Candidates, and the polls of religious people who believed that the War with Iraq was religiously motivated. I'm curious. I never see these mentioned by the right wingers at al ...


John Ashcroft used to put crazy doomsday pictures and supporting bible quotes on the cover sheets of the briefings that he gave to Dubya.
 
2012-02-26 12:44:57 AM  

retrograde: Dawkins, unlike the late and ironically named Christopher Hitchens, is clever enough to recognize that atheism requires as much "faith" as theism. You cannot "know" God doesn't exist you can only "believe" that God doesn't exist. Also, before you guys start with the "unicorns" analogy it doesn't hold water. The idea of a creator, or at least, a directing force in the universe may be inferred from observable fact i.e. the origin of life, the creation of the universe ab initio, the complexity of the cell, the riddle of consciousness, the fact that DNA is a language and there is no other example of language in the known universe outside of life and that designed by man, and that life shares far more characteristics with things which have been "designed" than it does to items which have not been designed, all, while not conclusive, at may lead to the inference of such an force or entity. Every evolutionary biologist, including Dr. Dawkins will acknowledge the preposterously remote chances involved in the formation of life on Earth. Moreover, in an infinite universe, in a possibly infinite number of such universes in is axiomatic that what ever is not impossible will occur.

This is not an argument for the existence of God or any particular God only for the possibility of God.


Ummm.....I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there. Hitchens was very clear: "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. (new window)"
 
2012-02-26 12:48:17 AM  
This is a real victory for agnosticism.

No one can prove nor disprove the existence of a supreme being.
 
2012-02-26 12:49:41 AM  

gimmegimme: the only thing that makes us different from other mammals

is the problem. It is the source of all suffering and calamity we have invented for ourselves.
 
2012-02-26 12:51:04 AM  
atheismandme.com
 
2012-02-26 12:51:17 AM  
c1913502.r2.cf0.rackcdn.com
 
2012-02-26 12:51:46 AM  

gimmegimme: StoneColdAtheist: *Snert* Somebody hasn't read his Lewis Carroll.

I'm aware that he/she was referencing Carroll. I get defensive in religion/atheism threads because religious people DO believe in many impossible things before breakfast.


Okay, fair enough. But why get defensive in these threads? That doesn't make any sense. The only people who participate here are trolls looking for a sucker, atheists and agnostics talking to each other, and the occasional theist who doubts his/her own belief. I've never seen a theist actually attempt to convert the non-believers among us.
 
2012-02-26 12:53:39 AM  

SageC: [atheismandme.com image 640x401]


Irony
 
2012-02-26 12:53:47 AM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76RrdwElnTU
 
2012-02-26 12:55:05 AM  

slayer199: This is a real victory for agnosticism.

No one can prove nor disprove the existence of a supreme being.


Nobody is trying to disprove anything.

The religious claim the existence of god and have so far failed miserably to prove it.

Atheists simply look at this utter lack of evidence and say "sorry, I cannot accept your claim due to the complete lack of evidence". We are not making the claim that gods do not exist ... we are rejecting your claim that they do.
 
2012-02-26 12:55:14 AM  
adsoftheworld.com

BOW down before your new God.
 
2012-02-26 12:58:34 AM  

s2s2s2: SageC: [atheismandme.com image 640x401]

Irony


Ironic that an all loving being would help out in something as trivial as baseball while letting a child starve.
 
2012-02-26 01:03:39 AM  

SquiggelyGrounders: Ironic that an all loving being would help out in something as trivial as baseball while letting a child starve.


Ironic that the comic makes a case for belief.
One guy is thankful for what he did, acknowledging forces larger than himself put him where he is. One is hungry because people created and practice evil.
 
2012-02-26 01:03:43 AM  
gimmegimme: John Ashcroft used to put crazy doomsday pictures and supporting bible quotes on the cover sheets of the briefings that he gave to Dubya.

Again, I'm going to have to ask for evidence, because I will not take your claim ON FAITH.
 
2012-02-26 01:05:37 AM  

SquiggelyGrounders: loving being


Also, have you ever loved someone that would have been better off with you than where they ended up? Did you stop loving them when you decided to let them go?
 
2012-02-26 01:05:46 AM  

whatshisname: Bzzzzt. Completely wrong.


Well, since YOU say so it must be so.

img811.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-26 01:06:20 AM  

s2s2s2: SquiggelyGrounders: Ironic that an all loving being would help out in something as trivial as baseball while letting a child starve.

Ironic that the comic makes a case for belief.
One guy is thankful for what he did, acknowledging forces larger than himself put him where he is. One is hungry because people created and practice evil.


It makes no such case. You read too much into it.
 
2012-02-26 01:06:23 AM  

s2s2s2: SquiggelyGrounders: Ironic that an all loving being would help out in something as trivial as baseball while letting a child starve.

Ironic that the comic makes a case for belief.
One guy is thankful for what he did, acknowledging forces larger than himself put him where he is. One is hungry because people created and practice evil.


So what you are saying is the man-made evil is more powerful than god so he gives up and helps professional sports players instead of ending the suffering of children.
 
2012-02-26 01:07:31 AM  

s2s2s2: SquiggelyGrounders: loving being

Also, have you ever loved someone that would have been better off with you than where they ended up? Did you stop loving them when you decided to let them go?


Nope. Whats your point?
 
Displayed 50 of 449 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






Loading...
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report