Richard Dawkins' Next Book to Detail His Personal Path to Atheism

Jun 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TheBlaze.com

Famed scientist Richard Dawkins isn't shy about his non-belief. In fact, the well-known atheist has written numerous books touting it, including, "The God Delusion," "The Magic of Reality" and "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution," among others.

Comments
61 - 69 of 69 Comments Last updated Jul 31, 2012
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Jun 13, 2012
 
sundaytrucker wrote:
So you're more agnostic than atheist. You cannot confirm nor deny the existence of a God which most people define as a creator/supreme being. Forgive me for assuming you don't know if there is a creator. I believe there is but could not prove it nor could I disprove it. Can you demonstrate the falseness of a concept? That sounds redundant. <quoted text>
And, lastly, to your statement about "creator/supreme being". This is still a meaningless phrase, so it doesn't even rise to the level of being a falsifiable concept.

To posit a "creator of the universe" would be either the standard cosmological argument or the kalam variant of the cosmological argument. Both have been shown to rely on the fallacy of begging the question in that they assume that "creator" exists and then use this assumption to prove "creator."

If instead you are arguing for the classic "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent" deity, then you're argument has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese factory. Each of these "supreme" characteristics can be shown quite easily to be fallacious, and when taken together, they create impossible paradoxes.

And if you are arguing that it is "beyond humans", then I am reminded of Isaac Asimov --

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?

"Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."
sundaytrucker

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Jun 13, 2012
 
I am obviously in way over my head here. But it's been enlightening and entertaining. I'm not sure science has an answer and apparently I have limited ability to asking in a scientifically valid way. And, I understand that just because science is lacking doesn't mean it's always going to.

Thanks.
Mark

Chicago Ridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

Based on science, " Darwin’s theory of macroevolution, says that over time, undirected natural processes led to all life forms, from the most primitive cell to human beings. He predicted countless fossils would prove him right. But the transitional fossils Darwin predicted would validate macroevolution are embarrassingly absent.  Even ardent evolutionist, Niles Eldredge admits,“No one has found any such in-between creatures...and there is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.”
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Jun 15, 2012
 
Mark wrote:
Based on science, " Darwin’s theory of macroevolution, says that over time, undirected natural processes led to all life forms, from the most primitive cell to human beings. He predicted countless fossils would prove him right. But the transitional fossils Darwin predicted would validate macroevolution are embarrassingly absent.  Even ardent evolutionist, Niles Eldredge admits,“No one has found any such in-between creatures...and there is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.”
Nonsense. Many of the processes of evolution are well understood and, scientifically speaking, the theory is effectively proven. Only the superstitious are having serious trouble with it.
Mark

Tobyhanna, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Jul 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Nonsense. Many of the processes of evolution are well understood and, scientifically speaking, the theory is effectively proven. Only the superstitious are having serious trouble with it.
Haha, sorry without any fossil records science didn't prove anything, still just all theory (theory: a guess when there is no evidence to back it up) Same reason why there is no big foot, someone would have found a few bones by now yet they'll dedicate tv airtime to a bunch of idots running around the woods chasing their own sounds.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Jul 15, 2012
 
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll I ask my friend is for you to look out your window and see the birds in the air, the sun in the sky, God says that's more than sufficient evidence of him....
Yes, Professor Dawkins is a simpleton and the theory of evolution is essentially no better substantiated than the existence of big foot?
Religion = superstition

(Some will see why religion is sometimes compared to mental illness)
Skeptical

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Jul 15, 2012
 
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha, sorry without any fossil records science didn't prove anything, still just all theory (theory: a guess when there is no evidence to back it up) Same reason why there is no big foot, someone would have found a few bones by now yet they'll dedicate tv airtime to a bunch of idots running around the woods chasing their own sounds.
This may help.

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves."

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Jul 17, 2012
 
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha, sorry without any fossil records science didn't prove anything, still just all theory (theory: a guess when there is no evidence to back it up) Same reason why there is no big foot, someone would have found a few bones by now yet they'll dedicate tv airtime to a bunch of idots running around the woods chasing their own sounds.
So let me guess, because you don't understand science, therefore "God did it" & Creationism is true and that all humans rode on the backs of dinosaurs.

Please improve your lies people this isn't the 50s where people are stupid enough to fall for any old sh*t..
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Jul 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
The terms are NOT mutually exclusive.
Theism/atheism deals with belief. If you have a belief in one or more deities, you are a theist. If have no such belief, you are an atheist.
Gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. As nobody really "knows", we are all agnostic.
But the term "atheist" is just a category that describes what I am not -- I'm not a theist.
To be philosophically accurate, I'd be better classified as an "ignostic".
But none of these classifications really tell you anything at all about what a person is -- I'm a Humanists.
that was a nice clear statement. obviously I am generally very comfortable with your views and comments, despite tiny nuances and quibbles that are not about essentials.

I do not think anyone knows or can know about certain things - but I am not sure what exactly the things are that are most likely to never be known. To me that is a question about knowledge, and I do not think we know enough to predict what or even how we humans (maYBE WITH ENHANCED ABILITIES AND COMPUTERS and even more advanced tools) can know, if mankind persists long enough. I am not sure the planet will be habitable long enough for much to be learned for sure, about the major cosmic questions. I suspect mankind is going to ruin it, for ourselves and for all life.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••