Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[Skeptisch]

“If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it”.
-- Richard Dawkins

How can one prove a negative? How can one prove what does not exist?
If however you want to prove a positive, something that exists, you should be able to do that quite easily.

We cannot prove that God does not exist therefore s/he exists! :dan:

 

[Skeptisch]

"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that. We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed". RD

 

[footprints]

“If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it”.
-- Richard Dawkins

Dawkins should take his own advice, albeit Dawkins thinks he is above all this.

We cannot prove that God does not exist therefore s/he exists! :dan:

Alternately, We cannot prove that God exists, therefore s/he doesn't exist.:dan:

 

[footprints]

Was there anything before the big bang? we dont have any evidence to answer that question. Therefore we cannot say with any confidence what happened.

Yet the Universe exists. You are guilty of the same crime you convict theists of. So now start making fun of your own belief, instead of all that association garbage you have been offering so far.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Alternately, We cannot prove that God exists, therefore s/he doesn't exist.:dan:

And yet you deny Fairies, Unicorns or anything that people decide to make up and claim to exist... See the problem here? Why is your god concept different somehow?

 

[tarasan]

“If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it”.
-- Richard Dawkins

How can one prove a negative? How can one prove what does not exist?

acutally its quite easy ill give you examples.

I can prove there are no married bachelors, there are no muslims in the Us senate, That I am not a girl, I can prove that richard Dawkins is not a reptile etc. saying you can prove a negative is absurd when you are proving a positive you are of course proving a negative. when I prove the earth is by definition a planet, im proving it isnt and astaroid. So yes you have to prove your assurtion just like the rest of us, if you cant then your view is no better than ours.

Of course you can prove something doesnt exist, for example by testing what santa is ment to do I can disprove him by proving that the function he suposidly does is not done, say putting motion sensors around the tree, back door and chimney on random houses. Its quite easy. appart from it would cost alot of money but this is just speculation.

If however you want to prove a positive, something that exists, you should be able to do that quite easily.

We cannot prove that God does not exist therefore s/he exists! :dan:

millions of years ago we couldnt prove the world was round, does that mean that it wasnt?

absense of evidence isnt evidence for absense.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Of course you can prove something doesnt exist, for example by testing what santa is ment to do I can disprove him by proving that the function he suposidly does is not done, say putting motion sensors around the tree, back door and chimney on random houses. Its quite easy. appart from it would cost alot of money but this is just speculation.

And that ended your argument, they do NOT provide ANY definition of their god, they just say "god" and he is "outside" reality, they refuse to give any way of testing their claim.

 

[Gabethewiking]

[/font]


millions of years ago we couldnt prove the world was round, does that mean that it wasnt?

absense of evidence isnt evidence for absense.

Indeed, millions of years ago humans did not exist either, but perhaps others figured it out, not being human may be a good start to be intelligent.

 

[tarasan]

And that ended your argument, they do NOT provide ANY definition of their god, they just say "god" and he is "outside" reality, they refuse to give any way of testing their claim.

admittedly some dont, but alot of people do define their god so saying "I cant disprove your God" to these people is absurd of course you can.

Of course I could also say this could be a weakness of science, it has not basis, for this, so maybe philosphy would be a good altenative for you to take?

 

[tarasan]

Indeed, millions of years ago humans did not exist either, but perhaps others figured it out, not being human may be a good start to be intelligent.

but their was a time when we didnt, dont dodge what Im saying a few thousand years ago we thought it was quite rational to feel the earth was flat, heck we had no proof it was round, but that didnt stop it being round that is my point. today we may believe its impossible for their to be a "big crunch" but that doesnt mean it wont happen.

 

[Storm]

“If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it”.
-- Richard Dawkins

Now this is just ridiculous. If Dawkins doesn't think God is interesting, maybe he "should just shut up about it." Nobody's forcing him to be bored, and nobody granted him authority over other people's interests.

 

[tarasan]

Now this is just ridiculous. If Dawkins doesn't think God is interesting, maybe he "should just shut up about it." Nobody's forcing him to be bored, and nobody granted him authority over other people's interests.

"signals for high five"

 

[Gabethewiking]

Now this is just ridiculous. If Dawkins doesn't think God is interesting, maybe he "should just shut up about it." Nobody's forcing him to be bored, and nobody granted him authority over other people's interests.

I do not find him boring, nor do most intelligent people, we enjoy hearing both his personal views as well as professional expression about facts like Evolution.

 

[Storm]

I do not find him boring, nor do most intelligent people, we enjoy hearing both his personal views as well as professional expression about facts like Evolution.

Read it again. I didn't call him boring.

 

[Gabethewiking]

admittedly some dont, but alot of people do define their god so saying "I cant disprove your God" to these people is absurd of course you can.

Of course I could also say this could be a weakness of science, it has not basis, for this, so maybe philosphy would be a good altenative for you to take?

Just as Science has a "weakness" for not being able to prove that Unicorns do not exist, what is your point?

but their was a time when we didnt, dont dodge what Im saying a few thousand years ago we thought it was quite rational to feel the earth was flat, heck we had no proof it was round, but that didnt stop it being round that is my point. today we may believe its impossible for their to be a "big crunch" but that doesnt mean it wont happen.

First you said Millions of Years, and now a couple of Thousand? Jump jump jump the skipper...

If I lived during this time, I do not think I would think it is flat, but that is besides the point of course. But I still do not understand your point here?

Are you saying we should accept any claims for gods because there could be one and we may find evidence for such a thing?

If that is so, then you missed the point entirely, the god claim is a claim without evidence, just as Unicorn and Invisible Pink Unicorns, if you make a claim of something it is on your shoulders to provide evidence for it, else it is moot. So far we have no evidence for any of the thousands of gods that existed (claimed) throughout time whiles we have the evidence of human psychology and reality showing us how the god belief came to be, how the facts of all claimed god beliefs are in contradiction to reality and so on.

Just as I can claim that Flying Unicorns breathing Fire does not exist, I can say the same about gods, very simple, there is no difference. Why would there be?

 

[skydivephil]

Yet the Universe exists. You are guilty of the same crime you convict theists of. So now start making fun of your own belief, instead of all that association garbage you have been offering so far.

The crime i convict theisst of is believing stuff without any evidence, so where do I do that?

 

[tarasan]

Just as Science has a "weakness" or not beling able to prove that Unicorns do not exist, what is your point?

The point is that Sciene can only test what is within its Cone of influence you dont know if it can test everything and because you dont you cant say that with fact that something doesnt exist.

First you said Millions of Years, and now a couple of Thousand? Jump jump jump the skipper...?

how many years it is doesnt affect my point your arguing is irrelevant

If I lived during this time, I do not think I would think it is flat, but that is besides the point of course. But I still do not understand your point here?

the point is that just because there is a lack of evidence for something doesnt mean that it is not the case.

Are you saying we should accept any claims for gods because there could be one and we may find evidence for such a thing?

yes

If that is so, then you missed the point entirely, the god claim is a claim without evidence, just as Unicorn and Invisible Pink Unicorns, if you make a claim of something it is on your shoulders to provide evidence for it, else it is moot. So far we have no evidence for any of the thousands of gods that existed throughout time whiles we have the evidence of human psychology and reality showing us how the god belief came to be, how the facts of all claimed god beliefs are in contradiction to reality and so on.

indeed but the athiests also has a claim he claims there is not God so he also must say why no double standards now. also the whole no evidence thing si a little thin, the only way you can rational say that is if the thing in question is not doing what it is supposed to for example we know that there is no 9th palent because there is no physical evidence AND because the make up of our solar system does not support a 9th planet so when you say there is no evidence for God you must also say And (insurt what God is not doing what he should be here)

Just as I can claim that Flying Unicorns breathing Fire does not exist, I can say the same about gods, very simple, there is no difference. Why would there be?

read the above

 

[Gabethewiking]

Read it again. I didn't call him boring.

My bad, sloppy reading

The reason he is talking about it is because god belief has caused and is causing huge suffering in the world, everything from killing other people to Preventing medical science and a better world.

The most secular people create the best societies, as you may know, so I assume this is the reason he is spreading the word of peace and love and that people should try to lookat religion in a more of a "past time" sense that they keep to themselves in the livingroom and not indoctrinating their children letting them get a good education and live in the real world and if they want to believe in things that do not exist they would do so WITHOUT denying REALITY such as Evolution and Medical Science and STILL, even with their belief in gods, have RESPECT for Life. I guess he has alot of passion about making a better world.

 

[Gabethewiking]

indeed but the athiests also has a claim he claims there is not God so he also must say why no double standards now. also the whole no evidence thing si a little thin, the only way you can rational say that is if the thing in question is not doing what it is supposed to for example we know that there is no 9th palent because there is no physical evidence AND because the make up of our solar system does not support a 9th planet so when you say there is no evidence for God you must also say And (insurt what God is not doing what he should be here)

If there is no evidence for a claim such as a god, and tons of CONTRADICTORY evidence showing where god conept comes from, contradictions to nature and so on, yesyou can simple say there is no gods, as no god has been proved by the ones claiming it.

You also ignore the fact that the same people will then Deny the existence of Fairies, why? They believe one thing without evidence but not the other, this is not a very static mind we are dealing with, is it?

 

[Storm]

My bad, sloppy reading

The reason he is talking about it is because god belief has caused and is causing huge suffering in the world, everything from killing other people to Preventing medical science and a better world.

Oh, I get it. That's not the point.

The point is that my passions are my concern. I'm not hurting anyone, and he's got no right to tell me to shut up just because he doesn't share my interest. This is what I want to do with my life, and that's none of his damned business.

The most secular people create the best societies, as you may know,

I do. I also know that secular does not necessarily mean irreligious. Much of my passion for a secular society is due to my religious convictions, and I'm not alone in that.