The Unbelievers 2013

philologos

Popinjay wrote: »

All this line says to me is "I've had the flaws in the argument presented in my post pointed out to me on numerous occasions and despite this have decided to trot out the same tired old horse-manure regardless. I don't actually learn from anything pointed out to me in any debates I have on this board and engaging with me seriously is bordering on a complete waste of anybody's time."

I must admit, that blatantly admitting that you're expecting to be corrected and deciding to press on anyway with an argument you know to be spurious is, ironically enough, the most intellectually honest thing I've seen associated with your posts.

So... thanks, I suppose

No, it says that I've heard a very unconvincing response to that argument before.

My point is, if Krauss and Dawkins want to use the argument that science undermines the existence of God then they need to show how it does. If they can't, and if there is no good scientific reason to reject God, then atheism should be argued on the basis of its philosophical merits.

If someone claims that science nullifies the argument for the existence of God, they need to show it or stop using that argument. That's irrespective of whether or not we get into Russell's teapot, the FSM or whatever else you want to use. That's even before we get into analysing what basis Christians believe on. If atheists make lazy claims about science nullifying God's existence then people are perfectly entitled to ask how.

Popinjay

philologos wrote: »

No, it says that I've heard a very unconvincing response to that argument before.

My point is, if Krauss and Dawkins want to use the argument that science undermines the existence of God then they need to show how it does. If they can't, and if there is no good scientific reason to reject God, then atheism should be argued on the basis of its philosophical merits.

If someone claims that science nullifies the argument for the existence of God, they need to show it or stop using that argument. That's irrespective of whether or not we get into Russell's teapot, the FSM or whatever else you want to use. That's even before we get into analysing what basis Christians believe on. If atheists make lazy claims about science nullifying God's existence then people are perfectly entitled to ask how.

That's weird because what you actually asked was:

philologos wrote: »

What actual scientific argument is there against God's existence? - I mean iron clad scientific proof that God doesn't exist.*

Which is a separate point and question entirely. Unless words mean different things when you use them as when other people use them. Maybe it's a context thing I'm unaware of.

I'd love to know why you think arguments about the principles of 'burden of proof' and 'ability to prove a negative' are unconvincing. Actually, no, I wouldn't. Like I said before, waste of time. TBPFH, I think I've reached the point where the only suitable response is:

"Yep, fine, grand, whatever you say, good lad, hope it keeps fine for you."

philologos

I don't think it's unfair to say that if an atheist claims that science nullifies God's existence that they should have to back that up irrespective of the quality of theist arguments for the existence of God.

There's no get out exception for atheists in my book. If they can't back it up there's no reason why I should take that argument seriously.

This level of scrutiny to me applies as much to your worldview as it does to mine irrespective of FSM or Russell's teapot. If you wish to convince me that science and Christianity are at loggerheads you need to show me how exactly.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

I don't think it's unfair to say that if an atheist claims that science nullifies God's existence that they should have to back that up irrespective of the quality of theist arguments for the existence of God.

It "nullifies" God's existence by showing that there isn't any about the universe that requires his existence to explain it.
The are much better, much more supported and testable explanations for the origin of the universe other than "God did it by magic" which in turn is untestable and offers exactly zero knowledge.

We can't offer you evidence for his non-existence as it is a negative and we can't prove a negative. Nor do we need to offer such evidence any more than we need to offer such evidence for any fictional or imaginary entity before rejecting it.
You do the same for stuff like Russell's teapot and FSM, but exclude God from this line of logic because you don't like it.
Or if this is not the case, describe exactly why you don't believe they exist and provide the evidence you used to reject them.

Science and Christianity are at loggerheads because the bible claims things that aren't true and can't be waved off as mistranslation or metaphor, such as it saying that birds came before land animals or the flood being high enough to cover mountain tops.

Popinjay

philologos wrote: »

I don't think it's unfair to say that if an atheist claims that science nullifies God's existence that they should have to back that up irrespective of the quality of theist arguments for the existence of God.

There's no get out exception for atheists in my book. If they can't back it up there's no reason why I should take that argument seriously.

This level of scrutiny to me applies as much to your worldview as it does to mine irrespective of FSM or Russell's teapot. If you wish to convince me that science and Christianity are at loggerheads you need to show me how exactly.

Yep, fine, grand, whatever you say, good lad, hope it keeps fine for you.

Hotblack Desiato

Geomy wrote: »

Sorry dogmatic might be wrong,my mistake.

I think strident Atheists and Strident Religious people get on the average Joes and Josephines tits

You get the gist of what I mean but your trying the old "explain yourself more and ill prove I'm more intelligent **** aren't ya"

So... (and you could predict this question) what's a strident atheist then? :pac:
I'm not trying to catch you out, really. Just clarify what you actually mean. Some people throw stuff like 'militant atheist' etc. into discussions which isn't really helpful. You didn't use that term, but you did say dogmatic atheist and strident atheist, which is less offensive for sure but not much clearer.
I don't know your definition of these, but some people regard any atheist who doesn't STFU and accept having religion rammed down their throats as 'militant', or publicly denying the existence of god is 'militant'.

We're here, we're not going away, we're not willing to accept that our kids be indoctrinated in school at our expense with no opt-out. That's not militant or dogmatic or even strident, but just sticking up for our rights, which are explicitly set out in our country's 1937 constitution, flawed as it is.

It doesn't help that a lot of media commentators use the word 'secularism' when they should be using the word 'irreligion'. Secularism is not a threat to any religion, it simply means neutrality in the state's affairs as regards belief or lack of. You'll find that atheists are by necessity a lot more into religious freedom than followers of the majority* religion are.


* Ignoring, for now, how many self-professed catholics don't believe in clerical celibacy, or the ban on contraception, or the ban on non-marital sex, or papal infallibility, or transubstantiation, or the divinity of Jesus, or, even.. god.

Geomy

ninja900 wrote: »

So... (and you could predict this question) what's a strident atheist then? :pac:
I'm not trying to catch you out, really. Just clarify what you actually mean. Some people throw stuff like 'militant atheist' etc. into discussions which isn't really helpful. You didn't use that term, but you did say dogmatic atheist and strident atheist, which is less offensive for sure but not much clearer.
I don't know your definition of these, but some people regard any atheist who doesn't STFU and accept having religion rammed down their throats as 'militant', or publicly denying the existence of god is 'militant'.

We're here, we're not going away, we're not willing to accept that our kids be indoctrinated in school at our expense with no opt-out. That's not militant or dogmatic or even strident, but just sticking up for our rights, which are explicitly set out in our country's 1937 constitution, flawed as it is.

It doesn't help that a lot of media commentators use the word 'secularism' when they should be using the word 'irreligion'. Secularism is not a threat to any religion, it simply means neutrality in the state's affairs as regards belief or lack of. You'll find that atheists are by necessity a lot more into religious freedom than followers of the majority* religion are.


* Ignoring, for now, how many self-professed catholics don't believe in clerical celibacy, or the ban on contraception, or the ban on non-marital sex, or papal infallibility, or transubstantiation, or the divinity of Jesus, or, even.. god.

That's a good post.
I don't really need to post anymore on this thread.
It's a discussion that can go anywhere but I see where you're coming from

Sofaspud

Popinjay wrote: »

All this line says to me is "I've had the flaws in the argument presented in my post pointed out to me on numerous occasions and despite this have decided to trot out the same tired old horse-manure regardless. I don't actually learn from anything pointed out to me in any debates I have on this board and engaging with me seriously is bordering on a complete waste of anybody's time."

To be fair, I think Philololololololololololologos was only bringing up the "burden" thing to prove a point, that the fact that a god's non-existance can't be proven.

However, Phlogologologolos is also mistakenly making the assumption that the scientists are trying to assert that a god doesn't exist, backing this up by scientific claims. This assumption is incorrect, as has already been pointed out.
The scientists aren't claiming that a god doesn't exist, just that it's unlikely that one does.

Popinjay

Sofaspud wrote: »

To be fair, I think Philololololololololololologos was only bringing up the "burden" thing to prove a point

I gave up on giving Phil the benefit of the doubt back in 2008.

pH

philologos wrote: »

This level of scrutiny to me applies as much to your worldview as it does to mine irrespective of FSM or Russell's teapot. If you wish to convince me that science and Christianity are at loggerheads you need to show me how exactly.

"Science" makes exactly the same claims for the non existence of god/gods as it does for the non existence of leprechauns, dragons, ghosts, Russel's teapot and the FSM.

No reliable evidence for any of the above have ever been found, and none of them need to taken into account when building models that explain us and our universe. Science doesn't so much disprove them as make them irrelevant.

Now as Russell's teapot shows, it is entirely possible for humans to postulate the existence of things that science can't "disprove", and infinite number of them, and standing there anonymous and not very interesting at all - in an infinite list of "things I can think of that you can't disprove" is the christian god.

Pointing to one and muttering about science this and science that is exceedingly tedious, and bordering on a child-like view of the world, and a million miles from the extremely clever argument you seem to think you're making.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

In fairness, he did say 'seems'.

Yep, but he used the word together with some highly specific claims which make me think that either (a) he's seen the film (and so, shouldn't have used the word "seems") or (b) he hasn't seen the film and is just dishonestly passing off uninformed personal beliefs as well-informed opinion.

Since he hasn't replied to my question about whether he'd seen the film or not, I'm inclined to think it's (b).

philologos

From the trailer it seems this way, and on the basis of much of the speaking engagements that I've seen both engage in it seems this way also.

I've never said I've seen the documentary but it seems very much that way from the content of the trailer.

krudler

robindch wrote: »

Yep, but he used the word together with some highly specific claims which make me think that either (a) he's seen the film (and so, shouldn't have used the word "seems") or (b) he hasn't seen the film and is just dishonestly passing off uninformed personal beliefs as well-informed opinion.

Since he hasn't replied to my question about whether he'd seen the film or not, I'm inclined to think it's (b).

Sure isn't that what being religious is all about :pac:

the culture of deference

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't give a crap what other people believe as long as they don't try and force it down my throat and won't force my views down theirs.

I wanted to know your opinion about primary schools in relation to the quote above

the culture of deference wrote: »

What are your feelings about Irish primary schools then?

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Primary school? It's a distant memory. But I'm firmly against prayers and the likes in public schools but my primary school wasn't so bad in that respect, they never pushed it. There weren't any crosses or religious symbols like there was in my secondary school. (or else I never noticed!)

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

This seems to be a documentary about dishonestly passing off personal beliefs as science and ignoring the fact that there are many scientists who believe in God.

So your issue with the documentary is that they made it about what they set out to make it about... rather than making it about what you want it to be about?

The obvious solution there is to go and make your own one is it not?

philologos wrote: »

What "facts" am I ignoring?

Where to start. Maybe re-visit the post you ran away from crying and ignoring to check out some of them.

philologos wrote: »

I welcome scrutiny and examination

No. You most certainly do not. You run away from it and pretend to have it on ignore when you see it. Nor am I the only one not fooled by this lie as many of us have noticed this pattern in your posts.

Your entire approach on these fora is to run away from scrutiny and examination. You pop up in a thread... evangelise... then when any kick back comes you run... lay low awhile.... and then pop up in a new thread making all the same debunked nonsense points you spewed on to the threads before.

philologos wrote: »

I don't blindly believe in a book that has been "in many areas proven to be false".

Yes. You do. Given the standard of evidence you seem to present for it is reducible to: "Well his mates at the time seemed to believe in Jesus therefore it must be true".

philologos wrote: »

It's this type of preconceived nonsense that prevents any meaningful discussion between Christians and atheists really, and that's pretty disappointing.

No it is you ignoring all the counter points.... running away and laying low.... then popping up in new threads making the same debunked points again that breaks down discussion. Not surprising really however as given the standard of your "evidence" so far a discussion you actually commit to without retreating crying is likely not to go well for you.

philologos wrote: »

If someone claims that science nullifies the argument for the existence of God, they need to show it or stop using that argument.

Sure. But the first step in that discussion has to be yours, not ours. Science is about falsification for example. In other words someone makes a hypothesis supported by evidence and science attempts to falsify it.

The reason therefore that science does not touch YOUR position is that you have not presented any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning to begin with. So there is nothing to be falsified. Nothing to be discussed. Nothing to be evaluated.

Your entire argument for god is based on assertions, declarations by fiat, special pleading and appeals to what "makes sense" to you personally. When asked for arguments to support your hypothesis that a god exists you invariably reply with "Well it just makes sense to me".

If you want to talk science then MAKE a scientific argument and we can talk. Or at least... if history is anything to go by.... WE will talk.... you will just run.

Just Like Heaven

philologos wrote: »

ignoring the fact that there are many scientists who believe in God.

So what? Science isn't like religion in that beliefs are subject to interpretation of a text.

Hundreds of years ago not just some but the majority of scientists used to think the Earth was flat, there were alien colonies on Mars, the Earth was expanding, there were only four elements etc etc. All of which isn't science.

What a scientist believes and what science is aren't the same. There are scientists still out there who think the Earth is flat. Am I gonna ignore all the science proving otherwise, just cause a 'scientist' tells me it's not?

philologos

As a Christian I don't advocate ignoring science so I don't see how this point is applicable to me

Science isn't the handmaiden of atheism and it's high time that Krauss and Dawkins acknowledge this.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

As a Christian I don't advocate ignoring science so I don't see how this point is applicable to me

Science isn't the handmaiden of atheism and it's high time that Krauss and Dawkins acknowledge this.

Do you agree science has convincing evidence that the biblical story of creation doesn't match what science has found evidence of, namely, the earth being far older than 6,000 years? Or do you ignore the science that contradicts the bible?

philologos

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is 6,000 years old

Why assume that I hold this position or that most Christians do?

I'd be interested in having you show me this on the Atheist / Christian debate thread over yonder.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is 6,000 years old

Why assume that I hold this position or that most Christians do?

I'd be interested in having you show me this on the Atheist / Christian debate thread over yonder.

The Bible states that the flood covered mountain tops.

Do you believe this is true?

You've stated before that the Flood was a historical event, but was limited to a small region.
But the bible claims something that is impossible for any flood to do.

Just Like Heaven

philologos wrote: »

As a Christian I don't advocate ignoring science so I don't see how this point is applicable to me

It has nothing to do with you, but for some reason you made the point that there are scientists out there who believe in God. All I was saying is that it doesn't matter. It's not like there is a good scientific argument against what they're doing in the film trailer, just cause there are some scientists who believe in God.

Did you miss nozzferrahhtoo's post again btw?

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is 6,000 years old

Why assume that I hold this position or that most Christians do?

I'd be interested in having you show me this on the Atheist / Christian debate thread over yonder.

I'd be interested in you answering the questions put to you on this forum. Do you agree evolution has a scientific basis and is more likely to be correct than the biblical explanation?

philologos

I don't want to be blamed for derailing the thread. I've been rather clear on evolution and how Genesis 1 and 2 are structured on other fora and I'll walk you through it on the megathread over yonder.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

I don't want to be blamed fir derailing the thread. I've been rather clear on evolution and how Genesis 1 and 2 are structured on other fora and I'll walk you through it on the megathread over yonder.

Another classic dodge from Phil.

It's not going to derail a thread to answer a simple yes or no question.
And that question establishes clearly there is parts of the bible that clash with science.

The Flood, which you believe was a historic event is clearly claimed in the Bible to have covered mountain tops. Which is impossible for any type of flood.
There is no way to wave this off as a mistranslation or a misinterpretation.

So either the Bible contains something that is impossible and is both not supported and refuted by science, or the Bible contains something that isn't true.

Which is it?
Why are you ignoring the question?

Just Like Heaven

Bye Phil.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I don't want to be blamed for derailing the thread.

A+A generally doesn't worry about "derailing" threads.

What would be nice is if you could answer a few questions, even if it does derail your usual style.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

A+A generally doesn't worry about "derailing" threads.

What would be nice is if you could answer a few questions, even if it does derail your usual style.

In past contributions here I've been accused of this.

I'll answer the posts as best as I can over yonder when I get a spot more time.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

In past contributions here I've been accused of this.

I'll answer the posts as best as I can over yonder when I get a spot more time.

Ah, stay here and answer our questions first.

Or cut and run when you get scared, like usual.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

In past contributions here I've been accused of this.

I'll answer the posts as best as I can over yonder when I get a spot more time.

You've been given the go ahead, why won't you post it here, where the questions were asked of you?

My question is very on topic and immediately counters your points, but you are running away from it rather than answering what is a clear and simple question.
Why can't you answer it?

Kiwi in IE

I find it interesting that Christians often remark on the inability of atheists to 'disprove god'. If I were to publicly report that a purple fairy resides in my garden, it would generally be expected that I prove, rather than others disprove, it's existence.

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If I were to publicly report that a purple fairy resides in my garden, it would generally be expected that I prove, rather than others disprove, it's existence.

That doesn't work for religion. All the evidence they have is stories in a book, so that's no good. Instead, they throw the burden back upon doubters to "prove" that it couldn't exist -- the same argument that applies to Russel's orbiting teapot. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though most religious people get upset at that point and say that you're not taking the argument seriously (uh, that's the point...!)

wretcheddomain

Looks like it's coming out in the coming days given Krauss and Dawkins recently completed an interview about it.

Looking forward to it?

Sulla Felix

I dislike Krauss, his scientific writing is nicely accessible but something about him just rubs me the wrong way. Dawkins I quite like.

Anyway, premiering at the hotdocs festival in Canada this week. I'm in Wisconsin for the next week with time to burn, hmmm...

Geomy

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I find it interesting that Christians often remark on the inability of atheists to 'disprove god'. If I were to publicly report that a purple fairy resides in my garden, it would generally be expected that I prove, rather than others disprove, it's existence.

I remember year's ago passing the peoples park in Limerick and someone told me they had to close it at night due to too many fairies hanging about.
When I asked my mum about she fobbed me off lol

Fairies ffs

Turtwig

Geomy wrote: »

I remember year's ago passing the peoples park in Limerick and someone told me they had to close it at night due to too many fairies hanging about.
When I asked my mum about she fobbed me off lol

Fairies ffs

Can't prove they don't exist ! ! !

SebBerkovich

I was talking to a friend about this movie he was saying that he hopes i reaches some religious folks and gets them thinking. I'm pretty sure that the egotism of it could alienate people who aren't going to want to be lectured by celebs about how they're on the wrong path. If it hasn't worked for Scientology it wouldn't work for Atheism. This made me think...

Do you think if this movie was made with Scientologist Celebs trying to promote their particular brand of crazy would they convert people?

Penn

SebBerkovich wrote: »

I was talking to a friend about this movie he was saying that he hopes i reaches some religious folks and gets them thinking. I'm pretty sure that the egotism of it could alienate people who aren't going to want to be lectured by celebs about how they're on the wrong path. If it hasn't worked for Scientology it wouldn't work for Atheism. This made me think...

Do you think if this movie was made with Scientologist Celebs trying to promote their particular brand of crazy would they convert people?

Yes. Not a lot, but some. Everything appeals to somebody. Likewise, this probably won't change the opinions of any great number of religious people, but it might make some of them think more about religion rather than just accepting it as the truth.

Geomy

Lol I know but you get my gist :-)

Some of the older generation believe in all that stuff, it's fascinating to listen to.
East Clare is full of piseogs and stories of hauntings etc and I say let them off.

They have the right to be right or wrong.

What gives anyone the right to call over the Paudi and tell him he's delusional and to stop telling his stories etc

Its all part of local lore and some day people will look back and miss the old guys dramatic stories.

Id prefer to sit down in an old farmhouse with the scent of turf burning listening to ghost stories and legends, rather than religious dogma or some ghouls giving out about religion and all things without proof of existence.

Then again someone might think the same about what I like listening to so its best to keep an open mind. ..

Some day I could be giving out about religion or preaching religions dogma :O

joseph brand

Geomy wrote: »

Lol I know but you get my gist :-)

Some of the older generation believe in all that stuff, it's fascinating to listen to.
East Clare is full of piseogs and stories of hauntings etc and I say let them off.

They have the right to be right or wrong.

What gives anyone the right to call over the Paudi and tell him he's delusional and to stop telling his stories etc

Its all part of local lore and some day people will look back and miss the old guys dramatic stories.

Id prefer to sit down in an old farmhouse with the scent of turf burning listening to ghost stories and legends, rather than religious dogma or some ghouls giving out about religion and all things without proof of existence.

Then again someone might think the same about what I like listening to so its best to keep an open mind. ..

Some day I could be giving out about religion or preaching religions dogma :O

Harmless tales. But it's a little bit different than organised religion, useless prayers and worshipping, preaching hatred of the gay community, looking for donations and all the other useless, time wasting that comes with it.
And, preaching the 'virtue' of blind faith, which is just a fancy term for ignorance. "We don't know, and we don't want to know."

The smell of a turf fire is inviting though.

swampgas

Geomy wrote: »

Lol I know but you get my gist :-)

Some of the older generation believe in all that stuff, it's fascinating to listen to.
East Clare is full of piseogs and stories of hauntings etc and I say let them off.

People shouldn't believe this stuff, they should know it. Big difference.

Most people know these are just stories, myths, legends and not real facts, and very few people have any problem with them.

However if somebody was (for example) refusing to get medical treatment for himself, or for his kids, because he thought a rub of a holy relic or some water from a holy well would be a better idea, well, I think that's a different matter.

Gbear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEClFXjx_fQ

The impression I get of Dawkins is that I think a lot of the "aggressiveness" that gets bandied around to describe him is maybe more his being too serious and perhaps lacking a sense of humour.

J C

robindch wrote: »

That doesn't work for religion. All the evidence they have is stories in a book, so that's no good. Instead, they throw the burden back upon doubters to "prove" that it couldn't exist -- the same argument that applies to Russel's orbiting teapot. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though most religious people get upset at that point and say that you're not taking the argument seriously (uh, that's the point...!)

At one level, all 'religions' of both the Atheist and Theist varieties use 'stories in books'.
At another level, there are objective methods and logical arguments that can be applied to the 'God question' by both believers and unbelievers.

There are substantive arguments on both sides and the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' argument is a trivialisation that can be equally applied to the beliefs of unbelivers in God as well as believers.

lazygal

What beliefs does an unbeliever have?

[-0-]

J C wrote: »

At one level, all 'religions' of both the Atheist and Theist varieties use 'stories in books'.

Theist: Belief in the existence of a god or gods
Atheist: Rejection of belief in God or gods
Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.


You cannot call Atheism a religion. Use a dictionary. I don't believe in a four tittied woman who gives birth to calves who can speak Gaelic. People who do believe in it, and treat it as their religion are entitled to do so, but don't label me religious for NOT believing in it.

Why must you make this mistake ad-infinitum?

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

Theist: Belief in the existence of a god or gods
Atheist: Rejection of belief in God or gods
Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.


You cannot call Atheism a religion. Use a dictionary. I don't believe in a four tittied woman who gives birth to calves who can speak Gaelic. People who do believe in it, and treat it as their religion are entitled to do so, but don't label me religious for NOT believing in it.

Why must you make this mistake ad-infinitum?

Atheism and Theism are the flip sides of the one 'religious coin'.
Theists believe that God or Gods exist ... and Atheists believe that He / they don't.
An argument in favour of the existence of God is almost invariably an argument against Atheism ... and vice versa.

I share your disbelief in the production of cross-species offspring by Humans ...
... and I know that double breasted women exist who give birth to Human babies, who can speak Gaelic ... so please don't label me as religious for believing this either.

... and "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" would be a defintion of Theism which is a subset of 'religion' ... which is any belief that is based on faith.

J C

lazygal wrote: »

What beliefs does an unbeliever have?

The 'polar opposite' belief to practically every belief of the believer in God(s).

lazygal

J C wrote: »

The 'polar opposite' belief to practically every belief of the believer in God(s).

So what are those beliefs?

J C

lazygal wrote: »

So what are those beliefs?

For example, the belief that the Ultimate Cause of everything was nothing ... or simply a denial of the existence of a causation chain ... which is an objective reality of science.

J C

Gbear wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEClFXjx_fQ

The impression I get of Dawkins is that I think a lot of the "aggressiveness" that gets bandied around to describe him is maybe more his being too serious and perhaps lacking a sense of humour.

I enjoy reading Prof Dawkins' books and looking at his debates. He is quite incisive and direct and I admire that quality about him.
I think that he is wrong about some things when he comes to talk about religion and God ... starting with his apparent working assumption that people of faith haven't properly thought through their beliefs - and if they did, they'd all be Atheists.

In fairness to Prof Dawkins, this assumption isn't unique to him ... it seems to be shared by most of the 'New Atheists'.

Dades

J C wrote: »

For example, the belief that the Ultimate Cause of everything was nothing ... or simply a denial of the existence of a causation chain ... which is an objective reality of science.

Calling something the Ultimate Cause is itself a denial of this 'causation chain'.

Also, atheism isn't concerned with making claims about how the universe popped into existence, only with disbelieving the nonsense claims that religions suggest.