Those who believe in a God,at least those who believe in a mainstream interpretation of a God, have large organisations to back them up. They have many articulate and convincing people constantly speaking on their behalf and reassuring them that they are right.
This has led to the belief in a deity as the default position in most societies.
If nothing else, at least Dawkins provides an equally articulate and convincing voice for those that do not believe there is a God. Especially for those in places like the American Midwest, where there are precious few like-minded folks. He may give the impression of being intolerant towards religious beliefs, but no more so than religion is intolerant of atheism.
Also, Dawkins accepts that nobody knows if there is a God or not His arguments come from the fact it is highly unlikely that there is a God (for reasons he can articulate far better then me) and not from a stubborn refusal to believe in one.
(This has led to the belief in a deity as the default position in most societies.
If nothing else, at least Dawkins provides an equally articulate and convincing voice for those that do not believe there is a God. Especially for those in places like the American Midwest, where there are precious few like-minded folks. He may give the impression of being intolerant towards religious beliefs, but no more so than religion is intolerant of atheism.
Also, Dawkins accepts that nobody knows if there is a God or not His arguments come from the fact it is highly unlikely that there is a God (for reasons he can articulate far better then me) and not from a stubborn refusal to believe in one.
Mystery_Bob,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:21,
archived)
If this were true it wouild still make him a cock.His position, as a self appointed high priest of atheism, is just as valid as that of fundamentalist religious leaders.
That is 'not valid at all'.
People don't need to be told, ever, for any reason, that they are not allowed to believe what they want to, be that in no God, in God or in the flying spaghetti monster.
Sadly he does argue that there is no God in this book. He argues that there is no God because it doesn't fit in with his idea of what science is.
This is bigotry and cultural hatred and, to be honest, is identical to the behaviour of the zealous religious leaders.
(That is 'not valid at all'.
People don't need to be told, ever, for any reason, that they are not allowed to believe what they want to, be that in no God, in God or in the flying spaghetti monster.
Sadly he does argue that there is no God in this book. He argues that there is no God because it doesn't fit in with his idea of what science is.
This is bigotry and cultural hatred and, to be honest, is identical to the behaviour of the zealous religious leaders.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:30,
archived)
So your point isthat there is no objective reality?
(
Your watch is BACK,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:32,
archived)
I would have thought that there is clearly no defined objective reality.To claim that there is is the height of conceit.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:36,
archived)
No, I just do not accept that any theory is fact.I always doubt.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:13,
archived)
but that's a different questionI also don't believe that any theory is fact.
But I believe in the existence of an objective reality and that this reality has structure. Some parts of it are self evident and cannot be proved and disporved (e.g. 1+1=2) whereas for some other we need more elaborate techniques. Science (or the scientific method) provides a framework to develop and evaluate tools to construct a representation of this reality.
(But I believe in the existence of an objective reality and that this reality has structure. Some parts of it are self evident and cannot be proved and disporved (e.g. 1+1=2) whereas for some other we need more elaborate techniques. Science (or the scientific method) provides a framework to develop and evaluate tools to construct a representation of this reality.
Your watch is BACK,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:29,
archived)