No there is not.
There is zero empirical evidence to support a deity, but also zero empirical evidence to support Dawkins's belief that there is no deity.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:45,
Share,
Reply)
So with zero empirical evidence to support something....
Isn't it more rational to not believe in it rather than state its existence is definite?
*edit* Also - if you're talking about the scripture-defined form of god (which I think the people who write him hate mail probably are), there's LOTS of empirical evidence to support his non-existence (if you partly define his existence by stated actions and causal effect).
(, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:51, Share, Reply)
No.
Absolutely not.
Of course, you are looking at this from our perspective, not a logical one.
An atheist maintains, with zero empirical evidence to support his position, that there is no Deity. By your argument, it would be more rational not to believe in Atheism than to state that it is definitely true.
I am not arguing with Dawkins's beliefs, merely ranting about his hypocrisy in applying logic to theists which he does not, in turn, apply to atheism.
If you are an empiricalist and not an agnostic then you are shit at empiricalism.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:56,
Share,
Reply)
Try looking at it from a different perspective.
If you ask simply 'does God exist?' you can answer in whatever way you want. There's no logical basis to start from and so as you say, the only logical answer is an indecisive one.
The question should instead be 'why do people believe in God?' One answer is that we evolved that way. Consider it's just a biological mechanism within our brains to help us to bond and grow communities with moral uniformity. Or there's the religious view that there is a real, all powerful being we experience through our thoughts and emotions. Either could be true... but which one of those answers sounds more likely? I would certainly say God has been a useful evolutionary trait, so that alone convinces me he's imaginary.
Can't it be both? Can we argue that there's a second, REAL God besides the evolved imaginary God? Sure, but if we can explain the experience of God without God being present, then the real God is clearly doing absolutely nothing. If a God does nothing, why worship him?
tl;dr - I'm an Atheist, argue with me.
(, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 18:46, Share, Reply)