Richard Dawkins is Agnostic?! (page 10)

tec

Well, I would say that he calls them ignorant because they are based on no evidence. Not because they are not possible...just as belief in unicorns is ignorant without evidence. And I doubt he is excited about the possibility them too.

Do you think he should respect every god belief that ever has been created? Why, is there evidence for all the gods? Do you respect all those beliefs or do you think some are based in ignorance? I'd say he allows for that in his .01%

Yes, but he sounds to be allowing for a much higher then .01% in these other possibilities... with as little evidence as he sees for a creator.

When I listened to him, I just didn't think it was that far for him to go to accept the possibility that this other possible 'life' might in fact entail God; a creator; angels; spirit. I understand that he cannot make this leap... but i understand this because religion seems to be a blind spot for him. Perhaps sore spot would be a better description, but it leads to the same thing as a blind spot.

Peace,

tammy

tec

Seriously, freakishly long fingers make my stomach clench. Lol.

I'm not kidding.

I can't look at that pic above without some clenching.

still thinking

How much of a leap is it to think their might be other life? We live...we have a planet with life. Why not somewhere else? Everything in the universe is made of the same stuff.......It's not that bigger leap.

However...God created everything...that is a leap based on very little, if any evidence, other than books written by men. Who, by the way had very little knowlege of anything scientific and attibuted all sorts of things to gods that have since been shown by science to simply be nature.

The fact that matter exists...just shows matter exists. and can exist elsewhere.

It is a much bigger leap in faith to believe that before god created the universe there was nothing. Than to believe that the universe has always existed in one form or another.

Which makes more sense?

still thinking

the first part is mine, but the rest leads it to being out of context

so you want us to try and make sense of something you are quoting out of context? And attibuting your own reasoning too....no wonder I was getting confused....LOL

It would appear that you are adding 2 + 2 together and getting 5

james_woods

It is a much bigger leap in faith to believe that before god created the universe there was nothing. Than to believe that the universe has always existed in one form or another.

Which makes more sense?

Scientifical sense? Actually current science thinks that the universe has not always existed but had a beginning. Before that beginning, current science has no theory, because there is no evidence.

tec

It was not my quote that you quoted. You took part of my quote, and added the rest... from I don't know where. That is why I asked. That is what made it out of context.

As for the leap, no I don't think it is that big of a leap to think some sort of life as being creator... not if you can imagine 3rd, or 4th (and beyond) dimensional lifeforms. Nor if you consider that faith and testimony to the spiritual in some form or another has been part of man since the dawn of man.

But it wasn't about a leap. It was about applying the same amount of skepticism to this other life (without evidence) as to a creator. I don't think he has the same standard. If you do, then that is fine. I just see a different measuring tape being used, is all.

Peace,

tammy

still thinking

Actually current science thinks that the universe has not always existed but had a beginning

Had a type of beginning...how that works..your guess as good as mine.

Than to believe that the universe has always existed in one form or another is what I said.

In one form or another...woud imply that even if it went back to energy which lead to the big bang...it was not nothing. And of course before that who knows? maybe the big crunch...maybe something else.

But why assume it was created....what basis is there for that?

still thinking

As for the leap, no I don't think it is that big of a leap to think some sort of life as being creator... not if you can imagine 3rd, or 4th (and beyond) dimensional lifeforms. Nor if you consider that faith and testimony to the spiritual in some form or another has been part of man since the dawn of man.

Even if you could imagine a fourth dimension....or at least try to....that is still an assumption based on possibility because we have 2 and 3 dimensions already....why would that mean god is a possibility? maybe a remote one....but on what basis should we think that?

NewChapter

This man sees absolutely no evidence for a god, because there is none. Yet he still leaves a window open for the possiblity that maybe evidence will be found one day---and that is a blind spot.

He looks at evidence of life on earth, and thinks about all we do know about the universe, and applying the evidence we already have, he concludes that life elsewhere is a possiblity---a possiblity based on evidence---which makes it much more likely than finding something for which there is no evidence.

How is this a blind spot? Having evidence and understanding a process is one thing on which to think. Having a void, and only imagination of the possiblitites--is a weak foundation, which is why the window is so small.

I don't think believers can ever really understand atheists. Because of what they call evidence, they can never understand how an atheist uses evidence to make conclusions and even to wonder how far it could all go. Building on knowledge--not myth is very different.

NC

Richard Dawkins is Agnostic?!

Share this