Proof - of what? (page 7)

The1975Blues

"Except that Dawkins said exactly that – even down to the "6.9 out of seven" description of his level of surety that there is no God – ages ago. Early on in what is (in my view unjustly) his most famous work, The God Delusion, he points out that no one can have total certainty that God does or does not exist. For that matter, you can't have total certainty that tables, Volkswagens, Adrian Chiles or Bridport exist. You can't, as the philosophers have it, prove that you're not a brain in a jar. But we don't go around in a state of metaphysical doubt about these things; let's face it, we're all pretty happy to assume that the thing we eat our dinner off is really there."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

The problem appears that rational thinkers like Richard Dawkins get paid to know their facts, they understand the implications stating "I can prove God does not exist through reductionist arguments", he know's those positions that are easily jumped aboard while remaining unchallenged, if it's so easy how come the he's not an atheist? Why is Dawkins a Agnostic instead of a atheist who has pretty much proved God does not exist? Dawkins explains that people who try to get around this question are not worth debating, his video attacking the atheists that claim they found ways around the problem assured me that they too who make bold claims are just like the Watchtower followers because they can't fullfill the Philosophical fence post hurdle that allows atheism to be considered factual are Dawkins would alter his view in a heartbeat!

In 2014 Dawkins once again make's the assertion "You can't disprove God exists" so besides pleasing Cofty, you need to help adjust Richard Dawkins final percentage that's holding him back from being a full blown atheist, how will you bring Dr. Dawkins in to your group that's absolutely certain God does not exist?

cofty

The1975Blues - Please read the following quote carefully. Outlaw might want to read it as well.

A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about God, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.

Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.

The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.

-- Richard Dawkins, following a list of excerpts from hate mail sent to the editor of Freethought Today, after she won a separationist court battle, in "A Challenge To Atheists: Come Out of the Closet" (Free Inquiry, Summer, 2002)

cantleave

Dawkins describes himslef as an Atheist not an agnostic.

The Daily Mail is talking total crap here. As I stated in my last post it is not for Dawkins to disprove a god but the for believers to prove their delusions. Shifting the burden of proof onto Dawkins, cofty or any other atheist does not make them agnostic.

The1975Blues

Telemetry, I thought you might enjoy this discussion with someone who actually understand highly advanced chemistry and not four or five classes (Organic Chemistry probably was the height unless we see a transcript proving higher, that's where I tapped out). Continue reading the argument between someone who clearly does not understand the roles of the Organic Chemistry doctor he's arguing with.

"

> > > I don't doubt that some synthetic organic chemists or chemical
> > > engineers may lean towards creationism, but thankfully they are not
> > > involved in the biology aspects of drug discovery or development.
> > >
> > > steven pirie-shepherd PhD
> >
> > What a self-servicing onanistic load of road apples! It is the organic
> > chemists who need to know the _exact_ composition and concentration in
> > a process. It is the organic chemists who break transformations down
> > into discrete reaction steps and molecular geometries. They do not
> > invoke magic "enzymes" to make B from A. They don't cook up
> > "antibodies" of unknown composition which act as little gods of the
> > dish - adamase and evease.
>
> Hmmm, there is nothing "magic" about enzymes. The reaction mechanisms
> of enzymes are well studied and known for a great number of enzymes.
> Crystallographers have managed to obtain "snapshots" of many of the
> steps in various biochemical reactions at a high degree of resolution.
>

Alas, reactions rarely take place in the crystal and thus such
snapshots are of questionable use.

> Antibodies are well known entities, I don't think they merit the use
> of " ". I certainly don't worship antibodies, although I use them
> frequently as well-defined tools with defined interactions. The site..."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.chem/7OnH02OW8PY

cofty

Why do believers take comfort in semantics?

Strictly speaking the word "proof" belongs only to mathematicians. "The square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides" can be sown to be a tautology and therefore it has to be true every time by definition.

In every other area of life we deal with the balance of probabilities. Therefore we can't "prove" anything else in the same way. Believers like 1975 seem to think that offers succour for their illogical superstitions.

The evidence for god is totally absent. The evidence against god is compelling. Strictly speaking this does not amount to proof but only in the same way that we cannot "prove" there is no tooth-fairy.

Of course all of this is meaningless until we define "god". If you are talking about the god of christian theism then it is easy to show beyond all reasonable doubt that he does not exist. If you mean some vague notion of first cause then why bother wasting time even thinking about it?

cofty

Oh good we have a new member who knows how to copy-paste. That's just what the forum needed.

The1975Blues

Dawkins has stated at what percentage he is an agnostic, watch his videos showing he admits he can't prove God does not exist and uses "Russell's Teapot" analogy of being highly unlikely but you can't prove it does not exist". He give himself a 6.5 out 7.00 certainty level he does not think God does not exist but can't get completely there because he confesses that would "require you to know all the information in the Universe and our friends in the Philosophy Schools would hammer me for saying I had reached this level of awareness."

Why is it we are like JWs in that we welcome all the negative stories about the JWs when they do thing wrong but when you think one of the people you hold dear to you says something you don't agree with, the "newspaper is not a good source"? There are different videos with Richard expounding on this topic, at first he was short and sweet back in 2012, his answers to this question in 2015 are adding the "We can't know all the information in the Universe" answer with a more mellow touch than his original "Russells Teapot analogy.

cofty

It's as if you didn't read a single word of the quote where he explained his position in full, or my comments. Oh wait, your probably didn't.

Do you do conversations?

cofty

Just to be clear. If Dawkins found Jesus tomorrow it would not matter to me in the least.

The god of theism does not exist - 100%.

Ruby456

I dunno (scratching my head here) but telemetry seems to be arguing from irreducible complexity rather than from belief.

then too perhaps he is leaving the door open to creation rather than saying that creation actually happened via for example bringing together possibility and contingency together with a communications network - God functioning as metaphors for the combination. As an atheist I would agree with this.

Proof - of what?

Share this