The trouble with atheism

[Luke]

Documentary about fundemental atheism. Quite interesting

http://documentaryheaven.com/the-trouble-with-atheism/

[Zanmato]

Not got time to watch this, but shall definitely watch it tomorrow. Any true scientist would have to be agnostic at best (though that's only giving a very philosophical 'you can never know anything for a fact' type level of possiblity even when it's incalculably improbable) but I can't conceive of any valid point made against athiesm. Maybe people don't like Richard Dawkins' presentation style, but to discredit the stuff that he says for that reason is a load of wank.

Cheers. Looks like a good site in general, never knew about it before.

[Rob T]

Not got time to watch this, but shall definitely watch it tomorrow. Any true scientist would have to be agnostic at best (though that's only giving a very philosophical 'you can never know anything for a fact' type level of possiblity even when it's incalculably improbable)

Any true scientist should surely be an atheist? An atheist DOES NOT BELIEVE in any god, it is not a BELIEF there is no god. The belief there is no god is what most people tend to call "strong atheism".

Agnosticism is more a philosophy, like you have said.

[Luke]

They're not agnostic. At least Agnostics have an open mind to there being a possibility to a higher being, but never being sure. Scientists are Atheists and are set in their way and know there isn't anything there, kinda like the way christians insist ther eis something there and if you don't believe what they do then you are wrong or are going to hell. The doc goes into how atheists and religious people have a similar way of thinking (or attitude if you will).

[Zanmato]

Agnostics don't necessarily open themselves up to a higher power, they just say that on a scientifically provable basis, it's not an impossibilty. It's such a negligibly miniscule possiblity that it shouldn't even present itself in reasonable discussion now-a-days, but it's not like you can hold something in your hand, present some graph or mathematical equation that actually proves anything either way.

Richar Dawkins gives a scale of Athiesm in his book The God Delusion, which basically is a 1-7 scale where 1 = God definitely exists, and 7 = God definitely doesn't exist. As something of this nature isn't physically provable, it's not like there's tangeable evidence or a scientific equation to 100% rule it out (just 99.99999999999999999999999999..........99999999999 99999.........................99999999999999999999 999999999999999999999%) it would be technically incorrect to grade yourself at the highest level.

That's really just bending over backwards to accomodate the phylisophical bantering though. A 6/7 is still saying "there is no way a God can be true"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Dawkins himself says that he's just a 6, but as strong a 6 as there can possibly be without tipping into the 7s. I would normally grade myself as a 7 but it's easier to open that small little possiblity in a discussion than to have to answer any "waaah waaah you can't prove it as much as we can't prove it blah blah blah" type arguments.

[Rob T]

They're not agnostic. At least Agnostics have an open mind to there being a possibility to a higher being, but never being sure. Scientists are Atheists and are set in their way and know there isn't anything there, kinda like the way christians insist ther eis something there and if you don't believe what they do then you are wrong or are going to hell. The doc goes into how atheists and religious people have a similar way of thinking (or attitude if you will).

I am an atheist, I am still open-minded and willing to accept a god or similar entity if evidence presented itself.

You are confusing the belief there is no god (generally called strong atheism) and a lack of belief in a god (normal atheism). Zanmato has just posted about this.

Atheism is not equivalent to a religious belief. Agnosticism is not equivalent to either. Agnosticism is actually close minded in a way... they believe there is no way of knowing (that is a pretty cut and dried belief).

Also, lol at scientists being "set in their way". That is the complete antithesis of science.

[Berser_KED]

When did this all get so complicated with sub genres and scales of 1-7?

I was under the impression that the generally accepted terms were Atheist (meaning you did not believe in a god or higher being) and Agnostic (meaning that you were unsure whether there was a god and that it was impossible to prove either way)

[Rob T]

The scale is a bit silly. I like Dawkins but I think that stuff is pointless.

You can be atheist and agnostic or religious and agnostic.

[BellatorGero]

Atheism>Theism

[BlueRabbit]

I will definately take a look at this. However, upon seeing that it is presented by Rod Liddle, I am a little septical. The man is a fucking cunt of the highest order; the racist, jizz-stained cock-gobbler.

[Luke]

I will definately take a look at this. However, upon seeing that it is presented by Rod Liddle, I am a little septical. The man is a fucking cunt of the highest order; the racist, jizz-stained cock-gobbler.

Yeah you get a sense where he's trying to twist things a little bit and censor things to his liking.

[BlueRabbit]

'Richard Dawkins is a brilliant writer'. No he fucking isn't. He writes like an arrogant child. Steven Jay Gould (who had a rivalry with Dawkins) is much more eloquent and articulate.

[BlueRabbit]

Aaaaaagh! More annoyance. The man doesn't understand scientific method. Conclusions are based on interpretations of the available data. In the primary literature, you very rarely find statements to the effect of 'we are 100% sure this is how it is'. As new data are produced, our interpretations evolve and we learn new things about the world around us. That is fundamentally different to the view he is presenting. Fat wanker.

Rant over. My apologies.

[blackdogmma]

you really need to hear richard dawkins read his stuff out loud, it is only then that you realise that his work is written without arrogance.

Huxley must be rolling in his grave to see the term agnosticism so abused.

[BlueRabbit]

you really need to hear richard dawkins read his stuff out loud, it is only then that you realise that his work is written without arrogance.

Huxley must be rolling in his grave to see the term agnosticism so abused.

I attended one of his seminars as an undergrad. He was a dick. His attitude towards other evolutionary biologists, by his own admission, isn't allways that great. I like his ideas, just not the way he presents them. I'd much prefer Simon Conway Morris to be the flag-bearer for atheism. Dawkin's puts a lot of people off before they have even heard what he has to say.

[markjitsu]

lol at people "deciding" that there is no god - and these same masters of what is or is not possible theories, are not even able to agree on the meanings of words in the english language!
lol

[Serotonin+]

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i213/MonkeyLlamaNinja/carlingodbit.jpg

[Serotonin+]

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i213/MonkeyLlamaNinja/motivationalatheistsls6.jpg

[Jak-TapouT-]

An atheist DOES NOT BELIEVE in any god, it is not a BELIEF there is no god.


Is that not the same thing? :confused:

[BlueRabbit]

Is that not the same thing? :confused:

DOES NOT BELIEVE in any god= The person does not see any compelling evidence to support the existence of god, yet does not rule out the possibility, should new evidence emerge. i.e. flexible, plastic viewpoint

a BELIEF there is no god= The person believes that god doesn't exist and entertains little/no such possibility. i.e. rigid viewpoint.

I think that's what he meant?

[Rob T]

/\ BlueRabbit has nailed it.

[Rob T]

lol at people "deciding" that there is no god - and these same masters of what is or is not possible theories, are not even able to agree on the meanings of words in the english language!
lol

What are you on about?

[Berser_KED]

DOES NOT BELIEVE in any god= The person does not see any compelling evidence to support the existence of god, yet does not rule out the possibility, should new evidence emerge. i.e. flexible, plastic viewpoint

a BELIEF there is no god= The person believes that god doesn't exist and entertains little/no such possibility. i.e. rigid viewpoint.

I think that's what he meant?

The first is agnosticsm and the second is atheism surely?

[Rob T]

The first is agnosticsm and the second is atheism surely?

Nope. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know the answer to the question of whether god exists.

Like I said, you can be agnostic and religious. You can also be agnostic and atheist.

[Wiegieboard]

I'm not religious in any way at all. I don't even think about the concept of god.