Join Us Today!

Join our non-denominational community with 10,000+ members and more than 50,000 monthly visitors today. Engage in bible discussions, studies, prayer support and friendly fellowship.

Richard Dawkins "I'm Not Certain God Does Not Exist"

Discussion in 'News Stand' started by dannibear, Mar 21, 2012.

  1. In a public forum at Oxford University last week with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins, described as "the most famous atheist in the world," admitted that he's not entirely sure God does not exist. The Archbishop Dr. Rowan Williams and Dawkins were participating in a series of discussions concerning the role of religion in public life in Britain, according to the Telegraph.
    During a portion of the discussion, Dawkins and the Archbishop talked about the origins of life, where Dawkins said, "What I can't understand is why you can't see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing—that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?" The Archbishop said he agreed with the notion that creation is a beautiful thing, but added that God was not just an "extra who you shoehorn on to that."
    Dawkins then admitted he was less than 100 percent sure there was no creator, saying he'd rather call himself an agnostic, although he did say "the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low."
     
  2. I've heard Dawkins exclaim that the possibility of some extra-terrestrials creating us, and messing with DNA, is more likely than the idea of God.

    Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
     
  3. Hello dannibear.

    Richard Dawkins has a very low understanding of Jesus Christ.

    that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God


    Sometimes, I am dismayed at what comes out of peoples mouths.

    Richard assigns a probability to the existence of God, as if it is a mathematical equation he is dealing with.

    Then to top it all off Richard Dawkins now claims to be an agnostic.

    Richard realized the illogical assumption that is atheism, time to change horses.


     
  4. It seems to me that atheists, by very definition, cannot look beyond the bounds of imperfect human empirical reasoning.

    SLE
     
  5. True indeed. As if they're so full of pride about their own intellect that they can sum up life and everything that exists based on their own understanding. Quite fascinating.

    One thing I ask any atheists that comes here: explain miracles (and better yet, can you tell a believer to his or her face that the miracle they experienced was not a miracle?)
     
  6. ^ Makes me wonder how many atheists after
    trying so many years to explain away life
    and everything in the universe, if by the end
    of their life they feel as if they have gone wrong
    somewhere. I am sure some do. Dawkins here
    for example, after stating that there might be a God
    and that maybe aliens came here, etc. shows me
    that his teachings are flawed. Yet the Bible
    has withstood the test of time. The foundation on
    which his books are based on should start to
    show cracks to everyone now that he admits even
    a shred of a doubt.
     
  7. It's not uncommon at all for atheists to begin questioning their entire world view on their death bed. Unfortunately, by that time, it's often too late for a spiritual awakening.
     
  8. #8 CircleOfFriends, Mar 23, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
    Dawkins, ah, I personally prefer Hitchens, but oh well.

    Anyway, I'd be concerned if he was delusional to say that he was certain that there is no creator. There's no such thing as 100% certainty. We've all had our doubts about SOMETHING.

    Agnostic is what I've viewed Dawkins as. Christopher Hitchens would be the atheist.

    As much as I hate being the Devil's Advocate in conversations, the same thing that can be said about atheism can also be said about theism at times. You just can't be sure about everything. That's being equally delusional.
     
  9. Hitchens ... RIP

    From his own words, he described himself as more of an anti-theist.

    "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."'
     
  10. It's illogical to claim that it is impossible for there not to be and for there to be a higher power of some sort. No one on this earth can provide evidence for either claim. A logical person that just doesn't want to believe, can't find a reason, or has yet to be found will be open to the possibility even if it is a very small of a possibility. From Dawkins current stand point, he is doing it right. He is opening up to the possibility.

    There isn't any proof for the supernatural. Which is why true atheists and agnostics with any sense are the way that they are. The others are mindless because they are doing it to stand out to their peers or doing it because they think its the cool thing to do. I hope that clears things up for you.

    No one can do that. No one will ever be able to do that. Once all the questions we have now are answered, more will arise. However, IF humanity reaches stage one, all the questions about why are we here, how did we get here, who am i, will either be answered or forgotten. Stage one requires that.

    For the record, I believe in miracles. However, can you prove that it is a miracle? Could it be lack of understanding of the human body? Could it be luck? Could it be another deity at work? Could it be evolution in the works? I won't deny that there are miracles, because I believe that they are real. I just don't agree with asking atheists questions trying to shut them up. It's silly.

    This is good. I am sure we all will have moments like this in life where we think that we made a mistake in doing or thinking something years in the past. I am sure Dawkins not only accepted the possibility of our God, but also every single other deity he has ever even heard about. Well, at least the ones that actually make even a little bit of sense. I do have a question about you saying the bible has withstood the test of time though. What about the other religious beliefs that have done the same thing? Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

    Most people do that when they begin to die. They think of their life and all of their decisions, and regret things here and there. They reflect on everything that they are about to be taken away from. It's a coping mechanism that takes our mind away from the fear of death until we have become at peace with our near fate. It's not rare for a Christian to ask himself "is it really true?" at their death bed.

    Exactly.
     
  11. #11 Fellowservant, Mar 25, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2012
    I wonder if Mr Dawkins has ever gone over to the middle east, and teached that the God of Islam doesn't exist?

    Its head rolling time... I think it would take more atheist guts to go after that God. Or any other God for that matter. But they seem to go after the judeo christian God the most.

    But many an atheist have become Christians over the centuries, i think they got tired of kicking against the pricks...

    And if Dawkins has doubt about whether God exist, then he is not really an atheist. Hes an agnostic.

    Edit: i should not of said head rolling time. Sorry for that, not all Muslims want your head to roll if you disagree with them...

    Just my two cents...
     
  12. He would be an Agnostic Atheist. One who does not believe in any higher power, but one who also accepts the possibility of there actually being one. :)
     
  13. Hello Fraction.

    Some folk may not know who Richard Dawkins is.

    This is a quote from Wikipedia.

    Dawkins is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement.[4] He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—a fixed false belief. As of January 2010 the English-language version has sold more than two million copies and had been translated into 31 languages.

    Dawkins believes the supernatural creator does not exist.

    Dawkins believes that religious faith is a delusion.

    This does not surprise me at all, the revelation of Jesus Christ
    is a spiritual revelation. A faith in Jesus Christ is a gift from
    the supernatural creator. It is not an act of human will, nor
    does it have an intellectual origin.

    Atheists never seem to have a solid understanding of the Bible.

    If they did read the Bible they would understand that it is God
    who reveals to man the truth. Man does not in general cope very
    well with the truth.
     
  14. Sure, but are you talking about a mature Christian or a non-mature Christian?

    Mature Christians do not ask that question because they are secure in the knowledge that death is a mere end of their earthly journey, that meeting with Lord Jesus is something to look forward to.

    And not because they somehow earn the maturity on their own strength, quite the opposite, Christians become mature because they have absorbed so much from the Scripture into themselves which in itself requires us to die to our self (Romans 6:6-11).
     
  15. He would be wise not to, or else possibly face decapitation.

    From the Qu'ran: ''Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.'' - Surah 9:5
     
  16. Absolutely, people attack Christians because in our culture it is safe and even acceptable to do so. Atheists don't have guts, that's why they attack the people whose tenets are love your neighbor and turn the other cheek.

    On a related note, when I ask non-believers why they only - exclusively - take Jesus' name in vain, but no other god's, they have no answer. You'd think with 1000's of gods to choose from, someone would use one of them as a swear word, but they never do!! Hmmmmmm, I wonder why?
     
  17. I'm talking about Christians that are human, mature and non-mature in their faith alike. Doubts aren't something to gauge your maturity level in faith by itself. At least not in my personal opinion.
     
  18. In our culture it is safe for anyone to say anything they want. It's called freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is acceptable, and should be acceptable to you as well. Without it, you very well could be arrested for even mentioning God in the grocery store (or something extreme like that). The things said under freedom of speech have been left for each individual to decide if it is acceptable to them or not. If it isn't, either stand up for what you think or ignore it altogether.

    I'd like to answer your question though. They are catch phrases. I assume you are talking about something like "Oh my God" right? Yeah, that's been around for generations. It's been around before all these teenagers that use it were even born. If the catch phrase from the start was "Oh my odin", it would have stayed that way. The swear words and catch phrases were invented in an enviroment obviously surrounded by Christianity (not blaming it on Christianity though). Just because an atheist will pop out with an "Oh my God" here and there doesn't mean he is targeting Christianity. It is a trend that has been picked up.

    Also, I made a double post like a total crazy person. So I apologize for that, because it does look like spam. Feel free to collapse the two posts together, or you could send me a wild lion in the mail to teach me a lesson. :)
     
  19. Fraction, I was not talking about freedom of speech and peoples' right to it (which I believe people have a right to), I was talking about what they DO with that freedom and why. Nor was I referring to when people say, "oh my god". I am talking about when people use Jesus' name derogatorily or as a curse word, not some nondescript, unreferenced title of a deity, such as "god".

    But since you brought it up I will restate my previous question(s) with the free speech issue in mind. So notwithstanding your "catch phrase" explanation ....... why do people, with their vast freedom of speech to curse any god they want to, only use it to take Christ's name in vain?

    As in when someone hits his thumb with a hammer and screams, "J____s C____t !!" (Or worse).

    I think the reason people use Jesus' name in vain is because nothing feels better than to curse Jesus for a non-believer. If you doubt that, try cursing Shiva's name the next time you're spitting angry. Or just forget deity and say "darn", and see how that works for you. :wink:

    You need to come up with a better explanation than it just being chocked up to a "catch phrase". Unless you are inferring that people who use Jesus' name in vain are basically mindless copycats with little imagination. :shock:

    If using Jesus' name in vain is, to quote you, just a "catch phrase" or "a trend that has been picked up", why is it? Why repeat it? The phrases, "the cat's pajamas" and "top drawer" were very popular and fashionable terms in the 1920's. Why did we stop using them? Because they are square-sounding to us?
    A slanderous phrase that was used in the 1960's and is still popular today is "pig", referring to police officers. I dare say that no one today who respects police officers and is aware of that term would use it, even if almost everyone in society was using it.

    That's why I don't think your catch phrase answer washes, because we don't repeat something that has no meaning to us. If I don't like single moms (just an example) and a derogatory term for them is invented, I might very likely start using it myself. Because the term would resonate with me. If it didn't I wouldn't use it, pretty simple.

    So why does insulting Jesus resonate with people that don't even believe in Him? Is it because they are against Him (even if only subconsciously)? Because it makes them feel good to? I have never received a satisfactory answer to this.

    Words and phrases drop out of the vernacular all the time and language is constantly evolving, so why has it always been fashionable and acceptable to use Jesus' name as a swear word? Could it be for the same reason that Christianity has been unceasingly attacked and maligned since it's inception over for 2,000 years ago? How come non-believers in Christ never tire of using His name that way? It seems they can't get enough of it!

    To repeat, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that when we pick up phrases, colloquialisms, slang, etc., we choose and latch on to the ones that we agree with.
    Granted, one may use a term so often and so casually (not knowing, caring, or understanding where it originated) that eventually it just becomes a "catch phrase" that he just says without thinking. NONETHELESS, at some point way back when he first used it, he must have agreed with and had an affinity to the term, or he wouldn't have used it, or had any use for it. People repeat and latch on to things that mean something to them, whether good or bad.

    To sum up (sorry, I hadn't intended to be so long-winded), I believe the motivation in using Christ's name in vain is to use the worst swear word/cursing you can think of - cursing any other god would not satisfy unregenerate man.

    PS - I have no idea what you mean by sending you a wild lion in the mail, but don't worry, you're safe.
     
  20. #20 David777, Mar 27, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2012
    Yo Peace Seeker.

    You hit the nail on the head, the fact that Jesus Christ is widely used as a swear word.

    When I became a Christian I noticed how common this form of swearing was,
    it was ingrained in certain individuals everyday language.

    This swearing usually occurs when people are under stress, angry or in pain.

    I found the following on the internet,

    The name Jesus, according to Christianity is God’s name revealed to man. Thus, if Christianity is true, ever man will not only know in his heart that God exists, but that Jesus is His name. Not only that, if Christianity is true, then everything else is not true. So as it stands, we are left with two facts.

    Fact 1) In his heart, every man knows God exists, even if he denies it.

    Fact 2) Every man knows Jesus is God’s revealed name.

    Thus when we examine the actual state of society from the standpoint that Christianity is true, we can understand why people use Jesus as a swear word, especially when they claim to have no belief in Him at all. Jesus even said in John 7:7 “The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.” He knew the world would hate Him, and He also knew the world would hate His followers. 1 John 3:13 says “Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you.” And from this we can see why people why people use Jesus as a cuss, because they hate Him. But again, does it seem strange to hate Santa, or Zeus? No one is saying these names in a serious offensive way because no one truly believes in them. Again I say, man knows Jesus is God whether he admits to it or not.


    I make the following comparison:


    There is a man you wish to render unconscious because he is about to kill you, but he is frozen to where he stands by some strange coincidence of glue falling to the floor preventing him from moving. You run up to him and begin to flick his chest your hardest with your finger. But the man about to stab you is confused, and shakes his head. He raised his knife, and is about to strike when a brilliant idea comes to you. You reach in your pocket, grab your brass knuckles, and punch him in the side of the head your hardest. He falls to the ground like a rag doll and you have won.


    Now, consider this. If a person is steaming with putrid rage and volatile hatred towards something, they’re going to go for the most devastating thing they can say or do to express their anger, and damage with the most extreme cause they can. In the case of a swearing Atheist, they often will conjure up Jesus Christ (among others) as a swear word to express their anger. But why? Why is it that they use a name to which they associate with a man who a) didn’t exist, or b) existed, but wasn’t God.


    My conclusion is that all men, whether they acknowledge it or not know that Jesus is God, and by using His name in vain they know deep down that it is the brass knuckle to the face of God.


    What is your opinion on this?
     

Share This Page

Users Who Have Read This Thread (Total: 0)