"You can't debate about religion without being rude"

[kallipolis]

Richard Dawkins has, for years, consistently pointed out that there is no evidence for divinity, and has consistently pointed out that this is different from making a claim that there is no divinity. He has not changed. You have, perhaps, only started paying attention.

Definitely his position has shifted....today, Dawkins is a self confessed, born again, agnostic...tomorrow his position may shift, again.

 

[mightbe]

He's repeatedly issued the stance that he doesn't "know" that there is no god. Ever since he came into view with The Selfish Gene (which is a good read, btw) he's expressed an agnostic-atheist perspective. At various times he's calls himself both an agnostic and an atheist, often in the same breath, but with the implied understanding that he's referring to the same perspective. In general he's more atheist than agnostic.

I don't understand why you keep asserting that he's a "born-again agnostic"--he's publicly been an agnostic-atheist for at least 40 years and I doubt that he's had some epiphany. Maybe he's calling himself an agnostic now--I don't think his fundamental views have changed. I don't see it in him to waffle about between views. I know that I've variously referred to myself as an atheist, agnostic and agnostic-atheist; it depends on who I'm talking to, what I'm talking about, whichever pops out, and what sort of mood I'm in. It really doesn't matter what I call myself because I'm talking about exactly the same view regardless of the term used. Then there's the problem of perception and the multiplicity of meanings a single word can acquire, often because it has, is, and will be used by billions to refer to something arbitrarily different.

Perception is a mutual ignorance, a sense confined to one's self--there is absolutely no way one can communicate an entire lifetime of experience through a single word like "orange". Your perception of orange will invariably be slightly different from everyone else's. You might see the exact same shade and hue of orange on three separate occasions and refer to it by three arbitrarily different but related descriptions. There are a host of factors influencing your appraisal--concepts like color or the precise reasoning behind your personal diction cannot be fully communicated. Some basics can be gathered, but the fact of the matter is you cannot make another immediately understand your exact usage of a word.

 

[kallipolis]

^I presume that the he you are referring too, is Professor Richard Dawkins...a self confessed, agnostic...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

I quote:
Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.
The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[Spensed]

You defined God as an objective reality.

God can only be known by faith.

Therefore you have said that faith in God is an insight into an objective reality.

I have simply pointed out the obvious....that whether or not God exists is an objective reality and that his existence, or non-existent, is not dependent on one's faith or lack of faith in him.

Who says that God, if he exists, can only be known by faith? Faith is a subjective belief and, if one wants to take a metaphysical view of it, is sometimes regarded as a gift of grace. But, if God exists, there may be other ways by which he is known. I don't know and neither do you.

I have not said "that faith in God is an insight into an objective reality", which is a completely nonsensical proposition.

I suspect that you, as a believer and person of faith, can't live with the notion that your belief and faith may be as relevant to the objective existence of God as it is to the Greek gods. To point that out isn't an attack. It's just the reality, and there still may benefits that flow from faith, if it is humble and questioning. It may be a way of tuning into God's wavelength, if he exists, or just a spiritual exercise, if he doesn't.

Personally, I think one can live with the unknown on these issues, without picking a path or a label. Or, at least, picking a path or label is purely optional. Better that than insisting in certainties that aren't there and then pontificating about them. Not that anyone here ever does that.

 

[bankside]

No, that's the position I was responding to.

You were responding to a position that either you misunderstood or that you were misrepresenting. If you go back you'll see spenced questioned the premises of your understanding about his views, and rejected your conclusions. I took another tack by accepting the premises of your understanding, but I was also able to reject your conclusions.

You have misinterpreted the valid point he was making.

 

[bankside]

^So you keep reminding us...Ad nauseum...how's the Easter weather in your neck of the woods?

And I am ever patient and ever hopeful that one day you will retain it!

Late snows continue to fall in Alberta, which was charming in the mountains last week but tedious further east. At this point we have more evidence for resurrection than for springtime!

Definitely his position has shifted....today, Dawkins is a self confessed, born again, agnostic...tomorrow his position may shift, again.

It is almost sufficient to observe that you cite the Daily Mail to refute your post. Dawkins' theory of a godless existence for us all has been stable over time, regardless of the sensationalism of the Mail echoed in your hopes.

 

[Telstra]

Which one? The one who doesn't seem able to reason above a high school sophomore level, or the one who can't put his points into simpler English?

The bald head one.

 

[kallipolis]

And I am ever patient and ever hopeful that one day you will retain it!

Late snows continue to fall in Alberta, which was charming in the mountains last week but tedious further east. At this point we have more evidence for resurrection than for springtime!




It is almost sufficient to observe that you cite the Daily Mail to refute your post. Dawkins' theory of a godless existence for us all has been stable over time, regardless of the sensationalism of the Mail echoed in your hopes.

Don't shoot the messenger...the media report merely referred to a radio broadcast....confirming all that I already knew after reading Dawkin's "The God Delusion" with one of that book's chapters entitled The Poverty of Agnosticism...an acknowledgement of Dawkin's prior life as an atheist, previously rejecting agnosticism...the evidence is clearly written in Dawkin's own words....

 

[kallipolis]

I don't understand why you keep asserting that he's a "born-again agnostic"--he's publicly been an agnostic-atheist for at least 40 years and I doubt that he's had some epiphany.

Dawkins himself treated the term agnostic-atheist as mutually exclusive in the radio debate with Rowan Williams, I have cited beneath (1)!

Instead of saying "yes, I am an agnostic atheist", he flat-out rejected the use of the word "atheist" and said the title was ascribed "not by me"!

(1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-agnostic.html

 

[bankside]

kallipolis, you are trotting out old inanities. You will find your rebuke here in the telegraph, and remember that I am just the messenger:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...kins-is-an-agnostic-but-we-knew-that-already/

 

[kallipolis]

^The blog author has merely avoided addressing the actual words spoken by Dawkins during the radio interview.....adding nothing to Dawkin's revelation, reported across the media spectrum that he is now a practising agnostic, having converted from atheism....

 

[mightbe]

There was no conversion. Dawkins is still an agnostic atheist. Or agnostic verging on atheist. He's said repeatedly that he doesn't know that there isn't a god. Perhaps you've totally missed the boat--what he says is entirely dependent on who he's talking to. In interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury he might treat lightly around the word atheism, because a slightly different meaning is inferred by most Christians. Likewise, in a lecture he might call himself an atheist but describe an agnostic-atheist perspective. He's simply using "smart language" to communicate most effectively to his audience.

Notice how he decries the usage of atheist because it carries a different connotation among the general public, but may in fact use it in more intimate settings where he can explain his position (invariably as an agnostic-atheist). He doesn't believe in a god because there's no evidence, but he doesn't believe there can't be one. Sorry. He's still an agnostic-atheist, regardless of what a crappy Mail article said.

Dawkins' primary aversion to the word atheist is that, on its own, it carries a slightly different meaning. He's called himself one, but not without further explanation. The further explanation yields an agnostic-atheist perspective.

 

[kallipolis]

There was no conversion. Dawkins is still an agnostic atheist. Or agnostic verging on atheist. He's said repeatedly that he doesn't know that there isn't a god. Perhaps you've totally missed the boat--what he says is entirely dependent on who he's talking to. In interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury he might treat lightly around the word atheism, because a slightly different meaning is inferred by most Christians. Likewise, in a lecture he might call himself an atheist but describe an agnostic-atheist perspective. He's simply using "smart language" to communicate most effectively to his audience.

Notice how he decries the usage of atheist because it carries a different connotation among the general public, but may in fact use it in more intimate settings where he can explain his position (invariably as an agnostic-atheist). He doesn't believe in a god because there's no evidence, but he doesn't believe there can't be one. Sorry. He's still an agnostic-atheist, regardless of what a crappy Mail article said.

Dawkins' primary aversion to the word atheist is that, on its own, it carries a slightly different meaning. He's called himself one, but not without further explanation. The further explanation yields an agnostic-atheist perspective.

I prefer Dawkin's clearly enunciated words broadcast by radio...causing a stir, especially amongst evangelical atheists....that he is agnostic....not atheist...rather than rely on the verbal diarrhea of Dawkin's disciples attempting to re-edit his words....to suit their prejudices.....

 

[Kulindahr]

I'll say this just one more time. I will point to this post every time you misrepresent this position to show your dishonesty. I am not claiming that no gods exist. I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT NO GODS EXIST. I am not declaring absence based upon an absence of evidence. I am saying that there is not enough evidence to convince me that the claim that a god exists warrants belief. That does not mean I am claiming that no gods exist. Again, saying "I don't accept Proposition-A" is NOT the same as saying "I believe the opposite of Proposition-A". Saying "I don't accept your claim that a god exists" is NOT the same as saying "I believe no god exists".

If you aren't claiming that no gods exist, then you are not, properly speaking, an atheist. So the dishonesty here is yours -- you're trying to obfuscate by playing with definitions.

Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. If you don't believe that no gods exist, but aren't affirming that any do, then you're saying you don't know, and that's agnosticism. Saying "I don't accept your claim that God exists" while not denying it is agnosticism -- your position above is agnostic.

 

[mightbe]

I prefer Dawkin's clearly enunciated words broadcast by radio...causing a stir, especially amongst evangelical atheists....that he is agnostic....not atheist...rather than rely on the verbal diarrhea of Dawkin's disciples attempting to re-edit his words....to suit their prejudices.....

Did you even read The God Delusion? Even if not, read the Telegraph article, because it outlines the point. Dawkins places himself on the extreme end of disbelief without being a pure atheist. For all intents and purposes, he is an atheist AND an agnostic. Read the book.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: "You can't debate about religion without being rude"

I have simply pointed out the obvious....that whether or not God exists is an objective reality and that his existence, or non-existent, is not dependent on one's faith or lack of faith in him.

That much is plain.

Who says that God, if he exists, can only be known by faith? Faith is a subjective belief and, if one wants to take a metaphysical view of it, is sometimes regarded as a gift of grace. But, if God exists, there may be other ways by which he is known. I don't know and neither do you.

That is the common presupposition in this forum.

I suspect that you, as a believer and person of faith, can't live with the notion that your belief and faith may be as relevant to the objective existence of God as it is to the Greek gods. To point that out isn't an attack. It's just the reality, and there still may benefits that flow from faith, if it is humble and questioning. It may be a way of tuning into God's wavelength, if he exists, or just a spiritual exercise, if he doesn't.

I'm not sure of your point. But the Greek gods don't qualify as truly supernatural; the whole set of stories shows they're just another piece of the universe, though with some more, say, "robust" powers/capabilities. So they're not at all on par with the Creator we in the old intelligent design club used to debate the nature of -- actual deity has to be outside and prior.

- - - Updated - - -

You have misinterpreted the valid point he was making.

So it appears.

 

[Kulindahr]

Dawkins himself treated the term agnostic-atheist as mutually exclusive in the radio debate with Rowan Williams, I have cited beneath (1)!

Instead of saying "yes, I am an agnostic atheist", he flat-out rejected the use of the word "atheist" and said the title was ascribed "not by me"!

(1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-agnostic.html

The link isn't working.

I apparently haven't gotten that far yet -- I've watched the first portion (first 37 minutes), and am taking a break before taking in their discussion of the origin of man.

 

[mightbe]

If you aren't claiming that no gods exist, then you are not, properly speaking, an atheist. So the dishonesty here is yours -- you're trying to obfuscate by playing with definitions.

Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. If you don't believe that no gods exist, but aren't affirming that any do, then you're saying you don't know, and that's agnosticism. Saying "I don't accept your claim that God exists" while not denying it is agnosticism -- your position above is agnostic.

Almost, but I think you've missed one thing. Saying you don't or cannot know, without any belief or disbelief, is agnosticism. However, FirmaFan has clearly indicated that he sees no reason to believe in one, which is an affirmation of agnostic-atheism, weak atheism, or pragmatic atheism. All of which are mutually intertwined descriptions pointing the same position, which is not strictly agnosticism or atheism. If anything it is both.

 

[opinterph]

Dawkins himself treated the term agnostic-atheist as mutually exclusive in the radio debate with Rowan Williams, I have cited beneath (1)!

Instead of saying "yes, I am an agnostic atheist", he flat-out rejected the use of the word "atheist" and said the title was ascribed "not by me"!

(1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-agnostic.html

The link isn't working.

This might be it:

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

 

[palbert]

In pertinent part:

He [Dawkins] said: 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'

Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed [he] was a '6.9', stating: 'That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html#ixzz2zMuWNlPB