Dawkins - UCD Phil Prof - Great interview

[Nicey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HtY1chchM

[Red Chilli]

He gets on my wick Richard Dawkins, he's really up his own ****.

[disco]

He does seem to love himself, but it's good to have a scientist stand up to all the bollocks.

[Slim]

I've read a couple of his books. I thought they were good, but then I am closed minded athiest!

[Red Chilli]

I've read a couple of his books. I thought they were good, but then I am closed minded athiest!

They're good books, but that doesn't make him right. He's an egomaniac, but that doesn't make him wrong.
He is an athiest fundamentalist though.

[disco]

They're good books, but that doesn't make him right. He's an egomaniac, but that doesn't make him wrong.
He is an athiest fundamentalist though.

Much safer than any religious fundamentalist ;)

[Red Chilli]

Much safer than any religious fundamentalist ;)

Good job you had an " ;) " there. Atheism is a religion ;)

[disco]

Good job you had an " ;) " there. Atheism is a religion ;)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,

that's a debate for some other time. :handshake:

[Red Chilli]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,

that's a debate for some other time. :handshake:

We've already had it. I won :handshake:

[disco]

We've already had it. I won :handshake:

:haha:

I don't remember joining in ;)

[Red Chilli]

:haha:

I don't remember joining in ;)

I think it was just me and Neil Young, so you might have been able to help Neil out ;)

[Nicey]

Glad I am not the only one who thinks he is a cock! and the scientific equivalent of a Baptist Fundamentalist

[Sprouty]

Atheism is a religion ;)

Oxymoron.

[Red Chilli]

Oxymoron.

Takes one to know one :rant:

Sticks and stones... :shake:

[Neil Young]

I think it was just me and Neil Young, so you might have been able to help Neil out ;)
RC, you talk guff.

[Red Chilli]

RC, you talk guff.

:haha:

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

He does seem to love himself, but it's good to have a scientist stand up to all the bollocks.

:handshake:

[Redlife]

My old flatmate's boyfriend had an argument with Dawkins in the letters page of some newspaper (either The Times or The Telegraph, can't remember). The boyfriend (philosophy lecturer) was right, but Dawkins' millions of pounds in royalties were probably a good comfort. :D


I think he's right to say what he does on these shows and interviews, he makes a lot of sense. His written work though is a dog's dinner. Duncan Kennedy's book 'Rethinking Reality' takes that kind of thing apart.


http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=16949

[SouthAfricaRed]

Good job you had an " ;) " there. Atheism is a religion ;)

It's the religion that requires the Most Faith of all. :)

I mean believing that everything you see around you just happened by Chance :jaw:

[Neil Young]

It's the religion that requires the Most Faith of all. :)

I mean believing that everything you see around you just happened by Chance :jaw:
Teleological arguments like that are shallow. You clearly have no understanding of the mechanics of evolution.

Atheism doesn't require faith, just thought.

[Red Chilli]

Teleological arguments like that are shallow. You clearly have no understanding of the mechanics of evolution.

Atheism doesn't require faith, just thought.

I'm just winding you up about Atheism most of the time Neil :) but how can Atheism just require thought? Isn't Atheism belief that there is no God(s)?
The existence of God(s) is impossible to prove or disprove therefore I would have thought that belief in God(s) requires as much faith as belief that there isn't a God/gods.

[Mattshark]

Glad I am not the only one who thinks he is a cock! and the scientific equivalent of a Baptist Fundamentalist

No your not, he is a cock, most scientists think he is too.

[Neil Young]

I'm just winding you up about Atheism most of the time Neil :) but how can Atheism just require thought? Isn't Atheism belief that there is no God(s)?
The existence of God(s) is impossible to prove or disprove therefore I would have thought that belief in God(s) requires as much faith as belief that there isn't a God/gods.
How can absence of faith in the existence of a supreme being require faith? It just requires scepticism until proved otherwise.

In fact, I'm not even asking for it to be proved - just give me an argument which suggests there is a god or some kind of a sign that makes sense, that would be a good start.

I don't believe (!) we know the fundamentals of the Universe, I'm sure some, probably many, of our concepts are flawed* if not just plain wrong. However, while I really try to remain open to new interpretations and new ideas, to me it makes sense to go along with the best explanations, the best approximation of how it all works that we've currently got.

* I really think we've got one idea right - evolution just makes so much sense and has been found to occur in so many different arenas (e.g. from species development to the way the brain gets wired up). Of course there are refinements that will be made but frankly at a fundamental level it's just right.

[Red Chilli]

How can absence of faith in the existence of a supreme being require faith? It just requires scepticism until proved otherwise.

In fact, I'm not even asking for it to be proved - just give me an argument which suggests there is a god or some kind of a sign that makes sense, that would be a good start.

I don't believe (!) we know the fundamentals of the Universe, I'm sure some, probably many, of our concepts are flawed* if not just plain wrong. However, while I really try to remain open to new interpretations and new ideas, to me it makes sense to go along with the best explanations, the best approximation of how it all works that we've currently got.

* I really think we've got one idea right - evolution just makes so much sense and has been found to occur in so many different arenas (e.g. from species development to the way the brain gets wired up). Of course there are refinements that will be made but frankly at a fundamental level it's just right.

Isn't atheism the disbelief in the existence of any gods?
As the existence of gods cannot be proven or disproven, then to take one postiton or the other requires faith. I suppose it depends on your definition of faith.

[Mattshark]

Isn't atheism the disbelief in the existence of any gods?
As the existence of gods cannot be proven or disproven, then to take one postiton or the other requires faith. I suppose it depends on your definition of faith.
It is not faith though, it is the lack of. Atheism also lacks the doctrine and dogma to be a religion.

[Red Chilli]

It is not faith though, it is the lack of. Atheism also lacks the doctrine and dogma to be a religion.

The second bit is highly debatable.

If it is impossible to prove something, but you believe it to be true, doesn't that require faith?

That's what I'm gettng at.

[Mattshark]

The second bit is highly debatable.

If it is impossible to prove something, but you believe it to be true, doesn't that require faith?

That's what I'm gettng at.

But there is no doctrine or dogma to atheism, the is no required ideals or code to govern atheists and a list of atheist ideals.
If there is no evidence for something not believing it does not require faith.

[Red Chilli]

But there is no doctrine or dogma to atheism, the is no required ideals or code to govern atheists and a list of atheist ideals.
If there is no evidence for something not believing it does not require faith.

Depends on what you call evidence Matt, we're getting into Dawkins territory now, but what evidence are you looking for?
Some would say the existence of life at all is evidence of a God.

But what I was getting at is thus:

The existence of God(s) cannot be proven but it can also never be disproven. Therefore to adopt a position on either side requires faith in so much as your belief that you are correct can never be proven.

[Mattshark]

Depends on what you call evidence Matt, we're getting into Dawkins territory now, but what evidence are you looking for?
Some would say the existence of life at all is evidence of a God.

But what I was getting at is thus:

The existence of God(s) cannot be proven but it can also never be disproven. Therefore to adopt a position on either side requires faith in so much as your belief that you are correct can never be proven.
Saying life is evidence for a deity is conjecture though, you must assume a deity exists first, henceforth it is not evidence, evidence would be some old testement style thing where God seemed to really want to be involved.
Regarding your quote, I completely disagree, lack of faith is not the same as faith. If something cannot be proven and has no supportiung evidence, it is not faith to say it does not exist.

[Red Chilli]

Saying life is evidence for a deity is conjecture though, you must assume a deity exists first, henceforth it is not evidence, evidence would be some old testement style thing where God seemed to really want to be involved.
Regarding your quote, I completely disagree, lack of faith is not the same as faith. If something cannot be proven and has no supportiung evidence, it is not faith to say it does not exist.

But Atheists BELIEVE that Gods don't exist yet that is a belief which can never be proven. It requires faith.

[Mattshark]

But Atheists BELIEVE that Gods don't exist yet that is a belief which can never be proven. It requires faith.

No they just don't believe in a God, there is a difference.
Not believing is not the same as believing.

[Red Chilli]

No they just don't believe in a God, there is a difference.

well we obviously have a different definition of what Atheism is then which is why we will never see each others point of view.


I was working from the oxford english dictionary definition :handshake:

• noun the belief that God does not exist.

— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

[Abdul Alhazred]

If something cannot be proven and has no supporting evidence, it is not faith to say it does not exist.

Yes it is. You are expressing faith that no scientifically acceptable evidence of God can ever be found.

I find Deism and Atheism the only sensible positions to take, but they are still expressions of faith.

[SouthAfricaRed]

Teleological arguments like that are shallow. You clearly have no understanding of the mechanics of evolution.

Atheism doesn't require faith, just thought.

What is Teleological arguments?

If you cant see that my original comments were made in jest, then I apologise :handshake:

[disco]

Semantics. It's not faith in the sense that I think some dude fed 5000 people with a loaf of bread. It's opinion i.e. given the available evidence an Atheist doesn't think it's likely (i.e. believes) that a god exists. :handshake:

[Red_Polo]

Despite any dictionary definition, atheism is not a belief at all. It is a lack of belief. Lack of belief is the default, it does not require faith. Atheism exists only in opposition to belief in religion, not as a belief of its own.

[Mattshark]

Despite any dictionary definition, atheism is not a belief at all. It is a lack of belief. Lack of belief is the default, it does not require faith.

:handshake:

[SouthAfricaRed]

No they just don't believe in a God, there is a difference.
Not believing is not the same as believing.

That's semantics

There is no concrete evidence either way.

What field of Biology are you involved in? I'm in the medical profession. I also value science, but I have seen many things in my job that science just cant explain.

I'm actually not sure what religion I believe in, but one thing I have noticed is that People who believe seem to die a lot Easier than those that dont. It's probably just because they have peace of Mind, but what is the harm in that?

I just feel that if this world is all Life is about then it all seems a terrible waste :confused:

[Mattshark]

That's semantics

There is no concrete evidence either way.

What field of Biology are you involved in? I'm in the medical profession. I also value science, but I have seen many things in my job that science just cant explain.

I'm actually not sure what religion I believe in, but one thing I have noticed is that People who believe seem to die a lot Easier than those that dont. It's probably just because they have peace of Mind, but what is the harm in that?

I just feel that if this world is all Life is about then it all seems a terrible waste :confused:

I'm just about to become a Zoologist (in about 2 months)

However you do not need to prove that something doesn't exist, no evidence for existance implies that something does not exist.
I personally don't care if people believe in a deity or not, that is a personal choice, I personally don't. I only get annoyed at fundies cos their dangerous.
But if people believe in something and that makes them happy that is ok by me, I just don't want to know about it.

[SouthAfricaRed]

I'm just about to become a Zoologist (in about 2 months)
I personally don't care if people believe in a deity or not, that is a personal choice, I personally don't. I only get annoyed at fundies cos their dangerous.
But if people believe in something and that makes them happy that is ok by me, I just don't want to know about it.

I agree religion like anything else will be manipulated by some to further their own agendas. As you said elsewhere that doesnt make the whole concept wrong though.

[SouthAfricaRed]

Despite any dictionary definition, atheism is not a belief at all. It is a lack of belief. Lack of belief is the default, it does not require faith. Atheism exists only in opposition to belief in religion, not as a belief of its own.

Then What is an Agnostic? :confused:

[Red_Polo]

I agree religion like anything else will be manipulated by some to further their own agendas. As you said elsewhere that doesnt make the whole concept wrong though.

The thing is atheism doesn't have to prove religion wrong at all, so it is not a faith. The prefix a- means 'without', so basically the real meaning of atheism is without belief in theism. So it is not a belief of its own, it is the lack of a belief. It is the assertion that there is no reason to believe something, so you will not believe it.

[Abdul Alhazred]

So it is not a belief of its own, it is the lack of a belief. It is the assertion that there is no reason to believe something, so you will not believe it.

That's one modern definition, and does not require faith/belief.

The other modern definition (denial of God's existence) does.

[Red_Polo]

Then What is an Agnostic? :confused:

It's all fucking ambiguous isn't it? :D

I used to think atheism was a belief but since changed my mind. Agnosticism to me, describes an uncertainty over the existence of God. Atheists see no reason whatsoever to believe in God, 'agnostic' suggests some ambivalence without committing to either atheism or theism.

The belief that 'there is no God', I suppose I would call extreme atheism, like religious extremism it is based on a distortion of the initial stance in order to defy those who refuse to believe in it. Atheism IMO, is where people see no reason to believe in God, so contest that it is wrong to believe in one. The problem is that the line between the two is blurred because people have trouble trying to elaborate why theism should not be believed without pitting it against an opposing idea.

Tbh I think it is very difficult to categorise people's stances on theism anyway, but it's an interesting topic. Dawkins is a **** mind.

[disco]

I slightly disagree Polo.

I quite like Dawkin's definition (I have no idea if it's just his own) that everyone has different levels of 'Atheism'. A very religious person is very likely to say 'I have no doubt whatsoever that there's a god'. The most, er, 'devout' Atheist might claim that he is certain that a god doesn't exist.

I used to refer to myself as agnostic, but in reality I'm an atheist who believes 'there almost certainly isn't a god, given the available information, but I accept the possibility that there might be one, albeit not a personal god'.... if that makes sense. i.e. not as certain as some other atheists.

[Neil Young]

SA Red - no need to apologise, I didn't realise you you were making a joke so sorry I rather snapped back.

"Teleological" is using the final form of something to explain its existence (or something like that). So your implication that the fact that the Universe and Life are both so complex suggests they have a complex source (rather than an aggregation of simple steps for instance) is a teleological argument (I think - I've never been 100% confident about using that word but what the hell, I'm sure someone will correct me if necessary :D).

As for the atheism debate, I'm with Polo and Mattshark, lack of faith is not the same as faith. I don't believe in the existence of a god because I have no cause to do so, to me it would be an illogical, irrational position. So the difference between faith and the absence of faith is the former is irrational and the latter rational.

[disco]

SA Red - no need to apologise, I didn't realise you you were making a joke so sorry I rather snapped back.

"Teleological" is using the final form of something to explain its existence (or something like that). So your implication that the fact that the Universe and Life are both so complex suggests they have a complex source (rather than an aggregation of simple steps for instance) is a teleological argument (I think - I've never been 100% confident about using that word but what the hell, I'm sure someone will correct me if necessary :D).

As for the atheism debate, I'm with Polo and Mattshark, lack of faith is not the same as faith. I don't believe in the existence of a god because I have no cause to do so, to me it would be an illogical, irrational position. So the difference between faith and the absence of faith is the former is irrational and the latter rational.

I think you'll find that despite being very drunk, I was the first to say it and Polo and Mattshark just copied me :handshake: :haha:


Semantics. It's not faith in the sense that I think some dude fed 5000 people with a loaf of bread. It's opinion i.e. given the available evidence an Atheist doesn't think it's likely (i.e. believes) that a god exists. :handshake:

Despite any dictionary definition, atheism is not a belief at all. It is a lack of belief. Lack of belief is the default, it does not require faith. Atheism exists only in opposition to belief in religion, not as a belief of its own.

I'm just about to become a Zoologist (in about 2 months)

However you do not need to prove that something doesn't exist, no evidence for existance implies that something does not exist.
I personally don't care if people believe in a deity or not, that is a personal choice, I personally don't. I only get annoyed at fundies cos their dangerous.
But if people believe in something and that makes them happy that is ok by me, I just don't want to know about it.

[Neil Young]

I think you'll find that despite being very drunk, I was the first to say it and Polo and Mattshark just copied me :handshake: :haha:
Well, actually...

How can absence of faith in the existence of a supreme being require faith? It just requires scepticism until proved otherwise.
Or even...

Atheism doesn't require faith, just thought.
:D

:handshake:

[disco]

Here's a badge :handshake:

http://www.portal.12p.de/mbk2006/alphademo3/alphavorschau104823421.jpg

[Neil Young]

Here's a badge :handshake:

http://www.portal.12p.de/mbk2006/alphademo3/alphavorschau104823421.jpg
:haha:

Yes, it was a bit twattish of me, I agree. :o

[disco]

:haha:

Yes, it was a bit twattish of me, I agree. :o

Not at all, I just suspect I'm still drunk :haha:

[Redlife]

A bunch of Bristol students set up a uni atheist society a few years ago. They had regular meetings, a leader, and they even had a night where they met up and played all their favourite politically aware music.


Irony Soc laughed their nuts off at them.

[Red_Polo]

I slightly disagree Polo.

I quite like Dawkin's definition (I have no idea if it's just his own) that everyone has different levels of 'Atheism'. A very religious person is very likely to say 'I have no doubt whatsoever that there's a god'. The most, er, 'devout' Atheist might claim that he is certain that a god doesn't exist.

I used to refer to myself as agnostic, but in reality I'm an atheist who believes 'there almost certainly isn't a god, given the available information, but I accept the possibility that there might be one, albeit not a personal god'.... if that makes sense. i.e. not as certain as some other atheists.

Yep, that's what I was getting at in saying it is difficult to just categorise people's views on theism. :handshake:

A bunch of Bristol students set up a uni atheist society a few years ago. They had regular meetings, a leader, and they even had a night where they met up and played all their favourite politically aware music.


Irony Soc laughed their nuts off at them.

FLMAO :haha:

[Red_Polo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBC5L6cyq2Y

FLMAO :haha:

[disco]

:haha: :handshake:

[Big-Red-Ed]

I'm just winding you up about Atheism most of the time Neil :) but how can Atheism just require thought? Isn't Atheism belief that there is no God(s)?
The existence of God(s) is impossible to prove or disprove therefore I would have thought that belief in God(s) requires as much faith as belief that there isn't a God/gods.

RC, to be fair to Dawkins, he never says that God does not exist. He says that when you apply the scientific method of examining the evidence for his existance, that it is very very unlikely that God exists.

[dww]

RC, to be fair to Dawkins, he never says that God does not exist. He says that when you apply the scientific method of examining the evidence for his existance, that it is very very unlikely that God exists.

He often says that god doesn't exist, his TV program about the subject got deeply tedious because of his forthright attitude on the subject. I think in the large part he comes across as a supercilious prick, even though I normally agree with him.

[bazza76]

He often says that god doesn't exist, his TV program about the subject got deeply tedious because of his forthright attitude on the subject. I think in the large part he comes across as a supercilious prick, even though I normally agree with him.
God doesnt exist, its a simple as that, if a god created the universe, who created him?
I am surprised he is not convinced that there is life on other planets though, especially considering that we could have come from a comet ourselves.
there is most definitely life on other planets, too many possibilities for that not to be the case.

[dww]

God doesnt exist, its a simple as that, if a god created the universe, who created him?
I am surprised he is not convinced that there is life on other planets though, especially considering that we could have come from a comet ourselves.
there is most definitely life on other planets, too many possibilities for that not to be the case.

While I agree about there being no God. The problem of what started the chain is not perculiar to religion, the same thing can be leveled at science. If everything came into the existence at the big bang, what was there before. How can you have an event that takes place outside before space and time are created? Some things are just beyond our comprehension and religion is just the least questioning of ways to draw a form of conclusion.

In general I think Dawkins arguments are very persuasive and that he says some sensible things, it's his tone that irritates me.

[bazza76]

While I agree about there being no God. The problem of what started the chain is not perculiar to religion, the same thing can be leveled at science. If everything came into the existence at the big bang, what was there before. How can you have an event that takes place outside before space and time are created? Some things are just beyond our comprehension and religion is just the least questioning of ways to draw a form of conclusion.

In general I think Dawkins arguments are very persuasive and that he says some sensible things, it's his tone that irritates me.
I think everything is repetitive and is largely down to dark matter.
I have a vision of how things are in my head and its like this :rock:
the universe will eventually rot away, but what happens then? what happens all the other parallel universes that may be out there which IMO are. They happen again is what happens. other big bangs, going off all the time. And while i'm at it, why cant these big bangs be part of something else much bigger like clusters of universes for example.
I think there simply can not be such a thing as nothing, cant happen, even the nothing needs somewhere to go and how can you fill a nothing space?.
to me, if people want to insist there is a good, fair enough, but it is life itself which is the god. IMO we are the consciousness of the universe and very privileged to be in the position we are in. We wont have any recollection of this life after we die, nor will time pass. but the mere fact that we are here now is enough to state that we will be back but of course totally unrelated to any other thing that has ever lived.