The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True - by Richard Dawkins

[geo]

Common, Dexter. You and other atheists like Dawkins are simply guessing there's "probably almost certainly no god" as you safely put it.

This atheist bases his belief on evidence. No evidence = no belief. Lots of evidence = belief. But even strong belief is provisional. It depends on the evidence.

It really is as simple as that.

It's funny that merely talking about reading a Dawkins book has become controversial.

[tbarron]

I like that Dawkins makes explicit the open-endedness of the scientific study of reality: "For reality doesn't just consist of the things we already know about it: it also includes things that exist but that we don't know about yet and won't know about until some future time, perhaps when we have built better instruments to assist our five senses."

This might seem like an opportunity to make extravagant claims about what science just has not discovered yet (gods, cold fusion, aliens, etc.). But Dawkins goes on to explain that what is already known gives us a clue about what sorts of things are or are not likely to occupy the gaps in our knowledge: "That is the wonder and joy of science: it goes on and on uncovering new things. This doesn't mean we should believe just anything that anybody might dream up: there are a million things we can imagine but which are highly unlikely to be real -- fairies and hobgoblins, leprechauns and hippogriffs. We should always be open-minded, but the only good reason to believe that something exists is if there is real evidence that it does."

[ant]

Indeed, I cannot prove a negative. You win. Which of the Gods shall I bow to?

Yes, we all know you're an agnostic, aka "a cowardly atheist"

Such scientific wishy-washynes!
It's dull. And unimaginative to be honest.
Not only you. But just saying, ya know?

[johnson1010]

You've got this all mixed up, Ant, and you aren't understanding the issue.

When he says it's the same as not believing in a giant invisible banana in the sky, what he's saying is this:

Somebody makes a claim without proof. Banana, God.

Somebody else says they see no evidence of claim.

The person who makes the claim is making a positive statement about the way something is. The other person is saying there is no reason to believe that, and that there is insuffiecient evidence.

The person with the claim needs to have the proof.

Atheists are just pointing out that the religious have no proof. With no proof, what reason is there to believe?

For this same reason making a claim about an invisible banana in the sky is on equal footing as making a claim about a god. The only difference is, we know that bananas exist, so at least that claim starts with a reference based in reality.

Agnostic is not cowardly atheism. agnostic has to do with level of certainty. Dogmatic people who CHOOSE to believe one way or another and are not swayed by evidence are "Gnostic". People whose beliefs are shaped by evidence, and can be swayed can be called "agnostic" when in reference to belief in god.

[johnson1010]

You are sounding a little shrill these days, Ant.

Problems?

[Dexter]

Indeed, I cannot prove a negative. You win. Which of the Gods shall I bow to?

Yes, we all know you're an agnostic, aka "a cowardly atheist"

Such scientific wishy-washynes!
It's dull. And unimaginative to be honest.
Not only you. But just saying, ya know?

Dull and unimaginative? I'm sorry basic logic can't keep you entertained. See you in a few months, when you contribute another brilliant post about how scientists can't prove a negative.

[LanDroid]

"No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now."
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

[ant]

"If we allow that it really has taken something like five billion years for earth to evolve mind to its present state and that mind is now speeding up its development by learning to leap toward in time as well as outward and inward in space, to grapple a little with the unknown, who can gainsay any rate of acceleration it may yet attain toward things still undreamed?" - Guy Murchie

That's nearly precisely what I mean by no imagination, which has been a key factor in discoveries made by some of our greatest minds who found no conflict between their science and their belief in something far greater than ourselves. They did not pat themselves on the back for proving once more that this thing we call "reality" is a pure material existence, and that's it. That's imagination in a constipated state. Quite frankly, it's a constipation that afflicts all of these cowardly atheists in my opinion.

It's idiotic to claim there in no "god" by saying there is no Zuess or Apollo.
And this continual attack on an Old Testament god is child's play.

You make the claim there is no god and you've got to prove with your current knowledge base , however incomplete it may be.

[johnson1010]

Not so.

The religious have introduced a concept called "god" which they claim exists.

Prove it.

That is all.

When given arguments in favor of god's existence it always amounts to arguments from authority, or non-sequiters.

We are simply saying through all our investigations (humanity) into the real world we have found nothing that indicates a god. With no indication that god does exist, and no reason to believe it other than problems with human cognition, and no impact on any finding if god is left out of our explanations then we doubt that god is real.

[ant]

And further more, I hate to break the news to all the pure logical scientific worshiping minds but "logic" only goes so far and you will NOT, repeat after me, you will NOT be able to arrive at a definitive definition of "reality" with it.
The foundations of the material world seems to be the quantum relm
Quantum mechanics is NOT logical. It does not subscribe to man's logic.

The trouble with cowardly agnostics is that they trumpet science as the only source of knowledge
That is quite ignorant