Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Probably the most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, does not have a stance equivalent to the one that this physicist puts forward. Dawkins categorically states that he cannot claim beyond possibility that there is no god.
From the article:
makes all the sense in the world to me.From the article:
"I think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. 'I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.' Period. It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations. We say, 'Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.' And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about."
This seems a bit incoherent. Maybe his ideas couldn't be captured by a short article but I'm not sure from that quote that he has a better grasp of the matter than the average RFer.
Atanu, mon brave
Probably the most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, does not have a stance equivalent to the one that this physicist puts forward. Dawkins categorically states that he cannot claim beyond possibility that there is no god.
The two subjects are not inherently related.
He calls that the agnostic, and he's correct.Probably the most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, does not have a stance equivalent to the one that this physicist puts forward. Dawkins categorically states that he cannot claim beyond possibility that there is no god.
Actually no. An atheist is one that does not believe in a god. That is a big tent that varies from hard atheists that positively declare there is no God to agnostics that do not know if a god does it does not exist,but does not believe in any God that can be named.He calls that the agnostic, and he's correct.
From the article:
"I think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. 'I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.' Period. It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations. We say, 'Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.' And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about."
This seems a bit incoherent. Maybe his ideas couldn't be captured by a short article but I'm not sure from that quote that he has a better grasp of the matter than the average RFer.
The flaw of atheism is not what the atheist chooses to believe about the existence of gods. It's choosing to believe it without evidence, reason, or purpose. Theism lacks evidence, but it at least can offer a positive purpose. And agnosticism lack evidence, but it at least can claim honest skepticism, with an open mind. But atheism can claim none of these. It fails at every criteria.Probably the most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, does not have a stance equivalent to the one that this physicist puts forward. Dawkins categorically states that he cannot claim beyond possibility that there is no god.
There are agnostics that do not fit that bill, so the "tent" has holes in it.Actually no. An atheist is one that does not believe in a god. That is a big tent that varies from hard atheists that positively declare there is no God to agnostics that do not know if a god does it does not exist,but does not believe in any God that can be named.
The man should learn what an atheist is.
Strangely quite a few do not understand what atheism is.The flaw of atheism is not what the atheist chooses to believe about the existence of gods. It's choosing to believe it without evidence, reason, or purpose. Theism lacks evidence, but it at least can offer a positive purpose. And agnosticism lack evidence, but it at least can claim honest skepticism, with an open mind. But atheism can claim none of these. It fails at every criteria.
Most agnostics are also atheists. Though there are a few theistic agnostics.There are agnostics that do not fit that bill, so the "tent" has holes in it.
The thing about a tent with such holes is that it will never keep out the rain.Most agnostics are also atheists. Though there are a few theistic agnostics.
What "holes"?The thing about a tent with such holes is that it will never keep out the rain.
They mostly don't not want to, because if they did, they would find it indefensible. And that would curtail their ability to attack the choices of others.Strangely quite a few do not understand what atheism is.
Apart from the obvious, "Then where did god come from?" question (And no special pleading) have you read this...Basically the negative statement to what the physicist puts forward; however, it has never been shown how anything can come from nothing. If nothing could never have existed then something has always existed.
For example lets say that an an electron the became into something. An electron would need space, momentum, charge, mass and etc. An electron is not one thing but many things. How could a singularity produce everything from nothing?
Your post is not very clear, but atheism is quite defensible.They mostly don't not want to, because if they did, they would find it indefensible. And that would curtail their ability to attack the choices of others.