Catholic girl tries to take on Richard Dawkins: [vid]

[SlitheryDee]

Her argument is a pretty common one, even if she wasn't able to express it clearly. Most people don't seem to get much past the nebulous level of understanding she had of her own argument either.

It goes something like: "The things I believe stay the same forever. They will always be true no matter what. The fact that they will always be true in the future lends credence to the fact that they are true now. Science can't do that. How can the theory you have now be correct when some other more correct theory is almost certain to come along and take its place later? How can you believe anything when you can't say anything you know is 100% true? This means that scientists are freely admitting that their beliefs are not true. That means that religion is better".

They never stop to question why religion is better though. Science can start out wrong, and end up right simply by working on the problem. Religion can't work on it's problems. Her reasoning for why religion is better is a double edged sword. If religion can be right for all time, it can also be wrong for all time. The funny thing is that, because none of them are looking, the religious would never know either way.

 

[eits]

again, a lot of you seem to not realize that atheism is the belief that a higher power or god doesn't exist. lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of existence.

it's one thing to say, "there isn't any hard evidence that i know of to support the existence of a god or higher power. so, i don't know if there is one or not," and, "there isn't any hard evidence that i know of to support the existence of a god or higher power. so, there isn't one."

the vast majority of atheists believe there's no god at all and those who believe in a god are silly (a vast majority of which are). however, atheism is just as arrogant as theism. to argue that it isn't is bullshitting yourself and others.

 

[rivan]

Btw, has anyone seen this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8

I cant get myself to watch it... Just the look on her face, it tells you everything
Too cringeworthy

It is cringe worthy. The woman is creepy as hell.

Holy crap. It's an hour of her, asking for evidence then ignoring what he's giving her. How incredibly frustrating.

 

[Dumac]

atheism is just as arrogant as theism. to argue that it isn't is bullshitting yourself and others.

What would you say to an agnostic atheist?

Most athiests would probably say that it is improbable that there is a God, and since there is no evidence of one it is best to assume that he doesn't exist and act accordingly.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

again, a lot of you seem to not realize that atheism is the belief that a higher power or god doesn't exist. lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of existence.

it's one thing to say, "there isn't any hard evidence that i know of to support the existence of a god or higher power. so, i don't know if there is one or not," and, "there isn't any hard evidence that i know of to support the existence of a god or higher power. so, there isn't one."

the vast majority of atheists believe there's no god at all and those who believe in a god are silly (a vast majority of which are). however, atheism is just as arrogant as theism. to argue that it isn't is bullshitting yourself and others.

Pretty sure youre wrong, the vast majority of atheists, Dawkins included (as he has said in several interviews), are open to the possibility of god existing

Some people think that automatically means you are "agnostic", and that atheism means 100% "belief" of non existence, but whatever, thats arguing semantics

The point is, no logical person would ever deny something just because there is no evidence... Saying there is no god with 100% absolute certainty is just as foolish as saying there is one

 

[Red Squirrel]

I kind of see the point she's trying to make but she's just putting it accross wrong and just making a fool of herself and faith as a whole. People on both sides need to understand that science and religion CAN and DO coexist.

Richard Dawkings is basically the pope of atheism, he'll defend atheism faith with a fist of iron. She got owned.

This is a much better debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2OcIIkpPo

(did not rewatch the whole thing but pretty sure it's the one I have in mind)

 

[JD50]

I kind of see the point she's trying to make but she's just putting it accross wrong and just making a fool of herself and faith as a whole. People on both sides need to understand that science and religion CAN and DO coexist.

Richard Dawkings is basically the pope of atheism, he'll defend atheism faith with a fist of iron. She got owned.

This is a much better debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2OcIIkpPo

(did not rewatch the whole thing but pretty sure it's the one I have in mind)

atheism faith? What does that even mean?

 

[lupi]

only listened to about 30 seconds. he sounds like an idiot.

 

[BoberFett]

I wonder what would happen if Dawkins argued with a Muslim? College professor's heads across the country would probably begin exploding, not knowing whether to make fun of the ignorant Muslim or berate Dawkins for his mistreatment of the poor, misunderstood person whose beliefs are to be respected.

 

[Annisman*]

Why does it have to be God as one answer, and science as a completely different answer.

If God is real, and he made everything, then science is just the human understanding of all that He made, or, at least, our attempt at understanding it.

I don't have to eliminate God because of science.

Edit: But I understand why they seem to be at such odds all the time. Science says we know for a fact that x,y, and z are true. Religion asks us to use faith as our cornerstone. Which is, of course believing without seeing so to speak. I have faith in God and His promises, and realize that not everything is explainable until all is revealed one day.

 

[child of wonder]

Atheism is not a faith, belief, or religion. It is a lack of all three because no evidence exists to justify them.

When I identify as an atheist I'm making an assertion akin to "no one has shown me evidence in support of Yetis therefore I suspend belief in Yetis until sufficient evidence comes to light." This does not make me the "Pope" of anti-Yeti-ism nor am I placing any faith in the existence of Yetis in the affirmative or negative.

Likewise, the statement "I do not believe in god" is a reflection of the lack of evidence required to transition from a state of nonbelief in god to belief. It usually does not mean "I assert there is no god."

 

[BoberFett]

Why does it have to be God as one answer, and science as a completely different answer.

If God is real, and he made everything, then science is just the human understanding of all that He made, or, at least, our attempt at understanding it.

I don't have to eliminate God because of science.

The reason that most people's answer of "Because God" is damaging is due to the fact that it lets people stop thinking. Once the answer is "God did it" they shut their brain off and stop thinking critically.

Atheist: "Why is gay marriage harmful to society?"
Christian: "Because god said so."
Atheist: "Why?"
Christian: "You're going to hell."

 

[JD50]

again, a lot of you seem to not realize that atheism is the belief that a higher power or god doesn't exist. lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of existence.

it's one thing to say, "there isn't any hard evidence that i know of to support the existence of a god or higher power. so, i don't know if there is one or not," and, "there isn't any hard evidence that i know of to support the existence of a god or higher power. so, there isn't one."

the vast majority of atheists believe there's no god at all and those who believe in a god are silly (a vast majority of which are). however, atheism is just as arrogant as theism. to argue that it isn't is bullshitting yourself and others.

How is it arrogant to insist on proof before believing in a magic man in the sky? Are you arrogant because you don't believe in Zeus?

 

[JD50]

Atheism is not a faith, belief, or religion. It is a lack of all three because no evidence exists to justify them.

When I identify as an atheist I'm making an assertion akin to "no one has shown me evidence in support of Yetis therefore I suspend belief in Yetis until sufficient evidence comes to light." This does not make me the "Pope" of anti-Yeti-ism nor am I placing any faith in the existence of Yetis in the affirmative or negative.

Likewise, the statement "I do not believe in god" is a reflection of the lack of evidence required to transition from a state of nonbelief in god to belief. It usually does not mean "I assert there is no god."

:thumbsup:

 

[Ichinisan]

Theist:
I believe in god.

Atheist:
I don't see any evidence that there is a God.

FTFY

 

[disappoint]

Btw, has anyone seen this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8

I cant get myself to watch it... Just the look on her face, it tells you everything
Too cringeworthy

I love watching that, I can't look away. We need to study people like her to understand what has gone wrong, and look for ways to prevent or correct it. Thanks for posting it. So far I believe a lack of proper education is at play here. It's important that the teachers we choose teach correctly so that we may prevent the "blind leading the blind" sort of problem.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Always funny seeing these threads with the fighting between the ignorant heathens and the deceived (Christians). Both will pay for all eternity with their souls, the bickering is pointless.

 

[Jeff7]

You're confusing "belief that something does not exist" with "lack of belief that something exists".

Those are one and the same. :hmm:

A toddler has never heard of God.
That's a lack of belief, as that toddler doesn't have that concept available as a thing to think about, one way or another.

What is that condition? Lack of belief? Or believing that it does not exist?

Hmm, but if god is considered an unseen force, how can you definitely prove or disprove its existence? I would consider Agnostics to be the fact based ones. Since we can't definitively prove or disprove it, their "I'm not sure therefor I don't know" seems to be more in line with the "facts or nothing" mentality.

The way I'm seeing it:

Theist: I believe in god.

Atheist: I believe there is no god.

Since we're dealing with an unseen element that would be difficult to physically prove or disprove, definitively stating either is a belief in that statement, not stating a fact.

- If God affects the world in any way, these effects can be measured through some means.
- If these effects are not measurable, then God is not doing anything that affects us.

* - The methods of measuring certain things can take time to figure out. But even before you have a good method of measuring, you can still measure. Marie Curie didn't know what radiation was, but there was evidence that there was something there. If you want, you could measure radiation by mortality rate. It's not a very good or easily-calibrated system, but it would work.
Or you could measure the toxicity of lead pipes by the mortality rate. You don't know anything about why it does it, or how, but you know that there's something going on.

Gods have also constantly been placed where they were out of reach. On a really tall mountain. Been there. Up in space. Ok, we've been in low Earth orbit and a bit beyond now. Underground, or deep in the ocean. Been there, scanned there, probed that.
Ok, fine. God is everywhere, but he's just really super invisible. And to make it even more interesting, let's also make the very definition of God include that his properties are entirely and eternally impossible for us to measure.

"Checkmate 3 moves from now, and you can't get out of it."
"We're not playing chess anymore, so you can't win. Chess doesn't even exist."
"..."


If you want to focus on the word "belief," then you could also say that anything is a belief. Is something believable? Then go ahead and believe it. I'm pretty sure that my hand won't pass through my desk. Belief won't change that. Those electrical forces don't really care in the slightest as to what the neurons in my brain are busy doing. Those electron clouds will repel each other perfectly well, with or without my approval. But this isn't a religion or "belief" of solid matter's (typical) inability to pass through itself. It's based on some pretty consistent evidence. Now, do I know that it's always true? I'll smack my hand into the desk 5000 times. I'll never know for absolute certain if that next try would be the one that made it through. But nevertheless, I'm going to say with extremely high confidence that it wouldn't. That's my confidence level in saying that any of the deities described in any religion we've come up with are real.

 

[Annisman*]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Storm
Theist:
I believe in god.

Atheist:
I don't see any evidence that there is a God.



Sounds good, but there is only one answer right ? There is either a God, or there isn't.

An atheist has nothing to base his claim on, or no 'evidence' as you say.

A Christian man has the Bible, which claims to be the very words of God. Is the Bible the word of God ? If yes then the Christian is correct, and the atheist has failed to act on the evidence that was presented to him all along. In my opinion it takes much more faith (or intentional ignorance) to be an atheist than to believe there is a God.

 

[sandorski]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Storm
Theist:
I believe in god.

Atheist:
I don't see any evidence that there is a God.



Sounds good, but there is only one answer right ? There is either a God, or there isn't.

An atheist has nothing to base his claim on, or no 'evidence' as you say.

A Christian man has the Bible, which claims to be the very words of God. Is the Bible the word of God ? If yes then the Christian is correct, and the atheist has failed to act on the evidence that was presented to him all along. In my opinion it takes much more faith (or intentional ignorance) to be an atheist than to believe there is a God.

The Bible is not Evidence, nor is it the only book to make the same claim. Do you accept all the other holy books?

 

[Ichinisan]

An atheist has nothing to base his claim on, or no 'evidence' as you say.

The atheist has no "claim." You're thinking of the anti-theist.

Many anti-theists incorrectly call themselves "atheists."

 

[sandorski]

The atheist has no "claim." You're thinking of the anti-theist.

Many anti-theists incorrectly call themselves "atheists."

..or are both.

 

[zinfamous]

Why does it have to be God as one answer, and science as a completely different answer.

If God is real, and he made everything, then science is just the human understanding of all that He made, or, at least, our attempt at understanding it.

I don't have to eliminate God because of science.

Edit: But I understand why they seem to be at such odds all the time. Science says we know for a fact that x,y, and z are true. Religion asks us to use faith as our cornerstone. Which is, of course believing without seeing so to speak. I have faith in God and His promises, and realize that not everything is explainable until all is revealed one day.

To, at any point in your reasoning or self-rationalizing, stop and answer with, "well, God did it," Is to stop practicing science.

There are many things out there that science has yet to explain; this, in itself, is no evidence or justification of a god, or gods, or any type of supreme being directing everything.

Merely, Science is an extension of religion and strives to tackle the same sort of questions that religion was created to tackle--but it proceeds with testable, falsifiable evidence to back it's claims, it's guesses, and the facts that it establishes.

The practice of science is an ever-changing exercise in refinement and lucidity. To cease questioning, or to declare certain pre-selected topics unanswerable, is to cease practicing science.

What you say may sound like an attempt to merge the two in a diplomatic fashion, but the reality is that it is just horseshit in the end. Practicing science under the belief of god will always limit your understanding, and your ability to question that which deserves questioning. Evolution and god can, in certain perspectives, co-exist--but you have to accept a god that doesn't give a shit about anything beyond the moment of snapping its fingers and letting shit happen--to think that a god initiated evolution as the process to create man is to fundamentally reject the fact of evolution.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

The Bible is not Evidence, nor is it the only book to make the same claim. Do you accept all the other holy books?

This is one of the things that baffle me about theists
And because this thread is about Dawkins, I will quote him again:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

 

[phucheneh]

They are similar, but not the same.

Let me try to find another way to explain it.

Imagine, if you would, that religion was sex. Doggie style represents Islam, the missionary position represents Christianity, and oral represents Hinduism. In this analogy, the lack of having sex altogether would be atheism.

But all of the acts would constitute sex, and you know that sex exists. Or sex is just religion; but what mysterious force is it interpreting? Orgasms?

Maybe god would be the g-spot?

(p.s. you can't spell 'analogy' without 'anal')