Richard Dawkins: A Deeply Religious Nonbeliever

[1tabligh]

@Cryotropical Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[shandcunt]

Gotta Love DAWKINS, the man

[Shavarnarak]

I know Einstein wasn't religious, but so what if he was?

Einstein may have been very smart for a human, but humans aren't infallible. If Einstein HAD believed in a god, I'd simply have considered him wrong about that, even if he made great contributions to physics.

Arguments from authority may have traction with the fundies, but not with me.

I mean, take Newton. Newton believed in Alchemy. Take the US founders, they believed in Slavery. Intelligent people can be dead wrong.

[chris11sholtz]

my biggest problem with dawkins is his famous retort to the question "what if you're wrong?" to which he replies (paraphrase) "anybody could be wrong, you believe in christianity because you were raised to be a christian, if you were born in india, you would be a hindu"

what dawkins doesn't realize is that the same line of logic applies to what he believes. if your parents are atheist, and you're sent to a public school, odds are you will believe in evolution. his argument is flawed.

[nielso212]

@chris11sholtz

You could argue so however evolution has massive amount of evidence backing it up, so it is not a matter of believing but a matter of seeing the evidence and logically decide whether or not it is enough to support the theory of evolution

[chris11sholtz]

@nielso212 we probably shouldn't get on the topic of evidence for evolution, we'd be here for months going through it all, lol. i could say that what i believe is so obviously true that no one in their right mind could believe in evolution, but that would be a logical fallacy. evidence is a perspective, as are most things.

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

- Albert Einstein

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism

[chris11sholtz]

einstein wasn't an atheist. he accepted that there was a god after observing relativity through the hubble telescope, and seeing the universe's constant expansion speed. he was a theist. whether god is personal or not is a different part of belief. muslims don't believe in a personal god.

[nielso212]

@chris11sholtz

1. If you say that Einstein believed in a god then how can you ever explain the quote that Dawkins offered us.

2. the hubble scape telescope entered orbit in 1990 and Einstein died in 1955 so its quite impossible for him to have looked through it.

3. Muslims do believe in a 'personal' god

4. In conclusion your comment is full of lies OR you are very misinformed

[chris11sholtz]

@nielso212 ahh, i've waited all week to reply to this comment lol.

1. einstein believed in a god that wasn't personal, and he also didn't believe in religion or prayer. that would make him a theist, which is exactly what i said in my previous post.

2. "In 1929, Einstein came to terms with the truth of his findings when he visited Mount Wilson Observatory in California to peer into the Hubble Telescope." that was when he developed the theory of relativity.

[chris11sholtz]

@nielso212 He didn't use the hubble space telescope, but a ground based one in california.

3. no they don't. they follow the five pillars of islam, which is all that is required by allah. he doesn't care about their everyday lives. "Islam teaches that there are 99 names for the one God. Why? Because God is unknowable"

4. In conclusion, you're a dumbass.

if you want sources for my quotes, i'd be happy to message them to you.

[nielso212]

@chris11sholtz

ill drop 1 for now, 2 is correct,

3. ''They follow the five pillars of islam and they have 99 names for Allah'' Well that obviously means that muslims don't believe in a personal god.....not. Why do you think that following the five pillars of islam and having 99 names for Allah means they don't have a personal god?

Now back to 1. I would like your source where Einstein said he believed in a non personal god seeing as his quote in the vid above seems to contradict it

[chris11sholtz]

@nielso212 the quoted part on number three came from an islamic website, and you wrongly quoted me. the 99 names for allah came from the site, but the whole point of him having 99 "names" is to instill wonder and show that he is too big and great for us to figure him out. atleast that is what muslims believe.

did you not watch the video closely? try starting around 3:30.

opinions change over the years, einstein is no exception.

[nielso212]

@chris11sholtz

Opinions change indeed however you have no way of showing which was Einstein's ''last' opinion.

Also when I ask for a source Id rather have the site actually given.

Last but not least, the same concept of god being too big and great for humans to understand is also present in christianity which I think you said did have a personal god. Some examples: god is all knowning, all powerful, gods are ways beyond human understanding None of these nor yours are valid arguments next

[chris11sholtz]

@nielso212 why would his last opinion be more valid than any of his other opinions?

the source was the video.

yes, you're right. if you can call a being "god", by definition it is incomprehensible to us. i should have worded my point better. the islamic site i quoted from said their god was "unknowable". is it possible to be personal with someone you don't know? in direct opposition, the god of the bible "soiled" the godhead forever by becoming something he created. that's personal.

[1tabligh]

@chris11sholtz the islamic site i quoted from said their god was "unknowable". is it possible to be personal with someone you don't know?

____

Why not?

Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined. ...

[1tabligh]

There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes, and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from His Person. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his ....

[1tabligh]

Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being ***YET*** He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.

[Rockster969]

@1tabligh you dickhead, you've just said man is completely unable to comprehend god, so what the fuck are you yammering unknowable rubbish for?

[nielso212]

@chris11sholtz

..arguments for a non-personal god being the norm in a religion because a god being too great and big for humans to figure out (which is the norm for gods of most religions) doens't mean that it isn't a personal god because the possiblilty of a relationship (I assume thats what you mean by a personal god) is still present (If that god really exists).

[chris11sholtz]

@nielso212 yeah, i clarified what i intended to mean. you are right, just because we can't understand a being doesn't mean that a relationship is impossible. i say that allah is impersonal not as an insult to islam, but that is how they believe god is.

both allah and the christian god are beyond anything we can grasp, but the christian god chooses to be personal.

[lourak]

PART 2 - Ask yourself: What is a "quasi-mystical response"? No good answer? - Well, would you none the less feel comfortable in asserting that it has "no connection with supernatural belief"?  Perhaps we should ever so slightly modify the claim as in: "it MIGHT have a connection to supernatural belief" or, "it is NOT NECESSARILY incompatible with supernatural belief" or.......

[lourak]

Dawkins says: "A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists. It has no connection with supernatural belief". This is a typical Dawkins formulation, which, upon scrutiny, fails all tests of logical analysis (yet might impress those who would retain a semblance of transcendental experience).

[WitchyWayWoman]

What is wonderful and so overlooked by this clip is that Dawkins clearly states that an Einsteinian view of theology is not problematic which means that there is still room for theological and philosophical research. His problem is with religion and the concept of a personal deity, not naturalistic spirituality.

[CocoMac877]

its still pretty stupid tho

[darkvocalist]

Hmmm, that's a tough call. I would assume that they would both be in complete agreement (at least when concerning "god" & religion). Personally, I would love to see Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett all on one panel discussing Atheism/Science/Religion. That would be very informative and interesting.

[Gungfuwarrior]

Look up the Four Horsemen talk.

[rrpostalagain]

Dude, there is such a thing- "The Four Horseman" is great except I wish I'd been there.

[patrickledford420]

@darkvocalist look up the four horsemen

[flip5426]

Dawkins FTW