Richard Dawkins - Now Praise Intelligent Design

A Celebration of Reason - 2012 Global Atheist Convention
13-15th April - Melbourne Convention Exhibition Centre
Presented by the Atheist Foundation of Australia

http://atheistconvention.org.au
http://atheistfoundation.org.au

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and was the first holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, and a Fellow of New College, Oxford, Retired. His most recent book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True was published in 2011.

http://richarddawkins.net/

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[GodisMythology]

I'm not out here calling random people "the king of faggots"

That's my point.

So tell me exactly how I am being a hypocrite?

[GodisMythology]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. Nothing more.

[GodisMythology]

I lack all belief in gods. Therefor, I'm an atheist. Do I know for a fact that gods do not exist? Of course not. Nobody knows if gods exist or not. Not even you. My not knowing also makes me an agnostic. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. However, I don't believe in things that are patently absurd, derived from the ramblings of ancients who couldn't explain lighting and in the case of the bible, an insult to modern human intelligence. You can argue over semantics all you want.

[GodisMythology]

By your lack of logic I assume you believe in garden fairies?

[doctornov7]

I can argue the existence of God, and I can try to prove it, but whatever I say you guys will never listen to me. Also, I refuse to debate agnostics.

[doctornov7]

That is not an argument. You don't believe in God because there is no evidence. That does not mean that God does not exists, that means you don't know. So you don't believe on things unless there is evidence for them?

[doctornov7]

Here is the definition of atheist from the philosophical dictionary: "Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true." His argument from no evidence is not an argument.

[GodisMythology]

No, my argument is that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of gods. Any of them, including your sacrificial jew. Therefor, I lack all belief in gods.

Period.

[sjoeroever]

You have no Idea of logic have you?

He does not believe in God.

To quote you

Atheist: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"

He disbelieves the existence of a supreme being, so where did your logic crash into the mountain?

So he is an atheist.

[sjoeroever]

So if he is an agnostic because he cannot disprove the existence of a god, then you are an agnostic because you cannot prove the existence for a god. Why did you not say earlier?

[doctornov7]

the conclusion does not logically follow, and you have lost.

[doctornov7]

No that is simply wrong. I am defining atheism. Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premises. Your argument is:

1) You believe in a "magical jew who dies for the sin of a fruit crime.

2) I lack belief in such absurd notions.

3) Therefore, I am an atheist.

That does not follow the rules of logic. Firstly, Jesus was not a "magical Jew" and there is plenty of evidence for this. Second, it is not an absurd notion because Jesus was divinely inspired. Since your premises are not true,