God Exists

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Bro Nara Ji,

Thank you for your detailed response. Your response is so long I would like to address that in three parts:

1. Refutation of yours and the Pope of Atheism, Dr. Dawkin's claim that Theism is based on a 'God Delusion'.

2. Whether spirituality is 'wired in' to human beings, like language acquisition and is a natural part of a human's existence.

3. Discuss whether religion is responsible for all the past and present evils in the world.

I will respond to your each of your response above based on these 3 topics in separate posts, for brevity, clarity and readability. But before I start, please let me know what I have failed to address (side stepped) in my last post. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Hello brother, this thread is 238 pages long with 2376 posts. It is very doubtful couple of more posts is going to change anybody's mind. Besides, we all are recycling old arguments already presented many times over. I understand your desire to not let my view be the last one standing and want to show they are not valid. Please go ahead and make your post. But I would like your words to be the last, I have already said more than enough.

I have provided brief comments on the three topics you have narrowed down.

1. Refutation of yours and the Pope of Atheism, Dr. Dawkin's claim that Theism is based on a 'God Delusion'.

I know what you are trying to do, you want to (i) stress atheism is a religion and (ii) take a shot at Dawkins.

This is fine with me. Dawkins is a scientist whom I respect, he is a brilliant communicator, he writes in a way even common people like me can understand fairly complex scientific concepts. I have no problem if you disagree with what he writes -- if God is not a delusion to you, fine -- but I do find Dawkins extremely persuasive.

As for atheism being a religion, once again, if you think that , it is fine with me. I myself think atheism is nothing but returning to the natural human state, it has nothing in common with anything religion.

BTW, if atheism is invalid and religious spirituality is the reality, why do you want to stress atheism is also a religion, I don't get it. If I reject something I won't want it to be counted as belonging to the kind of thing as what I revere. If I believe in a religion I would oppose any attempt by atheists to pose their atheism as a religion as well. This attempt to paint atheism as a religion betrays a sort of inferiority complex about your own religiosity, may be may be not, but I wonder.

2. Whether spirituality is 'wired in' to human beings, like language acquisition and is a natural part of a human's existence.

I suppose spirituality means different things to different people. If we conflate the natural feelings of love, compassion, wonderment at beauty and such feelings that can be considered as "spiritual" with religious spirituality, we will only be talking past each other. Here is a very nice Washington Post article on spirituality that appeared on Aug 17, 2011, under the Faith section.

3. Discuss whether religion is responsible for all the past and present evils in the world.

I don't hold religion "responsible for all the past and present evils in the world." My position is "no" and "yes" respectively to the two rhetorical questions I posed earlier.

Please do give your views and I will read it with great interest, but please forgive me for not responding.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Ravi I have a question I hope you will clarify:

You concluded your post with:

The former are the types of folks who are attempting to go through the process of making onself agnostic and advancing towards becoming an atheist. The later are the types of folks who continue to believe in God and Karma and never attempts to create FATALISM.

Is "former" this group?

Many tend to do unethical things though one believes in Karma because for them its the outcome of their anger/frustruation and the absolute desire to do anything what may come.

And the "later" is this one?

And many still tend to refrain from doing anything unethical and take all the hardships to prosper onself in ethical manner.

So, what you are saying is, the agnostics who are advancing towards atheism are those who "tend to do unethical thngs" with "the absolute desire to do anything what may come." and those who believe in god refrain from "doing anything unethical"?

Did I understand you correctly?

Thank you ...

 

[C RAVI]

Ravi I have a question I hope you will clarify:

You concluded your post with:

Is "former" this group?

And the "later" is this one?

So, what you are saying is, the agnostics who are advancing towards atheism are those who "tend to do unethical thngs" with "the absolute desire to do anything what may come." and those who believe in god refrain from "doing anything unethical"?

Did I understand you correctly?

Thank you ...

Shri Nara,

My post #2374 was purly based on people's reactions with their belief in KARMA Theory. The Theory, which if believed, is found to be FATALISTIC by some atheists.

I was highlighting that -

1) Though people belief in KARMA theory along with belief in God/Spirituality, many tend to do anything unethical with "the absolute desire to acheieve and do anything what may come". And such decisions/actions are the outcome of their anger and frustruation.

2) Many people with same belief in KARMA theory/God/Spirituality, refrain from doing anything unethical BUT still strive their best to better themselves with their absolute sense of righteousness.

With the above two differences among the people of same belief, I was saying that, it just depends on what sort of rationality each group applies for their betterment / acheivement.

And based on the former & later types of people, considering KARMA Theory as cruel, humbug, FATALISTIC, misleading concepts to fool people etc..etc., by both theists & atheists, would not be appropriate.


Belief in God/Spirituality/Karma theory fecilitates humans with the sense of patience, penance, repentance, righteousness etc. At the same time some among the theists tend to ignore Karma theory and do whatever they feel OK for their personal benefit BUT still hold on with their belief in God/Spirituality. For them their all knowing personal God and their Bakthi will allways protect them irrespective of what they do.

The former types of people (1), who consider themselves theist, tries to get rid of Karma theory with their Rational thinking and gradually determines to doubt on the existence of God/spiritualy as agnostic and ultimately get converted to Atheist.


My above observations as the extention of my post #2374 are all to find the differences within theist group and how possibly Atheism branches out, from with in.

Since I din't point out specifically in my previous post #2374, I would take this opportunity to state that, I am not generalizing that all the Atheists are immoral and unethical. I am not saying that immorality and unethical activities are the sole properties of Atheist. I am not saying that Atheism is the synonym of immorality. I am neither holding a wrong opinion nor claiming that all the Atheist are immoral and do unethical things to live their life to the fullest.

In this same thread, I have said in one of my old posts, long before and let me now elaborate that as well -

"the existence of righteous people on this Earth, irespective of their belief in God/spirituality, is the proof of existence of purest spiritual energies (beyond human control & Scientific experiments). "You are righteous to the best of our honest self judgement for the self and the others and in all the challenging circumstances either with belief in God or without beleif in God, BUT without over ruling your purest inner self consciousnes. If you have this, it means you have the highest influence of Spriritual energies within you. This shows what is God/Spiritual energies. Theism and Atheism are two distinguishing terms coined by humans based on their belief in God/Spirituality. But for God/Spiritual energies all are "ONE" and the only differences are what is Good & what is Bad, who is generating FATALISM and who is NOT and who has to bear what sort of KARMA impacts, based on their actions."




Hope this post clarifies your doubts.

 

[sapthajihva]

The problem is religion has been at the center of so much evil in this world. I grant you that it has provided a lot of succor to a whole lot of people. So, the question is, how do we balance these two opposing consequences of religion?

In my view, this can be done by thinking about a couple of questions,

1. is there any noble thing that can only be done if one is religious, and
2. is there an evil out there that a noble person will do, reluctantly of course, only because he/she is forced by religious teachings?

The obvious answers are "no" for (1) and "yes" for (2). This is why I think, on balance, religion is a bane for humanity than a boon.

Dear Shri Nara,

Trust you are well! I venture, now, in this forum, to reflect on the above questions. I will not participate in any discussion or debate on this, but would be happy to read your response, should you feel to inclined to reply.

Before proceeding further, to actually try to answer the questions, should we not try to understand as to whether the nature of the query is such that it has a bearing on the situation? which, IMO, does not. The questions must be such that it satisfactorily evaluates the purpose of religion. To illustrate this I will use the same logic to evaluate the purpose of life - or to put it literally. "is there any noble thing that can only be achieved by "living out", and, is there an evil out there that a noble person will do, reluctantly of course, only because he/she is forced to survive?

Taking a leaf out of your answers - The considered answers are "no" for (1) and "yes" for (2). Then can we conclude that existence by itself is a bane?

So maybe these are not the colours through which we should eye religion?

Explanation for (1) should it be seen as a strange comparison: This can be observed by seeing other life forms; nothing noble can be achieved by just being alive, save to satisfy the basic instincts. It is only by attaching to ideals that the concept of nobility comes about.

The above notwithstanding, I write my thoughts for your queries:

1. Yes, it leads to the path of inquiry - of the self and beyond. You may argue that I can do this without the help of religion. There is a caveat in this reasoning - We are what we are because of religion, and to break the steps away because you are in the nth step deprives the other the opportunity to climb up. You may argue whether inquiry is at all needed; to this, I have to say that considering the order and intelligence of the universe, to me, it seems impossible for all this to have randomly mutated, albeit over millions of years. I thus, do ascribe to a power that forms the substratum for all creation. And to answer the riddles as to the power, there have been great souls who have already laid the pathway, and it is half the job done to realize the purport of those works; test it, you must, but from within and not outside of the system.
2. In answer to this, my counter question to you is that - If the noble religious person abstains from any evil actions, will it then prove that religion does not germinate evil? On second thoughts, I find your second query to be a bit off the mark here - Evaluation of the intent cannot always be done by measuring the deeds. Mind, given the nature of the beast, will always try to bend rules and look for loopholes. Given a scenario where the world is 100% atheistic,, "Evils" will always be there, in another form and name. I am not arguing a case for "Evils" here, but only that the type of evaluation of a philosophy may not be correct if we were to solely go by the actions of the followers.

A knife can be used to cut vegetables, butter or paper, and also to maim. The intent lies not with the instrument, but with the wielder.

With this half baked respose, please permit me to sign off.

With good wishes to all.

Regards,

 

[Nara]

....Hope this post clarifies your doubts.

No Ravi, it does not, all I wanted to know was whether I understood you correctly and stated what my understanding was by citing your own exact words. I was expecting a straight forward yes or no answer with perhaps a little explanation. I regret to say you have not given me that answer. If you may, I would like a simple "yes" or "no" answer to go with the explanation you have now provided, that would be helpful.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....With this half baked respose, please permit me to sign off.

Oh dear freind how I miss you, we used to fight tooth and nail, figuratively of course, without being uncivil, why can't there be more adversaries like you!

Your response, which you say "half-baked" is among the most thoughtful I have seen so far. I will give my resonse a little later as I have a few things to do first. I just wanted to express my happiness seeing you here again after a long time.

best wishes to you my dear freind ...

 

[Nara]

Dear sapthajihva, greetings to you!

.. The questions must be such that it satisfactorily evaluates the purpose of religion. To illustrate this I will use the same logic to evaluate the purpose of life ....

The purpose of life and the purpose of religion are not eqivalent or comparable questions. In the case of life we have no choice in the matter, whether there is any purpose or not, life must be lived. Whether religion is necessary for leading a meaningful and happy life is a valid queestion and each one of us can answer this question in the affirmative or in the negative. But I think you will readily agree that the question do we need to be alive to lead a meaningful and happy life is on the face of it absurd.

So, I think examining the purpose of religion, whether on balance it is a bane or boon for humanity, is a very legitimate question, and due to the atrocities committed in its name, not to mention absurd silliness, a very perceient question.

Taking a leaf out of your answers - The considered answers are "no" for (1) and "yes" for (2). Then can we conclude that existence by itself is a bane?

As stated above, existence is a given, we have no choice in the matter. So, whether life is a bane or boon is a moot question, we are alive and we will have to live it, one way or another.

1. ...., I have to say that considering the order and intelligence of the universe, to me, it seems impossible for all this to have randomly mutated, albeit over millions of years. I thus, do ascribe to a power that forms the substratum for all creation. And to answer the riddles as to the power, there have been great souls who have already laid the pathway, and it is half the job done to realize the purport of those works; test it, you must, but from within and not outside of the system.

This is a very personal statement from you which I respect. However, evolutionary biologists, physicists, and other scientists have shown that a higher creative power is not necessary to understand the incredible variety and order we see in nature. I find them incredibly persuasive.

In answer to this, my counter question to you is that - If the noble religious person abstains from any evil actions, will it then prove that religion does not germinate evil?

This is where all religions stumble. There is no "If" here, all religions, to be true to their religious doctrine, require its followers to believe and engage in some activities that are clearly seen as evil by outsiders. Each religion will deny this of course, but everybody else will see it for what it is.

To the extent an orthodox but loving Muslim tolerates an apostate, or an orthodox loving Brahmin tolerates the presence of a "Pariah" in his vicinity, they are diluting their religious teachings. So, from the POV of their respective religions, to the extent they abstain from those actions that are clearly seen as evil by others but are edicts within their own religion, they are compromising the teachings of their own religions, to that extent they are being less religious, which is a good thing.

On second thoughts, I find your second query to be a bit off the mark here - Evaluation of the intent cannot always be done by measuring the deeds. Mind, given the nature of the beast, will always try to bend rules and look for loopholes. Given a scenario where the world is 100% atheistic,, "Evils" will always be there, in another form and name. I am not arguing a case for "Evils" here, but only that the type of evaluation of a philosophy may not be correct if we were to solely go by the actions of the followers.

I am not saying a world without religion will be free of evil, for evil comes from many sources. In so far as religion presents itself as the source of morality I want to unmask this pretense and argue that it is also a source of evil and, on balance, the net evil in this world will go down without religion.

A knife can be used to cut vegetables, butter or paper, and also to maim. The intent lies not with the instrument, but with the wielder.

My point is, so often in the past, and still in the present days, religion itself induces people who would otherwise use this sharp knife to cut food items only, to wield it against fellow human beings.

sapthjihva, it is nice to see you here again, if not here hope you will participate elsewhere, I will be inetersted in your views.

Cheers!

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Can any one disprove the existence of God. It is impossible to know HIS
presence without faith in HIM. We observe the wonders of Nature. That
itself is an evidence about HIS existence. There were lot of logical arguments
in so many platforms about HIS existence. Since HE is there, we talk about
HIS existence and it is in fact paves a way to have an argument about HIS
existence. If HE is not there, we would not have stretched our arguments.
In some newsclip there was an argument about this by the general public and
it appears that 75% to 80% of people have come to an understanding that
there exists a supreme power.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[tks]

Just for fun here is a "news" item for those that care.. Here is to the religious atheists in the world :flame: LoL ray:

[h=2]He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.[/h]

 

[Nara]

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

Dawkins have always been saying this, nothing new. He is being as rational as possible in so far as a negative cannot be conclusively proved. He rejects personal gods outright, but takes a nuanced agnostic position with resepct to a creator god, the only rational position available for us. All he is saying is we cannot be 100% sure, but the possibility of an impersonal creator god is negligible. Here is a little context for what tks has offered as a slam dunk:

"Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added."


​

I have heard Dawkins explain his position in this way many times.

Many people try to smear Dawkins just because he is the most famous atheist around and most influential. Unable to stand up in a fair debate these people (i.e. the Telegraph journalists, not tks) have taken to such things as misrepresenting his views, pathetic!!

Cheers!

 

[Yamaka]

Just for fun here is a "news" item for those that care.. Here is to the religious atheists in the world :flame: LoL ray:

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

"GOD" may mean many things for many people. We need to define it as to exactly what we oppose as self-proclaimed Atheists.

What exactly that Yamaka opposes:

1. The SNA as a human-like personal God
2. The usefulness of prayers, poojas and bhajans as a way of bribing this Super Natural Agent (SNA) for favors.
3. The truthfulness of Poorva Janma Karma which leads to Religious FATALISM.

All this is keeping India an economically a very backward country.

That's all.

Cheers.



ps. Now I see that the argument has shifted: From showing "God Exists" affirmatively to "Show that God Does Not Exist"! Hello, it is a Negative position, which does not need any proof! Lol. This is laughable, to tell you the least. If your God exists, HE/She is not helping you to get the answer!!

 

[zebra16]

because he is the most famous atheist around and most influential. Unable to stand up in a fair debate these people have taken to such things as misrepresenting his views, pathetic!!
Cheers!

Sri Nara Sir,

The quoted text of Sri TKS in your message is exactly as it appeared in "The Telegraph" newspaper. So I am confused whom you mean by "these" people who are misrepresenting his (Dawkins) views.

Regards

 

[Nara]

..The quoted text of Sri TKS in your message is exactly as it appeared in "The Telegraph" newspaper. So I am confused whom you mean by "these" people who are misrepresenting the his (Dawkins) views.s

Sorry, I was careless, I did not mean tks, even though I do hold him responsible for presenting this misleading article as a slam dunk case.

The "these people" are the right-wing journalists of Telegraph -- there was another grossly misleading article that appeared in The Telegraph trying to connect Dawkins with slavery. These are the people who are trying to smear Dawkins and sorry that tks fell for it.

Cheers!

 

[zebra16]

Here is an interesting article about why atheists are disliked by Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia.

In Atheists We Distrust: Scientific American

Sri Nara Sir,

I perused the link provided by you. The article is completely without any statistics and is full of terms like, "more likely", "less likely" etc. The only clear cut statistics provided was that only 45% of the americans was likely to vote a qualified atheist as presidential candidate. Is your post based on the premise that the atheists are likely disliked by the rest 55% of population. Or is the figure higher or lower?

Regards,

 

[ozone]

Just for fun here is a "news" item for those that care.. Here is to the religious atheists in the world :flame: LoL ray:

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

In the article there is no rational or scientific process mentioned adopted to arrive at the claim of
assigning a self rating of 6.9 on 7 for his beliefs.The liberal 0.1 conservatively doled out is to keep his supporters happy I think, while admitting to the reality.

 

[C RAVI]

Ravi I have a question I hope you will clarify:

You concluded your post with:

Is "former" this group?

And the "later" is this one?

So, what you are saying is, the agnostics who are advancing towards atheism are those who "tend to do unethical thngs" with "the absolute desire to do anything what may come." and those who believe in god refrain from "doing anything unethical"?

Did I understand you correctly?

Thank you ...

Subsequent to your above question, the below was my reply in my previous post #2374.

Shri Nara,

My post #2374 was purly based on people's reactions with their belief in KARMA Theory. The Theory, which if believed, is found to be FATALISTIC by some atheists.

I was highlighting that -

1) Though people belief in KARMA theory along with belief in God/Spirituality, many tend to do anything unethical with "the absolute desire to acheieve and do anything what may come". And such decisions/actions are the outcome of their anger and frustruation.

2) Many people with same belief in KARMA theory/God/Spirituality, refrain from doing anything unethical BUT still strive their best to better themselves with their absolute sense of righteousness.

With the above two differences among the people of same belief, I was saying that, it just depends on what sort of rationality each group applies for their betterment / acheivement.

And based on the former & later types of people, considering KARMA Theory as cruel, humbug, FATALISTIC, misleading concepts to fool people etc..etc., by both theists & atheists, would not be appropriate.


Belief in God/Spirituality/Karma theory fecilitates humans with the sense of patience, penance, repentance, righteousness etc. At the same time some among the theists tend to ignore Karma theory and do whatever they feel OK for their personal benefit BUT still hold on with their belief in God/Spirituality. For them their all knowing personal God and their Bakthi will allways protect them irrespective of what they do.

The former types of people (1), who consider themselves theist, tries to get rid of Karma theory with their Rational thinking and gradually determines to doubt on the existence of God/spiritualy as agnostic and ultimately get converted to Atheist.


My above observations as the extention of my post #2374 are all to find the differences within theist group and how possibly Atheism branches out, from with in.

Since I din't point out specifically in my previous post #2374, I would take this opportunity to state that, I am not generalizing that all the Atheists are immoral and unethical. I am not saying that immorality and unethical activities are the sole properties of Atheist. I am not saying that Atheism is the synonym of immorality. I am neither holding a wrong opinion nor claiming that all the Atheist are immoral and do unethical things to live their life to the fullest.

In this same thread, I have said in one of my old posts, long before and let me now elaborate that as well -

"the existence of righteous people on this Earth, irespective of their belief in God/spirituality, is the proof of existence of purest spiritual energies (beyond human control & Scientific experiments). "You are righteous to the best of our honest self judgement for the self and the others and in all the challenging circumstances either with belief in God or without beleif in God, BUT without over ruling your purest inner self consciousnes. If you have this, it means you have the highest influence of Spriritual energies within you. This shows what is God/Spiritual energies. Theism and Atheism are two distinguishing terms coined by humans based on their belief in God/Spirituality. But for God/Spiritual energies all are "ONE" and the only differences are what is Good & what is Bad, who is generating FATALISM and who is NOT and who has to bear what sort of KARMA impacts, based on their actions."




Hope this post clarifies your doubts.

The below is what you re-iterated in your previous post to me and want an answer from me..

No Ravi, it does not, all I wanted to know was whether I understood you correctly and stated what my understanding was by citing your own exact words. I was expecting a straight forward yes or no answer with perhaps a little explanation. I regret to say you have not given me that answer. If you may, I would like a simple "yes" or "no" answer to go with the explanation you have now provided, that would be helpful.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

Your understanding was partially correct. It was not fully correct because my message, which prompted you to seek my answer for your understanding was not clear/elaborate. Thus instead of saying "YES" or "NO" as an answer to you, I ventured into elaborating my opinions in my previous post, as quoted above, hoping that would serve the purpose.

There is a difference between what you understood (obviously due my not so clear posting) and what was my opinion. My attempt in previous post to highlight that part of difference seem to have not served any purpose.


I am not saying that - "So, what you are saying is, the agnostics who are advancing towards atheism are those who "tend to do unethical thngs" with "the absolute desire to do anything what may come." and those who believe in god refrain from "doing anything unethical"?"

What I am saying is - Theists as believers of Karma Theory, who could not believe/accept God/Spirituality as that has not given them the desired results as they wish to happen, the way they wanted to happen and the time limit within which they wanted it to happen, tend to become Agnostic. Because they find their belief in God/Spirituality neither rational to their rational brains nor capable of generating spot miracle like events that could make their wish come true.

Out of these many gradually reject God/Spirituality and Karma Theory altogether and tend to indulge in all immoral/unethical activities to make their survival better and or to satisfy their sense of Greediness and proclaim themselves as Atheists.


I am not saying that each and every Agnostics who are advancing towards Atheism are those who "tend to do unethical things" with "the absolute desire to do any thing what may come"

As well, I am not saying that each and every Theist who all believe in God/Spirituality refrain from "doing anything unethical". This is what I said in my previous post, that, many hold on to their belief in God/Spirituality BUT no considerations to Karma Theory and indulge in all antisocial/unethical activities to satisfy their desires of their present life. Because for them their all knowing personal God will still protect them.

All my observations were based on the practice of KARMA THEORY among the Theists and how the same theory fails to hold on some theists folks on their sense of righteousness. And this is the outcome of their anger and frustrations.

Both Theists of the above category and Atheist who all tend to do anything antisocial/unethical business/activities to fulfill their desires and are inhuman are all FATALISTIC.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Agnostics may only be in words observe atheism but in times of
extreme agony are likely to or may switch over to theism at least for a
fraction of a second but may not be outwardly theistic.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[Nara]

....I am not saying that each and every Agnostics who are advancing towards Atheism are those who "tend to do unethical things" with "the absolute desire to do any thing what may come"

As well, I am not saying that each and every Theist who all believe in God/Spirituality refrain from "doing anything unethical".

Ravi, the above statements are tautological. Whether you meant it or not, what you originally wrote was offensive and I think you now see it and are trying to moderate it, that is good. I will leave this matter at that.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....I perused the link provided by you. The article is completely without any statistics and is full of terms like, "more likely", "less likely" etc. The only clear cut statistics provided was that only 45% of the americans was likely to vote a qualified atheist as presidential candidate. Is your post based on the premise that the atheists are likely disliked by the rest 55% of population. Or is the figure higher or lower?

Narayan, I found this Scientific American article interesting and shared it here. Do you think I souldn't have? I don't understand your point.

Cheers!

 

[zebra16]

Sri Nara Sir,

Narayan, I found this Scientific American article interesting and shared it here. Do you think I souldn't have? I don't understand your point.

Cheers!

My point is in knowing, what is the guess-estimate of the ordinary theist people disliking ordinary atheists in percentage terms... and whether it is @ 55%.... or whether it is more or less as perceived by an ordinary American citizen.

Second thing that I forgot in my haste in to post was my total shock at the attitude of a scientific community to club atheists alongwith rapists in a survey. Whatever is that for? How the two stands on the same footing?

Regards,

 

[KRS]

Folks,

I just came across this, augmenting what Sri TKS Sir posted above on Richard Dawkins' Radio debate in UK couple of days ago. This, in my opinion sums up and highlights an atheist's deeply held view on the theists:

In a discussion on the Today programme yesterday, Dr Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.

The two men were debating some new figures produced by Prof Dawkins’s think tank, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. (A typical Dawkins touch: not just any old Foundation for Reason and Science but the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.) The statistics purport to show that most people who identify themselves as Christian turn out, when questioned on what they actually think, to be “overwhelmingly secular in their attitudes on issues ranging from gay rights to religion in public life”. Dawkins’s conclusion is that these self-identified Christians are “not really Christian at all”.

If you were trying to come up with a definition of misplaced intellectual arrogance, you could not do better than having the planet’s most famous atheist issuing diktats on who does and doesn’t count as a proper Christian. Prof Dawkins then announced, triumphantly, that an “astonishing number [of Christians] couldn’t identify the first book in the New Testament”.

The transcript of the next minute or so only hints at how cringingly, embarrassingly bad it was for Dawkins.

Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that.
Dawkins: Yes I could.
Fraser: Go on then.
Dawkins: On the Origin of Species…Uh…With, oh, God, On the Origin of Species. There is a sub-title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
It was a golden minute of radio. But as well as being hilarious, it was hugely symbolic. In The Daily Telegraph yesterday, Baroness Warsi highlighted the militant secularism on the march in Britain. But as Dr Fraser revealed, the atheist army is led by an embarrassingly feeble general. The arrogance and intolerance of the atheists, exemplified by Prof Dawkins, is their Achilles’ heel.

For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Telegraph

Regards,
KRS

 

[zebra16]

Sri Nara Sir,

My point is, so often in the past, and still in the present days, religion itself induces people who would otherwise use this sharp knife to cut food items only, to wield it against fellow human beings.Cheers!

I would like to take up this matter. I do not agree with you. My opening argument is:

As on yesterday, there was no reported violence in USA based on religious sentiments or teachings. The religious books have been the same both yesterday and on any day that religious violence erupted in the past. So what was holding up the believers from indulging in violence yesterday?

Regards

 

[KRS]

Dear Bro Nara Ji,

I agree with you that this is not a recent turnabout. To be fair, some articles on this debate do point it out.

By the way, why a scale of 1 to 7? Why not 1 to 10, or for that matter, any other scale? I have always asked this question. Like Dr. Dawkins' questioning the concept of Trinity.

Is there a statistical significance to his scale and on what 'scientific' basis, he assigns himself a grade of 6.9 on that scale?

Regards,
KRS

Dawkins have always been saying this, nothing new. He is being as rational as possible in so far as a negative cannot be conclusively proved. He rejects personal gods outright, but takes a nuanced agnostic position with resepct to a creator god, the only rational position available for us. All he is saying is we cannot be 100% sure, but the possibility of an impersonal creator god is negligible. Here is a little context for what tks has offered as a slam dunk:

"Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added."


​

I have heard Dawkins explain his position in this way many times.

Many people try to smear Dawkins just because he is the most famous atheist around and most influential. Unable to stand up in a fair debate these people (i.e. the Telegraph journalists, not tks) have taken to such things as misrepresenting his views, pathetic!!

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Hello bro,

...For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words - Telegraph

Just another Telegraph article, full of invectives. Dawkins hesitating to recall the full title of a book -- is this all they have to say he is all wrong??

If you guys want to turn this into a slugfest against Dwakins, go ahead and have your fun. I don't hold a brief for Dawkins, I just happen to be persuaded by his arguments. All I would ask the members is this -- read him, read his books, listen to his lectures, then decide whatever you want, don't be fooled by these caricatured articles from Telegraph. Here is an analysis of the vendetta against Dawkins by The Telegraph: Telegraph vs Dawkins | Davblog. This blog post ends with the following passage:

"These attacks are a sign that the Telegraph has run out of arguments. They can’t build a rational argument against Dawkins ideas so they are forced to try and discredit him personally. They are the increasingly desperate voice of a vanishing minority."


​

By the way, why a scale of 1 to 7? Why not 1 to 10, or for that matter, any other scale? I have always asked this question.

I have no idea, but why is that important? 1 to 7, or 1 to 10, to me what he is saying is the existence of a creator god is very unlikely and the only reason we can't totally reject it is, logically, a negative cannot be conclusively disproved.

Cheers!