Richard Dawkins "The most famous..... Agnostic?"

[Magic Poriferan]

So he answered the question like a scientist should. I don't see the big deal here.

 

[Rasofy]

I'm also not sure whether 100% atheism is rationally viable. I mean, we can't really be sure of anything, so there's always a minute possibility that someone could be wrong about something that cannot be observed or experienced fully, correct? Perhaps atheism should be definied more like Dawkins -- slim possibility that someone is wrong, but the chances are very very slim to them. Agnosticism seems more like a concession that the odds are bigger and thus the answer more ambiguous?

Great points.

While I consider myself an atheist, I still work with a small chance that there could be a God. Which doesn't necessarily mean he granted me a spirit that's gonna live forever.
Most people assume that ''if God does exist'':
a) the Bible is right ;
b) we have spirits with eternal life
But it doesn't work that way for atheists. Recognizing there could be a creator is an unbound parameter. I think that's the basic difference. But I can't speak for Dawkins.

 

[redacted]

How does this make him not an atheist?

He believes there is not a god. Therefore he's an atheist.

You don't have to be 100% sure that something is true to believe it.

 

[Orangey]

How does this make him not an atheist?

He believes there is not a god. Therefore he's an atheist.

You don't have to be 100% sure that something is true to believe it.

I know, plus this is what he's always said. It's been his exact position for years. It's in his books and interviews.

Whoever wrote the article either has never heard or read anything by or about Dawkins (outside of anti-Dawkins sources), or they have an agenda. I think the latter is more likely.

 

[Catoptric Cistula]

While I consider myself an atheist, I still work with a small chance that there could be a God. Which doesn't necessarily mean he granted me with a spirit that's gonna live forever.
Most people assume that ''if God does exist'':
a) the Bible is right ;
b) we have spirits with eternal life
But it doesn't work that way for atheists. Recognizing there could be a creator is an unbound parameter. I think that's the basic difference. But I can't speak for Dawkins.

Though undoubtedly many Christian would take the viewpoint that not believing in religion is anathema to believing in a spiritual afterlife, it is clearly not contiguous with the influences in the spread of religion in the West. Maybe their were influences from the East, though that's unlikely.

You would be clear in stating however that people are largely influenced by their surroundings as to what is considered an acceptable viewpoint.

I don't discount the possibility that the phenomenon of spirituality couldn't exists, and believe some fundamental principals of metaphysics haven't even come close to scratching the surface of it. Does this imply a God, and why do we search for one?

Much of the concepts of religion seem to have parallels with our understandings of the human mind. Throughout ancient cultures we have integrated shamanistic states of mind and attempted to reach altered states of perception. Though I've never attempted anything of the like, it is clear that many ancient cultures have come upon the concept of DMT to verge onto the idea of a "one with the universe" type of perception. God is inherently a narcissistic projection of the human mind.

Many of the elements of human consciousness could well expound on this discovery; many knowledges throughout the ages have been kept lock-and-key. Moses for example was an initiate into Egyptian occult teachings. For those that don't know the Egyptians had a profound understanding of the human mind, and many of the elements representing their beliefs were integrated with discoveries of natural phenomenon.

If you look back into Ancient Romans and Greeks, their understandings of mechanical automata were rather impressive. They would devise ways to manipulate a physical object to make it appear to have a mind of it's own. People would deposit a coin as a donation; trickery alone implies conscious awareness, which implies understandings that belies the willingness for faith to exist. A creator of a concept or understanding used to manipulate others is more likely to impart their own desires and whims to control people.

Many different elements I read into about the ancient world lead me to become something of an Atheist (and that I was kind of reserved and doubtful, Protestant from upbringing), though I am still entirely unsure how far back actual civilization goes and where some of these influences came from (Gobekli Tepe is a mystery as well as some underwater discoveries). Many aspects of construction could not have been achieved in the manner we understand to this day; many things are lost to our understanding. So if their were superior understandings do we interpret them as godlike? Are we are own gods, inferior to ourselves and do we derive satisfaction in projecting such desires to cope with the vastness of understandings? If we get a glimpse of perceptions that are considered life changing, does that then impart mystical properties that we cling to?

I personally believe the sophistication of the ancient world was in some ways greater than the early part of the last century. Clearly for a period much in the way of knowledge sort of diminished and revived again. Though they couldn't explain a lot of things they probably knew on a subconscious level some aspects that were difficult to comprehend. It's likewise easy for anyone to scoff at the idea of a metaphysical existence; I was certainly one of them. Taking into consideration that many attempts to study a phenomenon as such would be fairly impossible, as it is largely an empirical study and without merit to consideration on a laboratory basis. I keep reminding myself however that their is proof and corroborating testimony I've gathered from looking into it (and I don't want to talk about it).

Though I believe Dawkins has made some contributions to psychological awareness, many people will simply be averted by "talking head" media figures that would keep them in their bubble (I'm thinking of people like O'Reilly).

 

[Hazashin]

Yeah. If there really is a god, & you end up standing before him one day, you'd probably feel a bit stupid if you'd written books on earth saying you were 100% certain he didn't exist. He'd probably beat the shit out of you too. So yeah, leave that 0.2% out for yourself.

Sounds like an unhealthy 3. And the god of Christianity sounds like an unhealthy 2 lol.

 

[Randomnity]

I don't believe it!
Or maybe I do!

... oh bother.


^^ Agnosticism. This conditions afflicts many modern humans, leaving us confused about the nature of the world, or even feeling like it doesn't matter. Won't you please help? Send money, fast.

EDIT:



That sounds fair. I'm also not sure whether 100% atheism is rationally viable. I mean, we can't really be sure of anything, so there's always a minute possibility that someone could be wrong about something that cannot be observed or experienced fully, correct? Perhaps atheism should be definied more like Dawkins -- slim possibility that someone is wrong, but the chances are very very slim to them. Agnosticism seems more like a concession that the odds are bigger and thus the answer more ambiguous?

That's why I started considering myself atheist. Everything could theoretically be proven wrong, if you think creatively enough about possibilities. So technically that would be agnostic. But agnosticism is often used to mean "hey there could be a god, or there could not, who knows?" which is not really my view at all.

So yes, technically agnostic atheist, but nobody goes that far with the definitions in real life, so atheist it is...

 

[Rasofy]

Though undoubtedly many Christian would take the viewpoint that not believing in religion is anathema to believing in a spiritual afterlife, it is clearly not contiguous with the influences in the spread of religion in the West. Maybe their were influences from the East, though that's unlikely.

You would be clear in stating however that people are largely influenced by their surroundings as to what is considered an acceptable viewpoint.

I don't discount the possibility that the phenomenon of spirituality couldn't exists, and believe some fundamental principals of metaphysics haven't even come close to scratching the surface of it. Does this imply a God, and why do we search for one?

Much of the concepts of religion seem to have parallels with our understandings of the human mind. Throughout ancient cultures we have integrated shamanistic states of mind and attempted to reach altered states of perception. Though I've never attempted anything of the like, it is clear that many ancient cultures have come upon the concept of DMT to verge onto the idea of a "one with the universe" type of perception. God is inherently a narcissistic projection of the human mind.

Many of the elements of human consciousness could well expound on this discovery; many knowledges throughout the ages have been kept lock-and-key. Moses for example was an initiate into Egyptian occult teachings. For those that don't know the Egyptians had a profound understanding of the human mind, and many of the elements representing their beliefs were integrated with discoveries of natural phenomenon.

If you look back into Ancient Romans and Greeks, their understandings of mechanical automata were rather impressive. They would devise ways to manipulate a physical object to make it appear to have a mind of it's own. People would deposit a coin as a donation; trickery alone implies conscious awareness, which implies understandings that belies the willingness for faith to exist. A creator of a concept or understanding used to manipulate others is more likely to impart their own desires and whims to control people.

Many different elements I read into about the ancient world lead me to become something of an Atheist (and that I was kind of reserved and doubtful, Protestant from upbringing), though I am still entirely unsure how far back actual civilization goes and where some of these influences came from (Gobekli Tepe is a mystery as well as some underwater discoveries). Many aspects of construction could not have been achieved in the manner we understand to this day; many things are lost to our understanding. So if their were superior understandings do we interpret them as godlike? Are we are own gods, inferior to ourselves and do we derive satisfaction in projecting such desires to cope with the vastness of understandings? If we get a glimpse of perceptions that are considered life changing, does that then impart mystical properties that we cling to?

I personally believe the sophistication of the ancient world was in some ways greater than the early part of the last century. Clearly for a period much in the way of knowledge sort of diminished and revived again. Though they couldn't explain a lot of things they probably knew on a subconscious level some aspects that were difficult to comprehend. It's likewise easy for anyone to scoff at the idea of a metaphysical existence; I was certainly one of them. Taking into consideration that many attempts to study a phenomenon as such would be fairly impossible, as it is largely an empirical study and without merit to consideration on a laboratory basis. I keep reminding myself however that their is proof and corroborating testimony I've gathered from looking into it (and I don't want to talk about it).

Though I believe Dawkins has made some contributions to psychological awareness, many people will simply be averted by "talking head" media figures that would keep them in their bubble (I'm thinking of people like O'Reilly).

The aztecs were also pretty evolved. Yet, they believed they had to make human sacrifices in order to keep the sun shining. The egyptians, by the way, believed pharaohs themselves were Gods. Just dig enough and any old civilization is gonna prove itself a pretty unreliable religious/spiritual/metaphysics reference.
I don't ignore the fact that atheists can believe in the concept of spirit. Sadly, the popular atheist/theist division was derived from a pretty bad technique. Spiritual/non spiritual division would be much more revealing. I could be wrong, but I think pretty much every theist is spiritual. This way, once an atheist says ''there could be a God'', a lot of people automatically assume he is open to the possibility we have spirits - or even worse: that he believes everything those people believe could be right. The simple fact an atheist says ''there could be a creator'', doesn't mean much at all.

 

[ZPowers]

This isn't new. He's said for years he his doubts about God are about equal to his doubts about fairies or vampires, in that he can't prove they don't exist, but everything he thinks logically and the lack of evidence says they don't. He said as much on an old episode of Bill Maher maybe 3 or 4 years back.

 

[Orangey]

This isn't new. He's said for years he his doubts about God are about equal to his doubts about fairies or vampires, in that he can't prove they don't exist, but everything logically and the lack of evidence in him says they don't. He said as much on an old episode of Bill Maher maybe 3 or 4 years back.

Seriously.

 

[animenagai]

How does this make him not an atheist?

He believes there is not a god. Therefore he's an atheist.

You don't have to be 100% sure that something is true to believe it.

Precisely. [MENTION=4131]SmileyMan[/MENTION] also has it right. Whether you're agnostic or not is an epistemic claim - it's about belief and degrees of certainty. Whether you're atheist or not is a metaphysical claim - it's about whether or not something exists in the world. They are fundamentally different things. To be honest, I think people who claim to be agnostic are really just soft atheists who don't want to offend anyone.

 

[Sniffles]

And the god of Christianity sounds like an unhealthy 2 lol.

Does he now?

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

I'm an atheist and an agnostic, is there some kind of contradiction there that I'm unaware of?

and, who cares, dawkins is an idiot.

 

[xisnotx]

Everyone is either atheist or theist.
That is,
Everyone is either x or not x where x is defined as theism or the "belief in the existence of a god or gods".

Atheism doesn't have a definition that can be separated from theism. It's called a/theism for a reason.

The real question is what happens when x is defined as not x. lololol

Agnosticism doesn't answer the question...it answers it's own question.

 

[reason]

Dawkins has always maintained, so far as I am aware, that he considers the existence of God extremely improbable. Many of his arguments in The God Delusion don't end with, '... therefore, God doesn't exist', but rather '... therefore, it is highly probable that God doesn't exist'. Philosophically, Dawkins is basically an empiricist with a Bayesian twist; he assiduously avoids claiming absolute certainty (i.e. believing that some claim has a 100 percent probability of being true) except, perhaps, in the case of basic logic truths.

 

[Hazashin]

Does he now?

Indeed. He desires to help everyone... but he must be loved in return (by the time people die). He feels that he is owed something for creating us, a sense of entitlement, if you will.

 

[ZPowers]

and, who cares, dawkins is an idiot.

I get the "he's smug" or "he's a dick," (even from fellow atheists/agnostics) but idiot? The dude is an fairly prodigious evolutionary biologist, even without all the atheism stuff, and held a pretty major position at Oxford (from which he also graduated), one of the best universities in the world.

 

[Clownmaster]

Gnostic theist
Agnostic theist
Agnostic atheist (Dawkins, and most other "reasonable" atheists - despite of Dawkins having lapses, probably due to his age)
Gnostic atheist (fanatic)

Gnostic atheism isn't fanaticism, and Dawkins is most definitely a gnostic atheist.

from atheistforums.org

Agnostic (weak) atheist

This is the most typical kind of atheist. An agnostic atheist will admit that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a god but chooses not to believe. This is largely but not exclusively due to the lack of evidence.

Gnostic (strong) atheist

Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

From http://www.strongatheism.net:

"Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods. More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues."

A gnostic atheist, albeit seemingly contradictory to the term gnostic, isn't for or against the proposition of whether or not a god or gods exist. Rather, it is more often accepting atheism by congruence, and knowing that the existence of many proposed god(s) of religions are false by way of contradictions and apparent falsehoods within religious texts and beliefs.

the gnostic portion of "gnostic atheist" doesn't mean "i know there are no gods"
it can mean "i know that your god doesn't exist."
an example of a religious view that gnostic atheism doesn't take a stance against would be deism.

an agnostic atheist will claim that they aren't sure if any gods exist, but they don't believe in them.

a gnostic atheist will claim the same, except that if any do exist, they definitely aren't the judeo-christian god, allah, any of the hindi gods, etc.



The name of the article was misleadingly "Richard Dawkins says he’s not entirely sure God doesn’t exist"

but the quote from him that they used was “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low"

This in no way refutes his gnostic atheism.

 

[Blank]

I'm an agnostic.

There's a chance that a god could exist.

I'm 100% of the belief that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist.

 

[FigerPuppet]

Bla

Let me simplify your post:

"Everybody is a gnostic atheist in relation to some deity - ie. 100% sure in its non-existence."

Of course the system of categorization I posted has to be applied on a deity-by-deity basis. My thoughts on Dawkins were only in relation to his belief in the Abrahamic God/Allah. Since he himself has said that he is less than 100% certain in its non-existence, he is by both your definition ("an agnostic atheist will claim that they aren't sure if any gods exist, but they don't believe in them." - being "sure" implying 100% certainty) and my own an agnostic atheist.

I believe what rubbed you the wrong way about my post was me calling gnostic atheists "fanatics." I did this as I believe that someone who thinks he has knowledge of a deity's non-existence, no matter how contradictory and stupid the texts describing this deity are, are relying on "faith" (or belief without any substantial evidence) as much as someone who knows that is does it exist; the latter we usually do call fanatics. While perhaps fanatic technically isn't the proper word to describe these atheists, they usually do share some traits with religious fanatics - especially when dealing with people whom do not share their beliefs.