New / Atheism, in the PT? starts here .

Posts Tagged 'Richard Dawkins'

Richard Dawkins, and atheism vs. agnosticism

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Richard Dawkins on Global Atheist Convention 2010 in Australia:

YouTube Preview Image

Excellent, I strongly recommend, etc.. etc. .. It is more about biology / evolution of what exactly atheism or religion, but it's worth.

But this post, as well as working to share the video focuses on a question in Q & A section at the end of the video, and response. The question is:

Self-describe myself as agnostic, because, although I believe that there is no god, I'm not absolutely sure, there is always a little, tiny chance. When describing themselves as atheists, do not you run the risk of being so dogmatic as believers?

Dawkins's response was good: we are all technically agnostic to all that we do not believe (eg fairies, werewolves), since it is not possible to prove that something does not exist. Said the scale of belief that I had used to explain this issue in The God Delusion, where 1 is "I know there is a god" and 7 is "I know that does not exist", and described to himself as a 6.9. But I think he could also have gone the other hand.

In a way, I understand the concern of the kind that asked the question. For those who have suffered the consequences of religious fundamentalism, is always present in his memory as such believers were quite sure of what they believed, without ever questioning those beliefs. The escape of such fundamentalism, it is natural to pass to distrust the very idea of having absolute and dogmatic certainties, immune to any fact or argument. And think a person in this situation, it is atheism simply the other side of the same coin - the "absolute and dogmatic certainty" that there are no gods? There are atheists victims (or perpetrators) in exactly the same error? If it is not possible to have 100% certainty, not a person will make more sense to describe themselves as agnostic?

The answer is "no", for one simple reason: there is an error definitions. Atheism is not "absolute and dogmatic certainty" that there is no god, is, rather, the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is, as Dawkins pointed out, treat "God" as this "fairy" or "elves": a person need not have to be "absolutely, dogmatically" certain that these creatures do not exist, just do not believe them, have no belief in them.

As I have argued in the past, no need to have a perfect knowledge of the universe (omniscience), or "evidence" absolute non-existence of a god, to be an atheist. Just as follows: scalar beliefs according evidence, which is in any case the position is to be rational. Note that an openly Christian beliefs does not scale according to the evidence, what it does, however, is to affirm that belief without evidence (ie, "faith") is a virtue. (Interestingly, the same believer typically do not apply it to the beliefs of other religions, which he will obviously be wrong ...)

But for those who prefer, rationally, calling their beliefs according to the evidence, it is easy to get up to atheism, indeed, is the only logical conclusion. Zero evidence for something -> zero belief in something, and "zero faith" in a god or gods is the definition of atheism. You do not need faith, or omniscience, nor any certainty "absolute and dogmatic" to reach this position. After all, if one day appear * any * evidence, I (like any rational atheist) would reconsider my position ...

"Pin" the Pope?

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

It has gone around the news with variants of this sensationalist title: "Richard Dawkins: 'I hold the Pope . " Of course, Dawkins did not say such a thing (which gives the idea that the British biologist will be at the airport waiting for Benedict XVI with a pair of handcuffs ...) what he did, along with Christopher Hitchens, was a movement to support existing (which was being ignored by the "media", shamefully, to be supported by two celebrities) to launch a lawsuit against the Pope, for his role in covering up well-documented cases of rape and torture of children, and protection of authors these cases (since for him the only thing that matters is the reputation of the Church).

Even though the process to move forward (and I hope that this happens), there is some possibility that the Pope be arrested? Of course not. Not think there's any chance he came to be tried or even questioned on this issue by a secular court, even though he is not being accused of something.

The best one can expect this - and I hope it reaches such a - is this: Pope gets away, but this does not happen because there is a legal case against him. It happens, yes, he is effectively above the law in this case British law. And this should not go unnoticed. The British judicial system should be forced to admit publicly that any other place in the Pope, therefore, would at least be tried, and the fact that this not happen Ratzinger has no basis in law, goes completely against both the letter and the spirit of the law and against any and all justice, and should be an absolute disgrace to the British Law.

And maybe just a few more eyes open.

Global Atheist Convention

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Via Portal Atheist : apparently the Global Atheist Convention was not only a success (completely exhausted) as a spectacle. The above post refers to an article in The Australian that sums up the convention, and, more importantly, it makes no value judgments, not insults atheists, like some other disgusting newspapers do.

Some quotes from the article in The Australian:

About the Convention:

"But what will you talk about - nothing?" Someone HAD asked David Nicholls, president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia and co-convener of the conference. Far from it: most sessions ended before the audience was ready to let the speaker go.

About Islam:

The Bangladeshi writer and women's rights activist, who was exiled from her homeland 14 years ago, then Physically attacked in India When She sought refuge in Bengal, Placed under house arrest and finally hounded out of there too, still has Several fatwas hanging over her and the price on her head. India, the country That likes to think of Itself to the largest democracy in the world, she pointed out, Placed the religious rights of Muslim minority excellant above her freedom of expression.

She Recalled Doubts about her religion as a child, and how she troubled her mother with questions: why do we have to pray in Arabic - if God is omniscient, he can not Understand our prayers in Bengali?

When she was six her mother Told her her tongue would fall off if she said anything against God. Already the empirical scientist (she is a doctor), she locked herself in the bathroom, said "God is the son of a bitch", " God is a pig "and Other Bengali choice epithets, and then Waited in front of the mirror. After a few minutes, she Knew That Was not what her mother said true.

She saw through the inconsistencies in the Koran, she said, the first time she read it, in translation in Bengali. "All religion, but Islam Particularly, is for the interests and comfort of men," she said, "Why would women believe in any religion?"

About the absurd to think that the Christian Bible was inspired by an omniscient being:

Myers took issue with the Notion of a good and all-knowing God, That if suggesting "God is so powerful he Refuses to be bound by some arbitrary demand he make like a goddamn difference in the world", he could not have Given us at least some useful suggestions? "Like` Wash your hands'? We Waited till the 19th century for doctors to learn that. Instead we got the Bible in a detailed order to snip off the ends of our penises. "

About the idea that believers are more moral, matter more to the next, and do more for the poor:

The rules for the more rigorous of the New Testament, such as the order That the rich give away to the poor Their possessions, there are a lot of very rich Clearly Christians around who are giving little thought to the future of Their souls, he said . Americans who, According to polling, are far more religious than Europeans, do not even approach the Scandinavian welfare Measures Largely secular societies take to protect the Vulnerable in Their society.

Also in October pointed Singer That three of the four great philanthropists of the 20th century Were professed atheists: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Andrew Carnegie. (The exception was Nelson D. Rockefeller, a Protestant.)

And lastly, on the financing of the Convention:

Speaking of money, the government funded tier of the conference: the organizers and speakers worked free and Depended on the charity of well-wishers for the unavoidable costs. Much was made of this by some speakers, the federal government Gave $ 20 million Towards the Catholic World Youth Day last year, and the Victorian government Gave $ 4.5m Towards the Parliament of World Religions - but in this Supposedly secular society, requests for funding an atheist Were conference turned down.

This last part, now it is absolutely disgusting, supposedly secular governments use millions of dollars of taxpayers' money - regardless of belief or non-belief of these - to fund religious events, but do not contribute a penny to an event pro-rationalism and pro -reality. I am not that mean that the government had an obligation to fund whatever it is, but if one does, should do it all ...

Finally, Richard Dawkins on Islam (for those who say he only criticizes Christianity):

For dialogue with the Islamists, he said it was "a remarkably effective tactic to say` If you try to argue against me, I'll cut your head off, '"but the argument That cam from a position of intellectual weakness.

"I do not think we Should Go out of our way to insult Islam because it does not do any good to get your head cut off," he continued. "But We Should Say That I may always refrain from publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, but it's because I fear you. Do not for one moment think it's because I respect you. "

Richard Dawkins, South Park style

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

It is less of a minute and a half, so it can be seen instantly.

And if you want to see the original version ...

and yet (part 2 of the above: the public's questions and answers) ...

(If you're an aggregator and can not see the videos, ClicK here .)

"You're too stupid for me to argue with you."

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

"If it's futile, then that's unfortunate, but I do not think it's not even a reason for Trying. I think it would be ... rather defeatist and cowardly, and rather well ... Actually, Almost condescending, contemptuous Almost to say ... "you're too stupid for me to argue with you." I would never wish to say that. "

- Richard Dawkins


Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
This work by Dehumanizer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal .