Richard Dawkins - new interview

[ThaG]

There is a problem with this line of argument.

Let us say, for example, that I made the claim, "innumerable living organisms exist." One could in turn charge me to prove that this is a fact. And so I respond that nobody can prove that innumerable living organisms do not exist. Now here is the problem: once someone argues that nobody can prove the nonexistence of unicorns, trolls, vampires, leprechauns, etc. we run into something akin to a category mistake. These particular entities (unicorns, trolls, etc.) may or may not fall into the category of the "innumerable living organisms." It is not that they are a category themselves, analogous to "innumerable living organisms." Instead, they are particular entities, with very specific characteristics.

Similarly, "God" is a very general concept of a supreme being. That God may have the form of a unicorn, troll, leprechaun, vampire, terminator, or whatever else is an entirely separate point of contention from the existence question.

Unicorns, trolls, vampires, leprechauns and terminators are not, regarding the question of existence, comparable to God in the same way that they are not comparable to the existence of "innumerable living organisms."

Another prime example of how inadequate your mental health condition has to be in order to be a creationist...

I will not bother to respond to this because I will have to write a small book of explanations of why you're so hopelessly wrong that nobody wil lbother to read and udnerstand

 

[thatguy]

wrong

disbelief is the default position, atheists do not claim anything, we just don't believe what religions claim, we do not have to prove anything. the burden is entirely on the affirmative position (religion)

im not even talking about religion, im talking about a creator, and default position is the position u start at, which is undecided, your claim is there is no creator, my claim is i think there is

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Another prime example of how inadequate your mental health condition has to be in order to be a creationist...

I will not bother to respond to this because I will have to write a small book of explanations of why you're so hopelessly wrong that nobody wil lbother to read and udnerstand

You will not bother to respond because you can't. You don't have to try and rationalize yourself to me, man.

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

Funny comment about Hinduism by a user on Richard Dawkins site-

'I don't know anything about Buddhism but I was brought as a Hindu and the major way in which it is different from the big 3 monotheistic faiths is UTTER INCOHERENCE. You could make practically any statement about Hinduism and it would be true. Hinduism teaches reincarnation, but not really. Hinduism has a million gods and goddesses, but they are all contained in a holy trinity - no, wait, it's all just one God - no, wait, there is just one god and there is ONLY god and everything from that pebble to the tapeworm in your belly is just various manifestations of the One Holy One.

The best I can say is that it's truly a free-for-all... you can believe whatever you wish and call yourself a Hindu. I have openly been an atheist since I was 10, and I've always been told that's Hinduism, too - at the "highest level" of Hinduism, there's no god belief at all. When Christian missionaries try to convert Hindus, they're often baffled to see Hindus listen interestedly to stories of Jesus and then cheerfully add a picture of Jesus to their list of Gods to worship.

I once challenged my father - who is very into Hindu philosophy - to make a single moral statement that would contradict Hinduism without a doubt. But a very popular interpretation of Hinduism is to believe that everybody, even murderers, thieves, rapists and lawyers, are here to do follow their Dharma (occupational principle) and do their Karma (ordained task), so they're never held *personally* responsible for their misdeeds. Hey, I'm a thief, this is what I do for a living! There are judges and gaolers and policemen whose job it is to throw thieves in jail, sure, but it's all as impersonal as can be, and ideally, nobody is supposed to harbour ill feelings towards anybody else.

It's very frustrating. It's also the reason why it's impossible to debate a Hindu. '

 

[2-0-NINE]

When Christian missionaries try to convert Hindus, they're often baffled to see Hindus listen interestedly to stories of Jesus and then cheerfully add a picture of Jesus to their list of Gods to worship.

This one made me chuckle, and this is so true.

 

[XxtraMannish]

im not even talking about religion, im talking about a creator, and default position is the position u start at, which is undecided, your claim is there is no creator, my claim is i think there is

I don't mean to speak for him or put words in his mouth but I think his position is more along the lines of being unconvinced by the evidence (or lack thereof) supporting the existence of a god, not necessarily that there is no possible way that one exists.