I’m curious to see how you support this statement

Atheism lacks intellectual credibility.

Atheism, the assertion that gods do not exist, lacks credibility to the extent that science is unable to confirm it. Insofar as science deals only with the physical universe, and the hypothetical gods are not of the physical universe, the atheist lack of credibility should be considered 100%.

I would in fact argue the opposite. Atheism is based on the accumulated evidence of science and our senses which has never shown the existence of a deity of any description.

Your conclusion (i.e., atheism) is not supported by the premises. The premises science provide support agnosticism. As I am sure you know, Dawkins attacks agnosticism with his usually dose of name-calling, but not with any logically sound arguments.

Yes we can not definitively say god does not exist

Then why not drop the intellectual unsound atheism and join me on the green grass of agnosticism?

as we also cant say that on the opposite side of the sun there is not a very nice cafe that serves good coffee

Due to the physical nature of that proposition, I am sure we could come up with some solid probabilities in regard to the existence of a cafe. (I’m sure there will be a Starbucks there soon if indeed it were possible.)

The odds of a supernatural being, on the other hand, are by definition impossible to calculate using knowledge of the physical realm. It’s entirely reasonable, given the absence of knowledge of a non-physical realm, to disregard the very concept of it. But here is where intellectual honesty comes in: Disregarding a concept is not identical to affirming its non-existence. One is agnosticism, one is atheism, and atheism lacks the proof of nonexistence to support its assertion that gods do not exist.

But the odds of this are so small as to be near 0, therefore an intellectual weighing up of the information surely would lead one to decide there is no god.

In order to arrive at any specific probability of the existence of god, we would need to be able to be in possession of knowledge of the non-physical. We do not have knowledge of the non-physical, so I think it’s safe to dismiss the stated odds.

Now if you as you state god exists in a spiritual universe, but you can’t present any evidence for it, then why not also one full of pixies, unicorns. the ancient greek gods etc?

Intellectual honesty requires us to differentiate knowledge supported by fact from belief. People can believe that gods exist as religious people do; they can believe that gods do not exist, like Dawkins. But when you attempt to classify that belief as knowledge, you do so in order to invest it with authority. That’s when we should get scared.

We do not know that pixies exist, nor do we know that they do not. Same goes for any other supernatural proposition. This is not so much about gods as it is about epistemology.

These are just as likely as one with your god sitting out there. If a god existed that we could not see, sense or interact with on any level and has no discernible impact on our reality then what is the point of such a being?

A good question, perhaps, but one I’m not particularly interested in. When we can neither prove or disprove the existence of a phenomenon, I don’t see particular merit in discussing the meaningfulness of the proposed existence.

I agree with Richard Dawkins in that the teaching of Creationism and other religious based interpretations is indeed harmful to a childs understanding of the world.

I think you underestimate the human intellect. The human intellect, on its average day, seeks truth. A lot of people who were taught the young earth theories have abandoned those theories without much fanfare at all when presented with the evidence for evolution. Indeed, people teach their children to believe in Santa Claus, and I see no harm in that. Of course, some irrational extremists are likely to claim as Dawkins does that it is “child abuse”, but we can dismiss those absurd suggestions without a second thought on the matter.

These are not science, they are philosophy and should be taught as such.

I would call them religion, and think that they should be taught as such.

To teach these as having any sort of scientific validity is wrong and misleading. Keep the faith based schools, but it needs to be ensured that science is taught as such not as what a brand of faith would like it to be.

I agree with that 100%.

Personally I have no problem with people believing privately whatever they like but its when they decide to interfere in the affairs of others that I object.

Tell Dawkins that. He is responding to totalitarianism of a few religious people by proposing a totalitarianism of his own.

Keep science and religion separate and we will all be happier.

Agreed.

Oh, I do agree that there is a dividing line between thought and action. People can’t be punished for their thoughts its by their actions that the law can judge them.

Agreed.

And people say I’m not an agreeable guy?!

I’m curious to see how you support this statement

Atheism lacks intellectual credibility.

I would in fact argue the opposite. Atheism is based on the accumulated evidence of science and our senses which has never shown the existence of a deity of any description. Yes we can not definitively say god does not exist, as we also cant say that on the opposite side of the sun there is not a very nice cafe that serves good coffee. But the odds of this are so small as to be near 0, therefore an intellectual weighing up of the information surely would lead one to decide there is no god.

Now if you as you state god exists in a spirtual universe, but you can’t present any evidence for it, then why not also one full of pixies, unicorns. the ancient greek gods etc? These are just as likely as one with your god sitting out there. If a god existed that we could not see, sense or interact with on any level and has no discernible impact on our reality then what is the point of such a being?

I agree with Richard Dawkins in that the teaching of Creationism and other religious based interpretations is indeed harmful to a childs understanding of the world. These are not science, they are philosophy and should be taught as such. To teach these as having any sort of scientific validity is wrong and misleading. Keep the faith based schools, but it needs to be ensured that science is taught as such not as what a brand of faith would like it to be.

Personally I have no problem with people believing privately whatever they like but its when they decide to interfere in the affairs of others that I object. Keep science and religion seperate and we will all be happier.

Oh, I do agree that there is a dividing line between thought and action. People can’t be punished for their thoughts its by their actions that the law can judge them.

Not surprisingly, I come across ‘uninformed emotion’ 95% of the time in these type of discussions, but am always pleased to discover controlled reason that weighs all sides of the evidence. THAT’S where any eventual truth will be found.

It’s always interesting to ask a fist-pounding Biblical fundamentalist if he believes Noah and his sons spawned all the various skin colors and nationalities on earth today - Chinese, Brazilian, Middle-Eastern, Irish, African, European, etc. (Of course they do.) And then to ask them to consider that THAT - the various traits of each race/nationality - is microevolution.

It is equally interesting to ask a macroevolutionary atheist if he believes that, over billions of years, an intelligent species could evolve, from a simple life form to a life form that creates and controls machines on distant moons and planets with radio waves. (Of course he does.) And then to ask them to consider that THAT - the creation and control of machines on other planets by highly evolved beings - is very similar to the Judeo/Christian/Muslim definition of “God” or “Angel.”

However, if, say, in 3760 through 3850 AD, someone found my memo, and there were now, in fact, dozens and dozens of tsunami’s; the moon was now disintegrating rapidly from earth’s rampant radio waves; and the tribal religion Karazi, as taught to pagans way back in the year 2007 AD, was now commonly spoken of on the earth and on the moon; scientists would find the chances of my ancient prediction coming true statistically improbable and worthy of great study.

And yet, due to (???????), many choose today to ignore these facts:

Fact 1: The last passages of Bible were written no more recently than 300 AD. This is 1700 years ago. This is commonly accepted by scholars, historians, and literary critics.

Fact 2: Humans now, for the first time in history, have the capacity to wipe every last one of themselves off the face of the earth. While global warming is one debatable method, nuclear war is a certain method. Not only do the vast majority of “people far less intelligent than scientists” believe this, even scientists themselves believe this. This is proven, able to be tested for falseness, not false, and commonly observed today throughout the world.

Fact 3: At the same time, earthquakes occur regularly in this generation, as they’ve always had the capacity to. But the fact remains that earthquakes, do, indeed, occur regularly. This is proven, able to be tested for falseness, not false, and commonly observed today throughout the world.

Fcat 4: The teachings of one man from circa 30 AD, who started a very small group of only dozens to promote those teachings, are now promoted and spoken to every nation on earth. In fact, followers of those teachings number close to 25% of the entire world population. Many of these nations today were not even known to exist by the man who originally promoted these teachings. This is proven, able to be tested for falseness, not false, and commonly observed today throughout the world.

And here’s my bottom line:

Fact 5: The same man, in the same Bible, said 1700 years ago, that Facts 2, 3 and 4 would all occur at the same time, just as they are today.

Your thoughts are not disorganized. You are quite lucid and articulate. You appear to me to be a better spokesman for the concept of atheism than Dawkins himself.

When teaching math to my second grader, the teacher does not, when my child asserts that “2+2=3″, scream “Imbecile! Idiot! F*%$ off!” as Dawkins and others do. Instead, the teacher calmly lays 2 oranges and 2 apples next to each other and says, “Go ahead. Count them yourself. Let’s see what we come up with.” In fact, if the teacher became emotional at all, a parent would be horrified at the lack of self-control and mystified as to why the teacher doesn’t simply display facts and evidence.

I am continuously horrified and mystified at grown adults shouting at each other over God existing or not existing. The volume of one’s voice or acidity of one’s rebuttals never highlights a truth or fact. Even on the impersonal internet, sarcasm, mockery, drama and hyperbole cloud the real issues, and make me think that their rhetoric is only smoke and mirrors attempting to cover baseless claims. When calm, rational persons such as yourself present information, however, those truly interested or trying to learn can more readily accept information.

Keep doing what you’re doing. Perhaps there is a God, who wishes you to get others to think. Perhaps there is not, and your selfish gene is only acting to evolve itself into a species of living things that more effectively rationalize their observations than they do now. Either way, your manner is more conducive to progress for our current species.

Yes, but in growing up within a certain culture, aren’t you, to some degree, biased toward that culture, without making a conscious choice? I’m just saying that one can be born into a culture that influences one’s manner of thinking. It need not involve religion or atheism at all, but simply a way of thought. I think everyone should be aware of the differing opinions of other cultures, but the culture one is raised in is the one that is likely to provide one with moral/ethical/religious values. And since there is no conscious choice to be born into a certain culture and taught it’s ways, by Dawkins’ logic, shouldn’t the teaching of a certain mentality to children be illegal also?

And I am also atheist, as I already stated, and I didn’t come to be one through indoctrination, and I don’t think many did. However, I’m simply wondering what people like Dawkins would think if people were being indoctrinated as atheists.