Search results for query: *

Really? You haven't heard about that AI voiceover program? Well done 4chan Autists. Looks like you bagged another tard.

When engaging in any discussion, or questions about existence, nature, and the universe, it is important to consider the value principle of scale, and of time-span. Human beings are prone to making rash decisions based on observable modes of functioning--in their own bodies etc. But actually...

Let's try something else: There is the belief in the possibility of a creator God--a prime mover. That is one position. Then there is the position of saying I know God exists, I can talk to it, I know how it wants me to behave, and what to eat, etc et al. Surely you can follow that there is at...

Are you saying that 6.9/7 is 100%? But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs. Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, "I think...

I can understand your frustration, but neither you nor Richard knows what Atheism means. Not believing in something, nor subscribing to it until the advent of more information is not Atheism.

Would it help if we moved off Dawkins and I explained to you why I consider myself to be agnostic?

In what way? It is not possible to occupy two oppositional positions concomitantly without constituting absurdity or an invalidation of one or more clauses of either position. He said it himself. He cannot be sure. If he is not entirely convinced that God does or doesn't exist, he is...

And yet, he said in an interview that he could not be sure that God didn't exist. He was mostly, but not entirely convinced of this. That was his assertion. Therefore, he does not know--or more accurately, posits that he cannot know. That is agnosticism.

There is whether I consider Richard to be an Atheist, and whether he does. I don't think he knows what he is. As it stands right now, he strikes me as an anti-theist who doesn't understand that he is technically agnostic. Perhaps this has always been the case. I don't know. This is your party...

It may be the case he once was, but it would appear that is not the case now.

I do not know. I had assumed he had not wavered from 100% conviction in the non-existence of deities, but this does not seem to be the case.

You're stuck in an infinite loop. I have already told you, I am not familiar enough with his entire catalogue of work to know the answer to this question. Or to venture an opinion on it. For the sake of things moving forward, let's functionally assume that I have. This is obviously the answer...

Correct. It is at least my opinion that he is not.

But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs. Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, "I think the probability of a supernatural...

That scenario wouldn't happen. But yes, if the subject was broached, I would take the position I am taking now that he is technically agnostic. He just doesn't understand this.

He's certainly anti-theist in the postmodern rallying against organised religion sense of that term. But that is not the same thing as being an Atheist. Atheism is the convicted belief that deities do not or cannot exist. As definitions go, it is quite narrow. If one moves out of this, they...

I don't know. He strikes me as more of a technocratic secular humanist.

Or perhaps you're going to tell me that atheism simply means a lack of belief in any established deities/faiths, whilst taking a punt on the big question of a prime mover, or creator.

I've no idea. I'm not in his fan club. What I do understand is that Richard doesn't know what Atheism and Agnosticism are.