That's a bizarre statement, Extropian.

>>Religion will always have the upper hand while self-styled atheists dither about degrees of certainty.<<

Anyone who self-styles themselves as an atheist cannot have "degrees of certainty", just as one cannot be pregnant by degrees. Each is a binary state.

Be that as it may, my point was that any attempt to discuss the existence of God with a religious person is both sterile and frustrating. It is like a monolingual Australian and a monolingual Inuit negotiating a peace treaty.

In Swahili.

>>Humankind is not different from nature, it is entirely within and an integral component of the natural world.<<

Absolutely. That is precisely the point at which the atheist and the theist arguments diverge. And since this is actually the starting place of any discussion, the lack of effective communication can only be comprehensive.

After all the diatribe off the subject I would suggest the question is moot. Why would God have saved him anyway?

David

Pericles writes; "Anyone who self-styles themselves as an atheist cannot have "degrees of certainty", just as one cannot be pregnant by degrees. Each is a binary state."

It seems that you have little familiarity with Dawkins' public admissions that science and logic prohibit him from asserting that he is 100% certain that gods do not exist. I extrapolated from that to observe that he is a 97% god-free atheist, as are most, if not all, of his scientific colleagues. But, IMHO, he is and they are wrong. Where the phenomena of gods are placed in an infinite hierarchy leads to insoluble absurdity. There is no end to infinity, it is open at both ends or it is an impenetrable intellectual thicket. I prefer the former over the latter but it is irrelevant as to what shape it takes on. The former makes the concept easier to visualise as a sort of meandering line where no thing is fixed in any one place.

I admit that the notion of a "hierarchy" in this is something of a misnomer for in an infinite hierarchy there can be no permanent and fixed positions because there is no fixed point from which to begin a count. We end in striving to extract credibility from absurdity. I maintain that neither science nor logic profit from having to take such into any consideration.

It follows with an elegant inevitability [as Sir Humphrey would say] that divesting one's self of the "Dawkins Burden" of uncertainty is not only logical, it is required!

You are quite correct, Extropian1.

>>It seems that you have little familiarity with Dawkins' public admissions that science and logic prohibit him from asserting that he is 100% certain that gods do not exist.<<

But to me, Dawkins is just another bandwagon-rider, trading on his pallid punditry in order to make some kind of living. Turning atheism into some kind of "movement" is the absolute pinnacle of self-aggrandisement, to the point where it turns a simple enough concept - there is no God - into a parody of itself.

>>I extrapolated from that to observe that he is a 97% god-free atheist, as are most, if not all, of his scientific colleagues.<<

I'd be interested to view the mathematics that led you to that conclusion. How are you able to identify the 3% theism? And in what way does that 3% differ from the full 100%?

I can only conclude that "the Dawkins Burden of uncertainty" is just an invention of yours. Right down to the spurious accuracy of its calculation.

Pericles, Grateful et al.

It might also be germane to point out that often, much injustice has been carried out in the name of God. Presumably, if God is so powerful, He would not stand idly by and allow this to happen. Surely this alone brings into question, the very existence of God.

David

Pericles writes; " Turning atheism into some kind of "movement" is the absolute pinnacle of self-aggrandisement, to the point where it turns a simple enough concept - there is no God - into a parody of itself."

Sometimes we are called upon by circumstances over which we have no control to defend our convictions. For an atheist, one of the convictions that needs almost constant vigilance over is the sustained hostility held by those of religious faith toward any aspect of people's lives not already saturated with or governed by religion. Government in general and education in particular receive their constant attention. If you are unaware of this then you live on another planet. Brutal wars are being fought as we write over these issues.

Atheism as a "movement", a cause, an ideal, was made so not by atheists but by those offended by the atheist's existence. For myself, I would rejoice in not being assailed by religion's tentacled presence and influence every day. Yet I have no choice but to accord a respect demanded but not reciprocated. The faithful have created the faith of atheism and the religion of science.

Accusations of self-aggrandisement are misdirected and rejected. The glib simplicity you adopt is an abrogation of the right to independent thought without fear of penalty or retribution by government. Religious faith's persistent attacks on that freedom are pervasive and seldom recognised until it is almost too late. Not many centuries ago such independence attracted the most awful retribution, particularly for women. Give religious faith free rein and those times may return.