The debate was held and funded by Campus for Christ. Ferrous, (weclome!) I don't agree that it's a problem to hold the debate. If it were evolution vs creationism, I wold agree. But it wasn't, it was "Does God exist?" That's a different question.
Thanks! I seem to be making myself right at home.
Anyhow: My issue with the debate is that it isn't really a debate at all. Campus for Christ has shills like Michael Horner that do nothing but go to campuses and hold these events which are nothing more than vehicles for their propaganda. If they decided on a question that could actually be effectively argued in an hour or so (or at all) they'd risk losing, so they stick to generalities that no one can really contest because they're completely empty of meaning. The umbrella organization behind C4C (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ until someone reminded them that synonyms for "killing brown people" were no longer fashionable) is called Power to Change Ministries. They have numerous ways of insinuating themselves into situations where stating outright that they want everyone in the fucking world to be christian might raise eyebrows. Michael Horner and his colleague William Lane Craig both push really hard for creationist views while denying all ties to creationism.
This has been the tactic since the inception of the wedge strategy and ID branding; push the very same religious ideas and insist that they are in no way religious, but brilliant scientific theories being supressed by the dogmatic scientific establishment. Couching things in the terms "Does God Exist" similarly distances the packaging from their actual agenda, which is hard-line evangelical christianity and nothing else. Saying otherwise is a crock of shit and they know it.
Edit: Hey Agentbob what's the deal with your gender???
I still find it funny how the god-lovers find it SO outlandish that single-celled organisms from 4 billion years ago may have evolved over time via genetic mutation and variation, while some organisms along the way were selected out for not being able to adapt....yet they can believe that an almighty man in the sky just decided to create all of this one day...and it seems to make more sense to them.
What ever happened to logic?
I hope you remember this "almighty man" the next time a loved one of yours is hanging onto their life by a thread. Your shallow interpretation of your own existence is amusing, if you didn't see your penis with your own two eyes you wouldn't even know you had one in the first place!
I hope you remember this "almighty man" the next time a loved one of yours is hanging onto their life by a thread. Your shallow interpretation of your own existence is amusing, if you didn't see your penis with your own two eyes you wouldn't even know you had one in the first place!
The fact someone refers to god as a man in the clouds blah blah is the stupidest comment you can make. I think people like that watched too many cartoons to actually believe that. You can form an opinion for evolution, fine, but clearly you only see one side of the argument if you think god lives in a cloud. Just because you don't see eye to eye with someone else doesn't mean you can write off every religion to such a primitive view. Your justification for the existence of god or lack thereof stems from a shallow observation. It seems you just take the obvious side of the argument with nothing to back you up because you actually think god lives in a cloud..
I don't care what you believe, but if you look at christianity, hinduism, islam, buddhism, judaism, etc etc and the billions who follow one of those religions, there is no one single interpretation of "god" so don't generalize creationism into such a ludicrous interpretation.
[snip] ...Just because you don't see eye to eye with someone else doesn't mean you can write off every religion to such a primitive view.
No, but the fact that the only ones that are remotely acceptable are the ones that have been deliberately adjusted to modern thought does say something.
mrw8;47025 said:
Your justification for the existence of god or lack thereof stems from a shallow observation. It seems you just take the obvious side of the argument with nothing to back you up because you actually think god lives in a cloud..
Oh, I see; you're blowing up over an obviously sarcastic summary of an opinion that was obviously derived from such shallow observations as actual theology and recorded history. Carry on then.
mrw8;47025 said:
I don't care what you believe,
Could have fooled me.
mrw8;47025 said:
...but if you look at christianity, hinduism, islam, buddhism, judaism, etc etc and the billions who follow one of those religions, there is no one single interpretation of "god" so don't generalize creationism into such a ludicrous interpretation.
Yeah, so at a bare minimum all but one of them is wrong.* Which one is it? Is it Islam? Christianity? And even if it it is one or the other, what kind? It it Wahabi Islam? Pentacostal Christianity? Shinto Budhism? They all hold beliefs that are mutually incompatible, and anyone who adheres to one is already an atheist about all of the others. Non-theists just go one god further.
*I first saw this thought articulated in this way by Sam Harris.
Yes, I watched it. There's a shadow of truth to it in that Christianity, like all the Abrahimic religions, is descended from earlier pagan cults. This is pretty well known and not really contested except by Christians whose theology is dependent on biblical literalism, or who just don't like the idea that their beliefs came about just like everyone else's. The details/astrology stuff is essentially complete bullshit.
Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman is a really good real about early the early years of Christianity, especially as it relates to the various scriptures. It's also available on electronic resources so I highly recommend it. Obviously a lot of people contest Ehrman's claims, but he's done a lot of thoroughly cited research, unlike wacky internet documentaries.
Here are some good guidlines for telling if someone is full of shit: Talking about numerology? Full of shit. Illuminati? Full of shit. New World Order? Full of shit. 9/11 conspiracy, anti vaccination, alien abduction/UFOs, cryptozoology, Da Vinci code stuff, alternative medicine, or anything even remotely related to the name "Lyndon Larouche"? Completely full of shit.
There's tons more but these are all ideas that have gotten some traction on the internet because someone has found a way to make them sound plausible. Which is not to say your question about Zeitgeist was stupid; the claims in the movie have some (though not a lot of) truth to them. Frankly they could have told the actual truth and it would be just as interesting.
There is a real simple summary here that makes the any biblical document not only unnecessary, but also not green and killing trees:
"Beyond a reasonable doubt when you die nothing happens, except that your carcass rots away. So don't risk the time you have on the planet being a douche. Treat people with respect and mind your own fucking business with things that ought not concern you."
All of these things feed off some desire to justify where we came from, why we exist, and finally what happens when we die-- but the funny part is, if we keep living like this, there won't be a future, and it will all be in vain.
Not enough people are concerned about the future, and prefer to live in the past, and in the now out of fear.
if you didn't see your penis with your own two eyes you wouldn't even know you had one in the first place!
Funny how this whole "proof" business works, isn't it?
If believing in an invisible giant makes you feel better, go ahead. I don't know nor do I care if he/she/it is out there, and I choose to live my life the same way whether it's out there or not.
The creationist position basically boils down to an argument from incredulity- "I find it hard to believe that there can be complicated things that weren't designed." That's it. If it looks like someone designed it then clearly someone did and that someone is, conveniently enough, whatever god the creationist believes in already. Roy Zimmerman can tell you all you need to know.
*This of course refers to anyone actually making this claim– if mrw8's insane word salad meant something else then... Oh who am I kidding, it's probably something equally retarded.
Creationist who makes that argument (ie evolution can't be observed) have a misconception of evolution. In fact, most creationists probably do.
By the way, we don't evolve directly from monkeys. I still have no idea why people think that way. We're cousins and share a common ancestor. That ancestor is the missing link.
No, there is no "missing link," per se, we have a very complete thread tracing human evolution from APES (not monkeys!!!) to the australopithecines to the homo genus.
The creationist position basically boils down to an argument from incredulity- "I find it hard to believe that there can be complicated things that weren't designed." That's it.
They find it more probable that complex things were designed. And it's true, but of course being more probable does not mean it is the case.
There are creationists out there who hold the view of "theistic evolution" where evolution may have taken place but that process is still due to the fiat of a supernatural being.
Plausible yes, probable no. Theistic evolution is just the god of the gaps trying to fit into smaller and smaller spaces. In any case it takes the existence of god as axiomatic: If god is responsible for everything, and evolution happens, then god is responsible for evolution. Makes sense.
They can continue to argue that god is responsible for whatever we don't know but it's only a matter of time until we have a better working model, and their way of thinking has never added anything to the discussion. Belief in god hasn't helped us develop new vaccines, or better understand cancer, or advance stem cell research, or discover the origin of life. Nor can it be tested or falsified. It's an empty rhetorical device that allows religious people to maintain a pretense of legitimacy in light of evidence increasingly at odds with their beliefs.
The idea is plausible, and is actually quite probable given the arguments in favour of it. And yes, it's just the god of the gaps (as there will always be gaps) which is why gods came up in the first place.
Theists can argue that god is responsible for what we both know and don't know. Belief in god has "helped" people in the past to "understand" diseases, cancer, origin of life, etc. It's true that their explanations are not correct, but it serves as an explanation nonetheless, which is what everyone's trying to find (a true one of course).
There's doesn't need to be an objective reason to exist, but some people are curious about it anyways. And don't we all have our own reasons/goals for living?
Lol, have you seen the state of the world? People dying daily from disease and hunger?
The world isn't some happy party, man up and accept the reality of the world. Not some god given paradise.
It's not depressing at all, there is no reason to exist, and thats why you give yourself a reason to exist. You don't live for some god you don't even know exists, live for yourself. Don't live on a crutch.
It's exhilarating actually, get out in the world, explore, live, don't judge other people going to hell because they are double crossing your god-- it's a waste of time.
Aspire to be a good person, don't judge other people because you disagree with things they do that displease your god. It's fine to disagree with someone if you actually care for their well being, but not if you don't care and think it's crossing your doctrine.
Shi2;47133 said:
There's doesn't need to be an objective reason to exist, but some people are curious about it anyways. And don't we all have our own reasons/goals for living?
I'm trying to differentiate between having a reason to discover the origin of life (ie: why do humans as a race exist) The answer to this I claim is nothing. So the whole creationism battle is fruitless, what do you gain of it?
I think what you mean though, I agree with. We should give ourselves reasons to exist, just not based on myths. If someone wants to aspire to be a good person because they want to be a good person thats great. They shouldnt aspire to be good because they will go to hell, how is that genuine or having someones motives pure?
the way i see it, our future is predetermined, we just can't see it
think of the game Age of Empires....the players can't see the whole map at once. And yes i try to be kind to others, but its hard when that kindness isn't returned.
The idea is plausible, and is actually quite probable given the arguments in favour of it. And yes, it's just the god of the gaps (as there will always be gaps) which is why gods came up in the first place.
No, it was plausible before there was any evidence either way. Now it's just silly. The gaps are closing and there is no positive evidence for the existence of a god; the burden of proof lies on believers and they can't deliver. Until they do their beliefs are worthy of no more serious consideration than Russel's Teapot.
Shi2;47125 said:
Theists can argue that god is responsible for what we both know and don't know.
First of all, we don't both know and not know anything; they're mutually exclusive and any claim to the contrary is mincing words. Theists can argue all kinds of things including that god exists because they can imagine he exists, but that doesn't mean it has a shred of merit.
Shi2;47125 said:
Belief in god has "helped" people in the past to "understand" diseases, cancer, origin of life, etc. It's true that their explanations are not correct, but it serves as an explanation nonetheless, which is what everyone's trying to find (a true one of course).
I suppose this is true if you consider "understanding" to mean exactly the same thing as "being wrong." I feel that there is a subtle difference between them, which is that they are opposites.
Edit:
An unflappable dimwit. said:
the way i see it, our future is predetermined, we just can't see it
Tell me more about things that you see that can't be seen.*
An unflappable dimwit. said:
think of the game Age of Empires....the players can't see the whole map at once. And yes i try to be kind to others, but its hard when that kindness isn't returned.
Ah yes, an IVT trademark: A meaningless conclusion drawn from a completely artificial and irrelevant analogy. It's amazing how much stupid you pack into so little space. According to your extremely novel theory we're just as likely to be involved in an actual game of Age of Empires as we are to be subjects of your deity. And seriously, bitching about how hard it is to be kind when the same courtesy isn't extended? Gaybashing aside (and it's a big thing to set aside) you a) are presumably okay with the idea of the vast majority of your peers burning in hell for all eternity since it's their fault for not believing exactly what you do and b) apparently have extreme difficulty with a subject dealt with at great length in the New Testament, which I believe is where you claim to derive your horrible morality. Once you advance your thinking into the 21st century you can play with the big kids witout getting hurt.
No, it was plausible before there was any evidence either way. Now it's just silly. The gaps are closing and there is no positive evidence for the existence of a god; the burden of proof lies on believers and they can't deliver. Until they do their beliefs are worthy of no more serious consideration than Russel's Teapot.
I suppose this is true if you consider "understanding" to mean exactly the same thing as "being wrong." I feel that there is a subtle difference between them, which is that they are opposites.
There is not any direct evidence for the non-existence of a god either. Science offers an alternative view to what the world is like. And the fact that the existence of a god is, in essence, not falsifiable, theists will always have this point to stand upon.
The burden of proof is actually not entirely on the theists as they already believe in some supernatural being. They do not need more proof and many are totally fine with others not holding the same view as they do. After all, some of them believe that it's not them that will go to hell. It's the atheists who are troubled by this and want proof of theism.
You know, understanding does not necessarily mean knowing the truth about the world. It means thinking that you know the truth about the world. So if I mention how some ancient greeks understand that the world is run by zeus and his god buddies, it means the ancient greeks think that that is what the world is truly like. The most we can say is that the ancient greeks understood the world wrongly in today's standards (but they did understand the world). Likewise, when we say we understand the world today, it means that we believe the world is really as it is described by current science (which may turn out to be wrong in the future).
FerrousWheel;47182 said:
First of all, we don't both know and not know anything; they're mutually exclusive and any claim to the contrary is mincing words.
Then take out the word 'both'. The phrase was supposed to mean knowledge that we know and knowledge that we don't know. You know...the mind needs to be constantly changing.
FerrousWheel;47182 said:
Tell me more about things that you see that can't be seen.*
I see that my dog is happy, but I cannot see the actual state of happiness.
No, there is no "missing link," per se, we have a very complete thread tracing human evolution from APES (not monkeys!!!) to the australopithecines to the homo genus.
Oops, my bad I do mean apes. I'm aware of the australopithecus. The missing link I was referring to was the ancestor of the earliest records of the hominid. The last I've heard about the link was Ororin tugenensis (sp?), which have some genetic similarities that shows it could have lived before the split between hominids and the apes.
The "missing link" is kind of a bad wording, and like you said, it's not really "missing". Just not established I guess.
FerrousWheel;47182 said:
Tell me more about things that you see that can't be seen.*
He's referring to an abstraction, not a literal sense.
The idea of God is beyond the realms of science. Like Dawkins have said, there needs to be a line between the two ideas, and that both ideas must respect each other and not cross that line. Science can't touch religion/faith, and faith shouldn't touch science (hah!). That's why atheists believes God doesn't exist given the context, not know God doesn't exist. Theist on the other hand, probably knows God exists.
I'm an Atheist, and I don't believe in God for numerous reasons, not just physical evidence.
Why would God give us free will and not expect us to use it? There are a lot of questions like these that I have never been given a proper answer to (God did it, he's testing you, do not question God's intention, whatever whatever). It's things like these that turns me away from the idea of religion.
There is not any direct evidence for the non-existence of a unicorns either. Science offers an alternative view to what the world is like. And the fact that the existence of a unicorns is, in essence, not falsifiable, unicornists will always have this point to stand upon.
The burden of proof is actually not entirely on the unicornists as they already believe in some supernatural being. They do not need more proof and many are totally fine with others not holding the same view as they do. After all, some of them believe that it's not them that will go to hell. It's the anunicornistsists who are troubled by this and want proof of unicornismism.
Shi2;47211 said:
You know, understanding does not necessarily mean knowing the truth about the world. It means thinking that you know the truth about the world.
So if I mention how some ancient greeks understand that the world is run by zeus and his god buddies, it means the ancient greeks think that that is what the world is truly like. The most we can say is that the ancient greeks understood the world wrongly in today's standards (but they did understand the world). Likewise, when we say we understand the world today, it means that we believe the world is really as it is described by current science (which may turn out to be wrong in the future).
No we have a word for this. The Greeks misunderstood the world. Today's standards are more effective than any previous standards in every quantifiable way.
Shi2;47211 said:
Then take out the word 'both'. The phrase was supposed to mean knowledge that we know and knowledge that we don't know. You know...the mind needs to be constantly changing.
To be fair, in light of your other claims I think my literal reading is at least plausible.
Shi2;47211 said:
I see that my dog is happy, but I cannot see the actual state of happiness.
Okay, feelings are subjective and unprovable. This isn't relevant because the claims made about god are empirical ones. An interventionist being (which is the only kind that would construct hell and spend time deciding who goes there) that created the world and kickstarted evolution and answers prayer is an empirical claim. These are claims about reality. If it's just the same as feelings then fine- we can agree that it's a bunch of stories people made up that has nothing to do with reality unless you define "reality" as "anything anyone has ever believed for any reason" which upon reflection I suppose you probably do.
The bottom line is that if there is no objective reality there is at the very least something that acts exactly like one, and with in this reality there is exactly one way of thinking that cures diseases and puts satellites in space. You can continue to equate all belief with genuine understanding, but if you use medicine when you get sick, and if you assume that SFU will be in the same location every day and therefore plan on going there instead of Langley or Calgary, and if when you leave a room you attempt do so by using the door and not the wall next to it, you are tacitly acknowledging that scientific thinking is effective that raw belief is not.
Agentbob said:
The idea of God is beyond the realms of science. Like Dawkins have said, there needs to be a line between the two ideas, and that both ideas must respect each other and not cross that line. Science can't touch religion/faith, and faith shouldn't touch science (hah!). That's why atheists believes God doesn't exist given the context, not know God doesn't exist. Theist on the other hand, probably knows God exists.
Can you find the exact quote where Dawkins said this? My understanding was that he was pretty opposed to Stephen Jay Gould's "NOMA" (non-overlapping magisteria) idea. In any case, I am for the reasons mentioned above.
There is not any direct evidence for the non-existence of a god either.
Hence the "you can't prove a negative" proverb. I'm wearing elephant repellent right now. How do I know it works? Because there's no elephant here. Prove me wrong.
The burden of proof is actually not entirely on the theists as they already believe in some supernatural being. They do not need more proof and many are totally fine with others not holding the same view as they do. After all, some of them believe that it's not them that will go to hell. It's the atheists who are troubled by this and want proof of theism.
Because many aren't totally fine with this. If theists want to make atheists believe that there is a God (as many do), then the burden of proof is on them.
Also, believing in something is not proof. I can believe the moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't make it so.
Comments
Anyhow: My issue with the debate is that it isn't really a debate at all. Campus for Christ has shills like Michael Horner that do nothing but go to campuses and hold these events which are nothing more than vehicles for their propaganda. If they decided on a question that could actually be effectively argued in an hour or so (or at all) they'd risk losing, so they stick to generalities that no one can really contest because they're completely empty of meaning. The umbrella organization behind C4C (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ until someone reminded them that synonyms for "killing brown people" were no longer fashionable) is called Power to Change Ministries. They have numerous ways of insinuating themselves into situations where stating outright that they want everyone in the fucking world to be christian might raise eyebrows. Michael Horner and his colleague William Lane Craig both push really hard for creationist views while denying all ties to creationism.
This has been the tactic since the inception of the wedge strategy and ID branding; push the very same religious ideas and insist that they are in no way religious, but brilliant scientific theories being supressed by the dogmatic scientific establishment. Couching things in the terms "Does God Exist" similarly distances the packaging from their actual agenda, which is hard-line evangelical christianity and nothing else. Saying otherwise is a crock of shit and they know it.
Edit: Hey Agentbob what's the deal with your gender???
I don't care what you believe, but if you look at christianity, hinduism, islam, buddhism, judaism, etc etc and the billions who follow one of those religions, there is no one single interpretation of "god" so don't generalize creationism into such a ludicrous interpretation.
No, but the fact that the only ones that are remotely acceptable are the ones that have been deliberately adjusted to modern thought does say something. Oh, I see; you're blowing up over an obviously sarcastic summary of an opinion that was obviously derived from such shallow observations as actual theology and recorded history. Carry on then. Could have fooled me. Yeah, so at a bare minimum all but one of them is wrong.* Which one is it? Is it Islam? Christianity? And even if it it is one or the other, what kind? It it Wahabi Islam? Pentacostal Christianity? Shinto Budhism? They all hold beliefs that are mutually incompatible, and anyone who adheres to one is already an atheist about all of the others. Non-theists just go one god further.
*I first saw this thought articulated in this way by Sam Harris.
Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman is a really good real about early the early years of Christianity, especially as it relates to the various scriptures. It's also available on electronic resources so I highly recommend it. Obviously a lot of people contest Ehrman's claims, but he's done a lot of thoroughly cited research, unlike wacky internet documentaries.
Here are some good guidlines for telling if someone is full of shit: Talking about numerology? Full of shit. Illuminati? Full of shit. New World Order? Full of shit. 9/11 conspiracy, anti vaccination, alien abduction/UFOs, cryptozoology, Da Vinci code stuff, alternative medicine, or anything even remotely related to the name "Lyndon Larouche"? Completely full of shit.
There's tons more but these are all ideas that have gotten some traction on the internet because someone has found a way to make them sound plausible. Which is not to say your question about Zeitgeist was stupid; the claims in the movie have some (though not a lot of) truth to them. Frankly they could have told the actual truth and it would be just as interesting.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt when you die nothing happens, except that your carcass rots away. So don't risk the time you have on the planet being a douche. Treat people with respect and mind your own fucking business with things that ought not concern you."
All of these things feed off some desire to justify where we came from, why we exist, and finally what happens when we die-- but the funny part is, if we keep living like this, there won't be a future, and it will all be in vain.
Not enough people are concerned about the future, and prefer to live in the past, and in the now out of fear.
If believing in an invisible giant makes you feel better, go ahead. I don't know nor do I care if he/she/it is out there, and I choose to live my life the same way whether it's out there or not.
Phil
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you're essentially saying that evolution doesn't happen because it can't be observed?
The creationist position basically boils down to an argument from incredulity- "I find it hard to believe that there can be complicated things that weren't designed." That's it. If it looks like someone designed it then clearly someone did and that someone is, conveniently enough, whatever god the creationist believes in already. Roy Zimmerman can tell you all you need to know.
*This of course refers to anyone actually making this claim– if mrw8's insane word salad meant something else then... Oh who am I kidding, it's probably something equally retarded.
By the way, we don't evolve directly from monkeys. I still have no idea why people think that way. We're cousins and share a common ancestor. That ancestor is the missing link.
There are creationists out there who hold the view of "theistic evolution" where evolution may have taken place but that process is still due to the fiat of a supernatural being.
They can continue to argue that god is responsible for whatever we don't know but it's only a matter of time until we have a better working model, and their way of thinking has never added anything to the discussion. Belief in god hasn't helped us develop new vaccines, or better understand cancer, or advance stem cell research, or discover the origin of life. Nor can it be tested or falsified. It's an empty rhetorical device that allows religious people to maintain a pretense of legitimacy in light of evidence increasingly at odds with their beliefs.
Theists can argue that god is responsible for what we both know and don't know. Belief in god has "helped" people in the past to "understand" diseases, cancer, origin of life, etc. It's true that their explanations are not correct, but it serves as an explanation nonetheless, which is what everyone's trying to find (a true one of course).
The world isn't some happy party, man up and accept the reality of the world. Not some god given paradise.
It's not depressing at all, there is no reason to exist, and thats why you give yourself a reason to exist. You don't live for some god you don't even know exists, live for yourself. Don't live on a crutch.
It's exhilarating actually, get out in the world, explore, live, don't judge other people going to hell because they are double crossing your god-- it's a waste of time.
Aspire to be a good person, don't judge other people because you disagree with things they do that displease your god. It's fine to disagree with someone if you actually care for their well being, but not if you don't care and think it's crossing your doctrine. I'm trying to differentiate between having a reason to discover the origin of life (ie: why do humans as a race exist) The answer to this I claim is nothing. So the whole creationism battle is fruitless, what do you gain of it?
I think what you mean though, I agree with. We should give ourselves reasons to exist, just not based on myths. If someone wants to aspire to be a good person because they want to be a good person thats great. They shouldnt aspire to be good because they will go to hell, how is that genuine or having someones motives pure?
think of the game Age of Empires....the players can't see the whole map at once.
And yes i try to be kind to others, but its hard when that kindness isn't returned.
Edit: Tell me more about things that you see that can't be seen.* Ah yes, an IVT trademark: A meaningless conclusion drawn from a completely artificial and irrelevant analogy. It's amazing how much stupid you pack into so little space. According to your extremely novel theory we're just as likely to be involved in an actual game of Age of Empires as we are to be subjects of your deity. And seriously, bitching about how hard it is to be kind when the same courtesy isn't extended? Gaybashing aside (and it's a big thing to set aside) you a) are presumably okay with the idea of the vast majority of your peers burning in hell for all eternity since it's their fault for not believing exactly what you do and b) apparently have extreme difficulty with a subject dealt with at great length in the New Testament, which I believe is where you claim to derive your horrible morality. Once you advance your thinking into the 21st century you can play with the big kids witout getting hurt.
*Actually don't, get out you are an idiot.
The burden of proof is actually not entirely on the theists as they already believe in some supernatural being. They do not need more proof and many are totally fine with others not holding the same view as they do. After all, some of them believe that it's not them that will go to hell. It's the atheists who are troubled by this and want proof of theism.
You know, understanding does not necessarily mean knowing the truth about the world. It means thinking that you know the truth about the world. So if I mention how some ancient greeks understand that the world is run by zeus and his god buddies, it means the ancient greeks think that that is what the world is truly like. The most we can say is that the ancient greeks understood the world wrongly in today's standards (but they did understand the world). Likewise, when we say we understand the world today, it means that we believe the world is really as it is described by current science (which may turn out to be wrong in the future). Then take out the word 'both'. The phrase was supposed to mean knowledge that we know and knowledge that we don't know. You know...the mind needs to be constantly changing. I see that my dog is happy, but I cannot see the actual state of happiness.
The "missing link" is kind of a bad wording, and like you said, it's not really "missing". Just not established I guess. He's referring to an abstraction, not a literal sense.
The idea of God is beyond the realms of science. Like Dawkins have said, there needs to be a line between the two ideas, and that both ideas must respect each other and not cross that line. Science can't touch religion/faith, and faith shouldn't touch science (hah!). That's why atheists believes God doesn't exist given the context, not know God doesn't exist. Theist on the other hand, probably knows God exists.
I'm an Atheist, and I don't believe in God for numerous reasons, not just physical evidence.
Why would God give us free will and not expect us to use it? There are a lot of questions like these that I have never been given a proper answer to (God did it, he's testing you, do not question God's intention, whatever whatever). It's things like these that turns me away from the idea of religion.
Okay, feelings are subjective and unprovable. This isn't relevant because the claims made about god are empirical ones. An interventionist being (which is the only kind that would construct hell and spend time deciding who goes there) that created the world and kickstarted evolution and answers prayer is an empirical claim. These are claims about reality. If it's just the same as feelings then fine- we can agree that it's a bunch of stories people made up that has nothing to do with reality unless you define "reality" as "anything anyone has ever believed for any reason" which upon reflection I suppose you probably do.
The bottom line is that if there is no objective reality there is at the very least something that acts exactly like one, and with in this reality there is exactly one way of thinking that cures diseases and puts satellites in space. You can continue to equate all belief with genuine understanding, but if you use medicine when you get sick, and if you assume that SFU will be in the same location every day and therefore plan on going there instead of Langley or Calgary, and if when you leave a room you attempt do so by using the door and not the wall next to it, you are tacitly acknowledging that scientific thinking is effective that raw belief is not. Can you find the exact quote where Dawkins said this? My understanding was that he was pretty opposed to Stephen Jay Gould's "NOMA" (non-overlapping magisteria) idea. In any case, I am for the reasons mentioned above.
Because many aren't totally fine with this. If theists want to make atheists believe that there is a God (as many do), then the burden of proof is on them.
Also, believing in something is not proof. I can believe the moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't make it so.
Phil