Comment by Apple on July 8, 2010 at 9:29pm

Yeah, I pretty much stopped when I read "purpose," too. These two questions are actually the same in the end. What is the "purpose" of existance? Well that is to serve a god. What is the purpose of this gods existance? There is none, it just is. Well, ocams razor cuts out the unnecessary extra step. Same with the creation of the universe we are in.

Comment by James on July 8, 2010 at 10:24pm

It seems that theists always seem to be fixated on the purpose question for some reason. There is no grand purpose, other than our own personal 'reasons for being'. The 'We don't know yet, but we're working on it' answer is certainly NOT faith. Faith is believing something without and often against evidence. 'I don't know' is honest and humble.

Comment by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on July 9, 2010 at 8:57am

The best explanation for these I have heard is "that we
don't have the answers yet, but we will". But what is that if not faith?
Jeez!! Why don't Christians ever get it! Faith is NOT an answer based on truth as much as a lazy way for cowards too afraid of the unknown to admit they don't know to make stuff up.

That is why I hold that Dawkins pushes a faith, despite his desperate
angst to convince the world he only runs on pure objective science."

This is the most common, and the most heinous Bullshit argument that theists use. They think... "I'll just say that atheism is a faith and I win!! Ha Ha!" Morons!! Atheism is NOT a faith!! We reject all kinds of faith because faith is not an answer! It is the forging of an answer by people too impatient, cowardly, or lazy to bother looking for the real answer!!

Comment by SouthernGent on July 10, 2010 at 12:23am

Theists never seem to understand scientist. When most scientist don't know they say they don't know, and when confronted with proof that their theory is wrong they will admit they were wrong.

Not blindly hanging onto a belief, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, and calling it faith.

Comment by Sophie on July 10, 2010 at 10:57am

That is why I hold that Dawkins pushes a faith, despite his desperate
angst to convince the world he only runs on pure objective science."


I thought the same thing sky.

Comment by Kirk Holden on July 10, 2010 at 8:02pm

I will not defend Dawkins as a philospher since I doubt that he has positioned his station as a philosopher of science and he likely thinks that any other kind of philosophy is a nearest route from his epistomological home base.

Dawkins does not state or imply that his answers or the answers of his scientific peers are ever, ever, ever, ever, ever FINAL or epistimological "closed" answers. His theocratic critics differ from this position. Authoritarian stooges believe and trust and depend upon certainty. They seek the balm in Gilead. Gilead is gone. Try to find it on Google maps. Get back to me on that.

Comment by Chetan D on July 10, 2010 at 9:07pm

That friend of yours isn't thinking the right way.

First, Dawkins believes we can find the answers. That belief is far more grounded and thorough in its entirety because it depends on rational, rigorous scientific work for years and years- even centuries.

the kind of "faith" your friend talks about requires no effort than to pray to some invisible dude in the sky.

Even if Dawkins' supposed prophecy is "faith", i'd choose that over any other faiths that exist.

Comment by Serotonin Wraith on July 12, 2010 at 4:05pm

There are good reasons for thinking we'll have the answers to life's mysteries in the future. The main one is that it's happened that way throughout human history, over and over again. It's a pattern hard to ignore.
Good reasons = not faith.

Comment