Intelligent Design program on PBS

[_JAK]

That is essentially his argument but it ain't compelling. When it comes to arguments for and against God, Richard Dawkins is unsophisticated.

That may be, but sophistication in God/No God arguments is IMHO overrated.

Lacking a need for God to explain anything at all in the Universe, and with no evidence that there is in fact a God anyway, human beings are perfectly justified in believing and acting as if there is no God. That's the message I take from Dawkins, and I think it's about all that's needed.

Theism's best argument: There's no possible way to disprove the existence of God.
Atheism's best argument: I'm not the one who needs to prove/disprove something.

If that’s the best argument theism can make, it’s entirely lacking in substance.

It’s not an argument but an assertion. It asserts God. Then attacks any challenge to it’s own failure to meet responsibility its own burden of proof.

Further, it tacitly attempts to shift the burden of proof with the implied claim: If the atheist cannot prove a negative to what I (the theist) claim as an affirmative, I win Hence, the theist claims truth by assertion.

Atheism (soft atheism) keeps the pressure on for evidence from the affirmative for the claim(s) the affirmative makes. The claim for God is not singular. A plethora of theistic constructions have been made. The real competition is among theists as they quarrel over whose theism is correct. Thus, the theists’ greatest opponents are the proclamations of other theists.

Islam is incompatable with Christianity for example. Then of course Christian theists are incompatable with other Christian theists.

JAK

[_The Dude]

Theism's best argument: There's no possible way to disprove the existence of God.
Atheism's best argument: I'm not the one who needs to prove/disprove something.

If that’s the best argument theism can make, it’s entirely lacking in substance.

Well you know the scripture, JAK.

Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the essence of things not seen.”

That's where theists are coming from: a place of wishful thinking that nobody can disprove.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Lacking a need for God to explain anything at all in the Universe, and with no evidence that there is in fact a God anyway, human beings are perfectly justified in believing and acting as if there is no God. That's the message I take from Dawkins, and I think it's about all that's needed.

I have a modicum of respect for the argument you advance here, even though I do not subscribe to it myself.

[_Sethbag]

Lacking a need for God to explain anything at all in the Universe, and with no evidence that there is in fact a God anyway, human beings are perfectly justified in believing and acting as if there is no God. That's the message I take from Dawkins, and I think it's about all that's needed.

I have a modicum of respect for the argument you advance here, even though I do not subscribe to it myself.

Thanks. If you read Dawkins, just remember that this is the underlying argument he's advancing, in my opinion, and that everything else is just added details, arguing either against claimed needs for God as an explanation or undermining evidence that there is in fact a God.

[_JAK]

Theism's best argument: There's no possible way to disprove the existence of God.
Atheism's best argument: I'm not the one who needs to prove/disprove something.

If that’s the best argument theism can make, it’s entirely lacking in substance.

Well you know the scripture, JAK.

Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the essence of things not seen.”

That's where theists are coming from: a place of wishful thinking that nobody can disprove.

You miss an important point.

1 Scripture is contradictory.
2 Religious claimants have the responsibility for burden of proof.
3 No one is required to “disprove” an assertion presented without evidence.

JAK