1. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #12004 by Daneurl on December 9, 2006 at 7:07 am

To Loren Petrich:

I think I wrote that in a wrong way. Bertrand Russell fell under the spell that there might be "something else" not religion or God as such but just "something", not heaven or hell but doubt?
You're right I can't prove it, but you can't prove existence or inexistence can you? And neither can Dawkins, in his chapter on memes in the selfish gene I thought he was waxing evangelical for a while, Dawkins is a scientist but not everything can be proved by science. Epistemological arguements have been raging for centuries about "empiricism", and other forms of knowlegde that Dawkins is adhering to, so he is putting himself in a corner, what do you expect? He is defending his postion from religious sycophants and probably fed up with it. I am not religious and I agree with his 5 points above that started this "blog", I find that on the whole many people are very "fanatical" (black and white) and should reason more. However, I stated my view wrongly and you rightly put me in my place, but I have to say overall from viewing some arguments here I do not agree with dawkins with his "absolutism" towards atheism. Science has given us boundaries but there are still so many questions that are left undiscovered, what gets me is that people still think that the world is "solved" just because science has one theory about life on earth? How absurd. I think science will change and evolve into something else in the future and Dawkins will be seen as one of its "fundamentalist" progenitors, or one of those "silly" ones who thought they knew it all. Wait for physics and philosophy to catch up with the "child" of biology. Science is the "opium of the masses" at the moment, hence what can we expect?