Richard Dawkins says there is no god

Richard Dawkins: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God

My scientific colleagues have additional reasons to declare emergency. Ignorant and absolutist attacks on stem cell research are just the tip of an iceberg. What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality, and the Enlightenment values that inspired the founding of this first and greatest of secular republics. Science education - and hence the whole future of science in this country - is under threat. Temporarily beaten back in a Pennsylvania court, the ‘breathtaking inanity’ (Judge John Jones’s immortal phrase) of ‘intelligent design’ continually flares up in local bush-fires. Dowsing them is a time-consuming but important responsibility, and scientists are finally being jolted out of their complacency. For years they quietly got on with their science, lamentably underestimating the creationists who, being neither competent nor interested in science, attended to the serious political business of subverting local school boards. Scientists, and intellectuals generally, are now waking up to the threat from the American Taliban.

I believe in god. Not because of a faith but logic, it's makes sense. What is the primal cause of existence? It may just be a full spectrum of energy, basic powerful and sublime in its existence. In being so, it appears to be an equally a creative and destruction force which maintains equilibrium, this being evolutionary process on a scale we cannot comprehend. It may be as simple as binary interpolation of energy.



Dawkins quotes in the article:

As the distinguished American physicist Steven Weinberg said, "If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." But don't expect congregations to flock to your church.

Perfect, my theology cannot include congregations! They say primitive cavemen (Uh, cavepersons) and Hindus believe "god" is a part of all things, this is heresy to most.

There are religions that do not require you to believe in a god, but are simply ethics for living and minimizing suffering and the human condition. The real fault of Western Religions is suspending logic in favor of faith to accept a gray-haired old man who speaks to a chosen few and in the literal interpretation of "sacred texts" rather than by its merit or symbolism. Modern religions are devoid of ethics and exist as the lowest level of human control for manipulating people for personal gain. I would be a Buddhist, Taoist or Gnostic but not a fundamentalist of any religion. Man creates it's own problems and must also correct them or else be sent to the universal bit bucket. If anything evil, it's governments and religion or any organization that promotes willful violence and unnecessary destruction. Evil is simply error, man creates it and it's a lack of equilibrium. We do exhibit characteristics of a virus in that we consume more than we create. Religion is a meme that is virus of consciences.

You can't be religious if you don't believe, you can't believe without faith. Logic and reason often contradicts faith. You must accept contradictory arguments and stories (Thou shall not kill, but god can kill or tell you to kill on it's behalf). You must yield to another's self-proclaimed authority that cannot be verified and abstract. Don't they institutionalize people for this?

Dawkin's doesn't have to believe in god. God may exist regardless of his belief. It's perception that makes people believe in a god that would send him into hell for his disbelief. This is simply manufacturing a god that fulfills an ideology based on a personal belief of what god should be or is, within a limited understanding of their environment. Simply believing in god (if it doesn't exist) is far more dangerous because a committee that can be contradictory to natural human development designs it. I would say this god would be just as belligerent and malevolent as we, because it is simply a mirror of our collective behavior based on what we observe and understand.

God is most likely the sum total of energy, known and unknown. We cannot deny energy exists. Although we cannot see it we are aware of it via it's application, or effect. You exist because of a cause unknown to you. We may never know, but we still exist. Is there a morality in energy or in it's application? You and I have consciousness, whether it is simple electrical biological signals it exists and may change state, yet still exists. Not being a Buddhist, I can admire the fact it does not require the belief in a god, since it's immaterial to improving the human condition.

I don't know if god exists or doesn't. I don't think god would have to prove it. A god that required belief without providing evidence to support it, seems to be a malevolent entity and implies a plurality of gods, which seems to be confirmed by, "That shalt not worship other gods, for I am a jealous god." Would you worship the mid-level manager or the Great Spirit?

I find it odd that people who come to do "gods work" by teaching ethics, love, forgiveness and equality and that the world is an illusion are usually the ones killed. If you make claims of, speak or hear god and ask for money, you are an authority and to be respected among men.

"I'm just an ole lump of coal, but I'll be a diamond someday."
--Jon Anderson, Country Musician