Why is Richard Dawkins no longer an atheist?

Why is Richard Dawkins no longer an atheist?

The so-called number one atheist. Foundation for Reason and Science to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based. Who said it is time to leave superstition behind and embrace the beauty and challenges of the world without supernatural beings.

Who wrote the book "the god delusion"...

Has faith in an invisible entity!

The big bang theory was actually originally modeled by a Christian, before a university created into what we now know it as. He based his work off Albert Eistein's theory of relative. Who in turned said he added a static variable because he didnt believe it was correct which he later considered the biggest mistake in his life. Eistein later himself even said to his class why it's more logical to believe in a creator of the universe. While he wasn't religious, he considered Atheists as blindsided.

Athiesm is now left with a faith they believing in, created by the very people that they mock and an intelligent person that even said they where possibly wrong and illogical to rule it out. The Big Bang Theory has a logical holes in it, which Atheists fulled up and proved by believing in something also invisible known as Dark Matter/Energy.

Basically, dark matter cannot be seen -- scientists can only estimate where it is based on gravitational effects on what they can see. Yet they believe in makes up at least 86% of the universe?

Therefore both have faith in something invisible which happens to work the same way. Which created the entire universe, reachs out and touchs it all, shapes, mounds and forms it, recycles the particles, controls the gravity and is even inside us and all around us.

Believes in Jesus!

Apart from the New Testament, there's also non-christian resources outside of the bible that also speak and confirm of this Jesus...

Such as first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, Pliny the Younger, The Babylonian Talmud, Tacitus, Talmud, Thallus, Josephus, Lucian, plus all the Gnostic writings, etc.

We can tell from that, even without using the bible, Jesus was real, his abilities unknown but thought to be of magic or miracle, and he had thousands of happy followers willing to die and be tortured just for not denying Him as their Lord. He was a known healer and teached people morals/beliefs. His death was real, this resurrection remains unknown.

It seems even evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins can't deny Jesus. Even he considers him as a great intellient person, but says 'ohh he must of been Atheist'.

So why is Richard Dawkins, number one atheist, now is even refusing to be called atheist and has become agnostic, unsure if God is real or not, after doing a little scientific, critical thinking and evidence-based research?


No, Im not kidding you, for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Ca...

Update 2:

godless - get your facts straight... there's massives amounts of proof of Jesus, even atheist historians believe in Jesus.

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Update 3:

Under Herod, and during the reign of Tiberius, Pontius Pilate condemned Christ to die, (Tacitus)

Christ was crucified on the eve of Passover, (the Talmud)

His crucifixion was accompanied by three hours of unexplained darkness, (Thallus)

Christ's disciples, "reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;", (Josephus)

His disciples took to the habit of meeting on a fixed day of the week and took their name "Christians" from him, (Pliny)

They gave worship to Christ "as to a god", (Pliny)

Update 4:

They bound themselves over to abstaining from wicked deeds, fraud, theft, adultery, and lying, (Pliny)

Christians held a contempt for death and were known for a voluntary self-devotion, (Lucian)

Christians believed themselves all brothers from the moment of their conversion, (Lucian)

Christians lived after Christ's laws, (Lucian)

Christians were willingly tortured and even executed for their refusal to deny their belief in the resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ. (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian)

Update 5:

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

How much proof do you need?

28 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm not sure if you know you're lying or not. Either way, it's pretty pathetic.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    He many times says he's a technical agnostic in view which you are able to't be one hundred% specific there is not any god. yet he has additionally pronounced that as he's ninety 9.9% specific, that is plenty less complicated to in straightforward terms say he's an atheist. Technically, you are able to't be one hundred% specific that fairies and unicorns do no longer exist, via fact that is only approximately impossible to instruct a unfavorable. yet maximum logical persons are a-unicornists. A reasonable correction - there is no longer "little or no evidence", there is not any evidence in any respect. no longer a single shred. this is of course, why non secular varieties grab at any tiny hint there combatants may well be relenting. no rely how of course incorrect.

  • 8 years ago

    You are being deliberately dishonest. Why? Because you are motivated by your religious agenda. You furnish proof that morals does not come from religion or belief in God and that immorality can and does occur because of religious motivation.

    Dawkins only said that he cannot definitively say there is no God. He was speaking is abosolute technical terms. He was not admitting to belief in God just humbly acknowledging that it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that no God exists. It doesn't change the fact that he does not believe in God.

  • Paul
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Little late to the party, here.

    He's always ben technically an agnostic, but calls himself an atheist because it's a pretty good shorthand for where he stands on the scale of belief.

    And dark matter is god now?

    Because Richard Dawkins, who by the way is an evolutionary biologist and not an astronomer, believes people who tell him 80% of the universe is unnacounted for, that means he also believes in God?

    Perhaps your carer should take you away from the computer now before you hurt yourself by trying to eat it or something.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • What complete nonsense. In the first place, Richard Dawkins has NEVER described himself as anything but an atheist. He is NOT agnostic.

    In the second place, none of you spin about missing information, or Einsteins comments or anything else has anything to do with the fact that atheists do not believe in God. Dark matter HAS been observed, mathematically and through its effects on the expansion of the universe. Something does not have to be visible to the eye in order to be real. There are many ways to observe the universe.

  • 8 years ago

    *Your question and reasons are misleading.* Agnosticism and Atheism are different properties.

    Why does Dawkins admit Agnosticism?: Given the evidence and data we have, any RATIONAL person would admit that Agnosticism is the only valid position you can hold.

    Dawkins is still an Atheist. He still doesn't believe there is a God, but he admits what few people on this board seems to get: namely, that with our current level of inquiry and understanding of the Universe, we can not and do not KNOW if God exists or not.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    a good thing...

    Whether they have observed the hypocrisy of religion or not, many atheists simply cannot reconcile belief in God with the suffering in the world. Simone de Beauvoir once said: “It was easier for me to think of a world without a creator than of a creator loaded with all the contradictions of the world.”

    Do the world’s injustices—including those instigated by hypocritical religionists—prove that there is no God? Consider: If a knife is used to threaten, injure, or even murder an innocent person, does this prove that the knife had no designer? Does it not rather show that the object was put to a wrong use? Likewise, much of human grief gives evidence that humans are misusing their God-given abilities as well as the earth itself.

    Some, however, feel that it is illogical to believe in God, since we cannot see him. But what about air, sound waves, and odors? We cannot see any of these things, yet we know they exist. Our lungs, ears, and noses tell us so. Surely, we believe in what cannot be seen if we have evidence.

    After contemplating the physical evidence—including electrons, protons, atoms, amino acids, and the complex brain—natural scientist Irving William Knobloch was moved to say: “I believe in God because to me His Divine existence is the only logical explanation for things as they are.” (Compare Psalm 104:24.) Similarly, physiologist Marlin Books Kreider states: “Both as an ordinary human being, and also as a man devoting his life to scientific study and research, I have no doubt at all about the existence of God.”

    These men are not alone. According to physics professor Henry Margenau, “if you take the top-notch scientists, you find very few atheists among them.” Neither the advances of science nor the failure of religion need force us to abandon belief in a Creator.

    Hope it will help!

    We can talk further about it if you want, my S.K.Y.P.E name is dateecha

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I do this when I smoke weed sometimes. It all makes sense in my head then I write it all down and the next day I have no idea what the phuck I was thinking.

    Who gives a phuck what Richard Dawkins & Einstein think. I didn't even know Dawkins until you pricks started talking about him. I'm an atheist.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Prof. Dawkins does not believe that an invisible magic being exists, therefore he is an atheist. He also recognizes that there are thousands of possible gods, not all of which can be disproved. Therefore he is also an agnostic.

    It's easy to prove that Yahweh doesn't exist. Yahweh is typically defined as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and having free will. Such a god is internally and externally incongruent, and thus cannot logically exist. An omnipotent and omniscient god with free will can't exist, because it could not both know the future and change it. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent god can't exist and allow the true horrors that occur to sentient beings.

    As for any evidence that Jesus actually existed -- there is none. The evidence shows that Jesus is just a mythical character and never existed.

    For Jesus-believers, here's the long answer (with evidence), which is needed to cover all bases:

    All reliable evidence points to Jesus Christ being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The evidence is in the Bible, the other religions of the time, and the lack of writings about Jesus by historians of the time.

    The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth created to fulfill prophesy, cobbled together out of stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths -- created in the 40's and 50's by Paul of Tarsus (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.

    Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, or his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past.

    If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this. Note that to Paul, Peter was another (competing) epistle writer. Paul referred to James as the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother. This is much like people of a religion who refer to each other as brothers. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8.

    If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person fiction format like a Harry Potter story, with Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarizing from Mark. The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts, and were written in Greek - which the disciples would not have known. In fact, there are no claimed eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus - anywhere. All we have are hearsay witnesses.

    If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) wrote about him or his disciples.

    Therefore Jesus didn't exist.

    The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Horus, Mithra, Osiris, and Dionysus). For instance, baptism into the death and resurrection of Osiris washed away sins so the soul could obtain the best place in heaven. Some early Christians attributed these similarities to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity.

    Jesus is worshiped on Sunday because he is a sun god, like over a dozen other gods whose birthdays are also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.”

    There were also over a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected (often after violent deaths). Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine.

    For much more evidence, see the links. There are also several good books on this, including:

    "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed At All"

    by David Fitzgerald

    "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty

    "Not the Impossible Faith" by Richard Carrier

    And if anybody still thinks that Jesus actually existed, please send the information on the reliable evidence supporting this position (not just somebody's opinion).


  • Doesn't your bible tell you "thou shalt not bear false witness"?

    Even if there is a grain of truth in this (maybe Dawkins admitted that someone called Jesus may have lived at the time), it certainly does not indicate any conversion.

  • 8 years ago

    Richard Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, just like he always has been.

    Get a life.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.