Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
Science nerds. Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson have a discussion.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="joeg215" data-source="post: 11576565" data-attributes="member: 100532"><p>I'm not entirely what his stance on it is. But if I were to assume, I would think he would fall under agnostic atheist. Meaning he doesn't believe in a higher power but he does not know this to be true.</p><p></p><p>Its not difficult to come to this conclusion from the way he talks about logical thinking and evidence. He knows that humans are very creative and egotistical. Why would he believe in something that humans had theorized thousands of years ago? </p><p></p><p>At the very beginning he even states(thanks carrrrnut), "Well, Richard. First of all. You said you were told it so you have to believe it. I will never require you to believe anything. It will only ever be about how compelling is the evidence to you." </p><p></p><p>tap-a-keg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="joeg215, post: 11576565, member: 100532"] I'm not entirely what his stance on it is. But if I were to assume, I would think he would fall under agnostic atheist. Meaning he doesn't believe in a higher power but he does not know this to be true. Its not difficult to come to this conclusion from the way he talks about logical thinking and evidence. He knows that humans are very creative and egotistical. Why would he believe in something that humans had theorized thousands of years ago? At the very beginning he even states(thanks carrrrnut), "Well, Richard. First of all. You said you were told it so you have to believe it. I will never require you to believe anything. It will only ever be about how compelling is the evidence to you." tap-a-keg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
Science nerds. Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson have a discussion.
Top