A Civil Religious Debate

Even he knew that you cannot proven an intelligent designer exists or not.

That is a very different statement. You originally claimed that he believed in intelligent design (creation by a God). Now you say that he is saying that you cannot disprove the existent of a God (intelligent designer). Which do you claim he believes?

And if you managed to read his entire book, and not realise that he was an atheist, I honestly worry for you.

If you dont know perfection how do you know imperfection?

Because I see pain and suffering in the world. I see people with so much pain and suffering that they would rather stop their existence. But I also see that things can be so much better. In a perfect world, everything would be better, but we do not live in a perfect world. That's quite indisputable really.

Richard Dawkins has been one of the most prominent atheist & anti-religious voices of the last twenty years. He does not believe in intelligent design - the quote I used should quite simply show that.

How do you know what perfection is?

I do not need to. I simply need to show that the current universe is imperfect (there is a single thing wrong with it) and I have shown that we do not live in a perfect universe. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If life isn't perfect, then what's to say it wasn't just a random chance that we are how we are, that things just happen to work as they do?

Let us assume that creation has occurred (which has happened with or without a God existing). If there was a God guiding this creation, then it would be fair to say that a more perfect world than our own should be expected to occur. If it was nothing but chance, then you would expect some parts of the universe to be habitable and suitable for life, and the vast majority not to be (as the number of factors required for possible life are great). That is what we have seen. We would expect a combination of both positives and negatives within that life. That is what we have seen. We would expect certain rules, or laws, to arise, which stay constant throughout the universe. This is what we have seen.

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. - Richard Dawkins

Just to confirm, you are arguing that because the universe is so great, it must have been created?

In that case, could you please explain the pain and suffering and sadness that humans go through every day? The struggle for life and wellness and recreation that every single living organism must go through their entire life? The simple fact that life needs certain things to survive, the imperfect nature of that fact, that God could create life that does not need the universe to be as it is to survive?

Life has adapted to its surroundings, giving the impression that our surroundings are perfect for life. Do you really think that things could not be better? That things are truly perfect? That our existence is nothing more than a minuscule probability, caused to be likely due to the simple immeasurable vastness and magnitude of space and existence?

There are many arguments which support an intelligent designer. But there are many more which do not. You should not ignore either side.

That is because Buddhism can be seen (and is preached) in two main ways: as a religion, and as a philosophy. While the religious side is the backbone of the belief, it is possible to simply agree in the way of life that is preached, without believing in the supernatural stories behind them. This is very popular, and as such, there are some divisions of Buddhism that only follow/preach the philosophy. Depending on how you define religion (belief in a deity vs following a set of rules in life), this can be considered a religion.

Really, it's just the same as following the message of Jesus Christ, without believing in his supernatural heritage. To at least a decent extent, I feel I fit into both of these categories (despite my lack of following of their more stringent messages). These aspects of religion are independent of theism/atheism.

First principles are nothing more than speculation, and I see no hope in any discussions or agreements on them. Atheism is simply a refutation of a denial for the need of these discussions (God bypasses them by simply existing throughout eternity).

Semantically, yes. Karl Popper's falsifiability shows that we really know nothing, we just know what's happened so far. However, in common usage, and context, I believe that it's obvious enough that 'proof' refers to 'reasonable proof', not to an ironclad and impossible source of knowledge, but simply that without reasonable evidence.

Strictly speaking, I have 'faith' in gravity, but it is a madman who would tie himself to the ground in case gravity stopped, which is entirely possible.

Faith: A belief without proof

Reason: The application of logic to solve problems

They're not strictly opposites, but they are opposing each other.

Yes, we should have faith in the idea that by using reason to aid our decisions, we shall end up in a better position than if we made decisions based on random or arbitrary chances. Further than that, I feel 'reason' is self evident to the amount of faith you should have in it, as they're opposite words.