Touched by his noodliness!

[matgb]

OK, in my bio, the bit that says I don't need broadband? I stand by it, I don't. But, well, staying at nadriel's does have one advantage, we've netweorked up and he has a 7.5 Mbs connection. I mean, the exchange in Paignton can only manage 2.5Mbs for our business line, he has 3 times that all to himself.

So, what do you do with sucha fast connection? Porn? Don't be silly, Mike wouldn't approve (and there's only so much I can be bothered to look for anyway). YouTube. I've heard so much about the place, now I can see it in all its glory. For example:

Paxman interviews Dawkins about The God Delusion. Dawkins namechecks the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (via)

Now, Dawkins can, at times, be difficult, obnoxious and intemperate. He says he's an agnostic not an atheist because you can't disprove God (this is also Scalzi's position). I say I'm an atheist because I believe there is no god, and assert it's as valid a belief as any other. The line between our views is semantics. But his point is sound. YouTube rocks.

Comments

[innerbrat]

IAWTP.

Oh wait, you want more?

Um, I'm an atheist as an article of faith because one's faith is merely one's opinion about the state of the universe. I also believe in ground-up by means of WAIR. (You don't have to know what this is, but it's a theory about the origin of birds), even though it's not possible to prove, you can just form opinions based on the evidence. (This is a weak analogy)

I also believe that religion and science need to be kept separate. Science requires an agnostic viewpoint. Your personal belief of what really happened is not required to expain what the evidence says. So one can say that the earth looks 4.5 by old even if one believes it was created 'old' 6kya. (One'd be an idiot, but that's just my opinion)

Also, when Dawkins asserts that people would rather know the truth than live a lie, no matter how comfortable the lie makes them, he's immeasurably wrong.

He may have come up with the 'selfish gene' and with the concept of mems, but he doesn't understand people.

[dainul.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'm an agnostic not because you "cannot disprove god", but because I truely believe that there is something out there, up there, down there, in there or whatever other phrase you prefer, but I have no way of knowing what it is (they are), or even whether it gives (they give) a rat's arse about the jumped up monkies waging war in its (their) name(s).

Science is, as you say, a completely different thing from religion, though. Religion and philosophy are disciplines that thrive with a lack of evidence. You cannot prove God exists or does not, you must instead make a decision based pretty much exclusively on the words of men.

Science, in its ideal form, is divorced from personal prefferance, prejudice and preconception, basing itself instead on the facts that are available, so when an experiment contradicts the previously accepted theory, the theory must be re-evaluated. It rarely lives up to this pure standard, partly because scientists are still human, and partly because experiments are not 100% relaible.

I had a look at the review on the BBC website of this book, and rather quickly got my opinion of it - it seems it is a book that will likely mostly be read by people who already agree with him, and it is a book that, from the excerts (sp) in the review, would annoy me immensely with its one-sided, preachy attitudes. To be honest, the same is true of most books with a point to make. They either don't present the counter-arguments, or present them only to the extent that they can argue them down.

[innerbrat]

OR people looking to pick a fight with him. That's why I read Creation Science books after all.

You're right though. Popular non-fiction writers can be woefully short of objectivity.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Whereas I'm an atheist not because I assert that there is no god, but because I lack any positive belief in any god or gods.

It's not a positive belief to say that you don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or Michael Jackson. You're not asked "how you can disprove" Vishnu or the angel Moroni or the divinity of L Ron Hubbard. Why is it suddenly a positive statement of belief to not believe in Jesus as messiah?

[innerbrat]

Because "I do not believe in a god" is a different statement to "I believe there is no god." An assertive belief in an absence is different from a passive lack of belief.

I also believe there is no Father Christmas or tooth Fairy.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

But being an atheist does not require a positive belief. It requires only that you not be a theist - in fact, that you have no belief in god(s)

[innerbrat]

It doesn't, no. But there are (at least) two types of athiests. The ones who lack belief and the ones like myself (and Mat, form this post) who have a belief in a lack of gods. As it's not a disprovable position, it's a position of faith, but it's a valid position nevertheless.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I don't see a difference in the positions.

I believe in no gods.
You believe in no gods.

This carries with it the implicit assumption that, lacking a belief in any gods, you believe that no gods exist.

You mistake this for a positive statement for some reason I don't understand. Perosnally, I find this to be misleading and generally a weakening of the position, most often taken as a strawman by theists attempting to prove that you, not they, are making the counterfactual leap.

[innerbrat]

You just said up there, *points* that that is not your statement of belief.

I believe that there are no gods.
You stated your belief that you do not believe in any gods.

There is a distinct and recognised difference: most people in theoilogical discussion define the two positions as 'strong athiesm' (me) and 'weak athiesm (you). (ignore the 'better' implications of the words. Not the point.

Weak atheism is one of the most common positions, and the most valid, objectively. Lacking any evidence either way, you do not believe in a god.

I, on the other hand, have a firm belief in an absence of god. This is not lack of belief, it is belief in an absence. As a position, it's disprovable, but not provable, as one can't prove a negative.

I am of the opinion that there is no god, that there is no such thing as a soul, that there is no afterlife and karma is metaphrocal.

This is how I think the world is. It's an article of faith no less valid than that people who believe in resurrection, reincarnation and other equally comforting concepts.

The strawman theists use is to claim that strong and weak atheism are the same thing. This is not the case, which is why you have a case to argue. There is a difference, however, and it is the strong atheist viewpoint I take as my personal belief, despite the fact that weak athiesm is perhaps more valid.

Just because I believe in nothing doesn't mean I don't believe in anything.

Mat, your layout sucks worse in Firefox, for comment boxes.

[matgb]

For the comment box, hit more options, it loads a full comment box in a new page. The quick comment box is better for me and dial uppers generally, the full comment box does the job.

Except I've just found it's too big for 3 column and will need editing. Ah well, guess learning S2 to edit it to look OK may be needed.

The rest, I'll respond to later, in the meantime, I'll leave you and John to it.

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

I also believe there is no Father Christmas or tooth Fairy.

So who the hell gave me money for teeth that fell out?

[innerbrat]

I dunno, but I know my parents gave me money well into the multiples of hundreds for the wisdom I've just had yanked.

And by 'me', I mean 'the dentist'.

[matgb]

Didn't say it's a positive belief, it's a negative one, I believe there is no god. As do you. There is no proof, that's fine by me. Dawkins says that because htere is no proof, he can't be an atheist, I think he's wrong, as do you, again, semantics. Irrelevences.

Still want atheist to be an option on the censu returns, if we're to count believers, let's count unbelievers as well.