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]

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.