1. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188269 by Roland32 on June 3, 2008 at 3:02 pm

I agree with the decision, regardless of the propaganda film behind it. Fair use applies imo.

2. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71996 by Roland32 on September 20, 2007 at 5:11 am

eric.malitz,

I agree with the conclusion of what is meant by saying "I believe there is no God," i say it myself in the same vain. However, to disclude the population of people who say there is no God and all the evidence is in, and if Jesus, Thor, etc presented himself tomorrow I still would not believe, is different.

More importantly the relation of atheim to type of God, does matter. It is "reasonable" to be Militant and even Anti toward the idea of a personal God, including the Abrahamic version. However a version against a do nothing Deist version is not. In that case you are claiming to know which you cannot know. To be fundamentally opposed to such a belief is dogmatic. However to state that it is pointless to believe in such a deity, etc is a perfectly "reasonable" position to take.


I had to edit it this because the first one I wrote quickly and realized that I had posted something I did not mean. So if you read it please disregard it.

3. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71995 by Roland32 on September 20, 2007 at 5:06 am

Mitchell Gilks,

Am not sure why you chose to clarify the FAQ, or correct it, but that is how I read the FAQ to say. I think that FAQ also included the larger population of agnostic/deist with their intrpretation of what they believe as well.

4. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71789 by Roland32 on September 19, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Marshall,

Here is a canned answer from a Atheism FAQ on another site, should clear up this misunderstanding.

1. What is Atheism?

Atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.
-- Sam Harris

Most atheists are what is called weak atheists, which simply means that they do not hold the belief that a God exists. "Strong" atheists, who are rarer, make the positive claim that there is no God. Most atheists do not make this claim because their atheism is based on skepticism, and there is no evidence of the "strong atheist" position that God definitely does not exist (although some, notably Dawkins, try to argue that the existence of God is highly improbable). However, weak atheists may make the claim that specific Gods, such as the Christian God, do not exist. Theists sometimes confuse this with a strong atheist position.

Question 1A: Aren't militant atheists just as dogmatic as theists?
Answer 1A: Strong atheists probably are, but most atheists are weak atheists and don't make the claim that God does not exist. They simply adopt a position of skepticism towards the existence of God, and believe that there is not strong enough evidence that a God exists. Most people don't think that an asteroid is going to hit Los Angeles at noon tomorrow. To believe that proposition, they would want to be shown evidence. However, they aren't making the claim that an asteroid will not strike Los Angeles. Weak atheists don't think there is any reason to treat the question of the existence of God differently. They think that "faith" is synonomous with "believing something at random for no good reason".

Question 1B: So wait, weak atheists don't actively claim that God doesn't exist? Isn't that agnosticism?
Answer 1B: No. The difference between agnosticism and weak atheism is that weak atheists have investigated the evidence for the existence of a God and found it unconvincing. Agnostics may, for instance, have not looked at the evidence, or have looked at it and are not sure whether they are convinced or not. Or they may simply not believe that skepticism is appropriate to the question of the existence of God.

5. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71725 by Roland32 on September 19, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Marshall,

In terms of realizing there is no God at the age of 14 to be presumptuous statement by Dawkins, is in fact an ignorant statement by yourself of what atheism is. Concluding that there is not enough evidence, is just that. However, if the claim was that there is not enough evidence and I currently know all the evidence would be a presumptuous statement for a 14 year old, or anyage for that matter, statement to make.

As far as your last statement is concerned. mThis is a leading statement, provided with inferior or misguided information. Kind of reminds me of the no spin zone. But leading statements are very useful in revealing purpose, which in this case, revealed your intent behind your post. Which was to to introduce your preconceived notions of how one can become an atheist can only be to assume what you cannot know. Which of course is inaccurate statement, actually completely illogical when confronted with a proper defintion of atheism.