1. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15809 by Christiaan on January 3, 2007 at 6:14 am

Well we still have Tony Blair. I think he'd make pretty good research material once he's locked up.

2. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #267 by Christiaan on September 24, 2006 at 10:05 am

"Disbelief is the status quo, since the set of statements I disbelieve is infinite."

This is where the argument falls down I think johnc. I neither believe nor disbelieve. I just "don't know" (isn't this the status quo?) but there doesn't appear to be any room for this point of view in the above statement.

And this, I admit, may be a criticism of the scientific method in general. Why do so many of those using the scientific method find it difficult simply to say they "don't know" the truth?

3. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #259 by Christiaan on September 24, 2006 at 6:15 am

Sorry, I obviously meant "could not be true" at the end of my first paragraph.

4. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #258 by Christiaan on September 24, 2006 at 6:10 am

John, I'm not making the "special case" mistake. You are right that atheists (in the true sense of the word) do not believe at all in the existence of god(s), but this is not strictly the position of Dawkins or other rational thinkers. There is no wiggle room in the word "believe" (to accept as true); it's a categoric term. To "not believe" is to accept as true the non-existence of god(s), but you can't "accept as true" something you also admit could be true (no matter how small the possibility you attribute).

I just think that in any debate, and especially one as contentious as this, people would do themselves and other a favour by being as clear as possible about the language they use (and especially not bastardising words).

As Dawkins himself admits, agnosticism is the "technically" correct term for his position. Which begs the question: why use another term? Is it to intensify the controversy? If so, this doesn't seem like a useful way of breaking people's delusion.

5. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #255 by Christiaan on September 24, 2006 at 4:50 am

An open mind is still open; it doesn't matter how much or how little. To say "that the probability that such evidence will ever be produced is vanishingly small" is still to have an open mind, and therefore agnostic.

"Am I required to identify as agnostic about alien abduction or (to use one of RD's favourites) orbiting teapots?"

If you can't disprove these things then yes. Surely this is a simple truism? Has it occured to you that the possibility of a teapot orbiting the sun isn't as silly as it first sounds?

Real atheists, those who truly "disbelieve," are as guilty as "believers" in my opinion. If you agree that it is impossible to "disprove" then you are not being rational if you call yourself a "disbeliever" of something.

Dawkin's himself, as part of his teapot argument, argues that "maybe we have to be ... strictly agnostic." All I'm saying is that instead of talking about it, do it.

6. Richard Dawkins on BBC 2's Newsnight

Comment #245 by Christiaan on September 24, 2006 at 2:08 am

"A self-help to atheism"? Except, as he already admitted earlier in the interview, "you can't disprove the existence of anything," therefore what he's really talking about is agnosticism, not atheism.

How can you "disbelieve" in existence of something at the same time as admitting the possibility that it could exist? As an agnostic I've always been puzzled by the atheistic view, and even more puzzled by agnostics who call themselves atheists.

Dawkins, being a rational person, is agnostic and I don't think it helps the debate to label himself an atheist.