Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As a corollary of that, I cannot say that the Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible is tenable according to my understanding of the universe as described by the empirical scientific method.
On the other hand, day-to-day, the systems and metaphors of theology provide me with a means of articulating the contexts and choices of my existence... and I will admit to subscribing to Pascal's wager 0.001%. :-)
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, after all.We seem to talking past each other. :)
I think I understand your position. I might change some of the numbers but I see what you mean. I do struggle with what I take to be the somewhat bleak implications of the atheist-existentialist thing at times, but I suppose that is best left for another discussion.
-
You might mean Richard Dawkins, at a guess
I hesitate to say that. I am really talking about a more widespread tone, a way of talking (or making implications) about other people's views. Obviously, tone, polite or otherwise, says nothing about the truth of the strong atheist's position.
I read the God Delusion recently, which was better than I expected. I wonder whether Dawkins has (successfully) tried to be controversial in order to provoke public discussion about current state of mass movement religion and the role it plays in society. He steps back from strong atheism, if only just, with his 6-leaning-7 on the atheist scale.
I personally don't find the probabalistic approach helpful, but that is just me.
-
Thinking about that - a weak agnostic is someone who considers the strong atheist's case to be too sure of itself. A weak agnostic frames his or her argument in a way that emphasises lack of knowledge in a way that a strong atheist can't.
So when an agnostic, who by definition believes that the case for strong atheism is pushed too far, talks to an atheist who makes his or her case emphatically and persuasively, it's only a stone's throw to finding him or her overconfident.
-
After enduring decades of discrimination and abuse, Atheists fight back with words, only to be accused of bad manners.
I didn't mean to suggest that Atheists generally have bad manners, or that Atheists are rude to discuss their views. I meant to say that some people have recently commented on the fact that certain ways of talking about strong atheism have come across as... uh, inflexible, to others.
I guess these things are relative. A man on a box on Queen St told my friend he was going to contract AIDS and go to hell.
-
We're still trying to answer questions about our origin (in cosmological terms), our purpose and life's meaning. There seem to be two basic kinds of answers: either there is some kind of objective meaning and purpose to this whole life scam, or there is not.
As a "weak" agnostic with strong warm and fuzzy leanings, I tend to think that it's natural that our philosophical and religious speculation should evolve alongside our scientific understanding.
In contrast to what Russell said, I think "new atheism" is a convenient label for a strident and intolerant (perhaps even smugly arrogant) way of discussing "strong" atheism.
One of the great things about the UK is its comedy shows. Check out Bad Vicar and Numberwang from the Mitchell and Webb Look if you get a chance.
-
There are some here I think
-
I work with someone very experienced with this field, and often tells me I am a bit fatalisticish but an underlying wish to understand and "do the right thing" I know is what drives her and she is brilliant
I think it's quite inspiring to find people who combine excellence with a passion for helping others.
Russell has mentioned it before, but I enjoy reading the views, experiences and expertise that teh readers bring to these discussions. I like it when the discussions turn into a collaboration, with people with different points of view contributing what they know, or finding out about things they care about and reporting back, and such.
There's a really interesting conversation to be had about the factors that contribute to weight, and how often do you meet people who'll talk about endocrinology or the cultural aspects of obesity with you.
-
That Jesse Ryder. Great to watch.
I found highlights packages for the test on the intertwit, it made me miss home.
-
Thanks Sofie - I was concerned that I may have interrupted a worthwhile discussion with a reductionistic summary. Some days you are the People's Front of Judea, some days you are the Judean People's Front.
-
Could we just say that weight gain/loss is primarily a function of food intake and energy use (as per Ben) while readily conceding that there also a number of other important environmental, genetic, biological, cultural and economic factors. We could even concede that as a practical matter, most people will use diet and exercise as a means to control their weight.
While recognising the feminist element of the issue, we could also say that long term changes in behaviour may be more effectively brought by psychological techniques that avoid making people feel bad about themselves. (You know, before someone tries to set Ben on fire.)
I like friends. Let's be friends.