Blog Comments

c) Try to figure out how to repeat this scenario with various other pundits

I agree with all of that.

Originally Posted by Bunny

I, personally, do not claim to know one way or the other whether or not God exists

Neither do 99% of atheists. The most I'll say is "there's no evidence to believe in any god and the universe operates, to our knowledge, exactly as it would without a supernatural force affecting it." The only rational conclusion to an assertion with no evidence is disbelief (the null hypothesis in statistics, which similarly does not assert the negative, but simply denies the positive). By your words, you would be considered an atheist, taking the broad definition of the word ("anyone who's not a theist") that most actual atheists ascribe to themselves. It is simply the absence of one particular assertion (theism).

And I agree that the existence of any deity has no direct impact on my life. The only reason it matters to me is how religion affects others and their actions, which can and do impact me.

The easiest way to describe it, when speaking to people that are unfamiliar with agnosticism (though you aren't) is the fairly standard definition of the word. I, personally, do not claim to know one way or the other whether or not God exists and it is not entirely important in my life to make the specific distinction one way or the other.

The most important thing is that I just don't care enough one way or the other whether or not a God or multiple Gods exist, as neither possibility effects my life in any way that I can think of. To me, the word is just a simple label that I apply to myself for ease and then move on, as it doesn't really change the way I think about the majority of things.

What is the distinction you draw between yourself and atheism (which is the lack of theism)? The only agnostics I've ever heard of that don't disbelieve in god just as much as atheists are agnostic/deists who think there is some sort of power but that we can't know anything about it. Otherwise, the only distinction is some agnostics claim that both the disbelieve and belief in god are "equally (in)valid," which is clearly hogwash. I'm pretty sure you're not that much of an idiot.

Hitchens related a common conversation with self-labeled agnostics, which I've had myself. "Are you a theist?" "No." "So you don't actually believe in god?" "No." "Well that's what I think too."

Having been in a class that teaches about Islam's history and belief systems for about three weeks, I believe I can talk about Islam at a near-expert level. I'm joking, I'm not even touching that with someone else's ten foot pole.

However, I will say that I do identify myself as an agnostic. though I do not hold any pride in that fact whatsoever. It is a term I give to people to appropriately sum up my belief in God without getting too deep in the topic, though I still have to explain what the hell an agnostic is to the majority of people I tell this to. It is more out of carelessness than anything else and I do have more atheistic leanings within my agnostic "beliefs". I'm not even sure if that makes sense right now.

I just found another editorial saying Hitchens should never have been invited (this one in W&M's official student newspaper; the one I originally linked to is apparently independently-run), this one claiming because his anti-Islam principles are "dangerous." Apparently it is a "smear" to say it's justifiable to fear Islam because of a lot of radicals who threaten to kill anyone who dares do so much as draw Mohammed (interestingly enough, this is exactly why Penn & Teller have refused to mock Islam in their Bull! series, despite mocking Christianity and other superstitions fairly regularly).

This statement is especially ridiculous:

These states lack the pluralism and openness that is so essential to the success of any religion in modern times. Islam does not need the West to reform it, because wherever Islam exists in a free society, it is as modern, open and free as the Quran originally intended it to be.

Originally intended it to be? Really? This person is so clueless and/or deluded he thinks the Quran's original message is one of promoting freedom. I... there are no words.

He also seems to believe that Hitchens claims that every single Islam believer is such an extremist idiot, which is not at all what Hitchens, or any atheist critic, actually says. Islam, like all religions, can be made to mean whatever the hell people want, and the culture many Muslims grow up encourages more of such horrible principles than in the West. There is no "true" Islam anymore than there's a "true" Christianity or a "true" Scotsman. Every single believer thinks their version (which coincidentally complies with everything they want to be true anyway) is the "true" one. It is all willful self-delusion.

Christopher Hitchens > you.

I am trying so hard to give a but it just isn't happening.

I agree completely. For those that don't know what Clo is talking about, the worst offender is undoubtedly this piece of utter tripe in Slate a couple of months ago, which should make any remotely rational person facepalm hard.

I'm glad he said that about agnosticism, in light of the slew of articles/editorials lately regarding agnosticism versus atheism, which is too ridiculous for words for me right now

I wish things like this happened at one of the colleges around here. Stupid Colorado.

I'd marry him.

Yes, because continuing such policies which started the recession and continually require such recessions is all perfectly fine and dandy. Stopping such policies may be worse short-term, but there's good arguments that it would be much better long-term.

Meat Puppet: it seems like it, doesn't it? The truth is I think there are a lot more sane people like him out there, but that they just aren't loud, obnoxious, and retarded so they don't get TV time. They also would never be endorsed by either party because they wouldn't work solely to increase their power.

:D
(I'm not saying that causing a deep recession with no hope of recovery is a bad thing; I'm just saying that RP would've done that)

:D
Ron Paul is already too bizarre to be a serious contender. Interesting though - I would love to see what this guy would have done during the automotive crisis, because my prediction is Ron Paul would've agitated the recession by letting the companies die. Also the airplane crises in the past.

Well, so far he's way better then the others lately. I'll try keeping an eye out for him in months to come.

Holy crap did you retrieve that man from some sort of alternate dimension?!

Wtf, PG? You're one of the biggest supporters of free speech in various EoEO threads. How do justify the contradiction in this case? Who gets to determine what is a "greater good" worthy of sacrificing fundamental freedoms for?

:D
...wow um..I read it all :p

I'm not totally decided over the burqa being banned. I feel banning it would conflict with freedom of expression (will only the burqa be banned? Can white women cover their face in scarves?), but at the same time I feel invading Iraq was a good thing even if it has led to problems, especially if we really are leaving and going back to Afghanistan.

(I'm trying to say that sometimes there's a greater good that can be achieved. However because we cannot measure whether something will become a greater good than not doing something, it is very difficult to decide with utmost certainty to do something.)

The problem is I know where both of you are coming from; hence I cannot make a decision.

:D
SMBC is a nice comic. It's at least more enjoyable and less esoteric and more funny than xkcd (this is where you rip my throat out for daring to talk smack about xkcd)