IntenseDebate

14 years ago @ Atheist Revolution - Twitter's Actions... · 0 replies · +1 points

I'm with Poodles. Technically the arbitrary suppression of information by an organising body in control of the means of publication of that information is censorship. Yes, usually that body is a government entity, and yes, perhaps it would be best if we only called it censorship when it was practiced by a government, so as to not degrade the emotional impact of the word.

Nonetheless, the word is used and understood by many people to refer to more than just government censorship.

However, I'd argue that what Twitter did was not censorship, not because they're not a government entity, but simply because they didn't restrict access to any information, they just obscured it.

14 years ago @ Atheist Revolution - Misunderstanding Scien... · 0 replies · +1 points

It seems to me that second point of his isn't contrary to yours, vjack. He began that paragraph by referring to disbelievers in the supernatural and paranormal so it should be clear that he's not talking about all atheists, but those whose disbelief is motivated by skepticism which extends to supernatural and paranormal claims.

He isn't saying that all atheists are skeptics, but rather that many people who call themselves "atheist" (or "agnostic") have in common a skepticism towards supernatural and paranormal claims.

More so, his point is relevant to how people identify themselves and what their attitudes are - he's not proposing a definition of atheism. I've never come across someone who believes in the supernatural and paranormal who identifies themselves as an atheist. Nor do I think anyone would pay much attention to someone who did truly conflate the two, except perhaps those who are overzealous in flying their own flag, or overreacting to individual words rather than meaning.

14 years ago @ Atheist Revolution - Do You Believe in God(s)? · 0 replies · 0 points

Technically that's correct. However, to those who are truly uncertain it's not at all obvious, nor do I think it should be, that the answer to the question of their belief in god(s) should be "no." Belief isn't as binary as the question makes it seem. In order to answer that question someone might consider how they've felt at various times regarding god(s). They might feel that sometimes they do believe, and other times not. If that's the case their belief in god(s) should be considered as a continuum, not a dichotomy. If at the time of responding to the question they didn't feel that the weight of their memories and feelings tipped their belief clearly towards either end of the scale, "I don't know" is the appropriate response.

That said, I suspect that anyone who could truly describe their beliefs that way probably does believe, but wavers in their faith when bad things happen.

14 years ago @ The Geeky Atheist - Conferences I Am Atten... · 0 replies · +1 points

I so jealous! Australia is too far away for me to go to any of those :(

14 years ago @ The Geeky Atheist - A Response to Meditati... · 0 replies · +1 points

How did you manage to get that far? The whole thing is either dogma, or -- where he's arguing against atheism -- strawmen and ignorance.

14 years ago @ The Geeky Atheist - Teaching the Controver... · 0 replies · +1 points

Go XKCD! :)

Evolution does have one very famous catch phrase. Survival of the fittest. And it's truly unfortunate that that most famous phrase has also so infamously misrepresented what evolution is actually about. :(

I'm also pretty partial to Ken Miller's "We have the fossils. We Win."

14 years ago @ Atheist Revolution - Atheists Not Fully Human · 0 replies · +3 points

As you said, either his choice of wording was incredibly stupid, or he was trying to be hostile. If it's the former, in that clip he was responding to a question about a previous statement. He had time to choose his words more carefully. If he's that stupid he shouldn't be talking. As for trying to be hostile, that's clearly deplorable.

So it seems we've got two explanations which reflect extremely poorly on the Cardinal and on the Church, *even if* he's being misunderstood.

14 years ago @ The Geeky Atheist - Beginning in Astronomy... · 0 replies · +1 points

No anecdotes, I have some interest in astronomy but these days it's not any more of an interest than I have in most sciences.

But do you read Phil Plait's blog? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

14 years ago @ The Geeky Atheist - Who is making the clai... · 0 replies · +1 points

Hehe I just said it to provide another perspective which I thought you'd appreciate. I actually think yours is a better way of phrasing it since people are more likely to "get" it. Mine's more suitable for academic discourse, which puts most people to sleep. ;)

14 years ago @ The Geeky Atheist - Who is making the clai... · 2 replies · +1 points

His last quote, which is the unrestricted rejection of a negative statement, is also equivalent to "they accept - without compromise - that God exists," which is the biased acceptance of a positive statement and the usual position of theists. Atheists reject a positive statement, that God exists. So you're right, his statement is definitely not equivalent to the position atheists take.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Mark

People I'm following

Mark