Douglas Adams interview

[Zaelath]

Yes, hardly current, but it does address a few stupid arguments that are often put forward on this board (like the one in bold)

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.

I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

Full interview here: http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99 ... erman.html

[Nick]

Best be careful Zealath, the idiot brigade may pounce on you for pointing out that the burden of proof lies with religion and that all opinions are only valid if everyone is the same age as Midnyte.

[Forthe]

I consider myself Agnostic, not an Atheist, because I don't think we can know enough about how the universe came to be. Definitely not enough to rule out possibilities.

I find his logic to be a bit arrogant. We have absolutely no evidence that life exists anywhere in the universe other than earth. Should we then conclude, that barring any evidence, there is no life in the universe other than on earth?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue.

Fantastic quote.

[Xouqoa]

I define myself as Agnostic because I don't have faith that there is a God.

I also don't have faith that there is not a God, and since there is not really "proof" either way, I feel that is exactly what it requires to define myself as Atheist.

Faith itself is a difficult thing for me to accept, since it relies on believing in something with your heart and soul even though there is no evidence to suggest it even exists.

Irregardless, Douglas Adams is awesome.

[Ashur]

The "burden of proof" lies with anyone trying to convince someone.

Nick, as an avowed atheist, if someone were to try to convince you there is a god, the burden of proof lies with them. For someone with firm religious beliefs, to be convinced there is no god, the burden of proof would lie with you or whomever is attempting to convince them otherwise.

[Funkmasterr]

The "burden of proof" lies with anyone trying to convince someone.

Nick, as an avowed atheist, if someone were to try to convince you there is a god, the burden of proof lies with them. For someone with firm religious beliefs, to be convinced there is no god, the burden of proof would lie with you or whomever is attempting to convince them otherwise.

No, because the way he sees it, he is so far beyond most people intelligently that they must be a fucking moron if they disagree with him.

I don't believe in god and won't until someone can prove it to me beyond a reasonable doubt. I also think it is extremely egocentric, arrogant, and laughable to be honest that anyone could really think we are the only intelligent life in this universe.

[Sylvus]

Irregardless

You're so banned. Let's see if anyone comes to your defense!

[Bubba Grizz]

I'm a believer! However, I do not force my beliefs on others. Everyone deserves a choice.

[Truant]

Irregardless

You're so banned. Let's see if anyone comes to your defense!

I'll knife fight you for it. Irregardless of the outcome, it'll be a good show.

I find his logic to be a bit arrogant. We have absolutely no evidence that life exists anywhere in the universe other than earth. Should we then conclude, that barring any evidence, there is no life in the universe other than on earth?

We don't have any evidence that life exists elsewhere, but we have evidence that life existED. We found evidence that bacteria once lived on mars, best I remember.

[Fash]

Considering there is life in nearly every cranny of Earth (even in the oddest of conditions, like volcanic steam at the bottom of the ocean supporting life) it only makes sense that there is life elsewhere. It's one of those obvious truths that while we must still seek hard evidence, it doesn't take any illogical leaps to believe.

[cadalano]

that logic is a little lame for me, fash. life exists in every nook and cranny on earth due to propagation of existing life forms, not from spontaneous generation.

the question is the probability of spontaneous generation occuring elsewhere in environments totally alien to earth.


the only thing you can do to form an individual opinion is to weigh the unfathomable vastness of space and time against the unfathomable complexity of the conditions required to spontaneously generate a living organism. or, if your brain starts to hurt, just say that god flicked his fingers and made it so.

for me... Sagan was confident that life exists or existed elsewhere sheerly on the overwhelming brute volume of space and time overcoming the improbability of a spontaneous event. Independent thought terrifies me, so I will stick with my main man Carl.

[cadalano]

We don't have any evidence that life exists elsewhere, but we have evidence that life existED. We found evidence that bacteria once lived on mars, best I remember.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001

draw your own conclusions! however, it is absolutely not bonafide evidence.



even in the most exciting of circumstances, where there exists a vast metropolis beneath the crust of Mars.. you really can't immediately consider Mars to be proof of ALIEN life. This is because you not only have to prove the existence of life on mars, but you have to prove that it did not originate on Earth.

[Forthe]

Considering there is life in nearly every cranny of Earth (even in the oddest of conditions, like volcanic steam at the bottom of the ocean supporting life) it only makes sense that there is life elsewhere. It's one of those obvious truths that while we must still seek hard evidence, it doesn't take any illogical leaps to believe.

It isn't an obvious truth, there is no proof. I think the strongest argument is probabilities but barring proof it still remains a leap of faith.

[Forthe]

We don't have any evidence that life exists elsewhere, but we have evidence that life existED. We found evidence that bacteria once lived on mars, best I remember.

AFAIK we have evidence that suggests maybe that bacteria once lived on mars.

[cadalano]

I consider myself Agnostic, not an Atheist, because I don't think we can know enough about how the universe came to be. Definitely not enough to rule out possibilities.

I find his logic to be a bit arrogant. We have absolutely no evidence that life exists anywhere in the universe other than earth. Should we then conclude, that barring any evidence, there is no life in the universe other than on earth?

you must be beyond confidence and well into arrogance to claim that god does or does not exist. if he was "pretty sure" that god didnt exist, rather than absolutely convinced, he would be Agnostic. That is basically the entire point of the first few paragraphs of his statement.

[Nick]

The "burden of proof" lies with anyone trying to convince someone.

Nick, as an avowed atheist, if someone were to try to convince you there is a god, the burden of proof lies with them. For someone with firm religious beliefs, to be convinced there is no god, the burden of proof would lie with you or whomever is attempting to convince them otherwise.

Don't really know what your point is here....obviously? Except comparing "the existence of god" as equally valid as "the non existance of god" is fundamentally flawed. I.e celestial teapot argument.

[Ashur]

The "burden of proof" lies with anyone trying to convince someone.

Nick, as an avowed atheist, if someone were to try to convince you there is a god, the burden of proof lies with them. For someone with firm religious beliefs, to be convinced there is no god, the burden of proof would lie with you or whomever is attempting to convince them otherwise.

Don't really know what your point is here....obviously? Except comparing "the existence of god" as equally valid as "the non existance of god" is fundamentally flawed. I.e celestial teapot argument.

The point is you said "the burden of proof lies with religion", when "the burden of proof" is a relational to who needs it proven to them. Obviously?

[Nick]

Well not really, since you can't disprove god just like you can't disprove a celestial teapot. It's sort of a pointless debate tbh.

[Noysyrump]

God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones.

And that is my feelings on the subject. That man has got to be the funniest man ever invented by the way. It's not always what he says, just how he goes about it so matter-of-factly. The moon is made up of rock.... HAHA! Everyone knows it's cheese.