1. Comment #12235 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 11:27 am

being the bombastic patriot that i am i also apologise for being irish,it is one of many labels to describe me which embarass me intensely.
My dad once said to me that no one ever went bankrupt by underestimating the intelligence of the british public.
i honestly think the same can be said of humanity at large.
i think dawkins likes appearing in the company of other half-wits in order to appear more intelligent
and reasonable than he actually is.
the vox populi is always temporal,true rationality will hopefully come later

Other Comments by godismyhobby

2. Comment #12236 by hotandspicymeltdown on December 11, 2006 at 11:40 am

COme on guys, talk about being deluded? You can't be serious that Dawkins performed well. He was a disaster, of course Casey was terrible as well, but Dawkins had the same tired old arguments.

What was he talking about fundamentalism being related to a 'holy book'? FUndamentalism is, of course, any deeply-held belief (such as atheism) that is intolerant of others.

Dawkins really lost the debate by speaking down to the people. The Irish have had the Brits talking down to them for 800 years, the last thing we atheists need for our cause is another Brit going over to tell the Irish what to do.

I think there's a real problem with atheism today (and this forum stinks of it) - we are arrogant. A bit of humility goes a long way and Dawkins lacks it.

Other Comments by hotandspicymeltdown

3. Comment #12239 by hotandspicymeltdown on December 11, 2006 at 11:44 am

By the way, why are the Irish people in this forum so self-loathing that they keep apologising for the freedom of speech that people enjoy in their country? Surely the audience have a right to their opinoons? Doesn't one have a right to be wrong?

Other Comments by hotandspicymeltdown

4. Comment #12240 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 11:47 am

yes,humility is what we need,people are people after all,including dawkins.we should let the baby have his bottle in peace,but does the end justify the memes?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

5. Comment #12249 by hotandspicymeltdown on December 11, 2006 at 12:42 pm

I disagree, I think the young guy talking about fundamentalism forced Dawkins to retreat. It was silly to say that fundamentalists are only people who believe in a holy book, and immediately after the guy made the point Dawkins accepted it. He's slipping a bit I think, it annoys me when he's slack and allows people to pics obvious holes. He needs to be water-tight.

Other Comments by hotandspicymeltdown

6. Comment #12250 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 12:43 pm

false humility and overweaning pride?have you seen many walking oxymorons?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

7. Comment #12253 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 12:46 pm

did you mean "scientheist"?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

8. Comment #12257 by hotandspicymeltdown on December 11, 2006 at 1:10 pm

I disagree, I think the young guy talking about fundamentalism forced Dawkins to retreat. It was silly to say that fundamentalists are only people who believe in a holy book, and immediately after the guy made the point Dawkins accepted it. He's slipping a bit I think, it annoys me when he's slack and allows people to pics obvious holes. He needs to be water-tight.

Other Comments by hotandspicymeltdown

9. Comment #12263 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 1:25 pm

vardu
you cant take pride in your humility anymore than you can be happy about being sad

Other Comments by godismyhobby

10. Comment #12264 by hotandspicymeltdown on December 11, 2006 at 1:26 pm

Come on Logicel, ake your head out of your ass, i know that you've made RD your god and you now worship at his temple, but, look at the debate, he was sneering, arrogant, predictable and, frankly - tired.

He came across as intolerant.

Other Comments by hotandspicymeltdown

11. Comment #12267 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 1:30 pm

im only taking you seriously,and its "godismyhobby"

Other Comments by godismyhobby

12. Comment #12269 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 1:33 pm

logicel is a jesuslover

Other Comments by godismyhobby

13. Comment #12272 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 1:35 pm

vardu
you accept that theres pseudoscience but not pseudoreligion?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

14. Comment #12275 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 1:38 pm

no worries,vardu,sure if we dont take each other seriously,this forum would be in a mess

Other Comments by godismyhobby

15. Comment #12277 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 1:39 pm

what a pity logicel cause jesus loves you

Other Comments by godismyhobby

16. Comment #12278 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 1:40 pm

as is science,vardu

Other Comments by godismyhobby

17. Comment #12281 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 1:41 pm

yep you gotta savour the flavour of your saviour

Other Comments by godismyhobby

18. Comment #12283 by hotandspicymeltdown on December 11, 2006 at 1:43 pm

any chancw of actually getting back to the Late Late programme? This mutual admiration is becoming sickening...

Other Comments by hotandspicymeltdown

19. Comment #12289 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 1:52 pm

a thousand billion times crueler than he was in the Old testament

is that a scientific measurement?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

20. Comment #12294 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 1:59 pm

daccord mon frere,vardu,pas de probleme

Other Comments by godismyhobby

21. Comment #12296 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 2:05 pm

hey do any of you guys wanna talk to me about science or are you just gonna keep on bashing religion?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

22. Comment #12299 by hotandspicymeltdown on December 11, 2006 at 2:07 pm

Frankly, Dawkins is becoming more and more barmy over the years. Perhaps he should stick to what he's qualified to do - zoology!

Other Comments by hotandspicymeltdown

23. Comment #12300 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 2:08 pm

algebraist,
is that chinese or just short for christian?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

24. Comment #12302 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 2:10 pm

a compulsion or a must?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

25. Comment #12304 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 2:14 pm

i thought the audience members were from ireland not xian

Other Comments by godismyhobby

26. Comment #12310 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 2:18 pm

ive only got one asshole

Other Comments by godismyhobby

27. Comment #12313 by hotandspicymeltdown on December 11, 2006 at 2:22 pm

Dawkins used bizarre arguments, he was in ireland, he should have used the religion breeds violence argument, the irish see it all around them, it's a pity they sent us brits away, we were the only force for civilisation in their dreadful country.

Other Comments by hotandspicymeltdown

28. Comment #12316 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 2:25 pm

i dont mean to mock and i understand that alot of crazy shit goes down in the name of religion

Other Comments by godismyhobby

29. Comment #12318 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 2:26 pm

better rudeness than prudeness

Other Comments by godismyhobby

30. Comment #12319 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 2:28 pm

yes vardu,as they say,in the beginning was the merde

Other Comments by godismyhobby

31. Comment #12321 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 2:36 pm

well you will be speaking to an absolute layman,
and my knowledge is purely speculative but at the moment im interested in david bohms theory of the implicate order.i really think it is a beautiful metaphorical framework to explain the hidden order of the universe

Other Comments by godismyhobby

32. Comment #12327 by hotandspicymeltdown on December 11, 2006 at 2:47 pm

i'm just watching dawkins on a comedy programme on irish television, he;s really gone off the edge, every one of the comedians is making an ass of him - and he's taking it. Brilliant!

Other Comments by hotandspicymeltdown

33. Comment #12331 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 2:57 pm

well as it is with most scientific theories or hypotheses for that matter,they are based on metaphor and analogy,the explanation of things we dont know using concepts we do,in bohms terms the explicate order is the world we see around us and can study,the visible world.the implicate order is that which we can see only by its effects,for example,as i type this my mind has the meaning which it then finds words to express ,these words are then converted into information that is implicate in nature in the form of binary code, this travels through the net and you recieve it converted into the explicate order in the form of alphabetic type.this i suppose is philosophy rather than hard science but helps one to gain a broader scientific outlook and awareness of the fact that our minds our a subjective instrument through which all sense data must pass,therefore objectivity is nigh on impossible,but our knowledge becomes more subtle and we realise many models are needed in order to explain one spacetime event

Other Comments by godismyhobby

34. Comment #12336 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:17 pm

well i think he he corresponded with the indian philosopher krishnamurti.i think he felt krishnamurti was using different metaphors to explain the same idea maybe with a more spiritual bent whereas bohm would have been more at home using scientific terminology

Other Comments by godismyhobby

35. Comment #12338 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:18 pm

bohm and krishnamurti did not wax lyrical about god but believed in the inherent goodness of all beings

Other Comments by godismyhobby

36. Comment #12341 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:21 pm

has you heard of bells theorem of nonlocality?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

37. Comment #12343 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:22 pm

also because hes dead vardu

Other Comments by godismyhobby

38. Comment #12347 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:25 pm

yes i believe we can learn from the right brain.... the left brain....not so much hahaha

Other Comments by godismyhobby

39. Comment #12348 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:28 pm

pan is chaos,pandemonium,can order come from chaos?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

40. Comment #12359 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:42 pm

well the idea of nonlocality and pantheism in the sense of all being god is interestingly connected.


pan is the god of chaos
pantheism is the belief that all is god

Other Comments by godismyhobby

41. Comment #12362 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:46 pm

mr goddogit
we are all pouring from the empty into the void here,the only difference is that i realize it

Other Comments by godismyhobby

42. Comment #12369 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:50 pm

hey frans! how are ya?
are you suffering from a short attention span?
what are my beliefs?
got a clue?
nope?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

43. Comment #12370 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:53 pm

frans,are letters on a page visible evidence?
in these scientific journals?
evidence for what?
id love to know

Other Comments by godismyhobby

44. Comment #12375 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 3:58 pm

an excerpt from a speech by krishnamurti

Truth is a pathless land'. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security — religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.

Other Comments by godismyhobby

45. Comment #12377 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 4:02 pm

vardu,there are many ways to intrepret the same data.the theory of evolution suits me down to the ground because it seems to work at the present time,it will probably be surpassed by a more all encompassing theory in the future which will make it look naive

Other Comments by godismyhobby

46. Comment #12379 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 4:04 pm

objective evidence?,as human beings we cant possibly be objective,so yes i doubt it

Other Comments by godismyhobby

47. Comment #12384 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 4:14 pm

you say the "fact" of evolution
what is a fact?
a fact is something the majority believe to be true based on verifiable evidence
evolution cannot satisfactorily be verified by the majority of people whether they believe it or not

Other Comments by godismyhobby

48. Comment #12385 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 4:15 pm

could you please explain how we can be objective?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

49. Comment #12387 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 4:17 pm

in order to verify they have to be objective,
could you please explain how we can be objective?

Other Comments by godismyhobby

50. Comment #12391 by godismyhobby on December 11, 2006 at 4:26 pm

the fruits of collective research does not constitute as objective or universal truth,
it is not in the interest of scientists to reach a conclusion on anything.

Other Comments by godismyhobby