Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Ken Ham - Richard Dawkins is not an atheist

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Not a Rumsfeld fan, but I loved that speech. It got a lot of stick, but I think it makes a lot of sense.

    Wasn't it about intelligence gathering tough and possibly, although could be wrong here, this was part of his testimony to senate in relation to the Bush administrations advance warning of 911 attacks (issued by I think both Australia and Russia) - in which case this reply was just a suave way of muddying the waters about known intelligence and what to do with it.

    But I agree - in a purely philosophical format it works although and I can't help but feel the quote is essentially plagiarized from somewhere....


  • Options
    #63
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Wasn't it about intelligence gathering tough and possibly, although could be wrong here, this was part of his testimony to senate in relation to the Bush administrations advance warning of 911 attacks (issued by I think both Australia and Russia) - in which case this reply was just a suave way of muddying the waters about known intelligence and what to do with it.

    But I agree - in a purely philosophical format it works although and I can't help but fell the quote is essentially plagiarized from somewhere....

    To be honest, I don't even remember what context it was in. All I recall is loads of people calling it non-sensical, when it actually made perfect sense.

    MrP


  • Options
    #64
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    MrPudding wrote: »
    To be honest, I don't even remember what context it was in. All I recall is loads of people calling it non-sensical, when it actually made perfect sense.

    MrP

    I makes sense in a "water is wet, the sky is blue and the dog goes woof" kind of way.
    He was just doing what the Bush administration did at the time, stood in front of a mic, make noises and hope people would fall for it.


  • Options
    #65
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    I makes sense in a "water is wet, the sky is blue and the dog goes woof" kind of way.

    But, what does the fox say?


  • Options
    #66
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    robdonn wrote: »
    But, what does the fox say?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jofNR_WkoCE


    :p;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    MrPudding wrote: »
    To be honest, I don't even remember what context it was in. All I recall is loads of people calling it non-sensical, when it actually made perfect sense.

    MrP

    It was a speech worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby himself!


  • Options
    #68
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,872 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    It was a speech worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby himself!

    I fear you entirely misunderstand the motives of both Rumsfeld and Sir Appleby. Rummy sways with the wind of his intellectually deficient political master windbag; Appleby represents the opposite, the maintenance of enduring values* in spite of the changeable political weather.



    * just so happens these values are public school, old Tory...

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #69
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I fear you entirely misunderstand the motives of both Rumsfeld and Sir Appleby. Rummy sways with the wind of his intellectually deficient political master windbag; Appleby represents the opposite, the maintenance of enduring values* in spite of the changeable political weather.



    * just so happens these values are public school, old Tory...

    I was talking about the style, not the motives or intent.


  • Options
    #70
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    you can call me what you want as long as you don't call me late for dinner.
    ... or too early in the morning, after a hard day's night!!!!:)

    Anyway, has it been settled whether Prof Dawkins is an Atheist or not?
    I'm confused after reading this thread.

    Is an 'average' Atheist actually 99% Atheist and 1% Theist ... or perhaps, a significantly higher % Theist, if caught in a 'foxhole' with serious levels of incoming flak ?


  • Options
    #71
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    J C wrote: »
    ... or too early in the morning, after a hard day's night!!!!:)

    Anyway, has it been settled whether Prof Dawkins is an Atheist or not?
    I'm confused after reading this thread.

    Is an 'average' Atheist actually 99% Atheist and 1% Theist ... or perhaps, a significantly higher % Theist, if caught in a 'foxhole' with serious levels of incoming flak ?

    The problem is not being an atheist or being a theist.
    Both are nice, safe options. You know where you are with both of them. Yes or no, black or white. If you really want to bring down a sh*tstorm on yourself, just say you're an agnostic. The bisexuals of the faith world. They get flak from all sides.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    You know, the really crazy thing is that back when geology was in its infancy, -no-one- actually took Usher's ideas on the Earth being 4000 years old seriously. Really, they didn't. That whole thing is a fallacy that we tend to believe because hey, people back then were dumber than us because they didn't have so much information available!

    Sadly, the present-day people tend to be dumber than the ones back then in some regards.


  • Options
    #73
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    The problem is not being an atheist or being a theist.
    Both are nice, safe options. You know where you are with both of them. Yes or no, black or white. If you really want to bring down a sh*tstorm on yourself, just say you're an agnostic. The bisexuals of the faith world. They get flak from all sides.
    ... are all (or nearly all) Atheists technically Agnostics, then (because of the varying levels of doubt that they have about the non-existence of God)?

    It also strikes me that some Atheists primarily define themselves on what they are against in Theism ... and therefore could be described as anti-theists, perhaps??


  • Options
    #74
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Samaris wrote: »
    You know, the really crazy thing is that back when geology was in its infancy, -no-one- actually took Usher's ideas on the Earth being 4000 years old seriously. Really, they didn't. That whole thing is a fallacy that we tend to believe because hey, people back then were dumber than us because they didn't have so much information available!

    Sadly, the present-day people tend to be dumber than the ones back then in some regards.
    Very true, in many respects ... but belonging to a different thread IMO.


  • Options
    #75
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    J C wrote: »
    Very true, in many respects ... but belonging to a different thread IMO.

    Oh, it was in reference to some stuff about strongly conservative Creationists and Young Earth believers somewhere in the thread.

    I guess it's also possible that every religion has always had its kooks, but we just don't hear about them because at the time, they didn't have their voices heard all the time over the internet/media.


  • Options
    #76
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Samaris wrote: »
    Oh, it was in reference to some stuff about strongly conservative Creationists and Young Earth believers somewhere in the thread.

    I guess it's also possible that every religion has always had its kooks, but we just don't hear about them because at the time, they didn't have their voices heard all the time over the internet/media.
    Like I have said, different OP different thread.


  • Options
    #77
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have said, different OP different thread.

    ..Yep, I read back through the thread and you're completely right. /cough


Advertisement