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

The Meaning of Life next week

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    mahoganygas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭mahoganygas


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    This.

    A disproportionate chunk of the criticism/ire he attracts arises from his tweets.
    .

    Twitter is great for proclaiming how much you loved Daniel on strictly last night.

    Twitter is awful for debating complex and controversial theories.

    If you're forced to summarize your opinion into 1 sentence then you're not doing the topic or your argument any justice. It's simply the wrong medium to be discussing something as complex as where we came from.

    But it reaches the masses and also helps book sales...


  • Options
    #33
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    seamus wrote: »
    Granny crying into her sherry while your mother tells you that you've ruined the day.

    I'm glad they sent a poet.


  • Options
    #34
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It may be "unnecessary", but it's probably desirable if you hope to win people over to your view, rather than alienate them from it.
    Who says he wants to win people over?
    That may be a religious preacher's prime objective, but not necessarily an atheist's.
    I presume Gaybo will pay him appearance money, and Dawkins will also have negotiated for an opportunity during the programme to plug his new book.

    Of course, if he can persuade a few more people over to his way of thinking while he's at it, that's all good too.


  • Options
    #35
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    Who says he wants to win people over?
    That may be a religious preacher's prime objective, but not necessarily an atheist's.
    I presume Gaybo will pay him appearance money, and Dawkins will also have negotiated for an opportunity during the programme to plug his new book.

    Of course, if he can persuade a few more people over to his way of thinking while he's at it, that's all good too.
    That pretty much sounds like he'll be trying to win people over as book purchasers at very least then?

    I like his books, I'll assuredly buy the next one and the one after that, but as a media personality I have to say I think Gaybo, love him or loathe him, is a consummate professional and way outclasses Dawkins. Which I think means we'll see an interesting interview, more because because of the host's ability to sell than the guest's.


  • Options
    #36
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I'm sure some of his adversaries and detractors have also purchased his books at times.
    They say there is no such thing as bad publicity. So in that sense, his tweets probably don't harm his sales at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    What's the betting Richard will start talking in circles and going off topic when asked his opinion of how the world began. He usually mentions the 'Big Bang' and then more or less says that there is no point in trying to explain the big bang as we wouldn't understand.

    Quite a lot of people wouldn't, especially when there are people who think it was done by magic.


  • Options
    #38
    realdanbreen
    Registered Users Posts: 8,165 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    What's the betting Richard will start talking in circles and going off topic when asked his opinion of how the world began. He usually mentions the 'Big Bang' and then more or less says that there is no point in trying to explain the big bang as we wouldn't understand.


    Hard to believe, but Dawkins was an even bigger crock of nonsense than I expected him to be. At this stage does he even know himself what he is talking about? Complete naval gazing bluffer.


  • Options
    #39
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    Hard to believe, but Dawkins was an even bigger crock of nonsense than I expected him to be. At this stage does he even know himself what he is talking about? Complete naval gazing bluffer.

    On what points in particular did you find yourself in disagreement with the good professor, Dan?


  • Options
    #40
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    Hard to believe, but Dawkins was an even bigger crock of nonsense than I expected him to be.
    Would you care to put us right on the matter of the good Professor?


  • Options
    #41
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    robindch wrote: »
    Would you care to put us right on the matter of the good Professor?

    Perhaps Dan was angry because even though Dawkins was sometimes looking right at him from the Magic Picture Box, he didn't reply to any of the things Dan was shouting.

    Good professor? Bad professor!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,225 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Just watched it on the RTE player, it was better than I expected i.e. Gaybo was not deliberately being annoying/belligerent

    Dan you didn't disappoint in that you did not allow the content of the programme to influence your response to it in any way :)

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #43
    realdanbreen
    Registered Users Posts: 8,165 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    pauldla wrote: »
    On what points in particular did you find yourself in disagreement with the good professor, Dan?

    It's gas the way so many folk are in awe of 'professors' nowadays. I wouldn't mind but getting a doctorate or becoming a professor in something or other was never easier, spend long enough in school and write enough modules and you are all set to go out and impress those shallow enough to fawn all over you.


  • Options
    #44
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    All hail lord Dawkins. Let us give thanks to thee.


  • Options
    #45
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,341 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    It's gas the way so many folk are in awe of 'professors' nowadays. I wouldn't mind but getting a doctorate or becoming a professor in something or other was never easier, spend long enough in school and write enough modules and you are all set to go out and impress those shallow enough to fawn all over you.

    It's gas the way so many folk used to be in awe of priests and call them 'father'. I wouldn't mind but entering the priesthood was incredibly easy. Spend long enough in a seminary and pray enough times and you are all set to go out and demand everyone call you Father while you tell them they're going to burn in Hell.


  • Options
    #46
    realdanbreen
    Registered Users Posts: 8,165 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    pauldla wrote: »
    I find your tenacity at seeing 'how the world began' as a 'checkmate, atheist!' argument strangely endearing.

    And I find the atheist view that human beings are on a par with Shep the dog and Daisy the cow to be a little sad.


  • Options
    #47
    realdanbreen
    Registered Users Posts: 8,165 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    Penn wrote: »
    It's gas the way so many folk used to be in awe of priests and call them 'father'. I wouldn't mind but entering the priesthood was incredibly easy. Spend long enough in a seminary and pray enough times and you are all set to go out and demand everyone call you Father while you tell them they're going to burn in Hell.
    And it's GASSER the way atheists, all 0.08% of the population,never are able to answer the hard questions and respond with 'but whatabout...'.


  • Options
    #48
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    And I find the atheist view that human beings are on a par with Shep the dog and Daisy the cow to be a little sad.
    And do you really, really believe that us atheist and agnostic types think that humans are "on a par" with dogs and cows?

    Or are you just saying that in a failed attempt to score a juvenile debating point?


  • Options
    #49
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,175 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Gosh, this thread is going well, isn't it?

    Does anybody have anything to say about Dawkins and Gaybo? I haven't seen it myself; anyone think it would be worth my while?


  • Options
    #50
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,726 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    And I find the atheist view that human beings are on a par with Shep the dog and Daisy the cow to be a little sad.
    I think you're confusing atheists with cannibals :P

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #51
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,341 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    And it's GASSER the way atheists, all 0.08% of the population,never are able to answer the hard questions and respond with 'but whatabout...'.
    realdanbreen wrote: »
    And I find the atheist view that human beings are on a par with Shep the dog and Daisy the cow to be a little sad.

    The irony between your two posts is so much gasser that it could be labelled a gas explosion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Buona Fortuna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,507 ✭✭✭Buona Fortuna


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Gosh, this thread is going well, isn't it?

    Does anybody have anything to say about Dawkins and Gaybo? I haven't seen it myself; anyone think it would be worth my while?

    That's why I looked this thread up too :)


  • Options
    #53
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Just watched it on RTE player now and I thought Dawkins did really well in conversation with Gaybo. I've never been his greatest fan (in fact, I actively dislike his lack of "graciousness", as Gaybo put it so well), but he came across as very straight forward and with a complete lack of bullsh1t. Very interesting and worth a look.


  • Options
    #54
    realdanbreen
    Registered Users Posts: 8,165 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    robindch wrote: »
    And do you really, really believe that us atheist and agnostic types think that humans are "on a par" with dogs and cows?

    Or are you just saying that in a failed attempt to score a juvenile debating point?


    Ah cmon now Robin you can't have it every way! If as an atheist/agnostic you don't believe that humans have a soul, spirit or a destiny then you are equating them with Shep and Daisy.


  • Options
    #55
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Actually being atheist or agnostic does not preclude one from believing in a "soul"

    /pedant


  • Options
    #56
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,851 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    And it's GASSER the way atheists, all 0.08% of the population,never are able to answer the hard questions and respond with 'but whatabout...'.

    It's gassier that you think atheists only make up 0.08% of the population.


  • Options
    #57
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    Ah cmon now Robin you can't have it every way! If as an atheist/agnostic you don't believe that humans have a soul, spirit or a destiny then you are equating them with Shep and Daisy.

    Not really. It doesn't follow at all that not having a soul/spirit/destiny takes away from our top of the food chain position in terms of consciousness, problem solving and inventiveness. Although of course we don't know, for example, whether whales are far more highly developed than us......


  • Options
    #58
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    seamus wrote: »
    Actually being atheist or agnostic does not preclude one from believing in a "soul"

    /pedant

    It precludes me, in fairness! I see no evidence of a "soul".


  • Options
    #59
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    It's gas the way so many folk are in awe of 'professors' nowadays.

    Its gas the way you replied to that users post, but managed to completely and utterly avoid and dodge the direct question within it.
    realdanbreen wrote: »
    And it's GASSER the way atheists, all 0.08% of the population,never are able to answer the hard questions and respond with 'but whatabout...'.

    Check the mirror before you so blatantly misrepresent others. The only person on this thread dodging the questions is you. You even replied to a post just above and entirely ignored the question in it.
    realdanbreen wrote: »
    Ah cmon now Robin you can't have it every way! If as an atheist/agnostic you don't believe that humans have a soul, spirit or a destiny then you are equating them with Shep and Daisy.

    I think it entirely possible to be honest about the fact that humans are animals too, and equate them at that level, while still acknowledging the differences between them.

    I equate cars with planes as they are both vehicles, but clearly despite that classification there is a multitude of differences between them too.

    Similarly we are mammals and animals. We fit every definition of what those words mean. So do sheep. So you can equate them on that level. But doing so does not mean we are comparing them 1:1 on everything. There are vast differences and relevancy that we can explore and acknowledge. And NONE of them require we subscribe to nonsense on insufficient evidence, like "souls" or "gods" in order to do so.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Does anybody have anything to say about Dawkins and Gaybo? I haven't seen it myself; anyone think it would be worth my while?

    Not really. It was a very tame interview from both sides. Cordial and with nothing even remotely new that anyone who has any existing knowledge of Dawkins and his work would not likely know in depth already.

    Many questions he could have gone into in depth he gave cursory answers to because the format of the interview is one of "Short questions, short answers" so no real meat to get into.

    The entire interview is best suited for people who have heard the name "Dawkins" but know little else about who he is.


  • Options
    #60
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    It's gassier that you think atheists only make up 0.08% of the population.

    Well he was out by about 9 billion in his last attempt at reckoning; maybe maths isn't his strong point. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    realdanbreen
    Registered Users Posts: 8,165 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    pauldla wrote: »
    Well he was out by about 9 billion in his last attempt at reckoning; maybe maths isn't his strong point. :)

    You do know of course that non practicing does not mean that those people are atheist, don't you?


Advertisement