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 there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dawkins in Tubridy this morning

2»

Comments

  • #52
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    I'd imagine he's getting plenty of practise on his book tour.


  • #53
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Dawkins was much more cohesive when in the company of Paxman. Paxman was failrly logical in his questioning and Dawkins had no problem answering them all. The Quinn fella in this interview sounded like a complete fanatic. He was attacking Dawkins rather than having a conversation. He was asking Dawkins for proof there is no God and all those other impossible to answer questions, impossible to even stagger blindly in the right direction under the duress of Quinns illogical insistance that he doesn't know x, y or z.
    Dawkins was too honest with him and most probably a more than a little surprised by his antics.


  • #54
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    stevejazzx wrote:
    Dawkins was much more cohesive when in the company of Paxman. Paxman was failrly logical in his questioning and Dawkins had no problem answering them all. The Quinn fella in this interview sounded like a complete fanatic. He was attacking Dawkins rather than having a conversation. He was asking Dawkins for proof there is no God and all those other impossible to answer questions, impossible to even stagger blindly in the right direction under the duress of Quinns illogical insistance that he doesn't know x, y or z.
    Dawkins was too honest with him and most probably a more than a little surprised by his antics.

    Hey, he should come and spend a while on the Creationism thread...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #55
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Dawkins on the Colbert Report. At least there still some humour out there.


  • #56
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    I love Colbert :D


  • #57
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Wicknight wrote:
    Someone interviewd on Penn and Tellers "Bullsh!t" series tackled this breifly.

    She said that to a theist who believes in the literal Bible (for example) everything has to be correct. Any sign of uncertaintly is a sign that the Bible isn't the literal word of God, it isn't all know, and therefore cannot stand on its own.

    Almost without thinking theists apply this same type of thought to science, and thing that is in doubt or is unknown is a sign that science isn't all knowing. What they don't realise is that science doesn't claim to be all knowing, unlike the Bible.

    What a clever observation.


Advertisement