Richard Dawkins on the Late Late

Sam Vimes

darrenh wrote: »

Do Also, How do we know that God didn't create Science just like everything else he created?!

How do we know that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create science?

DarkJager

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How do we know that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create science?

Pfft, everyone knows it was the Crawling Cucumber monster that did that. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Just because somethings has a mechanism by which it works, does not disprove GOD.Science does not disprove GOD. Im perfectly easy in my belief in science and that there is a scientific explanation for everything in the physical world but I also believe that having a belief in GOD can co-exist with the marvels of science

I know science does not disprove God but neither does science disprove fairies, unicorns, goblins or the flying spaghetti monster. Can you imagine what your life would be like if you believed in everything that cannot be disproven, ie faires, unicorns, goblins, UFOs, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, every world religion, the easter bunny, santa claus, every conspiracy theory you ever heard, every rumour you ever heard, etc etc etc?

Of course you don't apply that "believe unless proven false" idea to everything because doing so would be ridiculous and you don't have evolved instincts compelling you to believe these things are true without the need for any evidence.

If you think there is a scientific explanation for everything the question you should be asking yourself what purpose God serves other than to fill a gap in your brain

orourkeda

The only way Humans will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god is if they see it. After all the most obvious fact in this discussion is that people can only prove what they can actually see.The belief of a scientist on the late late show will not alter this fact. What other way is there to know if god exists?

Otherwise, it will remain at the individuals discretion as to whether they want to believe in God or not. Its a belief at the moment and it cant be any more than this.

orourkeda

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know science does not disprove God but neither does science disprove fairies, unicorns, goblins or the flying spaghetti monster. Can you imagine what your life would be like if you believed in everything that cannot be disproven, ie faires, unicorns, goblins, UFOs, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, every world religion, the easter bunny, santa claus, every conspiracy theory you ever heard, every rumour you ever heard, etc etc etc?

Of course you don't apply that "believe unless proven false" idea to everything because doing so would be ridiculous and you don't have evolved instincts compelling you to believe these things are true without the need for any evidence.

If you think there is a scientific explanation for everything the question you should be asking yourself what purpose God serves other than to fill a gap in your brain

As above science can only prove what definitely exists and what we can see. Plain and simple.

The only way we will ever prove or disprove conclusively whether a goblin, fairy UFO or anything else of the kind exists is if some form of physical evidence exists to based an informed judgement upon.

robindch

corinacorina wrote: »

he was VERY against people believing in god. sorta freaked me out a bit

That's not really true -- he's simply saying that people shouldn't need to believe that there's one deity or another out there. The world is an truly amazing place already and it's not really improved by thinking that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden or irritable bearded chaps beyond the clouds.

Vampireskiss wrote: »

well I ask you and all the other Atheists who so arrogantly make statements of GODS non existence from time to time.

There are almost no atheists, Dawkins included, who say that god doesn't exist rather, we simply say that he probably doesn't. Dawkins was quite clear about that last night.

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Why don't ye prove he doesn't exist. After all ye are coming from the scientific side of things, which demands proof.

No, in broad terms, mathematics does proof while science does disproof.

Vampireskiss wrote: »

So I don't understand how ye can jump to such conclusions of GODS non-existence without it.

The only person jumping to conclusions is your excellent self, and -- speaking as moderator here -- a bit less jumping up and down and a bit more thought before posting would help the debate run far more smoothly. Thanks.

Galvasean

Gonna try drag this thread back on topic by saying I havent seen it yet but have it taped and will do so later.
From what I've read here it looks as if Tubridy missed out on an opportunity to have an interesting debate so he could give the bloodthirsty masses of Rome people the strawman version of Dawkins that they love to hate.

Glad Jimmy Carr did well. I saw his show on Thursday and he was fantastic. Met him afterwards and told him "If yo're on the Late Late before Dawkins you should talk about God not being real so he'll have to talk about something else". From what I've read here Jimmy was on after Dawkins (foiled again!)
And yes the rumours are true, Ive met him a few times now and he is a lovely man who is very nice to his fans.
Jimmy (we on first name basis now :P) had some very good religious humour in his show PLUG PLUG his new DVD is out soon.


*note the irony of me trying to 'drag this thread back on topic' only for me to drag it off topic again

Tomk1

Vampireskiss wrote: »

The thing is Richard Dawkins is wrong, atheists are wrong. There is a GOD.Its quite ironic that atheists base their stance on Darwins theory of evoultion when in fact Darwin himself was NOT an atheist

Seemingly off LLS, but most scientist are brought up within religion and why would Dawin not believe in God, Gallileo believed in God and was osted by CCL for 'Earth not centre of Universe' (which in reallity everywhere in the -verse is the centre of the -verse).
Evolution never had anything to do with being an Atheist, now the Bible is the pure reason for my Atheism.

LATE LATE SHOW:
Having seen RD @ RDS, and though intresting was a tad boring, so seeing RD/Tubs talk clearly about well freedom of religion vrs non-freedom of non-religion, the acceptance that a person can believe in God and everyone should also believe, but no-one allowed to not believe...etc

Didn't like Tubs slipping 'theory' in where the point of the book is 'Darwins fact/law of evolution'. The layperson's word theory is not the same as a scientist definition as a progress of aquired knowledge.

Jimmy Carr really rubbed it in, something like -'we all have imaginary friends, I just grew out of mine'-
And out classed pure Tubs.

DarkJager

Galvasean wrote: »

Gonna try drag this thread back on topic by saying I havent seen it yet but have it taped and will do so later.
From what I've read here it looks as if Tubridy missed out on an opportunity to have an interesting debate so he could give the bloodthirsty masses of Rome people the strawman version of Dawkins that they love to hate.

Glad Jimmy Carr did well. I saw his show on Thursday and he was fantastic. Met him afterwards and told him "If yo're on the Late Late before Dawkins you should talk about God not being real so he'll have to talk about something else". From what I've read here Jimmy was on after Dawkins (foiled again!)
And yes the rumours are true, Ive met him a few times now and he is a lovely man who is very nice to his fans.
Jimmy (we on first name basis now :P) had some very good religious humour in his show PLUG PLUG his new DVD is out soon.


*note the irony of me trying to 'drag this thread back on topic' only for me to drag it off topic again

Jimmy Carr was simply brilliant on it. His "imaginary friend" line had me in stitches

Sam Vimes

orourkeda wrote: »

The only way Humans will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god is if they see it. After all the most obvious fact in this discussion is that people can only prove what they can actually see.The belief of a scientist on the late late show will not alter this fact. What other way is there to know if god exists?

Otherwise, it will remain at the individuals discretion as to whether they want to believe in God or not. Its a belief at the moment and it cant be any more than this.

You say "The only way Humans will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god is if they see it" but you can't disprove something by seeing it, that would prove it. The christian God is unfalsifiable and he is deliberately designed to be unfalsifiable so that people can hold onto their beliefs forever. The Gods used to live on top of mount Olympus until someone climbed it and found they weren't there. Then he was moved up to the sky but we got our telescopes and peered into the sky, then we went up there for ourselves and found he wasn't there. People saw god in the design and complexity of life but Darwin sorted that one. God got pushed further and further back until he was placed outside the universe, outside time and space where no one can do anything except say that they believe he's there and I can't prove them wrong.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

Turbidy - whoever it was I told you so! Absolute moronic interviewer I'm switching over to J Ross, that's how bad it is.

A bit like asking somebody stop kicking you in the head by kicking you in the nuts instead. Jonnafon Woss should come with a health warning.

5uspect

I relented and turned it on just in time for the excellent Carr. Gawd Tubs is awful.

ChocolateSauce

orourkeda wrote: »

The only way Humans will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god is if they see it. .

If a person saw god, I'd say he was hallucinating. If a group of people saw god, I'd say they were liars.

Indeed , if I saw god I'd be hallucinating, and indeed there are well documented cases of people who felt as though god was talking to them, but know that it was their brain misfiring.

No, if some kind of higher power exists, science will be what reveals it, not the utterly fallible and malleable human mind.

Galvasean

darrenh wrote: »

Do you think if I called you a retard for not believing in God would that be fair?

I don't think its fair that you have replied to a post without reading it properly. The post in question did not call people who believe in God retards, but rather implied that the Late Late Show's live audience are retards.

Oh and speaking of jonathan Woss, I heard Sir David Attenborough was on last night. Anyone catch that?

Vampireskiss

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't think its fair that you have replied to a post without reading it properly. The post in question did not call people who believe in God retards, but rather implied that the Late Late Show's live audience are retards.

Oh and speaking of jonathan Woss, I heard Sir David Attenborough was on last night. Anyone catch that?

Why were the live audience implied to be retards?

DarkJager

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Why were the live audience implied to be retards?

Because of the majority there, it appears 90% of them were too scared not to raise their hands for fear of mammy, daddy or the relatives seeing it and making them the black sheep of the family. It's another type of sheepish conformity.

Calibos

For those that missed Jimmy Carr. Last Nights Late Late is now up on the RTE website. Click RTE PLayer on the extreme right of the website menu bar.

darrenh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How do we know that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create science?

Sad is all I'll say.

Sam Vimes

darrenh wrote: »

Sad is all I'll say.

What's sad exactly? That the logic you use to justify your belief can just as easily be applied to the flying spaghetti monster? I'd be inclined to agree

Join me in giving praise to his noodliness

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

A bit like asking somebody stop kicking you in the head by kicking you in the nuts instead. Jonnafon Woss should come with a health warning.

I'm not his biggest fan but he does manage to make me laugh from time to time. Last night Sir David Attenbourough was explaining the Sloth mating ritual to Ross. It concerns the Sloth not being to able to see or hear very well and therefore it's sense of smell plays a big role when it comes to mating. Inevitably this leads the Sloth to encountering prospective partners while he/she is 'doing his/her business' if you know what I mean.
Just at this moment he switched to the Green Room to get the back stage guests opinion on this rather bizarre ritual and it matrerialised that both Peter Andre and Eva Herzegova were both in the Bathroom leaving a rather bemused Jay Z staring blankly into camera, he hadn't been following the conversation.

DEMON 90

the quality of the quests on the show is going down rapidly, as for the set furniture: could they not of spent a little more on his table and covered up the front of if, the last thing i want too see is the matchstick mans legs wrigling around nervously as he interviews his so called celebrity guests:o

anonymous_joe

DarkJager wrote: »

Because of the majority there, it appears 90% of them were too scared not to raise their hands for fear of mammy, daddy or the relatives seeing it and making them the black sheep of the family. It's another type of sheepish conformity.

I'm not sure being conformist equates to being retarded. In fact, such a statement is bordering on moronic itself.

My granny was a fervent Catholic, and it was something that made her happy. I happily pretended to believe in all of that stuff for her sake. Not wanting to hurt your family/friends whatever is not retarded.

darrenh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's sad exactly? That the logic you use to justify your belief can just as easily be applied to the flying spaghetti monster? I'd be inclined to agree

Join me in giving praise to his noodliness

What's sad is that you feel the need to belittle people. Like a lot of people who have posted here. As someone else has commented here, most people who don't believe in god feel they are of a superior intelligence. That people who do believe are retards or all people who go on the LLS audience are retards. Its just sad and pathetic and honestly I feel sorry for you all.

I believe in both science and god. I am not religious and haven't been to mass in a long time, but also I don't know much about science but I still choose to believe it works.

liamw

darrenh wrote: »

What's sad is that you feel the need to belittle people. Like a lot of people who have posted here. As someone else has commented here, most people who don't believe in god feel they are of a superior intelligence. That people who do believe are retards or all people who go on the LLS audience are retards. Its just sad and pathetic and honestly I feel sorry for you all.

I believe in both science and god. I am not religious and haven't been to mass in a long time, but also I don't know much about science but I still choose to believe it works.

Do you believe in a theistic or deistic god? And don't get upset because you cannot provide the slightest shred of evidence that your god created the universe over the flying spagetti monster. If I said I believe in invisible pick unicorns because they were written about in a book over 2000 years ago, you would ridicule me, and rightly so!

darrenh

liamw wrote: »

Do you believe in a theistic or deistic god? And don't get upset because you cannot provide the slightest shred of evidence that your god created the universe over the flying spagetti monster. If I said I believe in invisible pick unicorns because they were written about in a book over 2000 years ago, you would ridicule me, and rightly so!

theistic or deistic god? I haven't a clue what your on about to be honest!

Its just sad to ridicule people and call them retards. End of.

liamw

darrenh wrote: »

theistic or deistic god? I haven't a clue what your on about to be honest!

Its just sad to ridicule people and call them retards. End of.

OK, do you believe that a supernatural entity created the universe and that's it... OR do you believe in a personal god that answers your prayers and forgives your sins, and gives humans souls etc. as described in a holy book?

There's a bit of a stronger argument for the former deistic god... but the latter.. personally I think those beliefs are as absurd as belief in the invisible pink unicorn.

Sam Vimes

darrenh wrote: »

What's sad is that you feel the need to belittle people. Like a lot of people who have posted here. As someone else has commented here, most people who don't believe in god feel they are of a superior intelligence. That people who do believe are retards or all people who go on the LLS audience are retards. Its just sad and pathetic and honestly I feel sorry for you all.

I believe in both science and god. I am not religious and haven't been to mass in a long time, but also I don't know much about science but I still choose to believe it works.

I did not "belittle you because you believe in God". You made a point that makes no logical sense. It is irrational to point to the fact that something can't be disproven as a reason to believe in it and I pointed this out through an analogy. The analogy appears ridiculous because the point being made is ridiculous. If you don't want the logical flaws in your arguments pointed out, don't post them on the internet

Rb

darrenh wrote: »

theistic or deistic god? I haven't a clue what your on about to be honest!

Its just sad to ridicule people and call them retards. End of.

Well, sometimes the truth hurts.

Also, I love those who claim to believe in science and God, that way they can pick and choose from TWO sets of beliefs to make themselves seem coherent, no longer are they confined to merely picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally and which are merely "stories".

Good ol' theists.

cooker3

Man, that interview was an utter car crash. It's like if Tubridy had never heard of atheism before. He looked all wide eyed and start asking questions some 8 year old would ask "so like you don't believe in god really, well eh do you have funerals. Are you saying these people in the crowd are wrong, there is 100 of them!!" Even with Jimmy Carr he asks his aunt and uncle do they believe in god, wtf?

Still. I don't know why people are surprised at the number of people who believed in god in the crowd. Why would you expect anything less then the overwhelming majority? It's Ireland.

Antbert

I cringed the whole way through. I wish RD would look at this thread and realise Ireland is not very well represented by the Late Late Show audience.

I had previously thought Ryan to be sort of funny. A thoroughly bearable presenter. I have never gone off someone so rapidly. This whole "well, loads of people believe in god. So what do you have to say about THAT then?" Eh... Was there a point somewhere buried deep inside that question? I wasn't surprised at the show of hands though. Depressing, not surprising.

What pissed me off even more was at the end, he didn't even show his book to the camera.

I was very impressed with the priest though. A thoroughly likeable fellow. I especially liked how he questioned him on his current book topic and ignored Ryan's attempts to get controversy out of him such as "well you MUST have some problems with what he says". He also seemed very pleased with RD's answer. He seemed like he was genuinely interested and just wanted a discussion. Pity he didn't do the interview.

As for this:

darrenh wrote: »

What's sad is that you feel the need to belittle people. Like a lot of people who have posted here. As someone else has commented here, most people who don't believe in god feel they are of a superior intelligence. That people who do believe are retards or all people who go on the LLS audience are retards. Its just sad and pathetic and honestly I feel sorry for you all.

I believe in both science and god. I am not religious and haven't been to mass in a long time, but also I don't know much about science but I still choose to believe it works.

Though it has been addressed...

Firstly, see the parts in bold. If that isn't an attempt at belittling then I'll need to consult my dictionary.

Secondly, "I believe in science and god but don't really know anything about either". Hmm. Convincing.