| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Gordon" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2006 09:32:35 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
"R.C. Payne" <rcp27@nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dqo89f$t6o$1@gemini.csx.cam.
The problem I have with both the "God" and "Not God" believers is that
they profess to know, with certainty, the nature of the universe, that
either it is the work of God (and in some super-universe sense, contains
God), or that it definitely is not the work of God, because there is no
such thing. To actually know one of these two states to be true requires
that you actaully know the nature of the universe.
No knowledge of 'the nature of the universe' in this widest of all possible
senses is actually required in order to know *with absolute certainty* that
all existing 'god' claims and all existing religious dogmas are either
unfounded or/and self-refutingly incoherent or/and have manifestly
counter-factual implications. Therefore, complete knowledge of 'the nature
of the universe' is not required to justify a step whereby the twits who
blabber about impossible 'gods' lose their tax breaks; lose their seats at
the tables of power; lose their 'educational' access to the minds of little
children; and lose the chance to ***** away ten minutes of the 'Today'
programme every weekday morning on Radio 4.
Gord.
.
|
|
| User: "Nick Wagg" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 10:08:35 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:niOzf.3728$0N1.1511@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"R.C. Payne" <rcp27@nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dqo89f$t6o$1@gemini.csx.cam.
...Therefore, complete knowledge of 'the nature of the universe' is
not required to justify a step whereby the twits who blabber about
impossible 'gods' lose...the chance to ***** away ten minutes of the
'Today' programme every weekday morning on Radio 4.
I welcome the slot and would miss it if it were junked. The wide
variety of contributors from different religions, as well as humanists
and atheists, helps me to understand what makes a broad spectrum
of thinking fellow human beings tick, regardless of my own personal
views.
For my part, they could get rid of the sports news, which gets rather
more airplay in the programme on the whole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 10:28:33 AM |
|
|
"Nick Wagg" <naw@transcendata.com> wrote in message
news:dqodi3$68$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:niOzf.3728$0N1.1511@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"R.C. Payne" <rcp27@nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dqo89f$t6o$1@gemini.csx.cam.
...Therefore, complete knowledge of 'the nature of the universe' is
not required to justify a step whereby the twits who blabber about
impossible 'gods' lose...the chance to ***** away ten minutes of the
'Today' programme every weekday morning on Radio 4.
I welcome the slot and would miss it if it were junked. The wide
variety of contributors from different religions, as well as humanists
and atheists, helps me to understand what makes a broad spectrum
of thinking fellow human beings tick, regardless of my own personal
views.
What 'wide variety of contributors'?!? You have *never* heard a 'humanist'
or an 'atheist' in that slot, because 'humanists' and 'atheists' *are not
allowed near it*.
Let me reiterate. You think you've heard a 'wide variety', but you're
fantasising. You've not heard any 'humanists' or 'atheists' in that slot.
It's BBC policy to keep them off. Not allowed. Religious speakers only,
thank you.
'Thought [sic] for the Day' is, in shameful fact if not in name, 'Religious
Thought [sic] for the Day'. Got that?
Gord.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 09:46:04 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:R6Pzf.1003$Y6.381@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
"Nick Wagg" <naw@
Let me reiterate. You think you've heard a 'wide variety', but you're
fantasising. You've not heard any 'humanists' or 'atheists' in that slot.
It's BBC policy to keep them off. Not allowed. Religious speakers only,
thank you.
'Thought [sic] for the Day' is, in shameful fact if not in name,
'Religious Thought [sic] for the Day'. Got that?
Breaking News:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/thoughtforthedaywillremainarelig.html
Thought for the Day Will Remain a Religious Monopoly
Appearing before the Broadcasting Select Committee in parliament this week,
Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC, confirmed that he has no
intention of opening up Thought for the Day to non-believers.
When questioned about comments he made last week in an interview with The
Tablet indicating that he might be amenable to ending the religious monopoly
on Thought for the Day, Mr Thompson made clear that the issue had been
settled in 2004, when the board of governors had rejected a complaint from
the NSS.
Terry Sanderson, vice president of the National Secular Society, said: "It
was clear to us from the start that Mr Thompson had absolutely no intention
of reviewing this matter. This unjustifiable religious propaganda slot will
remain unchallenged."
G.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wagg" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 11:06:21 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:0B7Af.2089$OI3.1805@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:R6Pzf.1003$Y6.381@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
"Nick Wagg" <naw@
Let me reiterate. You think you've heard a 'wide variety', but you're
fantasising. You've not heard any 'humanists' or 'atheists' in that
slot.
It's BBC policy to keep them off. Not allowed. Religious speakers only,
thank you.
Fantasising? Well maybe I did imagine it. I have heard humanists
expounding their views on Radio 4 before now but perhaps I was
mistaken in thinking it was on Today.
There is still plenty of variety and it still helps me to understand the
viewpoints of many others with different points of view. Having
been both an atheist and a Christian by conviction at different times
in my life, I understand both those stances fairly well.
'Thought [sic] for the Day' is, in shameful fact if not in name,
'Religious Thought [sic] for the Day'. Got that?
This really winds you up, doesn't it?
Just because the description of something does not describe it
completely does not necessarily mean that either the purveyors
of the information or the participants are trying to hoodwink the
audience. Anyone who listens to the slot for more than a week
will have a pretty good idea of what they are letting themselves
in for.
Breaking News:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/thoughtforthedaywillremainarelig.html
Thought for the Day Will Remain a Religious Monopoly
Appearing before the Broadcasting Select Committee in parliament this
week,
Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC, confirmed that he has no
intention of opening up Thought for the Day to non-believers.
When questioned about comments he made last week in an interview with The
Tablet indicating that he might be amenable to ending the religious
monopoly
on Thought for the Day, Mr Thompson made clear that the issue had been
settled in 2004, when the board of governors had rejected a complaint from
the NSS.
Terry Sanderson, vice president of the National Secular Society, said: "It
was clear to us from the start that Mr Thompson had absolutely no
intention
of reviewing this matter. This unjustifiable religious propaganda slot
will
remain unchallenged."
Sour grapes. You don't just disbelieve in God. You appear to want
to abolish all religion. You want to impose your view on others in the
same way as some religious believers try to do.
You are an atheist fundamentalist - perhaps you'd make a good
atheist suicide bomber, or would you just be content with exhorting
others to blow themselves and the innocent up?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kieran Mansley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 10:34:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:28:33 +0000, Uncle Gordon wrote:
What 'wide variety of contributors'?!? You have *never* heard a 'humanist'
or an 'atheist' in that slot, because 'humanists' and 'atheists' *are not
allowed near it*.
Richard Dawkins has done it. Atheist guests (which I guess would
include Buddhists) are very rare, but they are occasionally present.
Kieran
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 01:54:43 PM |
|
|
"Kieran Mansley" <kieranm@NOSPAM.gtemail.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.19.16.34.07.17517@NOSPAM.gtemail.net...
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:28:33 +0000, Uncle Gordon wrote:
What 'wide variety of contributors'?!? You have *never* heard a
'humanist'
or an 'atheist' in that slot, because 'humanists' and 'atheists' *are not
allowed near it*.
Richard Dawkins has done it. Atheist guests (which I guess would
include Buddhists) are very rare, but they are occasionally present.
They are not 'occasionally present'. They are *not permitted to be present*.
And I know for a fact that Dawkins has not 'done it': I have a long history
of correspondence with the BBC on this issue, so I know precisely what the
history of the slot is. I repeat: 'Thought for the Day' is not permitted to
have non-religious 'guests'. Got that? Or do you just prefer your fantasy
too much?
Gord.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Lamb" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 03:38:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:54:43 GMT, Uncle Gordon wrote:
"Kieran Mansley" <kieranm@NOSPAM.gtemail.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.19.16.34.07.17517@NOSPAM.gtemail.net...
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:28:33 +0000, Uncle Gordon wrote:
What 'wide variety of contributors'?!? You have *never* heard a
'humanist'
or an 'atheist' in that slot, because 'humanists' and 'atheists' *are not
allowed near it*.
Richard Dawkins has done it. Atheist guests (which I guess would
include Buddhists) are very rare, but they are occasionally present.
I have a long history
of correspondence with the BBC on this issue, so I know precisely what the
history of the slot is.
If you know precisely what the history of the slot is, then you would know
that it orginated to give listeners an opportunity to listen to the non-
secular worlds viewpoint on the events presented in the Today programme.
It is called a 'rounded view'. The editor has made this point very clear.
On numerous occasions. To request an atheist viewpoint in this slot is
like asking for an atheist Songs of Praise (not that I even like SoP) to
be broadcast to balance things out. For me, the other 1 hour and 56
minutes of Today are a secular description of the events (and very good
they are too). Also, it is a 3-4 minute slot, not a ten minute slot as you
very incorrectly assert in another post.
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R.C. Payne" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 10:49:22 AM |
|
|
Kieran Mansley wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:28:33 +0000, Uncle Gordon wrote:
What 'wide variety of contributors'?!? You have *never* heard a 'humanist'
or an 'atheist' in that slot, because 'humanists' and 'atheists' *are not
allowed near it*.
Richard Dawkins has done it. Atheist guests (which I guess would
include Buddhists) are very rare, but they are occasionally present.
Kieran
If you are prepared to go to the slightly lower brow, but arguably more
listened to, "Pause for Thought" on Radio 2, during Wake up to Wogan, as
an example of a similar kind, one of the regular contributors is
Dharmachari Nagaraja, a Buddhist. I tend to listen to Radio 2 as I
can't cope with intelectual persuits that early in the morning.
Robin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 10:40:36 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:34:07 +0000, Kieran Mansley
<kieranm@NOSPAM.gtemail.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:28:33 +0000, Uncle Gordon wrote:
What 'wide variety of contributors'?!? You have *never* heard a 'humanist'
or an 'atheist' in that slot, because 'humanists' and 'atheists' *are not
allowed near it*.
Richard Dawkins has done it. Atheist guests (which I guess would
include Buddhists) are very rare, but they are occasionally present.
I thought he was refused, but given another 5 minutes at another time.
Kieran
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Owens" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 10:46:00 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:27gvs1t2fe1j01fpsetis71fg8tac2elcv@4ax.com...
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:34:07 +0000, Kieran Mansley
<kieranm@NOSPAM.gtemail.net> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:28:33 +0000, Uncle Gordon wrote:
What 'wide variety of contributors'?!? You have *never* heard a
'humanist'
or an 'atheist' in that slot, because 'humanists' and 'atheists' *are
not
allowed near it*.
Richard Dawkins has done it. Atheist guests (which I guess would
include Buddhists) are very rare, but they are occasionally present.
I thought he was refused, but given another 5 minutes at another time.
Too arrogant, apparently :-).
(Can't be that, actually: they have John Humphries on fairly regularly.)
Chris Owens.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kieran Mansley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 10:52:57 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:40:36 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Richard Dawkins has done it. Atheist guests (which I guess would
include Buddhists) are very rare, but they are occasionally present.
I thought he was refused, but given another 5 minutes at another time.
You're right, I had mis-remembered:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2193321.stm
Kieran
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.C. Payne" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 11:52:56 AM |
|
|
Kieran Mansley wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:40:36 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Richard Dawkins has done it. Atheist guests (which I guess would
include Buddhists) are very rare, but they are occasionally present.
I thought he was refused, but given another 5 minutes at another time.
You're right, I had mis-remembered:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2193321.stm
I am intereted to note a quote from Prof. Dawkins on that BBC news page,
"We have been born and we are going to die, but before we die we have
time to understand why we were born." It was always my understanding
that an important feature of the scientific method was that it describes
but does not explain. It answers the "how" questions but not the "why"
questions. Am I mis-understanding science here, or is Dawkins
overstepping the bounds of what science is applicable to?
Robin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark T.B. Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 12:35:59 PM |
|
|
"R.C. Payne" <rcp27@nospam.ac.uk> writes:
It was always my understanding that an important feature of the
scientific method was that it describes but does not explain. It
answers the "how" questions but not the "why" questions. Am I
mis-understanding science here, or is Dawkins overstepping the bounds
of what science is applicable to?
I think that a property of a good scientific theory is that it describes
a model of reality that explains the experimental observations.
-- Mark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 04:43:20 PM |
|
|
"R.C. Payne" <rcp27@nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:dqojlp$p7u$1@
I am intereted to note a quote from Prof. Dawkins on that BBC news page,
"We have been born and we are going to die, but before we die we have time
to understand why we were born." It was always my understanding that an
important feature of the scientific method was that it describes but does
not explain. It answers the "how" questions but not the "why" questions.
Am I mis-understanding science here, or is Dawkins overstepping the bounds
of what science is applicable to?
In a non-teleological scheme, the 'how' *is* the 'why'. Stop me if I'm going
too quickly for you here.
Gord.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 04:56:23 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:cCUzf.664$OI3.531@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
"R.C. Payne" <rcp27@nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:dqojlp$p7u$1@
I am intereted to note a quote from Prof. Dawkins on that BBC news page,
"We have been born and we are going to die, but before we die we have
time to understand why we were born." It was always my understanding
that an important feature of the scientific method was that it describes
but does not explain. It answers the "how" questions but not the "why"
questions. Am I mis-understanding science here, or is Dawkins
overstepping the bounds of what science is applicable to?
Certainly he oversteps the bounds, maybe that is why he is not at Oxford
anymore, or why the BBC turned this down, or why he looks like he is
terrified he throwing his reputration down the drain every time he is on
screen.
In a non-teleological scheme, the 'how' *is* the 'why'. Stop me if I'm
going too quickly for you here.
Don't human beings qualify as a teleological factor in scheme of things for
you?
Gord.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 05:12:58 PM |
|
|
"JusUK" <jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote in message news:dqp5cu$ii$1@
Certainly he oversteps the bounds, maybe that is why he is not at Oxford
anymore,
*Jeeezes Herbert Christ*. You're even *too dumb to talk to*:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml
or why the BBC turned this down, or why he looks like he is terrified he
throwing his reputration down the drain every time he is on screen.
Blah, blah...
In a non-teleological scheme, the 'how' *is* the 'why'. Stop me if I'm
going too quickly for you here.
Don't human beings qualify as a teleological factor in scheme of things
for you?
Moron alert...
G.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 01:39:13 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:_1Vzf.48334$zt1.27585@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
"JusUK" <jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote in message news:dqp5cu$ii$1@
Certainly he oversteps the bounds, maybe that is why he is not at Oxford
anymore,
*Jeeezes Herbert Christ*. You're even *too dumb to talk to*:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml
OK.
or why the BBC turned this down, or why he looks like he is terrified he
throwing his reputration down the drain every time he is on screen.
Blah, blah...
In a non-teleological scheme, the 'how' *is* the 'why'. Stop me if I'm
going too quickly for you here.
Don't human beings qualify as a teleological factor in scheme of things
for you?
Moron alert...
G.
Actually I was a bit pissed but there is definetly something wrong with what
you write above and I don't think it is very impressive or necessary to
start name calling but hey for all I know you could be twelve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John J. Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
20 Jan 2006 02:55:18 AM |
|
|
Any chance that The root of all evil is available for download somewhere..
would like to watch and make my own mind up...
JJS.
"JusUK" <jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote in message
news:dqq41a$rla$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:_1Vzf.48334$zt1.27585@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
"JusUK" <jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> wrote in message news:dqp5cu$ii$1@
Certainly he oversteps the bounds, maybe that is why he is not at Oxford
anymore,
*Jeeezes Herbert Christ*. You're even *too dumb to talk to*:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml
OK.
or why the BBC turned this down, or why he looks like he is terrified he
throwing his reputration down the drain every time he is on screen.
Blah, blah...
In a non-teleological scheme, the 'how' *is* the 'why'. Stop me if I'm
going too quickly for you here.
Don't human beings qualify as a teleological factor in scheme of things
for you?
Moron alert...
G.
Actually I was a bit pissed but there is definetly something wrong with
what you write above and I don't think it is very impressive or necessary
to start name calling but hey for all I know you could be twelve.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gropius Riftwynde" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 12:13:49 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:08:35 -0000, "Nick Wagg" <naw@transcendata.com>
wrote:
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:niOzf.3728$0N1.1511@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"R.C. Payne" <rcp27@nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dqo89f$t6o$1@gemini.csx.cam.
...Therefore, complete knowledge of 'the nature of the universe' is
not required to justify a step whereby the twits who blabber about
impossible 'gods' lose...the chance to ***** away ten minutes of the
'Today' programme every weekday morning on Radio 4.
I welcome the slot and would miss it if it were junked. The wide
variety of contributors from different religions, as well as humanists
and atheists, helps me to understand what makes a broad spectrum
of thinking fellow human beings tick, regardless of my own personal
views.
For my part, they could get rid of the sports news, which gets rather
more airplay in the programme on the whole.
Careful. Now you *are* talking about religion. Even the BBC seem to
think so.
GR
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Prof. Richard Dawkins |
19 Jan 2006 09:50:52 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Gordon" <UGbod@dod.com> wrote in message
news:niOzf.3728$0N1.1511@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"R.C. Payne" <rcp27@nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dqo89f$t6o$1@gemini.csx.cam.
The problem I have with both the "God" and "Not God" believers is that
they profess to know, with certainty, the nature of the universe, that
either it is the work of God (and in some super-universe sense, contains
God), or that it definitely is not the work of God, because there is no
such thing. To actually know one of these two states to be true requires
that you actaully know the nature of the universe.
No knowledge of 'the nature of the universe' in this widest of all
possible senses is actually required in order to know *with absolute
certainty* that all existing 'god' claims and all existing religious
dogmas are either unfounded or/and self-refutingly incoherent or/and have
manifestly counter-factual implications. Therefore, complete knowledge of
'the nature of the universe' is not required to justify a step whereby the
twits who blabber about impossible 'gods' lose their tax breaks; lose
their seats at the tables of power; lose their 'educational' access to the
minds of little children; and lose the chance to ***** away ten minutes of
the 'Today' programme every weekday morning on Radio 4.
Gord.
Got to agree with that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
