This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

SixxSixxSixx's Profile

SixxSixxSixx's Avatar Joined over 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by SixxSixxSixx

More Discussions by SixxSixxSixx

Latest Comments by SixxSixxSixx

Go to: The Bible : A History - Creation

SixxSixxSixx's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by SixxSixxSixx

55. Comment #454472 by SSGARRITY on January 25, 2010 at 1:55 pm

Damn. My hopes instantly dashed.

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:00:00 UTC | #435031

Go to: The Bible : A History - Creation

SixxSixxSixx's Avatar Jump to comment 56 by SixxSixxSixx

54. Comment #454469 by Ignorant Amos on January 25, 2010 at 1:44 pm

I also noted that the silly positions taken by the belivers interviewed went unchallenged. YEC's reason why the fossil record is such, due to Noahs flood using flim flam as science to justify it...pass the sick bag. Polkinghornes physical constants arguement, etc....all giving the uninformed viewer no opposing rebutal to consider. Hardly an unbiased approach CH4.

That did annoy me also. Hopefully most of the people who would be susceptable to those arguments would have been watching E4.

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:56:00 UTC | #435030

Go to: Atheism is the new fundamentalism

SixxSixxSixx's Avatar Jump to comment 195 by SixxSixxSixx

Comment #436940 by Spiral:
Not sure if it was only Seldon's imcompetence that made it so awkward. The format just sucks, big time. This was evident also in the previous debate. The audience, or the debaters (especially theists), do not remember the questions, it takes forever to get those mics to people and get them to start and so on. It just doesn't work.

Yeah, you're right about the questions format. It was a shambles from the start. It would take a moderator of infinitly more wits than Seldon could muster to make it work.

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:41:00 UTC | #418540

Go to: Atheism is the new fundamentalism

SixxSixxSixx's Avatar Jump to comment 188 by SixxSixxSixx

I was present. I thought Seldon was an inadaquate moderator to say the least. I had no idea about his previoius writings and did not hear his comment to Charles Moore but came away with no doubt as to his personal opinion on the question. His bias was not his main fault however. He had a general air of incompetence and let the questions from the audience session turn into a total gangfuck.
Star of the show in my opinion was Grayling. It seemed to me that you could have countered any point made by a theist on the night by simply refering them to a point already made in his 10 minute introductory statement. And the way he took Moore to task for his ad hominen attack on Dawkins was excellent. As somebody has already stated, I feel that Dawkins and Grayling are a perfect tag team.

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:59:00 UTC | #418489

Go to: Science writer Simon Singh wins ruling in chiropractic libel battle

SixxSixxSixx's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by SixxSixxSixx

If you know that the claims you are making are un-evidenced, then making the claims is dishonest."

Where is the evidence that the BCA know their claims are dishonest? We all might have our opinions about their honesty but this is being decided in a court of law.
"By arguing over the rather more smaller, more specific to this one case, issue of what "bogus" means, this case isn't really attacking the problem with the libel law in the first place."

Once again, this is not the actual case.

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:29:00 UTC | #405770

More Comments by SixxSixxSixx