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

tubular_trekkie's Profile

tubular_trekkie's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Female

Latest Discussions Started by tubular_trekkie

More Discussions by tubular_trekkie

Latest Comments by tubular_trekkie

Go to: An Apology

tubular_trekkie's Avatar Jump to comment 685 by tubular_trekkie

What an unfortunate business this has been.

Personally I can't say I'm too upset about the demise of the forum - I can't remember the last time I posted there for instance (the forum 'culture' wasn't really my cup of tea) - but I can certainly understand that those more heavily involved in it might feel slightly differently. (But that's not to say that I would agree with some of the sheer incandescent RAGE that has been ignited by this incident. Not at all. It's not life and death, is it?)

And it was then a pity that things seemed to spiral out of control with an unpleasant "us and them" mentality springing up, as well.
So I would say that this apology is certainly very welcome from that particular point of view, even if I personally feel that Richard doesn't really have much to apologise for. It's HIS site after all.

I very much look forward to seeing what the new 'Discussion area' will be like. More reason and science and (hopefully) less hostility and 'lolcatz'-type stuff, perhaps?

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:02:00 UTC | #447066

Go to: On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

tubular_trekkie's Avatar Jump to comment 153 by tubular_trekkie

Too many believers, happy to hide under a collective umbrella of religion when it suits, seek to brush off Dawkins' criticisms by saying it doesn't apply to THEIR (more sophisticated) version of faith. I'm wondering therefore if it might be useful remove this protective blanket by separating out 'deists', 'theistic evolutionists' and 'theists' so that attacks can be channeled more efficiently. I don't know whether any surveys have done on this but what proportion of believers accept evolution as compatible with God, and what proportion believe in an intervening, miracle performing prayer answering God?


Indeed. Personally I can't see how evolution is compatible with a belief in God at all. There's no Adam or Eve, so there can't be any such concept as 'original sin' and therefore we don't need 'saving' from anything; there's no 'special creation' so human beings aren't the centre of the universe (or the main protagonists in some cosmic morality play) - in fact it's perfectly possible that we're not the most intelligent or highly evolved creatures to have inhabited this universe. All of which leads you to some sort of wishy-washy deism. But trying to claim that an intelligent agency stands behind the process of evolution is to my mind wishful thinking in the place of ample evidence to the contrary. Such compartmentalisation merely appeals to ignorance i.e. "there could be some vast, mind-boggling 'divine plan' (that merely happens to make reality look as if it is entirely indifferent to our presence), but we're just not smart enough to understand it". That's not only anti-science and anti-reason, it's a level of contrivance up there with the Flat Earth Conspiracy Theory nonsense on that other thread.

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:37:00 UTC | #213069

Go to: Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

tubular_trekkie's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by tubular_trekkie

Yep, sounds like a fun idea to me!

I just hope the episode he appears in is better than the ridiculous 'Partners in Crime' opener we were subjected to last night. Fat monsters indeed :(

Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:31:00 UTC | #148086

Go to: Fleabytes

tubular_trekkie's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by tubular_trekkie

Wonderful stuff and VERY thorough! I'm not sure I'd have the patience to wade through all the fleas personally. More tired arguments (or lack of them) than you could shake a stick at...

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:47:00 UTC | #123296

Go to: Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

tubular_trekkie's Avatar Jump to comment 351 by tubular_trekkie

I don't normally comment on these things, but this article just struck me as strange.

I sort of agree with some of the points RD is making, although the whole piece comes across as a rather poorly reasoned attempt to 'justify' extra-marital relationships. I can't see anything wrong with having multiple partners if you're honest and open about it, but most people don't have this in mind when they get married. Not that adultery is a 'sin' of course (jeez, I hate that word). Perhaps I misinterpreted the article - I found it somewhat muddled in any case and curiously impassioned for someone who I had assumed to be very happily married.

Still, there's certainly no harm in questioning the status quo, I suppose.

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:50:00 UTC | #89567

More Comments by tubular_trekkie