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

NickNakorn's Profile

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

Latest Discussions Started by NickNakorn

Larsen's Embryology used to bolster bogus Biodynamics - last commented 15 November 2012 06:53 PM

More Discussions by NickNakorn

Latest Comments by NickNakorn

Go to: "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin"

NickNakorn's Avatar Jump to comment 144 by NickNakorn

Goodness, that was slow-moving and tedious. A useless Chair-person, crappy questions and no opportunity for disagreement that might have either of the two conversationalists breaking sweat. A disappointing waste of time - particularly as the Archbish agreed with nearly everything and was just vague and a bit pompous about the things he didn't agree with. As Stephen Fry says of the clergy "What are you For?!"

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:34:02 UTC | #921149

Go to: Moral disgust carries foul flavour, researchers say

NickNakorn's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by NickNakorn

This short piece tells us nothing about the study, the context of Ryan Ritter's comment or any conclusions we might come to concerning how religious people feel about writing that undermines their belief. It does tell us that Misty Harris, assuming she hasn't been edited to pieces, has missed something.

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:12:16 UTC | #878671

Go to: UPDATE The Great Debate - What is life?

NickNakorn's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by NickNakorn

Just a note to say I'm fully supportive of Hadamhiram's points above. I've read most of Lovelock's popular output and do not remember anything remotely mystical. Richard Dawkins' reference to the mad-as-a-hatter Teddy Goldsmith should have mentioned that Goldsmith ascribes sentience, purpose and power to the Earth while Lovelock certainlt does not. Goldsmith's lunatic book The Way did a tremenous amount of harm to Gaia theory; to quote Lovelock, "Gaia is NOT teleological"

best wishes all,

Nick

Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:16:54 UTC | #599983

Go to: Advertising Double-Standards Authority

NickNakorn's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by NickNakorn

Paula, wonderful that you made the effort to test the system.

In my experience the ASA and the PCC rarely go after local advertisers or politicians because the resulting possible court cases consume time and money for those organisations without having the prestige of being national cases. Without such prestige the cases will not be reported and thus the national media won't report them and both the ASA and PCC wil not have made their point about standards. So it's not only that there may have been few complaints but that few people would know that a complaint had been made whether or not the complaint was upheld.

Also, in the case of the PCC (not that you approached them), I think that only large publications that contribute to the PCC fall under their gaze - part of 'self regulation'.

Nick

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:37:37 UTC | #518320

Go to: Creation in a gulping worm

NickNakorn's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by NickNakorn

Richard,

As far as I can tell, people who believe in a god, or gods, see the 'but who created god?' argument as if it were the same argument as 'but what came before the big bang or sequence of big bangs?' in relation to the idea that there might be a 'theory of everything'.

I have always been happy to answer the second question with, "I don't know, but I don't need a god to fill the gap."

It seems to me that it is the filling of the gap that seems to be so essential for many religious people; as if the lack of sentient agency in that gap is too much to contemplate. I have never believed in any form of god so I have never experienced the yearning to have everything explained either temporally or spacially. But perhaps there are psychological similarities between the desire to find a 'theory of everything' (for example, though any great ambition might suffice) and the desire to find 'god'. I don't have the desire to find either, though I'm very much interested in the quest for a theory of everything, though one is always left with 'what came before 'everything' - in other words, why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'?.

That last question does sometimes make me feel slightly strange - a bit like catching one's self momentarily in a mirror or shop window and not recognising one's self - one's perception is confounded for a second. I put such feelings down to the paradox of existence and certainly don't make a religious structure out them. But, for many, those odd emotions amount to a spiritual experience loaded with meaning.

As you were a believer in your childhood, were you later aware of any emotional gaps being filled by science (or anything else) that were previously filled by religion?

Sorry about all the parenthesis but many of these terms are elusive to capture.

Best wishes

Nick

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:38:56 UTC | #518142

More Comments by NickNakorn