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

Habalabam's Profile

Habalabam's Avatar Joined about 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Habalabam

More Discussions by Habalabam

Latest Comments by Habalabam

Go to: Jordan opens children's museum

Habalabam's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Habalabam

I'm positively damaged. I'm finding myself incredulous that what I'm reading is not another blow to science.

I read the whole article just waiting for creation science exhibits and "scientists" helpfully "explaining the holes in evolution".

Yes, go Jordan!

Wed, 02 May 2007 23:44:00 UTC | #34377

Go to: Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Habalabam's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Habalabam

Hoping for a happy birthday and that you will live to see the shifts to which you've dedicated so much of yourself.

This form of attention may remind you of the idolizing that you seek to avoid, but at least nobody here doubts that today we are celebrating a man. Nothing more than a great man.
We may be few, but speaking for myself I can tell you that my devotion does not come cheap.

Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:05:00 UTC | #25350

Go to: Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Habalabam's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Habalabam

I thought that I would read the "The Dawkins delusion". I'm now positive that I wouldn't come past the preface without my retort buffer running over.

McGraths arrogance at even pretending to present an argument is just annoying. He got his butt handed to him nicely.

I think that Atkins could have made a better argument on what science means by "economical explanation". As it stood, Gods existence passed as an economical explanation.

Atkins should've stuck to the "God hypothesis is proposed, now pending evidence"-definition of atheism.
The door was definitely open when a womans question presuppposed atheism as an ANSWER. It's not. It's just a term whose existence is regrettable because it describes a position that does not require a term in any other context.

Atkins approach on "why"-questions as unjustified was very well presented. His description of the scientific method likewise.

I think McGrath can be summarized by
"wouldn't it be great if...... therefore, let's pretend that such is the case" and "wouldn't it suck if....... therefore, let's ignore it".

I believe McGrath got away with the point of Darwin being a contemporary scientific position. It was a sneaky version of the "just-a-theory-not-a-fact". Atkins shouldn't have ignored that one.

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:29:00 UTC | #24802

Go to: 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Habalabam's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by Habalabam

I'm so frustrated by this form of debate.

Can somebody who listened through give me a rundown of the following:
* What DID the creationists get away with?
* What could they PRETEND to get away with?

If the creationist really got his nose grounded, I'll listen for mere entertainment value. If he in all unlikelyhood raised any form of relevant objection to anything, then I'll listen. The normal gibberish has no information or entertainment value.

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:07:00 UTC | #23193

More Comments by Habalabam