Richard Dawkins video, "The Root of All Evil"

[bluesbassman]

Apologies in advance if this has been posted before. Here are links to a free streaming video of a two part program hosted by Richard Dawkins titled (over his objection) "The Root of All Evil," broadcast in the UK. It's pretty good, imho.

Dawkins video part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6193866746249268230)

Dawkins video part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8239331458224461127)

[Peter666]

Blah blah, religion kills people, and yet atheistic ideologies killed more people within the twentieth century than anything else.

Anyway, who gives a [censored] about anything if there is no God. Go do what what you want, and if it includes killing people, than more power to you. It's not like it matters anyway if we all disappear at death.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Blah blah, religion kills people, and yet atheistic ideologies killed more people within the twentieth century than anything else.

Anyway, who gives a [censored] about anything if there is no God. Go do what what you want, and if it includes killing people, than more power to you. It's not like it matters anyway if we all disappear at death.

[/ QUOTE ]
I and many others give a [censored] about things even if there's no god. that you cant comprehend that is purely about you.

chez

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
Blah blah, religion kills people, and yet atheistic ideologies killed more people within the twentieth century than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism is not an ideology, or a worldview.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, who gives a [censored] about anything if there is no God. Go do what what you want, and if it includes killing people, than more power to you. It's not like it matters anyway if we all disappear at death.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why is it almost all the violence in the world going on right now is by religious people?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Blah blah, religion kills people, and yet atheistic ideologies killed more people within the twentieth century than anything else.

Anyway, who gives a [censored] about anything if there is no God. Go do what what you want, and if it includes killing people, than more power to you. It's not like it matters anyway if we all disappear at death.

[/ QUOTE ]
I and many others give a [censored] about things even if there's no god. that you cant comprehend that is purely about you.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think he's saying you don't give a [censored], he's saying you shouldn't. it's still arguable, but less clearly false.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Blah blah, religion kills people, and yet atheistic ideologies killed more people within the twentieth century than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism is not an ideology, or a worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]

can an ideology be atheistic without being atheism itself?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Blah blah, religion kills people, and yet atheistic ideologies killed more people within the twentieth century than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins' point (if you had bothered to pay attention) is that the danger of religion is it requires the abandonment of reason, i.e., faith. However, that does not imply atheism or an atheist is rational. It is quite possible an atheistic ethical/political philosophy (such as communism) is even more irrational, evil, and destructive than a particular theistic philosophy. It's arguable that irrationalism most often takes a theistic form these days, which is why it is Dawkins' focus.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, who gives a [censored] about anything if there is no God. Go do what what you want, and if it includes killing people, than more power to you. It's not like it matters anyway if we all disappear at death.

[/ QUOTE ]

The preceding demonstrates beautifully why a theory of ethics is impossible if one abandons reason. We can only hope this poster does not "interpret" some mythology or hear voices or whatever from his "god" which commands him to murder infidels.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
can an ideology be atheistic without being atheism itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism is merely having a specific view on one eensy-teensy aspect of reality.
Are apples larger than the moon? No.
Does water flow uphill? No.
Is there a god(s)? No.
It's only by convention that the 3rd one gets an 'ism' attached, because it's in the same class as the other 2.. nothing comes attached to it.
You'll know nothing about the person views on crime, punishment, forgiveness, using road salt,responsibility, vegan, nadda, by their answer to any of those questions.

Unlike ideologies that have a various lists attached that the subscribers share, at least in rough form, or at least in principle.

What ideology (systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture) do you have in mind when you say 'atheism'?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, who gives a [censored] about anything if there is no God. Go do what what you want, and if it includes killing people, than more power to you. It's not like it matters anyway if we all disappear at death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ever think that atheists don't WANT to kill people? You know, because, we don't like hurting people, and because socail norms exist that would stop us from doing things that we would otherwise want to do, like have sex, have a fulfilling career, raise a family, have fun etc?

"If there's no god, why don't you just take a sledgehammer and smash your toes in and pour salt and lemon juice over the wound? Nothing matters, so you might as well."

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
The preceding demonstrates beautifully why a theory of ethics is impossible if one abandons reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your ethical philosophy?

[Riddick]

Tell me this guy doesn't say religion requires abandoning reason while simultaneously claiming that religion is the root of all evil.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, who gives a [censored] about anything if there is no God. Go do what what you want, and if it includes killing people, than more power to you. It's not like it matters anyway if we all disappear at death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ever think that atheists don't WANT to kill people? You know, because, we don't like hurting people, and because socail norms exist that would stop us from doing things that we would otherwise want to do, like have sex, have a fulfilling career, raise a family, have fun etc?

"If there's no god, why don't you just take a sledgehammer and smash your toes in and pour salt and lemon juice over the wound? Nothing matters, so you might as well."

[/ QUOTE ]

Weakness. Without meaning or punishment at least, there are only two things that interest me and most people: power, and the relentless pursuit of orgasms. Keep your career, family and watering potted plants away from me. I don't want to conform to the whims of any corporation or take on the responsibility of children.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Weakness. Without meaning or punishment at least, there are only two things that interest me and most people: power, and the relentless pursuit of orgasms. Keep your career, family and watering potted plants away from me. I don't want to conform to the whims of any corporation or take on the responsibility of children.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it's a good thing that people like you are kept doped up with religion; the rest of us actually enjoy life.

[hmkpoker]

Abandoning reason is the root of all evil.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Abandoning reason is the root of all evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as long as reason is maintained then nothing evil can come about?

Can no evil arise from reasonable action or intention?

Or is it that once reason is abandoned, whatever comes about must be evil?

Furthermore, can you explain to this fellow follower of praxeology how one can perform an "unreasonable" action?

[atrifix]

That is what Kant held. People are ethical to the extent that they are rational. I don't know whether I agree with Kant or not.

[Peter666]

The irony is I enjoy life because of my religion. It teaches moderation in all things human, so I am able to enjoy all those things which apparently bring you so much joy like family, career, etc. with the supernatural motivation of getting something much better after death too. When your things die out, they are gone forever. Mine are just a means to an even better end.

The truly miserable people are atheists who can't get what they want. And even the ones who do get what they want lose it all on their death bed, which must be a horrible feeling.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
The irony is I enjoy life because of my religion. It teaches moderation in all things human, so I am able to enjoy all those things which apparently bring you so much joy like family, career, etc. with the supernatural motivation of getting something much better after death too. When your things die out, they are gone forever. Mine are just a means to an even better end.

The truly miserable people are atheists who can't get what they want. And even the ones who do get what they want lose it all on their death bed, which must be a horrible feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

so does it actually matter to you whether heaven/hell exists? or do you just like it because if makes you feel good?

on that note, i feel bad for you, as you won't have an afterlife living in a big bowl of banana pudding like me.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
People are ethical to the extent that they are rational

[/ QUOTE ]

To which I ask: How can any person act irrationally?

Is a person acting ever not employing purposeful, conscious reasoning towards his own ends, choosing between alternatives in order to remove some dissatisfaction, to quell some uneasiness in his present situation?

Surely I can, in my infinite wisdom, deem the ends which an acting man reaches towards as irrational, but in any such instance I am merely acting as a judge, and along with that comes the whole package of personal bias, in which my own scale of values supercedes that of the actor.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
The truly miserable people are atheists who can't get what they want. And even the ones who do get what they want lose it all on their death bed, which must be a horrible feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know? I've seen nothing to show that any particular religion makes people happier then another religion or lack of one.

Mythologies are needed to make people happy.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
To which I ask: How can any person act irrationally?

Is a person acting ever not employing purposeful, conscious reasoning towards his own ends, choosing between alternatives in order to remove some dissatisfaction, to quell some uneasiness in his present situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say yes. A person acting may be driven more by unconscious electric impulses than by deliberation. And I don't think that we would want to classify all deliberation as rational anyhow.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely I can, in my infinite wisdom, deem the ends which an acting man reaches towards as irrational, but in any such instance I am merely acting as a judge, and along with that comes the whole package of personal bias, in which my own scale of values supercedes that of the actor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kant's idea is not this, but rather that everyone will see what the good ends are only if they employ completely rational deliberation.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The preceding demonstrates beautifully why a theory of ethics is impossible if one abandons reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your ethical philosophy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rational Egoism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm#SH2a)

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The preceding demonstrates beautifully why a theory of ethics is impossible if one abandons reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your ethical philosophy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rational Egoism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm#SH2a)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not an ethical philosophy. Humans act in their own interest, or more specifically: according to their values. Which is just a fact.

[CallMeIshmael]

Watching Dawkins at that rally thing is [censored] priceless

[diebitter]

I watched this when it was on. It reminded me that great things are on the TV sometimes.

[CallMeIshmael]

Just got to the end of the second one.


I love the part where he gets that guy to explain the evolutionary reasons behind primate behaviour.


When he got the phone call, and heard "hey, do you wanna pretend to explain behaviour to Richard Dawkins?", you just know he ejaculated into his pants.

[Peter666]

I've seen people die and be on the verge of death. It is not very pretty or inspiring. If that is all there is to it, then life is poo.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The irony is I enjoy life because of my religion. It teaches moderation in all things human, so I am able to enjoy all those things which apparently bring you so much joy like family, career, etc. with the supernatural motivation of getting something much better after death too. When your things die out, they are gone forever. Mine are just a means to an even better end.

The truly miserable people are atheists who can't get what they want. And even the ones who do get what they want lose it all on their death bed, which must be a horrible feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

so does it actually matter to you whether heaven/hell exists? or do you just like it because if makes you feel good?

on that note, i feel bad for you, as you won't have an afterlife living in a big bowl of banana pudding like me.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it just makes me feel good, isn't that enough of a justification for any atheist?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Is a person acting ever not employing purposeful, conscious reasoning towards his own ends, choosing between alternatives in order to remove some dissatisfaction, to quell some uneasiness in his present situation?
[ QUOTE ]
I would say yes. A person acting may be driven more by unconscious electric impulses than by deliberation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif Can you explain this? Aside from reflex-reactions such as blinking or twitching, how do humans act absent any conscious, purposeful thought towards a preferred end?

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't think that we would want to classify all deliberation as rational anyhow.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you also not want to classify all calculation as calculative?

[ QUOTE ]
Kant's idea is not this, but rather that everyone will see what the good ends are only if they employ completely rational deliberation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can one deliberate irrationally? By saying that someone is thinking irrationally, are you not simply passing your personal judgement on his method of thought as "incorrect"?

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif Can you explain this? Aside from reflex-reactions such as blinking or twitching, how do humans act absent any conscious, purposeful thought towards a preferred end?

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider that even if conscious thought is present, there may be unconscious impulses that people are completely unaware of that lead them to make those decisions. Such examples are well documented in psychological literature.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I don't think that we would want to classify all deliberation as rational anyhow.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you also not want to classify all calculation as calculative?

[ QUOTE ]
Kant's idea is not this, but rather that everyone will see what the good ends are only if they employ completely rational deliberation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can one deliberate irrationally? By saying that someone is thinking irrationally, are you not simply passing your personal judgement on his method of thought as "incorrect"?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think that rationality is something more than just deliberation. I think that rationality is a useful concept, and it loses a lot of its usefulness if we just define it in terms of choices. So I am passing judgment on the method of deliberation, but I'm not passing judgment on the preferences or the decisions that one reaches. You could define rationality simply in those terms, but it ceases to be interesting to talk about, in my opinion.

I think rational choice theory (people are rational if and only if their preferences are complete and transitive) is a good start for trying to define rationality, although I don't agree with it.

An example of irrational deliberation: So I have a choice between $10 and $15. I see a unicorn fly by and I remember dying in third grade. So I choose $10.

If that's not irrational I don't know what is.

[Peter666]

Dawkins keeps talking about science (his religion) yet doesn't mention metaphysics, which is at the root of all sciences. How does he rationalize his "science" in light of the fact that the father of all scientists, Aristotle, made definite conclusions regarding powers beyond human reason.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider that even if conscious thought is present

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, how is conscious thought NOT present? We really don;tt NEED to consider it, we KNOW it a priori. You are self-warre, and yhou are conscious and deliberative in yhour actions, right? Or would you contend this? Are you a roboit?

[ QUOTE ]
there may be unconscious impulses that people are completely unaware of that lead them to make those decisions

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever leads someone to make there decisions is based on their scale of values, correct? And how are we to see into the minds of others and determine theri personal scale of values? IMPOSSIBEL right? I mean, if they liked fat chicks and chose to hit on a fat chick atthe pub, thats based on their "electrical impulses dictated by their gene pool", nonetheless it contributed to their scale of values leading to their alternative from which they chose. So again, how can we consider dating a fat chick as "irrational" without simply passing our personal judgement???

[ QUOTE ]
Such examples are well documented in psychological literature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, WTF, if its so easy to simply type this, why not provide an example?

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that rationality is something more than just deliberation. I think that rationality is a useful concept, and it loses a lot of its usefulness if we just define it in terms of choices

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then, your'e redefining rationality pure and simple. Let me guess, you're a socialist.

[ QUOTE ]
So I am passing judgment on the method of deliberation

[/ QUOTE ]

...then...ultimately, your personal judgement of what is "irrational" is meaningless to the person rationalizing, right?

[ QUOTE ]
I think rational choice theory (people are rational if and only if their preferences are complete and transitive)

[/ QUOTE ]

But, you see, this makes no sense - if I make a rational choice to go running, I've made an intransitive preference, there is no object other than the simple fact that I started running, yet this is still a preferred end, the result of an action I have taken, based on my most preferred alternative (to run), thus your re-definition of rationality doesn't suit the simple situation I have provided.

[ QUOTE ]
An example of irrational deliberation: So I have a choice between $10 and $15. I see a unicorn fly by and I remember dying in third grade. So I choose $10.


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is juice??? /images/graemlins/confused.gif So basically you deem it irratioanl, but what if I deem it rational? I mean, a [censored] UNICORN just flew by man!!! Its rational! Right?

[ QUOTE ]
If that's not irrational I don't know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read. Learn. Subjective Theory of Value (http://www.mises.org/epofe/c4sec1.asp) , Rationality and Irrationality (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec4.asp) ,Action methodology (http://www.mises.org/story/1339) , Means and Ends (http://www.mises.org/epofe/c1p2sec4.asp)

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
How does he rationalize his "science" in light of the fact that the father of all scientists, Aristotle, made definite conclusions regarding powers beyond human reason.

[/ QUOTE ]


Great point. I mean, why even bother with science, since the Greeks had it all figured out more than 2000 years ago.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...metaphysics, which is at the root of all sciences...

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends what you mean by root, I guess. It surely is not the foundation.

[hmkpoker]

I think we're a little more advanced than Aristotle.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider that even if conscious thought is present

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, how is conscious thought NOT present? We really don;tt NEED to consider it, we KNOW it a priori. You are self-warre, and yhou are conscious and deliberative in yhour actions, right? Or would you contend this? Are you a roboit?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't contend this, but I might contend that it is a priori knowledge. Am I self-aware while dreaming? What about while in a coma?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there may be unconscious impulses that people are completely unaware of that lead them to make those decisions

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever leads someone to make there decisions is based on their scale of values, correct? And how are we to see into the minds of others and determine theri personal scale of values? IMPOSSIBEL right? I mean, if they liked fat chicks and chose to hit on a fat chick atthe pub, thats based on their "electrical impulses dictated by their gene pool", nonetheless it contributed to their scale of values leading to their alternative from which they chose. So again, how can we consider dating a fat chick as "irrational" without simply passing our personal judgement???

[/ QUOTE ]

If the person says "I like fat chicks, so I started hitting on her", I don't think that is irrational. If there is an overwhelming tendency for him to talk to fat chicks, but each time we ask him he comes up with some unrelated rationalization, and when we ask him if he likes fat chicks more than others he replies "No", then that would seem to indicate that there are unconscious desires that he's not even aware of having.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Such examples are well documented in psychological literature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, WTF, if its so easy to simply type this, why not provide an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I didn't provide an example is because I've forgotten them and don't remember where to find them in journals. But if you want me to dig, I can. I don't think this should come as much of a shock to anyone--Freud postulated the existence of an unconscious brain a century ago.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think that rationality is something more than just deliberation. I think that rationality is a useful concept, and it loses a lot of its usefulness if we just define it in terms of choices

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then, your'e redefining rationality pure and simple. Let me guess, you're a socialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm apolitical. I'm a philosopher. And I'm not redefining rationality, I'm defining it. I think that rationality is a meaningful concept.

I have no idea how you got "socialist" out of that paragraph.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I am passing judgment on the method of deliberation

[/ QUOTE ]

...then...ultimately, your personal judgement of what is "irrational" is meaningless to the person rationalizing, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I suppose. My objective, before providing any sort of normative claim, is to provide a demarcation between rational and irrational.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think rational choice theory (people are rational if and only if their preferences are complete and transitive)

[/ QUOTE ]

But, you see, this makes no sense - if I make a rational choice to go running, I've made an intransitive preference, there is no object other than the simple fact that I started running, yet this is still a preferred end, the result of an action I have taken, based on my most preferred alternative (to run), thus your re-definition of rationality doesn't suit the simple situation I have provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this at all. Can you rephrase it? How can running be an intransitive preference?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An example of irrational deliberation: So I have a choice between $10 and $15. I see a unicorn fly by and I remember dying in third grade. So I choose $10.


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is juice??? /images/graemlins/confused.gif So basically you deem it irratioanl, but what if I deem it rational? I mean, a [censored] UNICORN just flew by man!!! Its rational! Right?

[ QUOTE ]
If that's not irrational I don't know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read. Learn. Subjective Theory of Value (http://www.mises.org/epofe/c4sec1.asp) , Rationality and Irrationality (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec4.asp) ,Action methodology (http://www.mises.org/story/1339) , Means and Ends (http://www.mises.org/epofe/c1p2sec4.asp)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to say that this is rational reasoning, fine. But I think that position is mistaken. My intuition is that this line of reasoning is irrational. And I've read enough of von Mises to know his position on praxeology.

[Peter666]

Science is useless unless there is acknowledgement of being and laws to begin with. Dawkins conveniently doesn't go into these areas because he is an intellectual fraud and could not win or even handle a debate from...let's say someone from the philosophy department at Fordham University.

His attack on religion consists of picking on people who are uneducated. Let him pick on religious people who are educated in the sciences and philosophy in general.

[Peter666]

We're certainly better and blowing people up, but trying to ignore the science of being is just ignorance.

[Lestat]

Hmm. While I agreed with everything Dawkin's presented, I actually came away a little unimpressed with Dawkin's himself. I thought he could've a done a better job in his live one on one debates. Another problem that some hard atheists like himself have is that some come off as wimpy/nerdy brainiacs. I really think this hurts the atheistic cause.

Also, isn't this guy a world renowned scientific author? What's with his teeth? Shouldn't he be able to afford a dentist? I mean if you're gonna go around the world talking to religious leaders and trying to persuade the public on very important points, I think you should take a little more care in your appearance.

The bottom line is that while he's a brilliant man who is no doubt right about what he says, I think atheists need a better representative.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. While I agreed with everything Dawkin's presented, I actually came away a little unimpressed with Dawkin's himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially same reaction here. I'd have thought he'd been exposed to encounters with the irrational enough to handle it better than he did. What's the point of saying "a 5000 year old earth is ridiculous" to a creationist teacher. We have better interactions on here with the oppossing philosophies than he was able to produce.

Peter666 is right, I think Dawkins would be chewed up and spit out by a well-grounded theologian. Writing/lecturing is a different world than head-to-head confrontation. Dennett is the type of person you need in debates like these.

Mind you, I could see him turning purple at some of the insanity he had to listen to, but that's what out there and you have to fight the urge to scream "that's fking ridiculous" just because it is fking ridiculous.

[atrifix]

bump.

Mainly wondering how running can be an intransitive preference.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Blah blah

[/ QUOTE ]That's suposed to be a rebuttal to Richard Dawkins.

[ QUOTE ]
Religion kills people, and yet atheistic ideologies killed more people within the twentieth century than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]Communism and Nazism were religions.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, who gives a [censored] about anything if there is no God. Go do what what you want, and if it includes killing people, than more power to you. It's not like it matters anyway if we all disappear at death.

[/ QUOTE ]We all do disappear at death.

So we have to choose how to lead our lives until we disappear: (1) we kill ourselves, (2) we go the De Sade way (which is also your way), or (3) we choose some other way on the basis of "Don't Do Unto Others, etc".

Barricade the doors, they are coming up the hill with the torches.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Even the [atheists] who do get what they want lose it all on their death bed, which must be a horrible feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]What makes you think you will not lose it all at your death bed?

(It's not yours to take away in the first place, of course, but I'm just sayin'.)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Science is useless unless there is acknowledgement of being and laws to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]So, scientists must, when all is said and done, abide by texts written some centuries ago, texts which ostensibly delineate "the rules". That'd bring science forward, for sure. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins ... is an intellectual fraud and could not win or even handle a debate from...let's say someone from the philosophy department at Fordham University.

[/ QUOTE ]And why would Dawkins lose in such a debate, please? What "facts" would the Fordham man throw at him? (I'm guessing a watch. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

[ QUOTE ]
His attack on religion consists of picking on people who are uneducated. Let him pick on religious people who are educated in the sciences and philosophy in general.

[/ QUOTE ]Why would you think that Dawkins' books and lectures are not read by "religious people who are educated in the sciences and philosophy" ? Surely they do, and all the time -- so where's their refutation of Dawkins' arguments??

I have not clicked on the links to watch the videos but I have read Dawkins and IMHO his positions fuly stand up to scrutiny. (Not that there's anything too complicated about it. One should read Jacques Monod's Chance And Necessity - and take it from there.)

[Peter666]

Dawkins basis for morality is literally nothing. Go De Sade!

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does [Richard Dawkins] rationalize his "science" in light of the fact that the father of all scientists, Aristotle, made definite conclusions regarding powers beyond human reason?

[/ QUOTE ]


Great point. I mean, why even bother with science, since the Greeks had it all figured out more than 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]The Greeks had actually figured out quite a lot 2000 years ago. It's just that Peter666 only thinks he knows what Aristotle was talking about.

Perhaps he should try his hand on Heraclitus and the pre-Socratics. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Peter666]

I very well could lose it all, but my point is that it would be better to be deluded and happy than realistic and miserable.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I very well could lose it all, but my point is that it would be better to be deluded and happy than realistic and miserable.

[/ QUOTE ]Fantastic admission this, that you are content to be deluded all your life.

However, let me assure that once you learn something, you cannot really un-learn it (unless you lobotomize yourself). You know you're gonna die and that your death will be the end of everything for you as an entity (whatever they call you), so trying to escape or ignore that knowledge is futile.

Since you value so much Power, try to stand up and take it like a man.

Life, that is. (From beginning to end.)

[Peter666]

"Since you value so much Power, try to stand up and take it like a man."

Why should I give in to this patriarchal sentimentality and conform to your personal standards? I value power in so far as it gives me pleasure. Whatever it is that gives me the most pleasure is the only thing I seek. And assuming a Godless universe without eternal rewards or punishments, then I seek whatever desires I have without constraint or "moral standards" made by other individuals in their attempt to control me and my happiness. So in fact, I am not only going to "take it" but I will do something about it. I am a superman and will crush (to the best of my ability) all obstacles in my way.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Science is useless unless there is acknowledgement of being and laws to begin with. </font>

Why? If you've been convinced there has to be a divine law giver, I see your point. Otherwise, this just doesn't follow.

<font color="blue"> His attack on religion consists of picking on people who are uneducated. </font>

C'mon man... This is as nasty as I'll ever get, but step outside your box and you'll see that religious people make utter fools of themselves talking to invisible sky gods and fussing over silly ancient fairy tales. If YOU saw someone acting this way in a non-religious context, you'd check them into a padded room at hotel silly.

Education about our world, and religion are oxymorons.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
C'mon man... This is as nasty as I'll ever get, but step outside your box and you'll see that religious people make utter fools of themselves talking to invisible sky gods and fussing over silly ancient fairy tales. If YOU saw someone acting this way in a non-religious context, you'd check them into a padded room at hotel silly.

Education about our world, and religion are oxymorons.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't often disagree with luckyme but I think his got this wrong [ QUOTE ]
Mind you, I could see him turning purple at some of the insanity he had to listen to, but that's what out there and you have to fight the urge to scream "that's fking ridiculous" just because it is fking ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ]
although it has more credibilty when dawkins does it as you have better teeth.

chez

[Lestat]

His basis for morality is evolution. If you opened up your eyes...

There is a reason for morality that has nothing to do with invisible gods. Morality was a survival tactic for our ancestors. I suppose I should be grateful that you aren't out raping, pillaging, and plundering, because you fear the wrath of a non-existent alpha-male in the sky.

[hmkpoker]

Peter666:

Why isn't Richard Dawkins running around with a shotgun blasting these religious people? He clearly doesn't like them.

Why isn't he tricking the American women into being interviewed, then chloroforming them and raping them? (I can understand why he isn't raping the British women; damn those are some teeth)

Why aren't his pupils restricted in the interviews from excessive heroin usage?

If all that matters to him, an atheist who has clearly thought long and hard about his beliefs, why has he even bothered doing the very hard work required to be a scientist?

Why are the majority of atheists in this country, like him, not completely amoral hedonistic lunatics?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter666:

Why isn't Richard Dawkins running around with a shotgun blasting these religious people? He clearly doesn't like them.

Why isn't he tricking the American women into being interviewed, then chloroforming them and raping them? (I can understand why he isn't raping the British women; damn those are some teeth)

Why aren't his pupils restricted in the interviews from excessive heroin usage?

If all that matters to him, an atheist who has clearly thought long and hard about his beliefs, why has he even bothered doing the very hard work required to be a scientist?

Why are the majority of atheists in this country, like him, not completely amoral hedonistic lunatics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they do not really believe what they claim to believe. Atheism is a type of faith as well. They are pointing out the flaws in others without acknowledging their own errors and the conclusions that should be drawn from them. I suppose it makes them feel good about themselves.

[Peter666]

I acknowledge that most religious believers are deluded, as there are many religions and only one or none can be true. But the funny thing is that Dawkins and his ilk are trying to tell people what to do, when the only basis of an atheist existence should be self seeking pleasure. He speaks about morals as if they could or should even apply.

Again, if a person is deluded and happy, how is it worse than being realistic and miserable?

And I disagree that education about our world is incompatible with all religions. With some yes, others no.

[Peter666]

"His basis for morality is evolution."

That's just fantastic for the species as a whole, and trying to explain the morality of previous generations, but why should an enlightened individual give a damn and apply it to himself?

"I suppose I should be grateful that you aren't out raping, pillaging, and plundering, because you fear the wrath of a non-existent alpha-male in the sky."

Probably. But who would you be grateful too?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does [Richard Dawkins] rationalize his "science" in light of the fact that the father of all scientists, Aristotle, made definite conclusions regarding powers beyond human reason?

[/ QUOTE ]


Great point. I mean, why even bother with science, since the Greeks had it all figured out more than 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]The Greeks had actually figured out quite a lot 2000 years ago. It's just that Peter666 only thinks he knows what Aristotle was talking about.

Perhaps he should try his hand on Heraclitus and the pre-Socratics. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect Heraclitus and the pre-Socratics even though their views were erroneous, because they really started from scratch. Dawkins on the other hand has 2500 years of moderate realist philosophy to brush up on before he should go around telling people what not to believe.

[CallMeIshmael]

Peter666:

Do you believe that the Iraq war and the September 11 attacks are a sign of the forthcoming appocalypse? And, if not, why not?

[Lestat]

Sorry, but it just is ridiculous. Did ya see that jewish guy standing next to a wall bobbing his head up and down like an idiot? I really build up contempt for people like that.

This is what I was getting at a while ago when I posted religion should be banned. As many pointed out, I was wrong bout that... People SHOULD be educated about religion. It's absolutely absurd that in the 21st century you've got guys who wear ridiculous garb and perform inane rituals because they believe in invisible non-existent beings. I stand by it... To a halfway sane rationilst these people are making utter fools of themselves.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> But the funny thing is that Dawkins and his ilk are trying to tell people what to do, </font>

Do you really think so? If so, I agree with you. That's not what he should be doing. But I get the sense he's just trying to get people to step outside their religious box, upbringing, whatever, and think for themselves a little bit.


<font color="blue">when the only basis of an atheist existence should be self seeking pleasure. </font>

But we all are seeking self pleasure. For many, religion makes them feel good. And personally, I think that's the really sad part. I'm glad they feel good, but how much better if they could derive pleasure from the world as it really is?

<font color="blue"> Again, if a person is deluded and happy, how is it worse than being realistic and miserable? </font>

See above.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins basis for morality is literally nothing. Go De Sade!

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't attribute your inclinations to others. They are obviously different.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should I give in to ... patriarchal sentimentality ...? I value power in so far as it gives me pleasure. Whatever it is that gives me the most pleasure is the only thing I seek. And assuming a Godless universe without eternal rewards or punishments, then I seek whatever desires I have without constraint or "moral standards" made by other individuals in their attempt to control me and my happiness. So in fact, I am not only going to "take it" but I will do something about it. I am a superman and will crush (to the best of my ability) all obstacles in my way.

[/ QUOTE ]Spoken like a true De Sadean.

Godspeed, then. (Assuming there is no God.)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins basis for morality is literally nothing. Go De Sade!

[/ QUOTE ]Why would you think that De Sade's "basis for morality" is not also nothing ?

De Sade operates on the presumption of either a Godless universe or with a God who is fantastically sadist! You are trying probably to be provocative here, but the Sadean option is equivalent to eight billion impasses - and suicide.

I begin to understand why procreation disgusts you.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins basis for morality is literally nothing. Go De Sade!

[/ QUOTE ]Why would you think that De Sade's "basis for morality" is not also nothing ?

De Sade operates on the presumption of either a Godless universe or with a God who is fantastically sadist! You are trying probably to be provocative here, but the Sadean option is equivalent to eight billion impasses - and suicide.

I begin to understand why procreation disgusts you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand my point. De Sade is an example of living without moral restraint of any kind. That is how one should live if there is no divine punishment or reward. It doesn't matter whether you are a sexual sadist, or all you want to do is grow tulips for the rest of your life: the means to the end you wish are completely irrelevant.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but it just is ridiculous. Did ya see that jewish guy standing next to a wall bobbing his head up and down like an idiot? I really build up contempt for people like that.

This is what I was getting at a while ago when I posted religion should be banned. As many pointed out, I was wrong bout that... People SHOULD be educated about religion. It's absolutely absurd that in the 21st century you've got guys who wear ridiculous garb and perform inane rituals because they believe in invisible non-existent beings. I stand by it... To a halfway sane rationilst these people are making utter fools of themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was agreeing with you. It is ridiculous and its correct to point out that its ridiculous. Its all you can do, rational debate requires both sides to attempt being rational.

[I still disagree that being ridiculous should be banned]

chez

[Peter666]

"But the funny thing is that Dawkins and his ilk are trying to tell people what to do,

Do you really think so?"

In the beginning of the second video, Dawkins claims that religion can lead to a warped and inflexible morality. That ends his credibility on the spot because he presupposes morality and infers how people should behave. But without eternal reward or punishment, there is no basis for universal morality. Every action is based on subjective opinion and attaining one's personal ends by any means necessary.

"I'm glad they feel good, but how much better if they could derive pleasure from the world as it really is?"

It must feel really really good if they are willing to commit suicide for it! Maybe Dawkins is missing out on something! The problem is, no matter how much "reason" Dawkins wants to advocate, the people are still turning to faith. We could all take physics courses and still go to church because Dawkin's precious "reason" does not fulfill an innate desire in many people. "Reason" is a failure.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truly miserable people are atheists who can't get what they want. And even the ones who do get what they want lose it all on their death bed, which must be a horrible feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know? I've seen nothing to show that any particular religion makes people happier then another religion or lack of one.

Mythologies are needed to make people happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are advocating mythology? Or should people not be happy?

[Lestat]

But arguing and name calling isn't the cure. I think one of Dawkin's most salient points is that this is important stuff! With today's technology, it's dangerous to have a majority population believing in such fairy tales. Something needs to be done, but what?

Political correctness is a huge barrier. PC has it's place, but not when so many are so disillusioned. People need to be correctly educated with regard to religion. But this can never happen until they are made to understand how utterly misguided it is to believe some ancient writings of people who didn't even know they were living on a round planet.

I'm becoming more and more passionate about this. People of the 21st century who have wisely shunned the shackles of religion need to come out of the closet and let religious fundamentalists know we're not going to tip-toe around all their silliness. The president of the most powerful nation on this planet believes the earth is only 10,000 years old. That is just sick man!

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter666:

Do you believe that the Iraq war and the September 11 attacks are a sign of the forthcoming appocalypse? And, if not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

How the hell would I know? I focus my time and energy on procreation.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But arguing and name calling isn't the cure. I think one of Dawkin's most salient points is that this is important stuff! With today's technology, it's dangerous to have a majority population believing in such fairy tales. Something needs to be done, but what?

Political correctness is a huge barrier. PC has it's place, but not when so many are so disillusioned. People need to be correctly educated with regard to religion. But this can never happen until they are made to understand how utterly misguided it is to believe some ancient writings of people who didn't even know they were living on a round planet.

I'm becoming more and more passionate about this. People of the 21st century who have wisely shunned the shackles of religion need to come out of the closet and let religious fundamentalists know we're not going to tip-toe around all their silliness. The president of the most powerful nation on this planet believes the earth is only 10,000 years old. That is just sick man!

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree but bannings not the answer. Ridicule is. People should be afraid of being ridiculous because they will be laughed at and dismissed as fools, not because they will be rounded up by the police.

chez

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
But without eternal reward or punishment, there is no basis for universal morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorect.

Now, Im pretty sure you're a troll, so I dont know why Im responding seriously. But, morality evolved because we are better off when we are moral than when we are amoral. We dont go around killing people because we are more genetically fit when we live in a group that doenst go around killing people.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
bump.

Mainly wondering how running can be an intransitive preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I was banned for a bit there. Something about hating on gays in OOT.

Since you asked that question Im now not really sure what you meant the first time. I was (clearly) in a drunken state when I responded, but anyways Ill still try to answer, simply, how running can display intransitive preference-

I prefer to (a)walk over (b)jog.
I prefer to (b)jog over (c)run.
a&gt;b&gt;c

Yet, if a building is on fire, am I acting "irrationally" by running out of it? Afterall, I must prefer walking over runnnig. Even as the building was on fire, I knew consciously that I would much rather walk than run, yet this knowledge of my own preferences didn't interfere with my choice to ultimately run out of there. The preference to run was intransitive.
---

Overall I'm bored with this discussion since you basically said "yeah you're right except it isn't interesting to discuss rationality if we don't get to pass our subjective judgement on what is and isn't rational" which I agree with, it isn't interesting.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't often disagree with luckyme but I think his got this wrong [ QUOTE ]
Mind you, I could see him turning purple at some of the insanity he had to listen to, but that's what out there and you have to fight the urge to scream "that's fking ridiculous" just because it is fking ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially, I don't think "that's ridiculous" works if it is your intial response or if it's your only response. If you are serious about changing somebody's mind you have to -
a) get their interest in an exchange.
b) have them lay out their path to their position. There are a huge variety of them.
c) then try and counter with some alternative ways to interpret the same issues.

... or some variation of that approach.

If your goal is to inspire the audience rather than your direct opponent, you still need to lay out your case otherwise you end up merely preaching to the converted. Who was his intended audience?

For example, the young-earth creationists are aware that scientists believe in an old earth, merely reminding them of that and tossing in an aggressive 'that's ridiculous' does nothing but entrench the other side whether the recipient or the viewer.

did dawkins make a case for something in that video? I'm a Dawkins fan, and I didn't get it.

[Beantown]

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me this guy doesn't say religion requires abandoning reason while simultaneously claiming that religion is the root of all evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey,

Dawkins actually doesn't claim that religion is the root of all evil, Channel 4 insisted on using that title to stir controversy: http://www.newstatesman.com/200601300002

[ QUOTE ]
Of course religion is not the root of all evil. No single thing is the root of all anything. The question mark was supposed to turn an indefensible title into a debatable topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't often disagree with luckyme but I think his got this wrong [ QUOTE ]
Mind you, I could see him turning purple at some of the insanity he had to listen to, but that's what out there and you have to fight the urge to scream "that's fking ridiculous" just because it is fking ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially, I don't think "that's ridiculous" works if it is your intial response or if it's your only response. If you are serious about changing somebody's mind you have to -
a) get their interest in an exchange.
b) have them lay out their path to their position. There are a huge variety of them.
c) then try and counter with some alternative ways to interpret the same issues.

... or some variation of that approach.

If your goal is to inspire the audience rather than your direct opponent, you still need to lay out your case otherwise you end up merely preaching to the converted. Who was his intended audience?

For example, the young-earth creationists are aware that scientists believe in an old earth, merely reminding them of that and tossing in an aggressive 'that's ridiculous' does nothing but entrench the other side whether the recipient or the viewer.

did dawkins make a case for something in that video? I'm a Dawkins fan, and I didn't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I'll agree with that.

Dawkins is an appalling choice for that type of debate. His a genius at explaining science to those who are interested at understanding it but has no ability to deal with those determined to be ignorant.

I was just disagreeing with the general idea that there is a need to reason with people determined not to reason. Its pointless, what's needed is people like Bill Hicks or Douglas Adams (preferably someone still alive I suppose) to take the piss out of them.

As someone else said "don't argue with morons, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

chez

[deleteduser]

" Anyway, who gives a [censored] about anything if there is no God. Go do what what you want, and if it includes killing people, than more power to you. It's not like it matters anyway if we all disappear at death. "


So the only reason you do good things is because you want to get into heaven? Not because they would be good for others but ultimatly what good it would bring to yourself "going to heaven" thats not what the bible teaches. You are a truely self centered human being.

[KeysrSoze]

People who think humans need an all-watchful being who will punish them with unimaginable pain when they die or else they'll do nothing but rape and murder people scare me. I wonder what their childhood was like.

[CallMeIshmael]

I'll just go on record and say Dawkins + Colbert = CMI_Orgasm

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll just go on record and say Dawkins + Colbert = CMI_Orgasm

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard Dawkins is an angel sent by God to test our faith.

[MidGe]

Richard Dawkins is an angel sent by God that invalidates our faith.

FYP

[evank15]

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins basis for morality is literally nothing. Go De Sade!

[/ QUOTE ]

"A successful person is a person who is good and just, not because he was told to be or threatened to be, but because he is. Any person who that definition does not describe is a failure as a human being."

[ QUOTE ]
I very well could lose it all, but my point is that it would be better to be deluded and happy than realistic and miserable.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but it just is ridiculous. Did ya see that jewish guy standing next to a wall bobbing his head up and down like an idiot? I really build up contempt for people like that.

This is what I was getting at a while ago when I posted religion should be banned. As many pointed out, I was wrong bout that... People SHOULD be educated about religion. It's absolutely absurd that in the 21st century you've got guys who wear ridiculous garb and perform inane rituals because they believe in invisible non-existent beings. I stand by it... To a halfway sane rationilst these people are making utter fools of themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever prayed for hours it feels natural/comfortable to do that with your head and no one if forced/has to do it.

[neverforgetlol]

Peter666 is either a troll or a standard religious moron, who has no concept of reality and could easily be considered mentally ill.