Richard Dawkins superstar

[T_G]

I have been watching Richard Dawkins TV programs lately, and I must say I throughly enjoyed them. The man is a genius, and I have not found one argument he has brought forward in his programs or book I read I disagree with (having said that, I doubt if I have the intellect to argue with him about these subjects anyway).

Just now I have spent a couple of hors watching "Enemies of reason" on More 4. Brilliant. His thoughts about the made up faith healing and all sorts of alternative methods are spot on.

I just wish the newspapers and TV programs would feature more of his kind and less of the uneducated, cheap, ignorant and chav celebrity kind that seems to take over.

If anyone has the chance to watch this program, do it even if you are a strong believer in all sorts of things - the program is just brilliant. I don't think watching it will change anyones mind, but it may clear up a few misconceptions.

 

[PaulR]

Couldn't agree more. His clarity of thought is piercing.

 

[Llew]

Professor Hawking has now joined the dabate (prevoiously in two minds) -

_http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

 

[PaulR]

Um, yes. I could never understand how he, as a rational scientist, could put forward his previous position on the subject (said he choosing his words carefully!). I'm not at all sure I can agree with his current stance either.

Mind you. As a wise man once said, there are very few atheists on board an aeroplane falling out of the sky from 50,000 feet!

 

[Llew]

LOL, think it needs a crisis in one's life for the immortal words "Oh my God, why me!" to be uttered, believer or not.

 

[Channel Hopper]

Mind you. As a wise man once said, there are very few atheists on board an aeroplane falling out of the sky from 50,000 feet!

No wise man gets willingly into a plane.

 

[Llew]

Don't think the pilot would appreciate a plane full of stupid ones !

 

[Channel Hopper]

Professor Hawking has now joined the dabate (prevoiously in two minds) -

A Schroedinger cat thing ?




Dawkins meets his (book) maker.

[tube]Hv_9NQL73hI[/tube]

 

[sonnetpete]

As a wise man once said, there are very few atheists on board an aeroplane falling out of the sky from 50,000 feet!

I've always believed the phrase was "there are no atheists in a foxhole", which is attributed to Ernie Pyle, an American wartime Pulitzer prize winning journalist. Ironically he was killed by Japanese machine gun fire whilst sheltering in a ditch.

I'm a confessed agnostic, but when my wife Debbie died last year I mentally asked for help. It wasn't a prayer or a plea to a specific deity. All I know is that everything thereafter fell into place and I got through the immediate aftermath with time to grieve myself. Whether or not that "help" came from within me or from some external source I don't know. I'm still not a "believer", but that event gave me cause to reflect.

 

[T_G]

Well, I pretty much don't believe in anything supernatural - I do think that human beings "invented" god/gods/beings/dieties mainly out of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of death, fear of the unexplained. So it is natural for people being in a pickle to suddenly "believe" - might happen to me, god knows
When I say "invented" I don't mean in a concious and deliberate manner, it probably just developed same as the sudden finding of god when in danger.
What I find interesting is that in the old type societies, where there was a clear structure of man of the house, village elder, Duke, KIng, etc, people found it easier to believe in the religion of their country. But in many western countries, where people are less inclined to accept authority without any doubts, traditional churches are missing out, and all sorts of made up religions are gaining in numbers.

 

[mikie8]

Mind you. As a wise man once said, there are very few atheists on board an aeroplane falling out of the sky from 50,000 feet!

not so wise me thinks , why should it be atheists who change thier conviction ?? it could be that all theists would doubt god as they all prayed for a safe journey .

i am void of faith , i am also void of belief . i just dont believe in anything .

religion is understood and explained by science , simply put , religion is delusion or belief is delusion to be more correct .

 

[Lazarus]

But science itself changes over time - and what actually are "facts" ?

 

[PaulR]

Science surely does not change, it is our understanding which changes. We formulate a hypothesis to explain a set of obseervations or readings and from that extrapolate how something might behave under different circumstances. If it does behave in the manner predicted then a theory is born.

Scientists are always questioning things in an effort to establish what is the truth, or best fit to the truth. A good scientist is always a little bit sceptical and certainly will not take things as a matter of faith.

 

[Lazarus]

Yes, that says it better.

 

[mikie8]

But science itself changes over time - and what actually are "facts" ?

LOL thanks for that . how does science change over time . ive heard it said but never under stood it .

when did one change to two ?? one has always been one thats a scientific fact .

when did gravity increase or decrease ? i think it has not changed . no i know has not change because of the scientifc data .

science has not changed at all . the tools used to meassure have . 1 inch has been replaced by 25.4 mm as its more precise but the distance did not change .

will computers just stop working all of a sudden because the laws of the universe are in constant flux ?? i think not .

on the other hand religion changes all the time , the pope changes his mind every year e.g. there is now no limbo in the catholic church any more , now all still born babies go straight to hell . mary rose , opps accended to heavan because it is a physical place in the clouds but we now know heaven is not in the clouds and as such religion changed again . in fact religion always changes as it has to hide in the places science can not see ,,,,,yet.

 

[Lazarus]

I rather think PaulR put it more eloquently than my own attempt at philosophical diversion.

 

[mikie8]

I rather think PaulR put it more eloquently than my own attempt at philosophical diversion.

true , for real eloquence one only needs to read richard dawkins , daniel dennet , christopher hitchins or sam harris 's views on religioun .

scientific theories change over time , as with any subject the more its understood the better explaination we have . its the explaination scientists call a theory . the data collected over many , many years does not change (although may become more precise ), data does not require an explaination , it is independant and verifiable by anyone , any where or any time . its the data we think of as facts . theroies are explainations of the data collected only because people find it easier to grasp if there is an explaination rather than just raw data .

Its the way we work that comes into conflict with the scientific method . we think in stories , we remember in stories . try telling someone a memory without telling a story . theories are just stories to help the observer make sense of the raw data , to give perspective .

data does not require belief . weather someone believes or not does not stop gravity or the tides but it will stop ghosts and gods . if a chritian becomes a muslim they stop believing jesus is the savior and now believe mohammed is . believe only works on non facts . this in itself is proof god is not real , as god would be factaul if real but the fact god require faith means god is a non fact .

faith goes further than belief because faith is contry to what a fact is and no matter how much evidence is presented to support the facts , faith is blind .

 

[Topper]

Could I put a stop to this now please before arguments begin, it is against the forum rules to discuss religion as shown below

We do not permit discussion of the North American Providers and encryptions, cable or cable hacks, Religion or Politics, this include promotion of the same, this is a satellite and general hobby forum. Any Racist or Xenophobic posts will be removed, along with the member who posts them.

 

[PaulR]

scientific theories change over time , as with any subject the more its understood the better explaination we have . its the explaination scientists call a theory . the data collected over many , many years does not change (although may become more precise )

How very true. One only has to think of how Einstein's theories explained more accurately gravity than Newton's did. For 99.99% of the time Newton will do but in extreme gavitational conditions its predictions break down and Einstein has to take over.

 

[PaulR]

Mmm, yes. I hadn't noticed how the posts had "drifted" a bit. Let's keep to science please.