Jon Stewart, Richard Dawkins
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2013, 10:40 AM
Jon Stewart, Richard Dawkins
Daily show with Dawkins

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
25-09-2013, 10:48 AM
RE: Jon Stewart, Richard Dawkins
Thanks for posting this Dom!


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: Jon Stewart, Richard Dawkins
(25-09-2013 10:40 AM)Dom Wrote:  Daily show with Dawkins

More Richard and less Jon would have been better.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: Jon Stewart, Richard Dawkins
The link at the bottom for the video said this:

Quote:If you can't give up your free healthcare and move to America, you can watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart at thecomedynetwork.ca.

*snickers*

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cheapthrillseaker's post
25-09-2013, 12:05 PM
RE: Jon Stewart, Richard Dawkins
From the extended interview...

Quote:RD: ...we've got art, we've got music, we've got poetry, we've got science. We've left behind the wild world in which our genes were naturally selected.

JS: Do you believe that... faith goes in the same category as the positive values of poetry, and art and music?

RD: It belongs in that category in the sense that it is a product of human brains, yes, but not in the sense that it's positive. I don't believe faith is positive, because faith means belief without evidence, and you shouldn't believe anything without evidence. People who are brought up to say "I believe it because I believe it. It's just my faith," are not allowed to challenge it, then a minority of those people are going to be seduced into doing terrible things, because you can't argue with them. You can't argue with faith.

JS: Then there is an evolutionary defect in our brains that allows us to be manipulated... If that is the pathological version of religion, wouldn't that be the pathological version of statism, or patriotism, or being a fan of a baseball team...

RD: Yes, I think so. That's a good point.

I like this exchange. Religion is far from unique in being manipulative, damaging, and coercive of bad action. Blowing people up for God is not better or worse than blowing people up for Queen and Country or Uncle Sam. Hating "them" on God's behalf is not better or worse than hating "them" for the flag.

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like I Am's post
25-09-2013, 12:37 PM
RE: Jon Stewart, Richard Dawkins
(25-09-2013 12:05 PM)I Am Wrote:  I like this exchange. Religion is far from unique in being manipulative, damaging, and coercive of bad action. Blowing people up for God is not better or worse than blowing people up for Queen and Country or Uncle Sam. Hating "them" on God's behalf is not better or worse than hating "them" for the flag.

I was giving this a think just the other day. There's a definite tendency to tribalism and authoritarian ingroup loyalty, and that goes for all of us, much though we might like to think otherwise. One might consider the difference between 1944 and 1946 in, say, Germany or Japan (LOL GODWIN - I'm going somewhere with this, I swear). The people didn't change. And statistically they were the same people as any of their neighbours, before and after.

When modern humans first spread through the rest of the world (~200,000-50,000 kya), they were moving into a world that was already inhabited. It's easy to forget that. It's something out of a fantasy novel - except it's historical fact. Our species spread into a world where there were already several other human species, all across the world. Well, the old world only, natch, but that's not important right now. Bear with me.

It struck me that this might account for just a bit of our unpleasant tendencies. A world full of other people - except they're literally not us. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that's a fertile breeding ground for exclusion. We can't know just how things went down; south-east Asians have minimal denisovan admixture, Europeans minimal neanderthal admixture, but by hook or by crook sapiens (and that's not narcissistic at all, yeah?) are the only ones left. One might then consider that old sci-fi trope - nothing ends the Cold War faster than an outside, non-human enemy, as it often went. With no outside enemies tribalism shrinks down and turns inwards. Witness: all of human history. Disputes between two groups in the same context seem incomprehensible to an observer outside that context.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
25-09-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: Jon Stewart, Richard Dawkins
Thanks! I didn't think it would be up quite yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: