(1/2) Richard Dawkins on the Ron Reagan Show - 16 November 2009

[JerezJulio]

Dawkins say it is like having to convince some one that 2 + 2 = 4

He had no heard the late debate of William Lane Craig and Laurence Krauss, When Krauss mention it and Craig actually debate that out could use Logic to prove that 2 + 2 in Fact be equal 5

Craig was actually was serious about it, he still is .

[GodTheHypothesis]

@JerezJulio

The point of Krauss' t-shirt isn't that 2+2 doesn't equal 4. The point is that our basic logic and intuition just doesn't apply at the extreme points in the universe (e.g in relativity or quantum theory). It was really just a refutation of philosophers who think they can make logical arguments about the beginning of the universe- evidence is the only thing that can be relying on in such matters.

[JerezJulio]

@GodTheHypothesis

my comment came out wrong, I speak ESL English.

I meant Dawkins put the 2 + 2 != 4 example as a case that not one will dare to disagree with.

[JerezJulio]

@GodTheHypothesis

But he had not seem the debate between pseudo physicist, biologist, andmathematician, William Lane Craig and a top theoretical physicist Lawrance Krauss.

WLC takes the bait put by Krauss where he stated that 2 + 2 = 4 even if with absurds and erroneous arithmetic tricks it can be made look like something else, and the moron fall in the trap and go on for about five minute trying to convince an audience that in fact logic can prove that 2 + 2 = 5 trumping mathematics.

[Edu2503]

"Oh, I can fly and see you from my house at a distance of 5.000 miles with my eyes closed, and it's true because YOU CAN'T PROVE I CAN'T!!!" Sounds very stupid, right? Well, that's religion...

[Hanahleia]

@Edu2503 That's not religion, that's just the shoddy example a reductionist will give you at a failing attempt to disprove religion. The real ground of religion or the real root of religion lies in the mystical experience, and there's many ways to go about this. You can meditate, in some cases; a stroke can cause this to happen as in the example of Jill Bolte Taylor's "Stroke of Insight," in some instances, a near-death-experience can have this occur, you can take psychedelics. Many paths,1truth

[Edu2503]

@Hanahleia A "near-death experience" is not a very good example for your idea. When a human nearly death, the brain cells start to die and the neurons start to disconnect from each other, wich deteriorates the ludicity and awareness and, if the person survives, it can damage his reasoning and his mental balance. The psychedelics also disconnect some nuerons.

Many paths, different perceptions, many "truths"...

[Hanahleia]

@Edu2503 DMT is produced in the pineal gland throughout your life, and it is stored in the spinal-cerebral fluid. This has been scientifically proved, that tryptamines, including DMT, 5-MeO-DMT, and other similar compounds, are all found in the cerebral fluid that surrounds the brain and spinal cord. When you die, and your brain is going through the shut-down processes of death, it absorbs the cerebral fluid for any oxygen and energy it can find. In doing so, it takes huge amounts of DMT.

[Edu2503]

@Hanahleia If the N,N-Dimethyltryptamine makes someone experience the "afterlife" and a "supreme being" in near-death experiences, it is only the subjective and biased interpretation of what happened. Besides that, your explanation is very accurate.

[Hanahleia]

@Edu2503 Well, you're right in that people can interpret it how they like. Usually, these people only have one experience to examine. You can smoke N,N-Dimethyltryptamine and have this experience on-demand, as I have. My experiences forced me to Hinduism, so my idea of the "supreme being" is closer to a Hindu's. If you're interested in a good listen, I'd like to make a suggestion for you. Alan Watts compares west and eastern religions:

watch?v=zV74_-qF6OI&playnext=1­&list=PLC5F85E50CB9D4B43

[Edu2503]

@Hanahleia Well, if you see it that way, there's nothing I can do to make you change your mind. You have to remember that the subconscious plays a very important part in N,N-Dimethyltryptamine experiences. In other words, your brain makes you see what it wants you to see.

Goodbye.

[Hanahleia]

@Edu2503 Likewise, I could say the same thing for you. It is no reduction of the psychedelic experience to say that it is caused by drugs and that because they are material atomic systems we therefore know everything about them — every electron is the yawning mouth of a wormhole that leads to quadrillions of higher dimensional universes that are completely beyond rational apprehension. You want to have an opinion about this stuff, but you don't want to have an experience for yourself?

[Hanahleia]

@Edu2503 By the way, did you even listen to that link I suggested for you?

[Edu2503]

@Hanahleia And, I am not a "reductionist". I only satirized one way of the religious people to defend their irrational beliefs. THIS is reducting: "Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree..."

[Hanahleia]

@Edu2503 I mean reductionist or even rationalist when it comes to analyzing the mystic/psychedelic experience. DMT does not provide ‘an’ experience which you analyze. Nothing so tidy goes on. The syntactical machinery of description undergoes some kind of hyperdimensional inflation, instantly. And then you cannot tell yourself what it is that you understand. In other words, what DMT does can’t be downloaded into as low dimensional a language as English.

[S24995]

Americans are too emotionally attached to the idea of their being a God(Christmas, "One Nation Under God", peer pressure of going to Church), so things will probably never change.

[sgreen71778]

small note to Ron Reagan- the earth is not a sphere, it is an oblate spheroid, ie. a slightly flattened sphere.

Thank you to scientists for discovering that.

[Hanahleia]

In Hinduism, God isn't treated as entity, but Hindus take a more panentheist position (not to be confused with pantheist). This is a more sound notion of God, I believe.

[356pla]

@Hanahleia Perhaps, logically, more sound than the wests mono, but still irrational.

[Hanahleia]

@356pla You haven't smoked DMT, have you? I'm just going to go out on a limb here and make that assumption based on your comment.

[356pla]

@Hanahleia That which cannot be substantiated or proven by objective evidence becomes revealed as truth through a boost in DMT? Darn.

[Hanahleia]

@356pla The experience is the evidence.

[dac38555]

The comment below is a desperate ad hom attack of the kind that 42% of Americans are used to making. Get educated first.

[phatmatt1176]

evolutionary biologist? lol...the proper term is more like liar and deceiver.

[GallusSapien]

bleck this interview was terrible. Its totally canned and not very interesting, just a pair of people agreeing with eachother.

[fatestbastard]

Thank god for atheists like Richard Dawkins !!

[zkiekow]

@fatestbastard Love the qoute!!

[tiptiptapable]

thank goodness?

[articwave]

@fatestbastard

Thank all gods indeed

[VarialProductions]

if there is a God he would be an atheist

[jackdonkeymagazine]

@fatestbastard Irony?

[gregrutz]

@fatestbastard  It would be better is he was a Christian and an evolutionary biologist, He gives fuddies an atheist target, God vs atheists rather than bible vs science.

[natmanprime]

EYEBALL!!!

[linbetwin]

Why is he "dogmatic" ? If you say that a teapot exists in the intergalactic space and I say I don't believe it because there is no proof, am I dogmatic ? Aren't you required to substantiate your claim ?

[ghjurx452]

@linbetwin what is your proof that reality is objective

[happosai27]

i think he got the right to his opinion of course but calling the religious people stupid or so makes him not better than the "other side".

i mean he can't proof that god does not exist so his ideas are same much a dogmatic ideology as the religions. also the others with their intelligent design/creationists are not better either lol

"religion" and "science" should just keep a certain distance between eachother

[Pulsator]

you cannot prove a negative.

if religion didn't encroach on us via tax breaks, political interference, immoral teachings, indoctrination of children, intolerance, war, the denigration of science etc etc then we wouldn't demand that people justify their beliefs.

private beliefs are fine, but most religions can't keep their beliefs private; they have to make everyone else share their poison.

that's why we have to challenge the basis for those beliefs as well as the beliefs themselves.

[happosai27]

well scientists cant proof that there is no god either. or did someone make a god-o-meter yet? ^^ im not religious. i just want to point out that atheists are not better. they insist on their point of view just like religious fundamentalists

[Pulsator]

nobody can prove the nonexistence of anything: god, angels, father christmas, easter bunny.

you cannot prove a negative.

to blame science for not being able to do the impossible is a mite unfair, non.

all we can do is demand evidence.

there is no evidence for a god, much less for one that cares about our behaviour.

[happosai27]

you got it exactly right. science should stay away from religion as long as science got no god-o-meter since arguing against that would be unscientific if you cant proof anything ^^ making up a theory you can't proof even if you wanted to is like a dog chasing its tail lol

no evidence for him and no against him but still he insists that its stooopid to believe in one xD i love this discussion. like about what was there first. egg or chicken.

im sure god would not give a shit lol

[Pulsator]

you said it, sir: "no evidence for him"

it IS immensly stupid to believe in summat there is no evidence for. do you believe in faries or the existence of father christmas? thor or zeus? no, of course you don't as that would be "stooopid".

by the way, the egg, without a doubt, did come before the chicken, as egg laying reptilians were around for millenia before chickens evolved. so science has solved that little quandry for you.

[happosai27]

i know its stupid lol i dont believe in it either. never went to church, no idea if there is a god, propably not..

and this egg chicken thing was a metapher to describe this strange "god" vs "science" discussion. you somehow dont get my point really..

[Pulsator]

oh i get your point - believe me, it's not hard to understand - i was merely highlighting what a crummy metaphor the chicken and egg scenario is.

as it is, you've conceded all your main points now anyway. which is why engaging in these debates is worthwhile: rational thought should always meet irrational posteuring head on.

that includes science having an opinion on the irrational and poisonous effects of religion.

have a good day, sir.

[theredblueblurr]

Your argument is incredibly ignorant. Just because you can't prove or disprove a god doesn't mean that belief in a god is equally valid when it isn't.

[happosai27]

both sides are wrong. religion cant proof that there is a god and science can't proof that there is no god ^.^

thy guy should focus on his work and stay away from the religious people

[theredblueblurr]

That's an idiotic way to look at a scientific topic. Just go all the way and say you believe in God. The world has no place for silly little fence sitters who can't be intellectually bothered enough to have an opinion. Also, his job was Professor of the public UNDERSTANDING of science. He has done that job quite well. A part of the reason he became so well known here is the people who are trying to have "god did it" or Intelligent Design(unintelligently wrapped creationism) taught in schools.

[happosai27]

ah come on. i could say also that atheists killed some 150 million people in the 20th century. way more than in the 1000 year before put together.

these intelligent design retards are so stupid lol have you seen the video where some guy tried to proove that the banana was designed by god for humans? because it got a "opener" at the end and fits perfectly in the human hand lool but he forgets that it was bred and evolved until it looked that way

[theredblueblurr]

Have you ever heard of probability either? Because in science a question where the answer is "I don't know", like the question of a creator of the universe, probability comes in to play. Scientifically speaking, about the only question that religion claims to be able to answer that science can't yet, is the beginning of the universe, and what happens when we die. Science can explain everything else that religion claims as, "god did it".

[theredblueblurr]

The logical and rational response therefore to the question of god or gods existence is, "I don't know, but most likely there is no God."

[happosai27]

lol most likely.. so all people which lived before the last few generations in western europe were all wrong and we are right all of a sudden? ^^

[theredblueblurr]

How many hundreds of years went by when people thought the earth was flat and people who thought different were stupid? How many hundreds of years went by when people thought the earth was in the center of the universe? Your talking about the same people who sentenced a man to house arrest for life for daring to propose that the earth revolved around the sun. Your also not mentioning the myriad of FAR FAR OLDER religions involving one or many gods. They lasted for centuries and longer as well.

[indridcold1311]

Science can't... prove... a negative. What we can do is look at the claims, use facts we have at hand and our critical thinking and come up with an fairly good estimate on whether or not god exisits. Which of course, no god exists.

[tiptiptapable]

it is unlikely that humans exist

[seonf]

@theredblueblurr Just because you can't prove or disprove God doesn't mean we all have to believe in him. When presented with the evidence I will believe, till then god can get stuffed.

[theredblueblurr]

@seonf Did I imply that I believed in god? Didn't intent to,

[seonf]

Oh I just assumed= ass u me. I agree with you God can not be proven or disprove but as I said that's no reason to believe him or not, it's just up to the individual.

[theredblueblurr]

@seonf intend*

[Neonmindset]

You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

[happosai27]

but you do? ^^