Oxford University hosts a debate between Professor Dawkins and Anglican Bishop Harries, mediated by Jeremy Paxman.
My Blog List
-
The hills to die on7 years ago
-
The Existential Files9 years ago
-
-
Buddhist Healing Practice10 years ago
-
All About Tig Welders for Sale15 years ago
Web Counter
Showing posts with label atheist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheist. Show all posts
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Atheists, You Dont Deserve It, But You Will Be Punished
A lot of Christians say we are going to hell. Jeff holds nothing back and sends this caller to her own hell. You gotta love his "in your face", and brutal honesty. Russell Glasser and Jeff Dee host this clip from "The Atheist Experience #415" - http://www.atheist-experience.com
Jimmy Carr defends Atheism on the Late Late (18 Sept 09)
After Ryan Tubridy's pathetic interview with Richard Dawkins earlier in the program, British Comedian talks about his non belief and interest in Dawkins' work.
Dawkins interview can be found here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeUkC...
Dawkins interview can be found here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeUkC...
SunderB00t rambles on - The Atheist Experience #634
John from the UK (?), a.k.a. YouTuber "SunderB00t" calls in again to continue his rambling from November the 15th.
Segment of The Atheist Experience #634 of December 6, 2009, with Matt Dillahunty and Jeff Dee. Topic: Viewer calls.
This entire episode can be watched on Blip.tv:
► http://blip.tv/file/2942500
SunderB00t's first call from November 15, 2009:
► http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUVFSV...
Segment of The Atheist Experience #634 of December 6, 2009, with Matt Dillahunty and Jeff Dee. Topic: Viewer calls.
This entire episode can be watched on Blip.tv:
► http://blip.tv/file/2942500
SunderB00t's first call from November 15, 2009:
► http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUVFSV...
Proof that God exists - The Atheist Experience #643
Antonio from Edison, New Jersey calls in to prove the existence of God, but turns out to be operating from misconception about the term atheism. (This is the first half of a discussion that is posted in two video clips.)
Segment of The Atheist Experience #643 from February 7, 2010, with Russell Glasser and Tracie Harris. Topic: Hymns. (Tracie and Russell look at the twisted lyrics of common hymns.)
Second half of the the discussion with Antonio from Edison, New Jersey. Tagline: "This pencil is my God!"
The webcast is archived in 2 parts on Ustream.tv:
► http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4547347 (Part 1)
► http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4549032 (Part 2)
The TV broadcast is archived on Blip.tv.
WARNING: VERY LOUD AND DISTORTED AUDIO!
► http://blip.tv/file/3200785
Segment of The Atheist Experience #643 from February 7, 2010, with Russell Glasser and Tracie Harris. Topic: Hymns. (Tracie and Russell look at the twisted lyrics of common hymns.)
Second half of the the discussion with Antonio from Edison, New Jersey. Tagline: "This pencil is my God!"
The webcast is archived in 2 parts on Ustream.tv:
► http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4547347 (Part 1)
► http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4549032 (Part 2)
The TV broadcast is archived on Blip.tv.
WARNING: VERY LOUD AND DISTORTED AUDIO!
► http://blip.tv/file/3200785
The Purpose of Purpose - Richard Dawkins
This talk was given in Michigan, Minneapolis, Oklahoma and Nebraska.
Filmed at:
University of Minnesota - Minneapolis, Minnesota
University of Oklahoma - Norman, Oklahoma
Holland Performing Arts Center - Omaha, Nebraska
Introductions by:
PZ Myers - Minneapolis, Minnesota
Barry Weaver - Norman, Oklahoma
Richard Holland - Omaha, Nebraska
Filmed and Edited by Josh Timonen
Shot on Red One #4809
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Why religion tears people down - The Atheist Experience #640
Why religion undermines people's self-esteem.
Clip from The Atheist Experience #640 of January 17, 2010, with Matt Dillahunty and Martin Wagner. (Topic: viewer calls.)
Clip from The Atheist Experience #640 of January 17, 2010, with Matt Dillahunty and Martin Wagner. (Topic: viewer calls.)
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Christopher Hitchens VS Dinesh D'souza UCF 2009
http://www.worldalign.blogspot.com
-Coming Soon, WorldAlign Documentary on the Economy!-The Great Faith Debate at UCF in Orlando FL on September 17, 2009. This debate is between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'souza.
-Coming Soon, WorldAlign Documentary on the Economy!-The Great Faith Debate at UCF in Orlando FL on September 17, 2009. This debate is between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'souza.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Hitchens and Fry vs Ann Widdecombe on the Ten Commandments
Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry talks with the horrible Catholic Ann Widdecombe
February 7, 2010 on Channel 4 from the documentary series "The Bible: A History"
February 7, 2010 on Channel 4 from the documentary series "The Bible: A History"
Friday, February 5, 2010
Ted Haggard, Homosexuality And Religious Indoctrination - The Atheist Experience #555
Ted Haggard, Homosexuality, and Religious Indoctrination (The Atheist Experience #555 with Matt Dillahunty and Martin Wagner).
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Scientific Thinking And Moral Philosophy
Richard Dawkins @ Big Think: While science is indelibly distinct from the field of ethics, Richard Dawkins believes that there are a number of ways in which its facts and reasoning could greatly benefit our ability to understand and repair the worlds suffering.
Question: Can Science shed light on any moral issues?
Richard Dawkins: Science is not in the business of shedding light on moral debates, but I think it can do sometimes -- the whole subject of moral philosophy, of examining moral questions in a logical way to expose inconsistencies, for example.
When you're looking at moral questions, so-called moral questions, like abortion or euthanasia, you can show that people who take a very strong absolutist line may be being inconsistent with themselves because they are taking a strong line on one thing while at the same time inconsistently not taking a similarly strong line on another.
So that would be a scientific way of thinking; it's not science per se. It's moral philosophy, but it's a kind of scientific way of thinking. But also I think scientific facts can illuminate moral debate. In the case of abortion again, for example, a scientist might contribute to the debate information about at what point during the development of an embryo the nervous system comes into being.
And presumably, before the nervous system comes into existence there is no ability to feel pain or to suffer. And so maybe something important happens at the moment when the nervous system comes into being.
On the other hand, you might say, well, even when a human embryo develops a nervous system and develops the capacity to perhaps suffer, it's still a much smaller nervous system than the nervous system of an adult cow. And so what about balancing the suffering of a human embryo against the suffering of an adult cow when it's being slaughtered for meat.
An absolutist moralist would say, well, humans are just plain special, and cows are not humans, so they don't deserve the same moral consideration. But a scientist might come along and say, well, what do you mean by that? I mean we are, after all, all evolved; we're all cousins.
At what point in the evolution -- since we know evolution is a fact -- at what point in the evolution of humans would you suddenly draw the line and say, all right, from now on they're all human and before that they're not?
In the evolutionary progression from the common ancestors with chimpanzees, who lived about six or seven million years ago, to modern humans, going through creatures which might have looked a bit like Lucy, might have looked a bit like the newly discovered fossil Ardi, would you have given special human moral ethical consideration to Lucy? Or would you count Lucy as though she was a chimpanzee?
Does this perhaps suggest to you that we shouldn't be in the business of drawing lines between species in this kind of way, and maybe these lines should be regarded as more fuzzy and less clear cut. Our absolutist moralities that do draw hard and fast lines between humans and all other species -- even taking a human fetus and calling that human, whereas an adult chimpanzee is not and doesn't deserve the same moral consideration -- is that consistent with science? These are ways that science can at least inform moral discussions.
Question: Is there ever a point where scientific reasoning can harm society?
Richard Dawkins: You can, I suppose, make a utilitarian justification for obnoxious practices. You could make a utilitarian justification for torture. Moral philosophers sometimes pose the hypothetical case where the world is about to be blown up.
Only one person knows the secret password to stop the doomsday bomb going off. This one person is a suicide bomber who refuses to give up the password. Are you right to torture him? And most people, I think, say you are. I mean, it's a horrible thing to torture somebody, but under those extreme conditions, to save the world you would torture somebody. And that would be a utilitarian justification for an otherwise obnoxious practice such as torture.
http://bigthink.com/
Question: Can Science shed light on any moral issues?
Richard Dawkins: Science is not in the business of shedding light on moral debates, but I think it can do sometimes -- the whole subject of moral philosophy, of examining moral questions in a logical way to expose inconsistencies, for example.
When you're looking at moral questions, so-called moral questions, like abortion or euthanasia, you can show that people who take a very strong absolutist line may be being inconsistent with themselves because they are taking a strong line on one thing while at the same time inconsistently not taking a similarly strong line on another.
So that would be a scientific way of thinking; it's not science per se. It's moral philosophy, but it's a kind of scientific way of thinking. But also I think scientific facts can illuminate moral debate. In the case of abortion again, for example, a scientist might contribute to the debate information about at what point during the development of an embryo the nervous system comes into being.
And presumably, before the nervous system comes into existence there is no ability to feel pain or to suffer. And so maybe something important happens at the moment when the nervous system comes into being.
On the other hand, you might say, well, even when a human embryo develops a nervous system and develops the capacity to perhaps suffer, it's still a much smaller nervous system than the nervous system of an adult cow. And so what about balancing the suffering of a human embryo against the suffering of an adult cow when it's being slaughtered for meat.
An absolutist moralist would say, well, humans are just plain special, and cows are not humans, so they don't deserve the same moral consideration. But a scientist might come along and say, well, what do you mean by that? I mean we are, after all, all evolved; we're all cousins.
At what point in the evolution -- since we know evolution is a fact -- at what point in the evolution of humans would you suddenly draw the line and say, all right, from now on they're all human and before that they're not?
In the evolutionary progression from the common ancestors with chimpanzees, who lived about six or seven million years ago, to modern humans, going through creatures which might have looked a bit like Lucy, might have looked a bit like the newly discovered fossil Ardi, would you have given special human moral ethical consideration to Lucy? Or would you count Lucy as though she was a chimpanzee?
Does this perhaps suggest to you that we shouldn't be in the business of drawing lines between species in this kind of way, and maybe these lines should be regarded as more fuzzy and less clear cut. Our absolutist moralities that do draw hard and fast lines between humans and all other species -- even taking a human fetus and calling that human, whereas an adult chimpanzee is not and doesn't deserve the same moral consideration -- is that consistent with science? These are ways that science can at least inform moral discussions.
Question: Is there ever a point where scientific reasoning can harm society?
Richard Dawkins: You can, I suppose, make a utilitarian justification for obnoxious practices. You could make a utilitarian justification for torture. Moral philosophers sometimes pose the hypothetical case where the world is about to be blown up.
Only one person knows the secret password to stop the doomsday bomb going off. This one person is a suicide bomber who refuses to give up the password. Are you right to torture him? And most people, I think, say you are. I mean, it's a horrible thing to torture somebody, but under those extreme conditions, to save the world you would torture somebody. And that would be a utilitarian justification for an otherwise obnoxious practice such as torture.
http://bigthink.com/
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Religious Superstition And False Hope - The Atheist Experience #560
Peter Popoff, Religious Superstition And False Hope (The Atheist Experience #560 with Matt Dillahunty & Martin Wagner).
Monday, January 18, 2010
How the Bible Explains Suffering
Bart Ehrman is renowned for his contributions to the field of religious studies, focusing on New Testament interpretation and the history of ancient Christianity in the first three centuries AD. Series: UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures [9/2008] [Humanities] [Show ID: 14693]
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Disowning Family Members For Religious Dogma - The Atheist Experience #614
"Disowning Family Members For Religious Dogma". This is a clip from The Atheist Experience #614, "TAM Recap. Matt recaps his visit to The Amazing Meeting 7.", with Matt Dillahunty and Martin Wagner: http://blip.tv/file/2380391
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Nice Guys Finish First - Richard Dawkins
A 1986 documentary from the BBC Horizon series. In this video Richard Dawkins explains how natural selection can favor co-operation in nature, so long as it is of benefit to the selfish gene.
His search for stable co-operate strategies, which remain unaffected by cheating and exploitation involves an extraordinary game known as the Prisoners' Dilemma, normally used by psychologists to study human behavior.
In their attempts to earn real money, players must wrestle with a dilemma - whether to follow their natural instincts of co-operation or the dictates of reason and behave selfishly.
His search for stable co-operate strategies, which remain unaffected by cheating and exploitation involves an extraordinary game known as the Prisoners' Dilemma, normally used by psychologists to study human behavior.
In their attempts to earn real money, players must wrestle with a dilemma - whether to follow their natural instincts of co-operation or the dictates of reason and behave selfishly.
Richard Dawkins - Science is the poetry of reality
Some selected clips from 'The Root of All Evil?' series.
Hardball: Christopher Hitchens vs Ken Blackwell on the US Being a Christian Nation
From Hardball April 8, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
