The Atheism Tapes part 3

	Duration: 551 seconds Upload Time: 07-03-27 14:35:41 User: KingLoser66 :::: Favorites
Description: BBC FOUR - The Atheism Tapes part 6 Daniel Dennett
Comments
HenryDavidThoreauII ::: Favorites "religion is moral viagara"! now, that's original, even for a living philosopher! such vulgarity could only come from a non-believer who is destined to be fried forever by Satan! lol <p> not surprisingly, the late Richard Feynman was even harsher than Dawkin's and Dennett: he almost totally ignored these superstitious crazies & their beliefs about guys who put on fancy headcloths, who wave gently at people, and who say they "know" deep stuff. 07-06-12 16:11:25 _____________________________________________________
richidpraah ::: Favorites because we're talking about atheism, biology, evolution, religion... and i was making a point about dennett which also reflects very very similarly in dawkins, and i took dawkins in as strong example, but only in the very beginning, though also saying "not only dawkins" - don't see the reason for the confusion OR the whole derailing into discourse rules. if you wanna say that i connect things that aren't connected but you give satisfactory answers, fine. i don't agree 07-06-13 13:15:11 _____________________________________________________
princesszin ::: Favorites richidpraah, I repeat it. I addressed the points you made in your comment you wrote to ME, that's the comment I answered to. You, however, failed to address the points in my comment (as a reply) and started to talk about irrelevant stuff. You don't have to agree with me. You didn't even ADDRESSED any points to be able to agree or disagree...Andrea 07-06-13 14:18:16 _____________________________________________________
richidpraah ::: Favorites yes i did. 1: dennett does ignore and disregard the mystical experience, beyond the topic of this conversation. i've read 4 books of his and numerous articles. initially i just made that statement. your first reply was thus redundant and wrong. 07-06-14 06:58:07 _____________________________________________________
richidpraah ::: Favorites secondly, that "he" (we) might transpose the dangers of religion to science, not just psychology as you suggested, was answered by, first, pointing to the religious attitude by dawkins, but moreover a point to what reductionist materialistic presuppositions allow you to do, especially in the name and game of hard science. your second reply thus also wrong. 07-06-14 06:59:43 _____________________________________________________
richidpraah ::: Favorites your third reply was then an all-out lack of understanding on your part... thomas 07-06-14 07:02:06 _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
princesszin ::: Favorites richidpraah, 1. no, he does take mystical experience into account, but defines it differently than you do 2. no. you've completely misunderstood me. i said that the TWO EXAMPLES YOU GAVE, one was about psychology which isn't science, and the other wasn't an example since religion is nurturing grass for science, even theologists say that...Andrea 07-06-14 07:58:48 _____________________________________________________
princesszin ::: Favorites ...said that about the two examples... 07-06-14 08:00:23 _____________________________________________________
richidpraah ::: Favorites 1. defines it tantamount to ignoring. misunderstanding and reduction at any rate. 2. you mean that religion is nursing grass for psychology? i didn't mean psychology. the dawkins analogy was a full answer, but i still feel it had a relevance. i think dangers are in biology, medicine, various tech-developments.. make sense? 07-06-14 14:41:14 _____________________________________________________
richidpraah ::: Favorites sorry, meant dawkins WASN'T full answer.. 07-06-14 14:42:32 _____________________________________________________