โจ
Posts: 3830 Joined: 12-Feb-2009 Last visit: 08-Feb-2024
|
jbark wrote:Atheist or agnostic: This issue is covered many times in his lectures. He considers himself agnostic but uses the term atheist for public speaking and political reasons. However, this detail is irrelevant to the bigger issues he addresses. Do you really dismiss the guy because he calls himself atheist instead of agnostic? Also, anyone calling him close-minded does not, imo, undertand the message he, and others like the late Christopher Hitchens, are trying to convey to audiences. I fully understand his abrasive attitude when dealing with religious fanatics and the true close-minded. "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -A.Huxley
|
|
|
|
|
Got Naloxone?
 
Posts: 3240 Joined: 03-Aug-2009 Last visit: 23-Jan-2025 Location: United Police States of America
|
OP was very fun and clever. Made me  "But even if nothing lasts and everything is lost, there is still the intrinsic value of the moment. The present moment, ultimately, is more than enough, a gift of grace and unfathomable value, which our friend and lover death paints in stark relief."-Rick Doblin, Ph.D. MAPS President, MAPS Bulletin Vol. XX, No. 1, pg. 2Hyperspace LOVES YOU
|
|
|
DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 473 Joined: 07-Aug-2011 Last visit: 10-Jan-2014
|
a1pha wrote:I've watched just about every Dawkins lecture / debate available. This was the first time I've seen it end in a breakthrough.   Lol was thinking the same thing! It's funny I've said for a while it's very likely Dawkins had used psychedelics. Got a lot of backlash for that because people misinterpret his views on evolution/religion as callous and cold. When really that's just the scientific vessel and form of communicating information. Nice to see him take a colorful approach to a lecture so people understand that even rigorous scientists, as people, aren't evil uncreative closed minded reductionists.
|
|
|
DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 641 Joined: 03-May-2009 Last visit: 24-Mar-2023
|
InMotion wrote:Got a lot a lot of backlash for that because people misinterpret his views on evolution/religion as callous and cold. When really that's just the scientific vessel and form of communicating information. I totally agree. Scientific debate is removed from emotions as much as possible not to muddle the subject of discussion. Emotions really brings nothing to the table compared to evidence. This is why people often find Dawkins "callous and cold". And of course, religion is a touchy subject. When David Attenborough talks in the same way about animals nobody(right???) complains.
|
|
|
Life is Art is Life
Posts: 697 Joined: 11-Sep-2012 Last visit: 13-Apr-2016 Location: watching the wheels go round and round
|
Definitely a fun presentation, until he walked out playing the EMI I was actually wondering if it was just some sort of 'remix' thing a digital artist did with a straight up and normal lecture, without Dawkins' involvement. It should be no surprise to this crowd that quite a few scientists have done psychedelics. Very few of them accompany their lectures with a digital light show and play an electronic sax. Maybe if they went on tour like rock stars the public would appreciate science a bit more.  Images of broken light,
Which dance before me like a million eyes,
They call me on and on...
|
|
|
DMT-Nexus member
Posts: 1892 Joined: 05-Oct-2010 Last visit: 02-Oct-2024
|
InMotion wrote:It's funny I've said for a while it's very likely Dawkins had used psychedelics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UwvaSLbIgc'I would be very curious to take ... perhaps something like LSD or mescaline ... under proper medical supervision if I were absolutely convinced it would do me no lasting harm' I doubt it would change much but I hope he gets to experience it, I think he would really dig it. Art Van D'lay wrote:Smoalk. It. And. See.
|