Richard Dawkin’s new film – The Unbelievers

January 16, 2014 (MercatorNet) – After spending much of 2013 trying to stitch up a film distribution deal, two of the world’s most outspoken atheists, Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, have announced that their documentary, The Unbelievers, will receive worldwide distribution this year through Content Media Corporation Ltd, a London and LA-based film, television and digital sales company. The documentary on the globetrotting English biologist and American physicist as they take their views to the masses includes interviews with glitterati like Ricky Gervais, Woody Allen, Cameron Diaz, Tim Minchin, and James Morrison.

more…

Oh joyous day.

Peak Warming Man said:

Oh joyous day.

It’s alright PeaterT, you can watch this version instead…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

Skeptic Pete said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Oh joyous day.

It’s alright PeaterT, you can watch this version instead…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

It’ll suit your level of understanding better I think.

Religion poisons everything!

I’ve reached Chapter 5 of God is not great by Christopher Hitchens

I like his style of writing, and he has helped clarify quite a few events

the amount of information he is covering is awesome

its hard to put the book down

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’ve reached Chapter 5 of God is not great by Christopher Hitchens

I like his style of writing, and he has helped clarify quite a few events

the amount of information he is covering is awesome

its hard to put the book down

Did you like the story about when he was in Beirut, Belfast, Baghdad etc?

Skeptic Pete said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’ve reached Chapter 5 of God is not great by Christopher Hitchens

I like his style of writing, and he has helped clarify quite a few events

the amount of information he is covering is awesome

its hard to put the book down

Did you like the story about when he was in Beirut, Belfast, Baghdad etc?

Yes, and it made sense

its hard to put the book down

I had the same problem once with a book about anti-gravity…

Christopher Hitchens says Religion poisons everything

I agree, but I would go further than that

Religion is crime against humanity, I have 8 reasons for this

1 All the people that have and still are dying in the name of one religion or another

2 tens, maybe hundreds of human hours wasted over two thousand years on imaginary story telling

3 human rights abuse in the name of religion

4 religious interference in politics

5 stating that God exists when in fact God is only a remote possibility

6 suppressing free thought

7 suppressing scientific discoveries

8 people who become clergy only to sexually abuse young people

these are 8 of the major concerns I have, and there would be more I’m sure

>>>2 tens, maybe hundreds of human hours wasted over two thousand years on imaginary story telling

2 tens, maybe “hundreds of Billions” of human hours wasted over two thousand years on imaginary story telling

2000 years? been a bit longer than that. on the plus side think of all the fantastic art and architecture that has been created because of religion.

“2 tens, maybe hundreds of human hours wasted over two thousand years on imaginary story telling”

You might be out by a factor there.

JudgeMental said:

2000 years? been a bit longer than that. on the plus side think of all the fantastic art and architecture that has been created because of religion.

I’ve often wondered, if religions like the catholics hadn’t commissioned all that architecture and art what would the builders and artists created instead?

not all religions are like the catholics….the pyramids, Angkor Wat, Buddha statues. there is heaps of stuff. would there have been a similar motivator without religion?

Christopher Hitchens says Religion poisons everything

I agree, but I would go further than that

Religion is crime against humanity, I have 8 reasons for this

You make some good points, but I wonder whether the slaughters over the millenia would have not occurred or would be less if there was no religion. There are still things like power, territory, resources, political ideology( religions in themselves) to go to war over, the human race will use any excuse to improve the position of their own little groups and cabals. We’ll never know of course, but the fact that some religions have inspired people to do good things is often overlooked.

Skeptic Pete said:

JudgeMental said:

2000 years? been a bit longer than that. on the plus side think of all the fantastic art and architecture that has been created because of religion.

I’ve often wondered, if religions like the catholics hadn’t commissioned all that architecture and art what would the builders and artists created instead?

Maybe nothing as the needed wealthy benefactors to survive and give them the time to complete their projects.

Skeptic Pete said:

“2 tens, maybe hundreds of human hours wasted over two thousand years on imaginary story telling”

You might be out by a factor there.

“2 tens, maybe hundreds of billions of human hours wasted over two thousand years on imaginary story telling”

that might be a reasonable figure, its hard to say

if someone could measure the amount of time wasted, it would be good to see the actual figure

Skeptic Pete said:

JudgeMental said:

2000 years? been a bit longer than that. on the plus side think of all the fantastic art and architecture that has been created because of religion.

I’ve often wondered, if religions like the catholics hadn’t commissioned all that architecture and art what would the builders and artists created instead?

Palaces.

rumpole said:

Christopher Hitchens says Religion poisons everything

I agree, but I would go further than that

Religion is crime against humanity, I have 8 reasons for this

You make some good points, but I wonder whether the slaughters over the millenia would have not occurred or would be less if there was no religion. There are still things like power, territory, resources, political ideology( religions in themselves) to go to war over, the human race will use any excuse to improve the position of their own little groups and cabals. We’ll never know of course, but the fact that some religions have inspired people to do good things is often overlooked.

yes, thats reasonable, I would guess maybe a little less if there was no religion, but people would still fight over resources, and we still are today

I’m not sure about palaces. A lot of royalty started out by the people believing the royals were specially chosen by God to rule them on Earth. Take religion out of that and would you still have royalty?

Unless you mean palaces for any old rich bastard. Then sure, heaps of them around.

PermeateFree said:

Skeptic Pete said:

JudgeMental said:

2000 years? been a bit longer than that. on the plus side think of all the fantastic art and architecture that has been created because of religion.

I’ve often wondered, if religions like the catholics hadn’t commissioned all that architecture and art what would the builders and artists created instead?

yeah sorry, i was thinking Christianity, Religion probably goes back 30,000 years+

Maybe nothing as the needed wealthy benefactors to survive and give them the time to complete their projects.

JudgeMental said:

not all religions are like the catholics….the pyramids, Angkor Wat, Buddha statues. there is heaps of stuff. would there have been a similar motivator without religion?

Money. Status. Palaces and manors and estates, government buildings, public art, portraits… Churches weren’t the only patrons of the arts you know.

party_pants said:

Skeptic Pete said:

JudgeMental said:

2000 years? been a bit longer than that. on the plus side think of all the fantastic art and architecture that has been created because of religion.

I’ve often wondered, if religions like the catholics hadn’t commissioned all that architecture and art what would the builders and artists created instead?

Palaces.

Hitler anticipating the end of the third reich (though he was thinking in thousands of years) favoured a form of architecture that was monumental, oversized and with an eye to how it would look overgrown with ivy as the remains of a great civilisation.

CrazyNeutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Skeptic Pete said:

I’ve often wondered, if religions like the catholics hadn’t commissioned all that architecture and art what would the builders and artists created instead?

yeah sorry, i was thinking Christianity, Religion probably goes back 30,000 years+

Maybe nothing as the needed wealthy benefactors to survive and give them the time to complete their projects.

You know I lot of cathedrals use ancient philosophers as statues who were not religious at all

Divine Angel said:

I’m not sure about palaces. A lot of royalty started out by the people believing the royals were specially chosen by God to rule them on Earth. Take religion out of that and would you still have royalty?

Well we still do. But how’d they get to be royal in the first place? By being rich buggers with big armies. Divine right was just the excuse.

rumpole said:

its hard to put the book down

I had the same problem once with a book about anti-gravity…

Clap, clap, clap!

:)

I, for one, will be looking out for this film…mainly so i can avoid it.

but it was divine right that got the plebs in. the crusade were a land grab by the second sons of the european barons who weren’t going to inherit the family pile. religion got the masses involved. only a few of the wealthy saw it anymore than a financial opportunity.

Without religion, Joan of Arc woulda just been a peasant girl who did nothing noteworthy and lived to see her 20th birthday.

JudgeMental said:

but it was divine right that got the plebs in. the crusade were a land grab by the second sons of the european barons who weren’t going to inherit the family pile. religion got the masses involved. only a few of the wealthy saw it anymore than a financial opportunity.

The well paid, armoured, prone to violence, men with swords and pikes didn’t have anything to do with convincing the peasantry?

they were their serfs, part of the deal was serving in their lords army. others went because they got a promise of absolution (i think it was that) they only had a certain amount of time to serve with the army, 100 days maybe, a year.

We’re talking about the Crusades now? What’s that got to do with the supposed divine right of a king to rule? I was actually talking about kingdoms within Europe, and kings (or non-kings) marching into places, killing the existing king and establishing their own dynasty. Like Alfred, or William, or Cnut, or Charlemagne, or Louis the something probably, or all of the other kings…

Angus Prune said:

We’re talking about the Crusades now? What’s that got to do with the supposed divine right of a king to rule? I was actually talking about kingdoms within Europe, and kings (or non-kings) marching into places, killing the existing king and establishing their own dynasty. Like Alfred, or William, or Cnut, or Charlemagne, or Louis the something probably, or all of the other kings…

They installed their own archbishops who assured everyone that God favours their rule over the recently vanquished.

sorry, i was and i thought you quoted me…so i thought we were on the same page.

going back, the crusades were just an example of the reason the two sections of society interacted in the way they did.

Michael V said:

rumpole said:

its hard to put the book down

I had the same problem once with a book about anti-gravity…

Clap, clap, clap!

:)

.
I have NOT got the clap! how dare you ?

Peak Warming Man said:

Oh joyous day.

Steady on PWM, it’s only a film.

As for the rest of the discussion, I’d say that religion was a result of evolved human nature, rather than vice versa.

if someone could measure the amount of time wasted, it would be good to see the actual figure
———————————————————————————

Really?

Contemplating the why along with the how and when, can build you a super collider in the future…

Day after day,
Alone on a hill,
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still
But nobody wants to know him,
They can see that he’s just a fool,
And he never gives an answer,

Talking of Irony, I’ve just read some of the article linked in the OP. It seems the writer has used the film as an excuse to promote his own views on intelligent design:

“The irony of the exercise is that it is taking place at a time when science itself has been providing more reasons than ever to believe in an intelligent creator. Science can change of course, but despite claims to the contrary, the current scientific picture strongly supports traditional philosophical arguments for the existence of a God. For instance, biology and physics have been confirming for some time now the astonishing level of fine tuning that suggests a designing mind. In biology, the focus has been on the amazing complexity of the most basic living cells that appear to have powered evolution. And in physics there has been a steady stream of discoveries about the beginning and apparent design behind our universe.

The concept of fine-tuning goes back centuries to the time when physicists first recognised that many aspects of planet Earth and its place in the cosmos were just right for supporting life. For instance, if the Earth had been a little smaller, or bigger, or if it had been a little closer or further from the sun, life would never have got started. At this level it might have seemed reasonable to conclude that humanity was just a bit lucky — after all, there are many planets in the universe.”

At this level it might have seemed reasonable to conclude that humanity was just a bit lucky — after all, there are many planets in the universe.”
——————————————————-

Not so sure about lucky…

But very convenient.

In other news, did you see that they have ‘proved’ the Universe is infinite…

>The concept of fine-tuning goes back centuries to the time when physicists first recognised that many aspects of planet Earth and its place in the cosmos were just right for supporting life. For instance, if the Earth had been a little smaller, or bigger, or if it had been a little closer or further from the sun, life would never have got started. At this level it might have seemed reasonable to conclude that humanity was just a bit lucky — after all, there are many planets in the universe.”

:)

It’s just not enough that it happened, it certainly happened, even if only once, ever. Instead of cosmic dice we get God dice, and somehow that helps with the probability question, or ‘problem’ depending how ones three neurons consider it.

Why can’t earth be a freak planet.

Probably oneday it’ll be discovered that something as simple as table salt, a fortuitous day-night length cycles and few other things given enough time tend to give rise to life.

There could well be a God, I don’t mind the idea at all, but you know is it likely to be anything even remotely resembling of the biblical or religious-tending understanding.

I can’t know, I do know there’s been a lot of death and suffering on the way to what is.

In other news, did you see that they have ‘proved’ the Universe is infinite…

really? since when was science in the business of “proving” things? the current models based on the data say that the universe is infinite because it is basically flat. models change though.

Why can’t earth be a freak planet.

this is about the fine tuning of the universe, but anyway, if the earth was a freak then it would cause more problems in science than it cures. the difference between fine tuning an earth to fine tuning a universe is that “earths” all start with the same laws of physics. so in an infinite, or really really big universe one earth would be problematic. fine tuning universes, if there is an infinite number, or a real, real lot, then the likelihood of only one having the right initial conditions to support life is higher.

Probably oneday it’ll be discovered that something as simple as table salt, a fortuitous day-night length cycles and few other things given enough time tend to give rise to life.
—————————————-

Ahhh table salt came to be after man worked how to make it run through little holes…

Cyanide included.

the current models based on the data say that the universe is infinite because it is basically flat.
————————————————————-

Well they determined that it is flat.

They also showed that you can prove the earth is spherical, with out leaving the planet, by drawing a triangle…

On a globe.

Hey, it was SBS…

Well they determined that it is flat.

wmap results are accurate to >96%. this fits with an infinite universe. but….it could just be really really big. a bit like a square metre on the surface of a sphere the size of the earth would appear flat. you would need to measure it very very accurately to find the curvature.

you would need to measure it very very accurately to find the curvature.
—————————————————————————

Yes. And don’t shoot me if they have erred…

They took the biggest picture they could, that of the CMBR, choose one large area that they said they already knew of its distance…

And crossed shone two lasers on it, projected on a wide screen, and then measured the angles to the einght degree…

And they added up to, ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY.
,

i saw the show.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

this guy is well regarded and this tute is fairly easy to follow.

i saw the show.
——————————

Yeah OK, I wasn’t overly impressed but thought the Rev would be happy now it has been proven…

i thought it explained current thinking pretty well for a layman’s view.

i thought it explained current thinking pretty well for a layman’s view.
————————————

I thought they lied when they said ‘You can prove the Earth is spherical by drawing a triangle on a globe…’

>this is about the fine tuning of the universe, but anyway, if the earth was a freak then it would cause more problems in science than it cures. the difference between fine tuning an earth to fine tuning a universe is that “earths” all start with the same laws of physics. so in an infinite, or really really big universe one earth would be problematic. fine tuning universes, if there is an infinite number, or a real, real lot, then the likelihood of only one having the right initial conditions to support life is higher”

I was more getting at the inexplicableness of evolving complexity (apparent or real, the conceptions of, limits etc), looking out at the universe from and within this little pocket of negentropy. While writing I was wondering of what thermodynamics happened upon that shapes our perception and conceptions of probabilities (the likelihood of it all happening), the what, where and why we see it from.

>so in an infinite, or really really big universe one earth would be problematic. fine tuning universes, if there is an infinite number, or a real, real lot, then the likelihood of only one having the right initial conditions to support life is higher”

Don’t necessarily agree with that above.

There is I believe a class of events, of which the probability is very low and tend to exist as a possibility this way. That they are characterized by their very low probability. But it’s not the low probability of what may happen that is the shaping factor, more it is what is excluded. These events I think detach from the physics we’d typically resolve a causal chain. So as much as physics may be universal, I am not sure the origins of this universe has a causal history of physics we’d be able to follow back.

If it were the case this universe were made possible by such detachment, that the transformation obliviated its origin – the connection – that of what this universe materialized, that the ‘dimensions’ we occupy were the cost of the loss of the connection, then I am not sure about the common physics being the explanational tool.

In some way the earth may be ‘special’ not because of what it is or what happens here, but because of what it excludes.

As a starting point I ask what is a thought? What is ‘structure’ more broadly?

I think the lead up to low probability events is different, the ‘noise’ is more a fortuitous contributor in a sense.

Mr Ironic said:

i saw the show.
——————————

Yeah OK, I wasn’t overly impressed but thought the Rev would be happy now it has been proven…

I’ll take that as confirmation that Mr Ironic is being true to his name.

That’s a relief.

I thought they lied when they said ‘You can prove the Earth is spherical by drawing a triangle on a globe…’

please show workings. remember they did say it had to be large.

Don’t necessarily agree with that above.

don’t care. what you wrote after this is just a incomprehensible. try to get your thoughts clear and then post.

JudgeMental said:

Why can’t earth be a freak planet.

this is about the fine tuning of the universe, but anyway, if the earth was a freak then it would cause more problems in science than it cures.

It depends what sort of “freak” planet we are talking about.

Having exactly one planet with life in an infinite universe would be infinitely unlikely, but having an average of one planet with life per x observable universe volumes, where x is any finite value, is not problematic at all, even if x is a larger number than we can comprehend.

yes, exactly. though it would still be really weird if we were it even in just the observable universe. thing is the OU is still too big to ever be sure of that. hell even just our galaxy is too big to ever know for sure. mainly why i usually stick to one galaxy when discussing the likelihood of finding ETL.

>don’t care. what you wrote after this is just a incomprehensible. try to get your thoughts clear and then post.

Well, I suppose, I am trying to apprehend something at best barely comprehensible.
I note your posts are not awash with math regards the probability life existing elsewhere.

My only real point from what I said was the computation required for low-probability events doesn’t lend itself to being performed on yours or my ten fingers.

I don’t care much samely, and it is nothing more than hunch here that projections regards the probability of life elsewhere, from here where it exists, could well be misleading.

It’s not that I think there may be no more than one example of life in the entire universe, More it is that I think low-probability events are a different class of events.

I note your posts are not awash with math regards the probability life existing elsewhere.

i’d post the drake equation but that doesn’t really tell us anything apart from the stuff we don’t know. but i can make up some “maths” if that would make you happy.

>i’d post the drake equation but that doesn’t really tell us anything apart from the stuff we don’t know. but i can make up some “maths” if that would make you happy.

Not sure my happiness has much to do with it, but expect you already know and knew that as you strung those words together, so from what you’ve written above I take it that you also have no fucking idea what the probability of life existing elsewhere is.

so from what you’ve written above I take it that you also have no fucking idea what the probability of life existing elsewhere is.

and neither does anyone else. so i am in good company.

>and neither does anyone else. so i am in good company.

You could have done that without the comfort of comparison.

my posts are pretty easy to understand.

>my posts are pretty easy to understand.

Maybe the universe could be scaled down then to your embracing thoughts and articulations.

you mean like i did here

Yeah did read that.

On the subject probabilities (this is partly for Master Rev), how does the so-called or apparent ‘infinite’ universe contribute to the probability of life. Does one example of a life-supporting planet in one galaxy reasonably hint at the likelihood of more elsewhere? Isn’t a projection of probability from an ‘infinity’ a dubious basis for doing so?

JudgeMental said:

yes, exactly. though it would still be really weird if we were it even in just the observable universe. thing is the OU is still too big to ever be sure of that. hell even just our galaxy is too big to ever know for sure. mainly why i usually stick to one galaxy when discussing the likelihood of finding ETL.

hey in the plus side, at least the OU is getting smaller (well less dense to more precise) every day

transition said:

Yeah did read that.

On the subject probabilities (this is partly for Master Rev), how does the so-called or apparent ‘infinite’ universe contribute to the probability of life. Does one example of a life-supporting planet in one galaxy reasonably hint at the likelihood of more elsewhere? Isn’t a projection of probability from an ‘infinity’ a dubious basis for doing so?

not at all… the probability (of other life existing) increases to 1 as we approach infinity (it’s a limit thing)… the issue is if the universe isn’t infinite in extent then the probability will always be less than 1 (unless we confirm that life exists elsewhere that is).

(well less dense to more precise)

i sometimes wonder.

;-)

I’ll wait for the novelisation.

the expansion of the universe is effecting some people’s ability to reason properly too it seems

has anyone read ‘Our Mathematical Universe’ by Max Tegmark?

no, but i have read some of the stuff here

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

>not at all… the probability (of other life existing) increases to 1 as we approach infinity (it’s a limit thing)… the issue is if the universe isn’t infinite in extent then the probability will always be less than 1 (unless we confirm that life exists elsewhere that is).

That comes fairly close to my point, but of the first proposition might be greatly determined by what an infinity is defined as, as it would or may apply to the real thing.

Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality by Max Tegmark
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809

around $18

Max Tegmark leads us on an astonishing journey through past, present and future, and through the physics, astronomy and mathematics that are the foundation of his work, most particularly his hypothesis that our physical reality is a mathematical structure and his theory of the ultimate multiverse. In a dazzling combination of both popular and groundbreaking science, he not only helps us grasp his often mind-boggling theories, but he also shares with us some of the often surprising triumphs and disappointments that have shaped his life as a scientist. Fascinating from first to last—this is a book that has already prompted the attention and admiration of some of the most prominent scientists and mathematicians.

JudgeMental said:

yes, exactly. though it would still be really weird if we were it even in just the observable universe. thing is the OU is still too big to ever be sure of that. hell even just our galaxy is too big to ever know for sure. mainly why i usually stick to one galaxy when discussing the likelihood of finding ETL.

Why would it be weird if we were the only life in the OU?

If, for instance, the average density of life is 1 per googolplex OUs then it would be really weird if there were another example in this particular OU.

Why would it be weird if we were the only life in the OU?

purely because of the numbers involved. weird doesn’t imply it isn’t so. it purely means weird.

and weird in a scientifically interesting way.

JudgeMental said:

Why would it be weird if we were the only life in the OU?

purely because of the numbers involved. weird doesn’t imply it isn’t so. it purely means weird.

Repeating the assertion is not an answer to the question.

If the probability of life is sufficiently low then just one instance of life in any OU that has at least one instance of life is what would be expected; i.e. not weird.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

Why would it be weird if we were the only life in the OU?

purely because of the numbers involved. weird doesn’t imply it isn’t so. it purely means weird.

Repeating the assertion is not an answer to the question.

If the probability of life is sufficiently low then just one instance of life in any OU that has at least one instance of life is what would be expected; i.e. not weird.

I think the problem here is that people are confusing probability with ‘gut feel’… but as you suggested, if the probability of life was 1 instance per gooleplex of OUs then yes it would be very weird if there was more then one instance of live in this OU.

i have no “gut feel” on this issue. at the moment i know there is one planet with life on it. when we find another then there will be two. i don’t “feel” that because of the numbers there must be other planets with life out there. but at the same time i think it would be really interesting to find none. and as i said weird = scientifically interesting.

If, for instance, the average density of life is 1 per 10 OUs then it would be really weird if there weren’t another example in this particular OU.

i mean, seeing we making shit up. of course that depends on the number of OU in the total universe.

JudgeMental said:

If, for instance, the average density of life is 1 per 10 OUs then it would be really weird if there weren’t another example in this particular OU.

i mean, seeing we making shit up. of course that depends on the number of OU in the total universe.

Are you incapable of having a discussion without getting abusive, or do you just enjoy it?

What would be weird about the occurrence of a 90% probability?

JudgeMental said:

If, for instance, the average density of life is 1 per 10 OUs then it would be really weird if there weren’t another example in this particular OU.

i mean, seeing we making shit up. of course that depends on the number of OU in the total universe.

if the occurrence of life was 1 per 10 OUs then (not assuming overlap of OUs) to find two instances of life in the same OU, while not totally improbable, is still 1:100.

diddly-squat said:

JudgeMental said:

If, for instance, the average density of life is 1 per 10 OUs then it would be really weird if there weren’t another example in this particular OU.

i mean, seeing we making shit up. of course that depends on the number of OU in the total universe.

if the occurrence of life was 1 per 10 OUs then (not assuming overlap of OUs) to find two instances of life in the same OU, while not totally improbable, is still 1:100.

If the OU in question was one that was already known to have at least 1 occurrence of life, then the probability of another one would be 10%, not 1%.

while not totally improbable, is still 1:100.

horses with longer odds have won the melbourne cup.

;-)

The best thing about discovering life on another planet will be all these probability of life elsewhere conversations will be done with – FOREVER!

;P

Soso said:

The best thing about discovering life on another planet will be all these probability of life elsewhere conversations will be done with – FOREVER!

;P

To be replaced with Intelligent Design conversations.