The Unbelievers

New film from Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss.

YouTube trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxDLkoK8vQQ

Torrent: http://kickass.to/the-unbelievers-2013-tvrip-eng-jjtorrents-t9044978.html

 

Or affirm them. Belief is necessary for the formation of perception.

 

I'm still going to think on this statement more, but I would say that it is the other way around.

 

Possibility for more introspection consider that as a child you have absolute faith in your parents ability to make distinctions for you and this is what makes possible to teach a consensual view of reality. You ask pop what is this thing and he says look it is this thing here and you see the connection or see to believe or understand. Belief that there is authority causes us to look and seeing is our command of it or our ability to make sense of the senses or formulate perception.

 

we certainly live in a different and less limited universe then anything we can imagine. but again, belief has nothing to do with it. only with our own perceptions.

there are no non-unbelievers. every believer in anyone thing, the more fanatically the more so, is an unbeliever in something else, and again there is a truth and reality, beyond and untouched by any belief nor lack of it. nor can any belief ever encompass it.

there is no "authority", though there may be gods or godlike beings, there is only the way things actually work. belief, unfettered and untempered, is the way in which we delude ourselves about it.

it is fanatics, all fanatics of every stripe, who are the unbelievers in reality.

 

I see what you mean. I was thinking more along the lines of perception of the first sensory inputs that the brain has to make sense of.

 

Belief is necessary for the formation of perception. To a person who we assume is old enough to make their own distinctions, the mantra is I'll believe it when I see it. We believe in order to access essential distinctions we all share, believe to see the world in some semblance of order and see to believe.

Oh so there is an authority in contravention of what you say next,

,

One thing that actually works is deferring to magnanimous intent. We always choose with a guide. There is no reason that reality cannot be perceived.

Sounds a fanatical determination. No separating account can be an account of what is so. What is so being wholly so. Knowledge is being shared.

 

sorry but you speak doubletalk. it is still fanatics who are the true unbelievers. the deniers of everything they do not fantasize themselves.

 

Hogwash.

 

From the trailer, "... the permission to question everything."

I just laugh because there is Biblical Scripture to support that statement. haha.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

21 Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good.

Haha.

Anyway, to hold onto hatred of or against religion is not acceptable. There should be no battle, fight or competition between science and religion, as if they were two separate entities. They are both inextricable aspects of life itself. Human beings cannot ever rid ourselves of science, just like we cannot rid ourselves of religion (or government). We ARE science. We ARE religion. We ARE government. Period.

Honestly, only somebody dishonest or unintelligent would dislike simple truths. Unless, of course, it's just personal. Haha.

 

Depends, Ginalee14, upon what your profession or vocation is. That is the simple truth about it. You might mean it is the permission to read everything for the subjective choice of bias.

 

"permission to question everything" aren't my words. They're from the trailer. But I immediately thought of the Bible since that is the very first thing I ever read in the Bible that stayed with me. I forget which Bible I read it in, there are so many versions, but the one I read had those exact words: Question everything. It was comical to hear them use words that are directly in the Bible itself.

 

Find it...

Http://www.Biblegateway.com

 

Yeah I agree with you, perception is more fundamental than belief. I also want to bump this thread to check out the links later.

Perception has already been formed by the time the question is asked, the correspondence with pop in this instance is to verify or dismiss the immeadiate perceptions formed.

 

We are being told what everything is and before we can ask questions we already look to parents for everything. We are inherently trusting or posses the chemical foundations that induce bonding so that we can assimilate a consensual view. The first part of believing to see is a little harder to detect but obviously correspondence with pop to verify or dismiss is seeing in order to believe.

Ronald Reagan stated the terms with his trust but verify. You believe in anticipation of a result agreed to and look to see that it has been accomplished.

 

We, generally speaking, already come equipped with the perceptual systems in which to perceive the world. Being social animals, belief in authority figures does help us operate more efficiently and I agree that we do have the setup for bonding as well but that takes time to cultivate.

Your example in the novelty of "pop what is this" is a contradiction to what you are suggesting here of being told everything unless you think that it is a limitation of our memory in which can't identify 'this.' Otherwise, 'this' is an immeadiate perception in which the child is corresponding with pop to the legitimacy of and which the child can choose to concur, defy or futher examine upon pop's response.

I haven't watched this video yet, although I've seen ones like it, but I think this is an extreme example of how our perception precedes our belief in parents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93HymGXC_wM&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93HymGXC_wM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I'm not sure quoting politicians strengthens your argument.

 

You probably wouldn't have chosen that video had you watched it first as oxana's example demonstrated my point about our faith in providence or the provider. Asking pop is just an example of our faith in providential authority. Oxana assumed the consensual behaviors of her care giving dog providers.

Doesn't hurt and I have found there is usually a home spun or folklorish example of any real observance of life.

 

I watched it and it doesn't demonstrate your point. She cultivated dog behaviors at age 3, well after many perceptions have been experienced and likely some beliefs and perhaps some form of bonding even as well. she wasn't born to believe dogs as her authority figures .. she found guidance in dogs not gods.

 

Doesn't demonstrate the development of perception in absence of anything. It does demonstrate that trust in providential authority leads to the development of consensual behaviors and while it doesn't demonstrate any inconsistency to what I said, it also does not affirm your basic premise in a substantial way if your suggestion is that perception is formed without environmental feedback.
Yes we are born with sensory apparatus but making sense of the senses is learned.

 

Haha thedope... I'm good on.debating this, You're right it doesn't demonstrate the development of perception because as I suggested... Perception is immeadiate.