This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Debate - Hitchens, Harris, Dennett vs Boteach, D'Souza, Wright

Debate - Hitchens, Harris, Dennett vs Boteach, D'Souza, Wright - Comments

Fuller's Avatar Comment 1 by Fuller

Oooooh can't wait to watch this later on.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:25:00 UTC | #413715

FSM?'s Avatar Comment 2 by FSM?

More of the same tired nonsense from the religious side. I don't know how Hitch et al can stand hearing it over and over. It has certainly got very old for me over the years.

However, glad they have the fortitude to keep espousing reason and evidence based thinking at events like this.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:04:00 UTC | #413716

Robert Maynard's Avatar Comment 3 by Robert Maynard

I have bookmarked it for later.. but the audio seems.. really, really quiet. :\

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:13:00 UTC | #413718

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 4 by mordacious1

I'm tired of listening to D'Souza. The man never says anything original or new. I wish Hitch could find someone else crazy enough to debate him.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:20:00 UTC | #413719

Alternative Carpark's Avatar Comment 5 by Alternative Carpark

Just when I was about to take a 15 minute after-lunch power nap in the toilet.

What's with the ring get-up? Maybe later, Professor Dennett will deliver an atomic elbow drop, to d'souzey's cranium, from the top rope later on.

Maybe it's just the Portuguese speaking audience, but just 1 minute in and already a Shmuley Bopeep joke falls flat on its face - When Hitch told it in a different debate, it brought the house down - I guess it's the way you tell 'em.

Ok, Shmoo is vindicated - not even a giggle at the suggestion that Brangelina have "27 children" by now.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:23:00 UTC | #413720

Slothhead's Avatar Comment 6 by Slothhead

Just started watching, and happy to say that Boteach has been promoted to join one of those i adore. Up there with Cameron and comfort, d'Souza, the list goes on. These are those people that talk so much nonsense that they are probably good for the advancement of the spread of science.
Boteach "If the moon was closer then the tides would bring the oceans up and life wouldnts have been able to exist" HAHAHAHA, that is great. Someone obviously havent told him how the moon got there.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:33:00 UTC | #413721

Metch's Avatar Comment 7 by Metch

I haven't watched this yet, although I predict multiple "arguments" based on ignorance, combined with wishful thinking and straight up delusion.

Shmuley - "Where are all the fossils? There should be millions and millions of them!"

(no there shouldn't, fossilization is a rare event)

Dinesh - "I'm going to use reason and science to prove there is a god"

(but he doesn't, he uses illogical reasoning, special pleading, and religious references)

As much as I enjoy these debates, I think there should be rules against lying, and spreading false information. Many people are genuinely convinced by those who declare there "should be millions of 'transitional' fossils". How come no one has sat down with these religious debaters and explained to them how evolution works, why we are lucky to have the fossils we do, and how transitional forms are everywhere, all around us, even modern animals. Either they know they are lying, or they are ignorant, or they are too stupid to grasp many aspects of science.

I imagine they'll all use the same tired arguments, that do NOT convince anyone who knows anything about science, and has anything remotely resembling intelligence and critical thinking skills. I think it would say a lot if "the Hitch" and friends decided to boycott debating apologists until they adhere to the arguments against gods, and/or stop re-using long since debunked arguments.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:45:00 UTC | #413722

s1mon's Avatar Comment 8 by s1mon

As painful as it was, i managed to watch Dinesh D'Moron D'Souza's opening. What utter baloney. This man can actually commit logical contradictions in a single sentence.

"How can atheists say they don't believe in the afterlife if they haven't been to the other side?" Hmmm!!!

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:06:00 UTC | #413726

HKSARblog's Avatar Comment 9 by HKSARblog

I agree with Metch (Comment #432063) and s1mon (Comment #432067).

I haven’t watched this yet, but like most other debates of this sort I suspect the moderator (if there is one) is completely useless and accommodates all the nonsense being said by D’Souza and his cronies.
Why can’t moderators take a more active role and be like assessors or judges? This is supposed to be a debate that allows everyone to use critical thinking skills (not lying skills), so let the moderators judge. Moderators should identify any fallacies (perhaps hold up a placard in real time to indicate the various fallacies used by D’Souza and co, such as "false analogy", "begging the question", or simply "BS"). I’d like to see something like: “three strikes and you’re out” (or two yellow cards and you’re off).

Also, as much as I like to watch Hitchens perform, I think he should declare any conflicts of interests when doing these (repeat) debates with the likes of D’Souza. What does he get out of this (appearance fees, etc?). Previously, I have mentioned that Hitchens has said that he likes to have drinks or dinner with “his friend” Dinesh and his wife after these debates. What’s being discussed there?

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:43:00 UTC | #413727

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 10 by Carl Sai Baba

Robert Wright commits a total strawman even after Hitchens clarified it in advance.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:52:00 UTC | #413728

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 11 by Carl Sai Baba

Oh boy.

Wright is worse than D'Souza. D'Souza may be wrong and deceptive, but at least he forms coherent sentences and paragraphs.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:56:00 UTC | #413729

Bob Johnson's Avatar Comment 12 by Bob Johnson

I would like to give a big Thank You to Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. It must take an almost super-human ability to sit on the stage and listen to the other side give the same old arguments, the same old slanders, and the same old red herrings. I applaud you for taking your knowledge and passion to the public. Hopefully your words are heard by some; hopefully some can see through the hollow arguments of the other side.

Perhaps we could get a transcript of the religious side's speeches and then have a contest writing detailed rebuttals. (Probably to every word spoken.)

Thank you again for all your efforts.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:57:00 UTC | #413730

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 13 by Carl Sai Baba

Ugh. Sorry for posting three gripes in a row, but I can't help asking... why the hell is Robert Wright even there? He has virtually nothing to say except to say that he doesn't know what to say.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:59:00 UTC | #413731

Alternative Carpark's Avatar Comment 14 by Alternative Carpark

I swear Hitch and Dinesh have some sort of secret arrangement. They are a double act - with Hitch as the straight man and D'Souza, quite brilliant, as the buffoon - and their performances must be quite a nice little earner for the both of them.

This is the only explanation I can come up with as to why Hitchens would want to be within 1 mile of the madness that is Souzy D, and on a number of occasions.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:00:00 UTC | #413733

glenister_m's Avatar Comment 15 by glenister_m

As usual, a pleasure to listen to Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett (even if I have heard most of it before); while irritating to listen to the poor arguments and misinformation of Boteach & D'Souza.

Wright was a strange addition, who wasn't on anyone's side and didn't seem to me to have much to add - besides whining. How could the different religions reconcile with one another??

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:08:00 UTC | #413735

Ned Flanders's Avatar Comment 16 by Ned Flanders

Audio on this is totally shit.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:51:00 UTC | #413738

nonsuch's Avatar Comment 17 by nonsuch

I've got my computer and youtube vol. turned to max. and yet have NO VOLUME at all. Anyone else having this problem?

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:55:00 UTC | #413739

s1mon's Avatar Comment 18 by s1mon

Awesome end speech by Sam Harris. Beautifully articulated and to the point. I must remember to use it in my debates with theists.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:56:00 UTC | #413740

DrawingYou's Avatar Comment 20 by DrawingYou

I'm sorry I didn't understand the Spanish part of the debate.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:00:00 UTC | #413742

s1mon's Avatar Comment 19 by s1mon

I am using headphones and the sound on max vol is fine. only the right channel is working though.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:00:00 UTC | #413741

s1mon's Avatar Comment 21 by s1mon

Dan Dennett called Boteach breathtakingly ignorant. Boteach got offended and accused Dan of name calling. But Dan Dennett was merely stating a fact.

Good going Dan.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:16:00 UTC | #413744

Paul42's Avatar Comment 22 by Paul42

These "debates" are becoming embarrassing, pointless wastes of time...

These are supposedly the best debaters for the religious pov, but still must trot out the same old familiar non-truths, non-arguments and "deepities"...

For what other tactics have they got?
They have no arguments left that make any sense.

By debating these muppets we lend them credibility...

Enough already, even if there are fees to be had.


Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:31:00 UTC | #413746

Quine's Avatar Comment 23 by Quine

Did you see the guy in the background hitting himself in the head with his program when the religion side was producing their howlers?

Yes, it must have been quite an ordeal for the reason side to sit through this. I was glad to hear Dan talk about his study of non-believing preachers.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:36:00 UTC | #413747

1town's Avatar Comment 24 by 1town

I notices this debate on youtube last week, but it was dubbed in spanish. (probably why there's only one channel of audio on this version)
Was hoping a non-dubbed version would appear, and never dissapoints in serving me up -.-

I've been watching an embarrassing amount of Hitchens and Dennett this week, so I'm looking forward to this. Especially since I've heard little Sam Harris in a while. -.-

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:40:00 UTC | #413748

RobD's Avatar Comment 25 by RobD

If only someone could rip the audio, boost the volume, make it dual channel and post it here...

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:49:00 UTC | #413750

Follow Peter Egan's Avatar Comment 26 by Follow Peter Egan

I'll have a go watching this at home later, though my speakers are crap so, judging by others' comments, I may not hear a thing.

I'll be amazed if Dinesh "Shrill" D'Souza is inaudible, though...

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:02:00 UTC | #413752

jdaudett's Avatar Comment 27 by jdaudett

I think I want to throw up at the disingenuous lies, and I haven't gotten past Boteach's introduction. It's one of the few times where I feel like someone really deserves to be soundly smacked down by Hitchens' rhetorical style.

I must be a masochist, because I'm still listening to this guy's crap.

PS: I listened to it all the way through. Someone really needed to call them out, a la "you're either ignorant, or lying about the science." I was incredibly happy when Dan Dennett did a minor version of that. The rabbi was intellectually dishonest, Dinesh D'Souza seemed intellectually sleazy, and the other faith guy just seemed kind of silly.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:07:00 UTC | #413754

ClintBurky's Avatar Comment 28 by ClintBurky

2 hours and 16 minutes - long one!

Apart from the audio issues. Can Anyone who's watched it tell me if it's worth sitting through the entire thing? Or is there boring bits you'd recommend skipping through. (I'm short on time this week).


Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:14:00 UTC | #413755

Quine's Avatar Comment 29 by Quine

Boteach complained bitterly, but Dan was actually quite gracious not to call him anything worse than ignorant (the factual case).

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:20:00 UTC | #413756

dazzjazz's Avatar Comment 30 by dazzjazz

Jesus! How did they get all those religious wackjobs in one room a at time. Dinesh and Schmuley should be locked up for sure!

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:16:00 UTC | #413764