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

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

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

BJPentecost's Avatar Comment 1 by BJPentecost

Volume fail. Too low. I've got my speakers maxed and I can barely hear it.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:55:00 UTC | #414458

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 2 by Jos Gibbons

Isn't this a double-upload of what we saw days ago?

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:58:00 UTC | #414460

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 3 by Rich Wiltshir

I'd be interested to see the claim (made by the guy starting a 2:03: ish) that christians led the way in abolition of slavery. It's not a substantial claim in terms of validating religion, just an interesting side-show that begs the question as to why their sacred texts remain supportive of slavery.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:02:00 UTC | #414463

0strich's Avatar Comment 4 by 0strich

QUICKTIME PLEASE

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:09:00 UTC | #414465

Rodger T's Avatar Comment 5 by Rodger T

Apart from being speaking complete gibberish, Mr Taleb appears to be a very angry man for some reason.
Speaking words in no apparent order is not really what I would call making a winning point,in a debate.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:49:00 UTC | #414485

AMreasonedthinker's Avatar Comment 6 by AMreasonedthinker

Have seen many negative comments on youtube for this - can people advise if it is worth the whole 2 hours, normally with Hitch, Harris and Dennett this is an obvious yet.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:50:00 UTC | #414486

AMreasonedthinker's Avatar Comment 7 by AMreasonedthinker

correction - obvious 'yes'

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:54:00 UTC | #414488

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 8 by Nunbeliever

GREAT! I've been searching for this one, but have only found versions overdubbed in a highly irritating way. Or not even a total overdub. But some spanish guy commentating in real time what they are saying. I have always wondered why some countries don't use subtitles. Is the population illiterate or???

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:13:00 UTC | #414500

Colwyn Abernathy's Avatar Comment 9 by Colwyn Abernathy

I see Boteach wastes no time in getting right into the Strawmen. "Inherrent faith in science."

Give me fucking break, Rabbi. How many times do we have to point out how fallacious you're being?

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:25:00 UTC | #414507

realjuancho's Avatar Comment 10 by realjuancho

Hey guys, I knew about this taking place in Mexico too late, if not i would have been there for sure.

For those of you that have problems with the audio, pan the volume all on the right speaker, or turn Mono ON.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:30:00 UTC | #414533

Colwyn Abernathy's Avatar Comment 11 by Colwyn Abernathy

Dinesh, of course, is no better with his "life after death argument." The rational default position of any claim is non-belief. I don't believe that there's life after death, because there's no evidence to suggest such. (Sagan's Dragon) The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence.

EDIT:

Really, Boteach? Adultery is natural, therefore, according to evolutionary "doctrine" (I C WUT U DID THAR) it's permissable? Bullshit. Evolution doesn't deal in OUGHTS, only IS OR IS NOT. Also, Naturalistic Fallacy: we cannot make moral judgements based on a behaviour's nature. In addition, the 10 Commandment argument is malarky as well. How on Earth did the tribes of Israel survive THAT LONG without killing each other BEFORE Moses came down to tell them that, "Oh, BTW. God says killing is bad, KTHXBI." Also, the Egyptians, Greeks, Sumerians, oh, and those pesky natives of the other continents the authors of the Bible didn't even know existed.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:10:00 UTC | #414556

Sciros's Avatar Comment 12 by Sciros

The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence.
True, but utter absence of evidence and absence are indistinguishable and therefore the sensible default position to take in the face of utter absence of evidence is to assume absence.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:15:00 UTC | #414559

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 13 by Bonzai

Sciros

But what is really perverse about the theistic view is that the absence of evidence is taken to be an evidence for God. So you hear arguments like God is outside of spacetime and therefore not detectable etc.

Another argument along similar line is that the absence of an explanation for something is taken to be evidence for Godditit.

I cannot believe that people actually make a living out of peddling fairy tales for adults, and are respected and taken seriously for that. OK, I am not talking about the Hollywood celebrities.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:29:00 UTC | #414568

Sciros's Avatar Comment 14 by Sciros

Bonzai,

Indeed. They equate "no evidence" with "evidence" when it comes to religious ideas. They'd never do it with mundane things ("I don't see $100000 in my savings account -- that means I have $100000 in my savings account!!") because such people probably would never live to reproduce in the first place, heh.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:34:00 UTC | #414569

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 15 by Dhamma

Is there an mp3 of this?

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:34:00 UTC | #414570

carbonman's Avatar Comment 16 by carbonman

Comment #432848 by Rich Wiltshir

I'd be interested to see the claim (made by the guy starting a 2:03: ish) that christians led the way in abolition of slavery.
Haven't viewed yet but this 'point' is a favourite of D'Souza and others. They overlook Christianity's age (allegedly 20 centuries) and the date of abolition (couple of hundred years ago).

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:34:00 UTC | #414571

Drosera's Avatar Comment 17 by Drosera

This debate smells fishy because of all the red herrings thrown about by the religionists. What a bunch of obnoxious little men! They have nothing but worn out, dead-on-arrival non-arguments, which they only keep on parading out of dishonesty, laziness and abysmal stupidity. They are like mathematical crackpots who insist, without giving evidence, that they know how to square the circle, while ridiculing the proof that this can't be done. The ignorance. The ignoramuses.

It is hardly worth watching this, unless you would enjoy the equivalent of a boxing match between Mike Tyson and your little nephew. These godbots are such dimwits that they are not even funny. They just irritate me.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:55:00 UTC | #414600

Colwyn Abernathy's Avatar Comment 18 by Colwyn Abernathy

Thanks, Sciros. Much more apt.

Off-topic: 1:54...Holy shit. Dr. Zimbardo?

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:00:00 UTC | #414604

Modo's Avatar Comment 19 by Modo

Shmuley Boteach simply doesn't get evolution. He doesn't get Darwin's crucial discovery of non-random SELECTION. Yhis indeed is a secondary 'missing link' in Richard's work (after TGSOE). We need a moron's/childrens guide to the mechanism of natural selection, with pretty pictures, arrows, smiley and frowny faces etc.

Although, with the likes of Boteach, you can lead an equus ferus caballus to water...

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:24:00 UTC | #414615

Chrysippus_Maximus's Avatar Comment 20 by Chrysippus_Maximus

I can't watch this. Normally I'm empathetic to both sides, but this is beyond absurd.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:40:00 UTC | #414617

Eventhorizon's Avatar Comment 21 by Eventhorizon

Shmuley makes my skin crawl. For me he has now overtaken D'souza in the sleezy stakes. He is the most insincere of all the religious apologists and reminds me of a seedy, slimey second-hand car salesman.
Ok I feel better for that

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:45:00 UTC | #414619

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 22 by Stafford Gordon

Dennett's sheer knowledge and logic won the day for me.

His annoyance and frustration at the ignorance and falsehoods was fully justified and good to see.

Normally preachers, rabbis and the like get away with it with their flocks, but unfortunately for them increasing numbers of people are beginning to think for themselves.

Perhaps they need their techniques to "evolve" to avoid becoming extinct; extinct! What a good idea!

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:53:00 UTC | #414638

stevenLagnew's Avatar Comment 23 by stevenLagnew

The arguments made by supposed "intellectual" Dinesh D'Souza were absolutely laughable. The best reason for faith were; you might as well, me may be right and you cant prove we're not!
Every silly man!

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:14:00 UTC | #414642

Chrysippus_Maximus's Avatar Comment 24 by Chrysippus_Maximus

None of these guys are really interested in the best possible arguments for one side or the other. Public debates just aren't like that. All you need to do is put forward the most persuasive arguments, or (what is much the same) the ones most likely to be understood by your audience.

Pretty lame.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:34:00 UTC | #414646

Chrysippus_Maximus's Avatar Comment 25 by Chrysippus_Maximus

Nassim Taleb, epistemology is NOT about what is true and false. Logic is. Epistemology is about knowledge and conditions for/on it. Confusing these two things is something undergrad philosophy students do.

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:39:00 UTC | #414649

SyDaemon's Avatar Comment 26 by SyDaemon

I'm just starting to watch this. It's quickly becoming a comedy from the get go. Mr Boteach cracks two weak jokes to amuse nobody.

Then at about the 6 minute mark, the camera focuses on Mr Hitchens, Harris and Dennett looking both bored and disgusted at the same time.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:46:00 UTC | #414678

SilentMike's Avatar Comment 27 by SilentMike

Shmuley Boteach is an embarrassing ignoramus. He's single-handedly destroying the "Jews are smart" stereotype that cultural jews like myself have always enjoyed.

Damn you Boteach! Shut up already!

Lucky I can always count on good old Dinesh to draw some of that kind of attention.


Also, it's not that I agree with him, but I think Robert Wright is somewhat amusing.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:55:00 UTC | #414680

William Carlton's Avatar Comment 28 by William Carlton

If anybody wants to see a video of me jerking off into Boteach's beard, I am willing to sell it for five dollars.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:51:00 UTC | #414699

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 29 by mordacious1

I was just thumbing through D'Souza's new book "Life After Death: The Evidence" or at least the few pages they let you view at Amazon. It's interesting that in a 235 page book, Richard Dawkins is mentioned on no fewer than 23 pages. His debating partner Hitchens is only mentioned on 9 pages. If you were writing a book about life after death, how many times do you think you'd need to mention Richard? This guy is really bizarre.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:21:00 UTC | #414706

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 30 by Dr. Strangegod

Yeah, no thanks on this one. Three great minds wasting their time on three morons who will never understand the truth.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:07:00 UTC | #414710