Watching this part made me wish I could be in the room to tell them there is a term for simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct in George Orwell's book "1984". It's called "doublethink".
I really wish all talk/conversations/debates can be like this one. No one starts to yell, or just talk over with no regard for each others thoughts. They manage to talk and disagree with each other out of respect, really wish the world was like this.
Even if there is a god.. who would want to spend eternity in heaven with all the douche bag mumbo jumbo spouting insane tosspots that feel they must comment on every atheist video on youtube?
@DentistD1G There is no need to talk debate about if god is real or not since the concept is impossible to prove or disprove. The debate is about if certain religions are true, and should be debated. This is what atheists build their arguement on, and never "there is no god" instead "Probably there is no god/your god.
The concept of a supernatural order can be investigated scientifically, as it ought to. The condition, as I contend, is to find an intervention, which we don't have -- hence our answer.
As for debating the idea, I have to agree with Hitchens: it's neither possible, nor desirable to end it and for the same reason Mill argue for freedom of speech. Depriving others from this right is also to deprive you of that of listening to what they had to say.
And it's ever more important if the person is marginal, partaking to a small group. So, to answer you, I think the most profound infringement on human well-being is to not dare talk and command silence: everything is debatable and ought to stay as such. The contrary would be comforting ourselves in our certainty, which can never afford.
@KrugmanTheKing I completely agree, but even a intervention would not be a certain proof of a god, only if it would be something like "I am god, and I am the creator of the universe" written with starts on the night sky. But a suspension of natural laws does not by definition require a god.
What I mean is that there is no idea to have a reasonable debate about the evidence of god, since there currently are none just as you say. It's like me debating over the existance of faries with 0 evidence
It would require a supernatural order for an intervention to occur, but it might be argued that it's not sufficient in itself.
Actually, it's not a question of debating about sensible ideas... it could be very vile, profoundly stupid and still be useful in a debate. It doesn't even have to be reasonable -- the whole point of sustaining the argument is to operate into the investigation of your understanding through opposition...
@KrugmanTheKing I completely agree, and I do debate in religious ideas quite often, though the matter if their god exist or any other god is futile to debate at this point, since it wont be resolved with the amount of data avaible. To me the debate is futile, though to someone it might deserve some time, I understand your position, but to me personally, and any other materialist the debate might be viewed as a waste of time.
It wouldn't be like you debating over the existence of fairies. I would compare the ideas, but not the argument between two people -- the fairies didn't have the same historical impact and the conviction behind the claim wouldn't be the same.
@KrugmanTheKing True, and smoothly done. But the debate you are now mentioning is how important religion has been to influence our society, and what it has achieved. Though I understand what you are commenting about. To someone like me, debating the existance of god without any convincing evidence is remarkably ignorant since there wouldt be any point to it. The idea for the theists is to convince me into religion, and the atheists to convince me into science. Science has evidence, god does not.
Bravo. Thank you for putting this online for free.
Four unique, amazing minds. I have mental debates with myself about which of the Four Horsemen I admire most. I feel very lucky to have lived in a time when I could hear the thoughts of these giants.
Farewell, Chris. If there were a god, I'm sure you would be Hitch-slapping him all over the clouds :,-)
16:22 when Hitchens lights his cigarette and then makes that gesture towards the cameraman- such a perfect microcosmic moment of his humor and humanity. I would give anything to have a drink with him. Rest In Oblivion Mr. Hitchens
This discussion is but the embryonic genesis to, what I hope shall be, the beginning of the end of that arrogance called "The Abrahamic Religions". I compare these thinkers to 4 young scientists working on some wonderful future invention in their basement that will, one day, revolutionize the world. Though I do not find the Eastern Religions as arrogant as the Abrahamic ones, they're also harborers of myth. Sorry that Hitchens is gone. We should have cloned him.
hitchens very body language is something to admire, let alone his words. love how he so easily made the religion of quakers as evil and dangerous as the religion of islam, effortless and completely correct, all religions belong in the same bucket. the four of them are marvellous to watch but it also needs to be said that dawkins mannerisms and intelligence shines through as he so readily notices when there are cross wires in the discussion. .
I can honestly say that, watching this, I frequently felt that there is no place I would rather be than in a room with these four men. I also felt acute regret on the passing of Christopher Hitchens, who, more than anyone I have had the pleasure of listening to, embodied the epitome of the ideal skeptic. He listened and heard, and always had the courtesy to say what needed to be said with far more eloquence than most of us will ever muster in a lifetime. The world has lost a rare man.
@malkmusmalfie Brilliantly said. The void that he leaves behind him is already being felt. As good and persuasive as the the other three contributors are Hitchens's ability to convey knowledge, reason and wit in standing up to theocratic pervasiveness is irreplacable.
He's totally messing with Josh (camera guy) for the whole 2 hours... At around 7:10 Hitch looks right at him and smirks. There's probably some hilarious in-joke that we're missing as observers.
I am really surprised that Hitchens would not eliminate, if given a choice, all faith. I don't understand it either. If a belief is wrong and illogical wouldn't it be best if no one believed it?
@californiarednek Hitchen's position was based on [almost scientific] need of criticism. If there would be no religion, there would be no ideological opponents. If there would be no ideological opponents who would be trying to prove you wrong and against whom you have to form your statements and arguments, how can you be sure that you are right? I believe that Harris proved him wrong about this by pointing out the witchcraft - religion is not equal to atheism ...WILL CONTINUE
@californiarednek CONTINUE ...in the meaning of opposition which would gave you verification. Religion is like a witchcraft - a view, which is based on totally different foundations and which exists separately. When religion will be gone (as witchcraft), atheism will be common and "empty" in meaning of purpose. Humanism will find other challenges it will have to deal with. (see DAMN WITH LINKS RESTRICTION HERE - see "Sam Harris at AAI 07 pt1 of 2" here on YT )
I lost faith in my faith because a song by the Christian Rock Band Petra; "If I had to Die for Someone." It lists things you do everyday to protect yourself, including wearing a seatbelt. I thought to myself, If I saw a child in front of a speeding car, of course I would risk my life to save it! Jesus risked nothing.. He knew there was an afterlife, and he would be fine.
Then Dawkins' perspective on how long Homo-sapiens have existed, vs how long the existence of god has been 'acknowledged'.
Although he doesn't yet posses the verbal mastery of Hitchens, Harris' moderate attitude is definitely a powerful asset in debates. Whereas Hitchens' undiluted words, while charming to those of us who agree with them, instantly drove his opponents to hate him (and his fellow proponents to applaud him.)
@Theobrothers I wouldn't say that you are psychotic, but I think that there is a difference between belief and the suspension of reason. Which is what I think Dawkins means when he says you can be moved to tears by something of fantasy when you lose yourself in it.
I know what he meant, I just can't agree. If you can cry for a fictional character it means you have gone passed simple suspension. You are now empathizing with a character you know not to exist. To me this must mean you believe it to exist, for that moment in which you felt this overwhelming empathy for the subject.
If he hadn't been so descriptive about emotion, I'd agree he probably is just attempting to empathize with no real success.
This is an impossibility. Any person who "changes their mind" in regards to faith, has already by definition, lost their faith. That is not to say that having such discussions and creating literature is useless, but DIRECT argumentation will not shake a person who "believes" as they subside logic to continue their belief. It's like attempting to convince a phobic person that their feeling is all in their head. They readily admit it but this does nothing in stopping the fear existing.
There is something very admirable about watching four staunch atheists probing the depths of their beliefs, and more importantly, trying to pick holes in them. It is something I have never witnessed a religious group undertake.
The 4 horsemen won't discuss issues that overwhelm them. Let's see them discuss scientifically inexplicable miracles in the Catholic Church for a couple hours, and see what kind of conclusions are drawn.
Your assessment of Catholic miracles is a caricature, and is ignorant (no offence). Atheist and skeptical scientists, after examining Padre Pio's stigmata could offer no natural explanation, but later requested his prayers. A UCLA medical team travelled to Syria a few years back to examine the stigmata of Mirna Nassour (google this if you like), and could not explain her stigmata. I think you need to review the meaning of anecdotal evidence in light of Catholic miracles.
@patientthomist I'm not giving my opinion rather a predicted response from them. I know too little of the matter to have an opinion I'd be willing to share.
I think that's honest. I just think they avoid these topics intentionally, and many others, because they act as contrary evidence to the agenda they are putting foward.
@patientthomist No, they are discussing the nature of belief in individuals in many social aspects, not the the contradictory nature of what they believe, but the individual's approach to these contradictions and how they perceive such contradictions, rather than seeking validation for or against their actual beliefs.
not true, chillividz ... let's see your imaginary reference. If that was the case, then the atheist scientist who examined Padre Pio would have picked up on that .... which he did not.
I agree, in principle, with Hitchens' argument. The theism problem would persist as long as there are accepted leaders propagating their theist concepts, and ignorance, willful or not, supporting them. However, I would not go so far as advocating genocide as the "final" solution. I think that the problem should resolve itself, if it should, with evolution. However, I must admit that there are apparent and imminent problems with this approach and a chance that we would not make it as a species.
Check out Professor William Craig Lane and his Scholarly, Intellectual arguments for God's existence. Also check out Reasonable Faith Dot Org for more perspectives on Faith:)
Notice how they can disagree with each other and still retain a civilised discourse?
That's called fucking modernity.
And your religion is a part of antiquity.
These people can discuss what is good, what is proper, what should be and shouldn't be, and how they can appeal to the religious people, because they base their world views on evidence.
YOU can only say OH WELL GOD DUN IT, because you base your world view on bullshit, and nothing else.
@kennyingram Remaining critical at your own point of view is a great skill. Which lies at the heart of science. No sacred cows, no political agendas. If only religious people dared be critical of their gods and teachings (and the same goes for any ideology), the problem would be solved very quickly...
It is terribly painful to watch the roundtable ending with Christopher smoking a cig, when we know that he is condemning himself to death only four years later. It is an immense loss, for he will never be replaced.
Just to make it clear that I'm an Anti-Theist and atheist.. does anyone think the epistemological discussions of the possibility of scientific knowledge..etc offers anything worthwhile in these discussion?
@JUGAopet1 but at 34:45 I am strongly disagree with him (RD), but but as Voltaire sad: " I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Upon their discussion brought back 'round 45:00 as Harris iterates it, I think they are all correct in both treating religion as a whole and certain aspects of specific religious thought and practices the same is really a matter of scale that doesn't have to contradict one another in any "strategic planning." Atheists can simultaneously denounce religion as myth, but address the highest threats among their actions/dogmas that threaten HUMANITY and not just political correctness. Real dangers.
@2ndhandsoul ...And as Harris points out that enlisting the help of the majority, by which he states other religious thinkers and practitioners, they could all join in the very serious and mature process of protecting and uplifting the best of ourselves, inside and outside of religion. We could flourish benign belief in taking away the distracting task of displaying the negative side that comes with conflict. Good can shine when the lights go out on evil. Simple, really.
@2ndhandsoul ...If there could be an enlistment of the most prevalent and influential religions across the world to give some sort of review of OTHER religions, perhaps even denominations and sects within their own, some sort of correlation might be able to be mapped out to see even where they themselves disagree often and strongly. Impossible and probably a practice in futility because it may mean enlisting irrational people to do rational critiques. BUT then it isn't atheism "alone" vs. all.
@2ndhandsoul But if such a process were to really have a hope of working, it might not be a terrible offensive act for honest and open debate without threat of zealotry (or at least lesser danger). Atheists could then point to those religions they worked with and say, "Hey, see? We're certainly not interested in reckless ideological warfare, we are as interested as you in making a peaceful planet." (And there would be the proof in front of them, right?)
@2ndhandsoul The danger in this proposed process, even though it is entirely rational, is how easy the "targeted" religions would accuse atheists of being in collusion with their "enemies" to wipe them out. This wouldn't be the crusades, of course, but it is the very superstitious fear of vulnerability believers might equate. As though they would be shot. It would really be a means for them to rationally examine themselves. Show them there's no monsters under the bed we all lie in.
2. On the conflict in the "Holy Land", which Hitchens brings up, the only workable solution, which everyone is ignoring, is to compensate non-Jewish Palestinians for the loss of Palestine. This could be easily, and at much less cost than the current wars, by letting them immigrate to their choice of the USA, Canada or Australia, re-settlement to be financed by reparation payments Europe and Israel.
1. US combating theocracy? Look at the current and past political campaigns in the USA, the USA is pretty much a theocracy. There is only faster way to condemn a politician to obscurity in the USA than to brand them as non-Judeo-Christian is to brand them atheist or agnostic.
I would like to share a trivia fact about the four men sitting at the table. All them but Harris have Aries as their astrological sun sign, but that's just because I cannot find his date of birth.
Has anyone else been struck at the strange (and probably very vague and incidental) parallel between some Last Supper metaphor with all the water, wine, and whatnot upon their table? I think the main differences between the Christian setting then and the video here might be the quality of the wine and water. Last Supper = fast-food (maybe the Feeding of the Multitude would be more apt). This video = VIP, classy dining. Oh yeah, and there's no bread.
Could the practice of Communion, in honor of the Last Supper, be accused of encouraging the consumption of alcohol? Let's put Bud Light in Jesus' hand and advertise during the Superbowl. Maybe a little something like the Doritos' commercial -- watch?v=6uZBPj0Vgpg
The part that they discuss that Hitchens calls "cognitive dissonance" was quite resonant, at least in my own mind. I really think it is as simple and prevalent as what was suggested. To an extreme, I think child sufferers of sexual abuse and trauma develop Multiple Personality Disorder (or whatever it may be called these days). It's a coping mechanism even on a mundane level. You feel like Wile E. Coyote looking down and seeing he's run off the cliff and is hanging in the air, then falls.
But yeah, he could answer this one right off the top of his head! It's simply the desire to believe what is demonstrably REAL rather than what just makes them "feel good" that gets people to realize their faith is bullshit. "Felling good" also includes the pain of realizing you spent your whole life on bullshit, BTW. They'll try to avoid that, too.
Or a person could just be ignorant of what atheism ACTUALLY is or even that it's an option, or scared away from even consider but I don't think tha
To answer the first question put forward by Sam Harris in the video. I think Matt Dillahunty, even in his layman-ness, is the person to ask about this one. After all, he's an ex-fundamentalist Christian who's since educated himself and for the next nearly 15 years debated against other Christian layman, like, ALL THE TIME. So I think he would know how the "average person's" mind works.
I get Hitchens saying that the Jungian archetypes need each other AND expatriation is needed as well for Jihad-like thinking. Dawkins imagines exclusive antitheism. Harris suggests tolerance is untenable and Dennent seems to reflect in terms of some type of extinction model....
I know this is very off topic and will probably be regarded by many as a very stupid comment to make, but such intellect on this high level is so attractive! Fascinating stuff, I wish many more (including myself) could have these debates weekly.
@lalamusa1 Actually intelligence is a virtue that according to your holy book whether it be the koran or the holy bible, intelligence and logic is frowned upon so if the highly unlikely chance that hell is real and I went there I would be in good company :)
@lalamusa1 I don't rule out its existence. Are you fucking listening, okay? Here we go. If you showed me good evidence of hells existence, I would at least consider that hell exists. Okay? If you actually had any other evidence other than A 5000 YEAR OLD BOOK.. I would consider it. BUT.. You don't. So I do not say, that I know for 100% that hell doesnt exist, because I couldnt know that. I say that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE THAT IT DOES WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE WHERE WHERE ????
If you were saying to me "this is an ancient man made text that contains great wisdom that we can learn from but also socio, political, economical musings of the time that no longer apply" - I would take you seriously.
But you do not. You say "this is the revealed linguistic truth of the creator of the universe and you will burn in hellfire lest you believe it".
So it is clear to me that your delusions and cowardice
Your arrogance is disgusting. To think that God cares about you, that God has a special place for you.
You sit with the weight of gravity upon you on a floating rock, orbiting one of trillions of suns, in one of trillions of galaxies - and you genuinely think that the words in a single book you hold are the utterances of the creator of all of this.
And with that, fuck you and everything you believe. The world will be a better place when people like you die out, and are ridiculed publically for the utter nonsense and bullshit you continue to steep in reverence and force upon others.
And when you're on your death bed, talking to the doctors about what medication you can take to keep your weak and withered body barely going... we'll see what you value.. scripture, or scientific knowledge.
@lalamusa1 So your evidence consists of reflections in mirrors and primitive visual inspection of the environment. No Nobel prize I'm afraid. You will need to do better than that.
The ramblings of your offensive PEDOPHILE prophet are of no relevance here, you child molester groupie. I see others have told you to go fuck yourself, so I don't need to do it again.
to Dennet on 7:40, I don't know if anybody pointed this out. There is already a term for this, it is called 'doublethink' and it is a term (as far as I know) coined by George Orwell in his book 1984.
I think it is a term that accurately describes this situation.
On their point on religious art, religious art succeeds, because art in the most basic sense, is glorification of the false. "Juliet is the Sun" is of course a nonsense statement, but by calling it poetry, this gibberish takes on a greater meaning that saying simply saying the logical and accurate "Juliet is attractive." So, of course a good artist can create a great religious work(Handel of 'The Messiah' fame, arguably the pinnacle of sacred art), was a well recorded atheist.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
As much as I love Hitch and wish him improved health, it is telling that he can't stop putting things in his mouth. Cigarette, liquor, his foot... Get well soon Hitch!
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I understand what Hitchens means about keeping theology around on a small level. It keeps the thought that such ignorance can exist and must be minimized, and the thought of theology as only a myth that may be artistically pleasing to some so one could openly claim they admire the Bible but only because they like it as a fiction book rather than a book of facts and history.
@TheDethBringer666 My concern is that beautiful church buildings get abandoned. If the Catholic church ever folded, would we have the werewithall to save the Sistine Chapel? Well, probably, but what about all of the lesser works of art that are still worthy and magnificent and convey the human spirit in a way that's worth the time of anyone who is moved by art?
A potentially more serious problem is how to get secularists to come together to serve in their communities, as many churches do?
As a former christian I reckon tht the concept of transubstantiation is such an importsant aspect in the life of many christians. It culd be described as the 'orgasm' or euphoria of their delusive & possibly escapist connection wit the devine. I suppose it did for many christian artists wht a euphoric drug with a lasting affect, like LSD might do..lets face it, good art does come frm 'high' ppl.. I personally prefer the derivation of art frm religion - which exposes the real mind, than frm dope.
It worries me a bit that if Prof. Dawkins' foresight does manifest itself, it might lead to the propagation of a lesser imaginative and lesser artistic culture. I see why Hitchens would like to have matters to argue about. As a Biologist Dawkins sees poetry in his domain and often has a generalist view of humanity to an extent that he seems to unknowingly ignore individuality & individualistic forms of expressionism. I guess one can say we should take Prof Dawkins with a pinch of NaCl.
@kennethhopkins I think that even if Michaelangelo was asked to paint the ceiling of a science museum he might've painted the same fresco.. its all about giving individualism its fair acknowledgement..
I would like to point out that this video was posted by the official Richard Dawkins web site, this is a nice example of the true nature of the Atheist, information belongs to the people and is also to be shared free of charge.
Everything they said about loving the art of superstition without liking the superstition is dead-on. And in fact, there's a great song that really exemplifies this: Tim Minchin's "White Wine In The Sun". He's an atheist as well, but the song's lyrics summarize much of this conversation. Plus, it's a beautiful song on its own.
The dissociation is really interesting. I have only one problem as an Israeli.Jews came to Israel only because It's the only land we could have historical reason. most of the Zionist weren't religious. In the start there wasn't any problem between Arabs and Jews. the problem started when Jews brought education and medicine and the Arab serfs in Israel started to awaken and their rulers that didn't even leaved in Israel feared of rebellion so they send preachers to make the serfs hate the Jews.
I think it's very ironic that Hitchens is the nicest to theism around atheists.
edemaomega 1 day ago
Watching this part made me wish I could be in the room to tell them there is a term for simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct in George Orwell's book "1984". It's called "doublethink".
Kairusan 2 days ago
I really wish all talk/conversations/debates can be like this one. No one starts to yell, or just talk over with no regard for each others thoughts. They manage to talk and disagree with each other out of respect, really wish the world was like this.
icouldnotfindaname16 2 days ago 2
@Spr1teRoses Glad to be of service lol
drsmithification 2 days ago
Even if there is a god.. who would want to spend eternity in heaven with all the douche bag mumbo jumbo spouting insane tosspots that feel they must comment on every atheist video on youtube?
donpalmera 4 days ago
maybe michelangelo painted for the sake of painting and he just loved painting so he painted.
BboyKeny 4 days ago
i think the argument should be "is there a god or not" not "why religion is so wrong"
if there is a god , then ok we look at the religions , if not then no religion is true , thus making discussing them mute .
the presence of god is argued through the following "how did we come to earth?"simple.
but arguing with religious people about there own specific religions is just looking for trouble .
at least thats how i saw it ,"no god = all religion is fake" no1 argued with me about islam
DentistD1G 1 week ago
Comment removed
RawSwedishMeatball 1 week ago
@DentistD1G There is no need to talk debate about if god is real or not since the concept is impossible to prove or disprove. The debate is about if certain religions are true, and should be debated. This is what atheists build their arguement on, and never "there is no god" instead "Probably there is no god/your god.
RawSwedishMeatball 1 week ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
The concept of a supernatural order can be investigated scientifically, as it ought to. The condition, as I contend, is to find an intervention, which we don't have -- hence our answer.
As for debating the idea, I have to agree with Hitchens: it's neither possible, nor desirable to end it and for the same reason Mill argue for freedom of speech. Depriving others from this right is also to deprive you of that of listening to what they had to say.
KrugmanTheKing 6 days ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
And it's ever more important if the person is marginal, partaking to a small group. So, to answer you, I think the most profound infringement on human well-being is to not dare talk and command silence: everything is debatable and ought to stay as such. The contrary would be comforting ourselves in our certainty, which can never afford.
KrugmanTheKing 6 days ago
@KrugmanTheKing I completely agree, but even a intervention would not be a certain proof of a god, only if it would be something like "I am god, and I am the creator of the universe" written with starts on the night sky. But a suspension of natural laws does not by definition require a god.
What I mean is that there is no idea to have a reasonable debate about the evidence of god, since there currently are none just as you say. It's like me debating over the existance of faries with 0 evidence
RawSwedishMeatball 6 days ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
It would require a supernatural order for an intervention to occur, but it might be argued that it's not sufficient in itself.
Actually, it's not a question of debating about sensible ideas... it could be very vile, profoundly stupid and still be useful in a debate. It doesn't even have to be reasonable -- the whole point of sustaining the argument is to operate into the investigation of your understanding through opposition...
KrugmanTheKing 5 days ago
@KrugmanTheKing I completely agree, and I do debate in religious ideas quite often, though the matter if their god exist or any other god is futile to debate at this point, since it wont be resolved with the amount of data avaible. To me the debate is futile, though to someone it might deserve some time, I understand your position, but to me personally, and any other materialist the debate might be viewed as a waste of time.
RawSwedishMeatball 5 days ago
@RawSwedishMeatball
It wouldn't be like you debating over the existence of fairies. I would compare the ideas, but not the argument between two people -- the fairies didn't have the same historical impact and the conviction behind the claim wouldn't be the same.
KrugmanTheKing 5 days ago
@KrugmanTheKing True, and smoothly done. But the debate you are now mentioning is how important religion has been to influence our society, and what it has achieved. Though I understand what you are commenting about. To someone like me, debating the existance of god without any convincing evidence is remarkably ignorant since there wouldt be any point to it. The idea for the theists is to convince me into religion, and the atheists to convince me into science. Science has evidence, god does not.
RawSwedishMeatball 5 days ago
Bravo. Thank you for putting this online for free.
Four unique, amazing minds. I have mental debates with myself about which of the Four Horsemen I admire most. I feel very lucky to have lived in a time when I could hear the thoughts of these giants.
Farewell, Chris. If there were a god, I'm sure you would be Hitch-slapping him all over the clouds :,-)
beatbeatBOOMbeat 1 week ago 3
This hour was less of a circlejerk
DZ252 1 week ago
Listening this discussion is like listening a perfect symphony. I could do it forever.
Sirien0neiriS 1 week ago 3
16:22 when Hitchens lights his cigarette and then makes that gesture towards the cameraman- such a perfect microcosmic moment of his humor and humanity. I would give anything to have a drink with him. Rest In Oblivion Mr. Hitchens
kennedyt 1 week ago 2
Comment removed
kennedyt 1 week ago
This discussion is but the embryonic genesis to, what I hope shall be, the beginning of the end of that arrogance called "The Abrahamic Religions". I compare these thinkers to 4 young scientists working on some wonderful future invention in their basement that will, one day, revolutionize the world. Though I do not find the Eastern Religions as arrogant as the Abrahamic ones, they're also harborers of myth. Sorry that Hitchens is gone. We should have cloned him.
mrlouis1421 1 week ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Ep1
How much scotch!!!! Go Hitch.. You da man!!! R.I.P
dav3yboy79 1 week ago
@dav3yboy79 ahhh mixed with water...
dav3yboy79 1 week ago
hitchens very body language is something to admire, let alone his words. love how he so easily made the religion of quakers as evil and dangerous as the religion of islam, effortless and completely correct, all religions belong in the same bucket. the four of them are marvellous to watch but it also needs to be said that dawkins mannerisms and intelligence shines through as he so readily notices when there are cross wires in the discussion. .
giznoot 1 week ago 3
Once again, Hitchens is the alpha male.
planetsaver1 1 week ago
Lets play 4 Horseman duck duck goose...
Perrier, Evian, Martini, Martini, Perrier, JOHNNY WALKER BLACK LABEL.
abuerkett 2 weeks ago
I can honestly say that, watching this, I frequently felt that there is no place I would rather be than in a room with these four men. I also felt acute regret on the passing of Christopher Hitchens, who, more than anyone I have had the pleasure of listening to, embodied the epitome of the ideal skeptic. He listened and heard, and always had the courtesy to say what needed to be said with far more eloquence than most of us will ever muster in a lifetime. The world has lost a rare man.
malkmusmalfie 2 weeks ago 3
@malkmusmalfie Brilliantly said. The void that he leaves behind him is already being felt. As good and persuasive as the the other three contributors are Hitchens's ability to convey knowledge, reason and wit in standing up to theocratic pervasiveness is irreplacable.
abdannah78 2 weeks ago
16:20 did somebody surprise Hitch?
californiarednek 2 weeks ago
@californiarednek
He's totally messing with Josh (camera guy) for the whole 2 hours... At around 7:10 Hitch looks right at him and smirks. There's probably some hilarious in-joke that we're missing as observers.
TheSonorama21 1 week ago
I am really surprised that Hitchens would not eliminate, if given a choice, all faith. I don't understand it either. If a belief is wrong and illogical wouldn't it be best if no one believed it?
californiarednek 2 weeks ago
@californiarednek Hitchen's position was based on [almost scientific] need of criticism. If there would be no religion, there would be no ideological opponents. If there would be no ideological opponents who would be trying to prove you wrong and against whom you have to form your statements and arguments, how can you be sure that you are right? I believe that Harris proved him wrong about this by pointing out the witchcraft - religion is not equal to atheism ...WILL CONTINUE
Sirien0neiriS 1 week ago
@californiarednek CONTINUE ...in the meaning of opposition which would gave you verification. Religion is like a witchcraft - a view, which is based on totally different foundations and which exists separately. When religion will be gone (as witchcraft), atheism will be common and "empty" in meaning of purpose. Humanism will find other challenges it will have to deal with. (see DAMN WITH LINKS RESTRICTION HERE - see "Sam Harris at AAI 07 pt1 of 2" here on YT )
Sirien0neiriS 1 week ago
I lost faith in my faith because a song by the Christian Rock Band Petra; "If I had to Die for Someone." It lists things you do everyday to protect yourself, including wearing a seatbelt. I thought to myself, If I saw a child in front of a speeding car, of course I would risk my life to save it! Jesus risked nothing.. He knew there was an afterlife, and he would be fine.
Then Dawkins' perspective on how long Homo-sapiens have existed, vs how long the existence of god has been 'acknowledged'.
HENJAM48 2 weeks ago
Harris will be the next hitchens, in terms of intellect - probably won't be as out there but he will be a debating machine.
Gazmanaust 2 weeks ago 2
@Gazmanaust
Although he doesn't yet posses the verbal mastery of Hitchens, Harris' moderate attitude is definitely a powerful asset in debates. Whereas Hitchens' undiluted words, while charming to those of us who agree with them, instantly drove his opponents to hate him (and his fellow proponents to applaud him.)
TheSonorama21 1 week ago
@41:28
I disagree here. I believe any time where you "lose yourself" in fantasy you are believing. Even if only in that moment, but THAT is belief.
That or I'm psychotic.
Theobrothers 2 weeks ago
@Theobrothers I wouldn't say that you are psychotic, but I think that there is a difference between belief and the suspension of reason. Which is what I think Dawkins means when he says you can be moved to tears by something of fantasy when you lose yourself in it.
MrItB 2 weeks ago
@MrItB
I know what he meant, I just can't agree. If you can cry for a fictional character it means you have gone passed simple suspension. You are now empathizing with a character you know not to exist. To me this must mean you believe it to exist, for that moment in which you felt this overwhelming empathy for the subject.
If he hadn't been so descriptive about emotion, I'd agree he probably is just attempting to empathize with no real success.
Theobrothers 2 weeks ago
@25:57
The atomic bomb. J. Robert Oppenheimer.
"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
"In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains,
On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows,
In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame,
The good deeds a man has done before defend him."
Theobrothers 2 weeks ago
@0:29
This is an impossibility. Any person who "changes their mind" in regards to faith, has already by definition, lost their faith. That is not to say that having such discussions and creating literature is useless, but DIRECT argumentation will not shake a person who "believes" as they subside logic to continue their belief. It's like attempting to convince a phobic person that their feeling is all in their head. They readily admit it but this does nothing in stopping the fear existing.
Theobrothers 2 weeks ago
I wish George Carlin and Carl Sagan were there to be a part of the discussion. :(
xcdemon05 3 weeks ago
There is something very admirable about watching four staunch atheists probing the depths of their beliefs, and more importantly, trying to pick holes in them. It is something I have never witnessed a religious group undertake.
tiamonke 3 weeks ago 2
@tiamonke
Students of theology do this kind of thing all the time, tiamonke ... we just do it better.
patientthomist 3 weeks ago
The 4 horsemen won't discuss issues that overwhelm them. Let's see them discuss scientifically inexplicable miracles in the Catholic Church for a couple hours, and see what kind of conclusions are drawn.
patientthomist 3 weeks ago
@patientthomist Anecdotal evidence doesn't have the same worth acquired, tested and reviewed evidence. That'd take 2 minutes not hours.
jquixlo 3 weeks ago
@jquixlo
Your assessment of Catholic miracles is a caricature, and is ignorant (no offence). Atheist and skeptical scientists, after examining Padre Pio's stigmata could offer no natural explanation, but later requested his prayers. A UCLA medical team travelled to Syria a few years back to examine the stigmata of Mirna Nassour (google this if you like), and could not explain her stigmata. I think you need to review the meaning of anecdotal evidence in light of Catholic miracles.
patientthomist 3 weeks ago
@patientthomist I'm not giving my opinion rather a predicted response from them. I know too little of the matter to have an opinion I'd be willing to share.
jquixlo 3 weeks ago
@jquixlo
I think that's honest. I just think they avoid these topics intentionally, and many others, because they act as contrary evidence to the agenda they are putting foward.
patientthomist 3 weeks ago
@patientthomist No, they are discussing the nature of belief in individuals in many social aspects, not the the contradictory nature of what they believe, but the individual's approach to these contradictions and how they perceive such contradictions, rather than seeking validation for or against their actual beliefs.
Ebvardh 3 weeks ago
@patientthomist Documents from the Vatican have shown that Pio purchased a supply of carbolic acid in which he burned himself to create his stigmata.
Chillividz 3 weeks ago
@Chillividz
not true, chillividz ... let's see your imaginary reference. If that was the case, then the atheist scientist who examined Padre Pio would have picked up on that .... which he did not.
patientthomist 3 weeks ago
at 16:20 Hitchens does a great move at the camera.
Geardos 3 weeks ago
If going to hell means being in the company of these 4 people whilst being burned for eternity then sign me the fuck up
drsmithification 3 weeks ago 51
@drsmithification awesome
cubangal1 6 days ago
@drsmithification That is the most amazing comment I've run into all day, thank you. XD Got a good laugh out of it, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Spr1teRoses 5 days ago
Harris 20-30 years from now = deadly
Hermoor 3 weeks ago
I agree, in principle, with Hitchens' argument. The theism problem would persist as long as there are accepted leaders propagating their theist concepts, and ignorance, willful or not, supporting them. However, I would not go so far as advocating genocide as the "final" solution. I think that the problem should resolve itself, if it should, with evolution. However, I must admit that there are apparent and imminent problems with this approach and a chance that we would not make it as a species.
motorhead1979 4 weeks ago 2
Hitchens microphone needs compression bad!
meanderband 4 weeks ago
brilliant! this was truly an interesting discussion.
Luquazable 4 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out Professor William Craig Lane and his Scholarly, Intellectual arguments for God's existence. Also check out Reasonable Faith Dot Org for more perspectives on Faith:)
RosesOfTime 1 month ago
i was thrilled when they began to argue for a bit
AWilberforce 1 month ago 3
What a morbid ending to the discussion. Chilling shit. Epic video...!
hlb101 1 month ago
@hlb101 are u an atheist?
chungcha0 1 month ago
Any Christians watching this?
Notice how they can disagree with each other and still retain a civilised discourse?
That's called fucking modernity.
And your religion is a part of antiquity.
These people can discuss what is good, what is proper, what should be and shouldn't be, and how they can appeal to the religious people, because they base their world views on evidence.
YOU can only say OH WELL GOD DUN IT, because you base your world view on bullshit, and nothing else.
BULLSHIT
peenfluteking 1 month ago 5
I enjoy how Hitchens manages to disagree so much with 3 of the people who agrees with most
kennyingram 1 month ago 40
@kennyingram Remaining critical at your own point of view is a great skill. Which lies at the heart of science. No sacred cows, no political agendas. If only religious people dared be critical of their gods and teachings (and the same goes for any ideology), the problem would be solved very quickly...
sorsocksfake 1 month ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Ep1
@kennyingram but now he is fucked and i, a christian am still alive
diekontrolleure 1 month ago
@diekontrolleure and a christian died.. right now
and right now
and right now
and so did an atheist
again right now
and another right now
Does it regard the truth at all, who dies and who dies when?
fucking CRETIN
peenfluteking 1 month ago
@peenfluteking you got trolled bitch
diekontrolleure 1 month ago
@diekontrolleure a complete non-sequiter there, well done
kennyingram 1 month ago
It is terribly painful to watch the roundtable ending with Christopher smoking a cig, when we know that he is condemning himself to death only four years later. It is an immense loss, for he will never be replaced.
roobookaroo 1 month ago
Just to make it clear that I'm an Anti-Theist and atheist.. does anyone think the epistemological discussions of the possibility of scientific knowledge..etc offers anything worthwhile in these discussion?
dopeasfuckk 1 month ago
17:30 RD is soo nice human beeing.
JUGAopet1 1 month ago
@JUGAopet1 but at 34:45 I am strongly disagree with him (RD), but but as Voltaire sad: " I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”
JUGAopet1 1 month ago
Upon their discussion brought back 'round 45:00 as Harris iterates it, I think they are all correct in both treating religion as a whole and certain aspects of specific religious thought and practices the same is really a matter of scale that doesn't have to contradict one another in any "strategic planning." Atheists can simultaneously denounce religion as myth, but address the highest threats among their actions/dogmas that threaten HUMANITY and not just political correctness. Real dangers.
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago
@2ndhandsoul ...And as Harris points out that enlisting the help of the majority, by which he states other religious thinkers and practitioners, they could all join in the very serious and mature process of protecting and uplifting the best of ourselves, inside and outside of religion. We could flourish benign belief in taking away the distracting task of displaying the negative side that comes with conflict. Good can shine when the lights go out on evil. Simple, really.
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago
@2ndhandsoul ...If there could be an enlistment of the most prevalent and influential religions across the world to give some sort of review of OTHER religions, perhaps even denominations and sects within their own, some sort of correlation might be able to be mapped out to see even where they themselves disagree often and strongly. Impossible and probably a practice in futility because it may mean enlisting irrational people to do rational critiques. BUT then it isn't atheism "alone" vs. all.
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago
@2ndhandsoul But if such a process were to really have a hope of working, it might not be a terrible offensive act for honest and open debate without threat of zealotry (or at least lesser danger). Atheists could then point to those religions they worked with and say, "Hey, see? We're certainly not interested in reckless ideological warfare, we are as interested as you in making a peaceful planet." (And there would be the proof in front of them, right?)
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago
@2ndhandsoul The danger in this proposed process, even though it is entirely rational, is how easy the "targeted" religions would accuse atheists of being in collusion with their "enemies" to wipe them out. This wouldn't be the crusades, of course, but it is the very superstitious fear of vulnerability believers might equate. As though they would be shot. It would really be a means for them to rationally examine themselves. Show them there's no monsters under the bed we all lie in.
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago
Great quote by Hitchens, "I like solstices as much as the next person." 43:30
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago 2
That's one solid glass of black label.
maulzor 1 month ago 31
@maulzor You sure? I always figured Hitchens was more of an Old Parr kind of guy.
Ebvardh 3 weeks ago
A great talk that I highly recommend.
Two things though:
1. ... see below ...
2. On the conflict in the "Holy Land", which Hitchens brings up, the only workable solution, which everyone is ignoring, is to compensate non-Jewish Palestinians for the loss of Palestine. This could be easily, and at much less cost than the current wars, by letting them immigrate to their choice of the USA, Canada or Australia, re-settlement to be financed by reparation payments Europe and Israel.
KeithCanadaa 1 month ago
A great talk that I highly recommend.
Two things though:
1. US combating theocracy? Look at the current and past political campaigns in the USA, the USA is pretty much a theocracy. There is only faster way to condemn a politician to obscurity in the USA than to brand them as non-Judeo-Christian is to brand them atheist or agnostic.
... continued ...
KeithCanadaa 1 month ago
I would like to share a trivia fact about the four men sitting at the table. All them but Harris have Aries as their astrological sun sign, but that's just because I cannot find his date of birth.
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago
@2ndhandsoul His birthdate (according to google) is June 1st. As such he is a gemini (from a newspaper I just picked up).
lundymaphone 1 month ago
@lundymaphone Darn. :) Thanks for the info.
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago
Hour 2. The sun has set in the last hour, and they are still drinking (and smoking) and talking. I wish I were there, soaking it all in.
TERESADEAR 1 month ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Ep1 2
Has anyone else been struck at the strange (and probably very vague and incidental) parallel between some Last Supper metaphor with all the water, wine, and whatnot upon their table? I think the main differences between the Christian setting then and the video here might be the quality of the wine and water. Last Supper = fast-food (maybe the Feeding of the Multitude would be more apt). This video = VIP, classy dining. Oh yeah, and there's no bread.
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
Could the practice of Communion, in honor of the Last Supper, be accused of encouraging the consumption of alcohol? Let's put Bud Light in Jesus' hand and advertise during the Superbowl. Maybe a little something like the Doritos' commercial -- watch?v=6uZBPj0Vgpg
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
The part that they discuss that Hitchens calls "cognitive dissonance" was quite resonant, at least in my own mind. I really think it is as simple and prevalent as what was suggested. To an extreme, I think child sufferers of sexual abuse and trauma develop Multiple Personality Disorder (or whatever it may be called these days). It's a coping mechanism even on a mundane level. You feel like Wile E. Coyote looking down and seeing he's run off the cliff and is hanging in the air, then falls.
2ndhandsoul 1 month ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
"It's a good old Norse booze up. And why the hell not? I like solstices as much as the next person." :D
Configuration25 1 month ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Ep1 2
Comment removed
coltsrule5150 1 month ago
Dawkins barely touched his drink throughout the entire discussion :( Why Richard ? why ?
Configuration25 1 month ago
watched the whole thing :D
theswayzeexpress1 1 month ago
But yeah, he could answer this one right off the top of his head! It's simply the desire to believe what is demonstrably REAL rather than what just makes them "feel good" that gets people to realize their faith is bullshit. "Felling good" also includes the pain of realizing you spent your whole life on bullshit, BTW. They'll try to avoid that, too.
Or a person could just be ignorant of what atheism ACTUALLY is or even that it's an option, or scared away from even consider but I don't think tha
macgeek2004 1 month ago
To answer the first question put forward by Sam Harris in the video. I think Matt Dillahunty, even in his layman-ness, is the person to ask about this one. After all, he's an ex-fundamentalist Christian who's since educated himself and for the next nearly 15 years debated against other Christian layman, like, ALL THE TIME. So I think he would know how the "average person's" mind works.
macgeek2004 1 month ago
Hitchens is a BEAST
CrayZDude2 1 month ago
listening to them makes my brain work again lol
44warjunkie 1 month ago
Are they at Dawkins place?
ErikHultin1 1 month ago
@ErikHultin1
Hitchens' at DC.
gunnerfan87 1 month ago
@ErikHultin1 i think it might be hitchens, that is if there not in a studio.
robmation 1 month ago
@ErikHultin1 Look's like Hitchens' place.
BuildSC 1 month ago
I think what Richard Dawkins says about it all being petty is spot on.
FreeThinker148 1 month ago
"I am only interested in refining methods of destroying them" LoL I love Hitchens for that.
FreeThinker148 1 month ago
Insert The Todds voice from Scrubs here...
"Best conversation....ever!"
stonewickison 1 month ago
Hitchens smokes like a chimney!
TerraFirma69 2 months ago
A logo that honors these gentlemen:
search "four horsemen" on spreadshirt and zazzle
gotaiwo 2 months ago
well we now know how hitchens got cancer... fucking idoit
dave1233345 2 months ago
I get Hitchens saying that the Jungian archetypes need each other AND expatriation is needed as well for Jihad-like thinking. Dawkins imagines exclusive antitheism. Harris suggests tolerance is untenable and Dennent seems to reflect in terms of some type of extinction model....
oasislv 2 months ago
Hitchens can't engage in group think starting at 12:45
plisskin83 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
they don't pretend to have all the answers but they sure ask all the right questions
TheMrmi22 2 months ago 3
52:54 Hitchens sums it up. He had me worried for a bit, and then it all made sense in the end about the Quakers.
marcuelcajon 2 months ago
An anti-climactic ending.
elrynx2 2 months ago
Comment removed
elrynx2 2 months ago
I know this is very off topic and will probably be regarded by many as a very stupid comment to make, but such intellect on this high level is so attractive! Fascinating stuff, I wish many more (including myself) could have these debates weekly.
indie4life23 2 months ago
Comment removed
indie4life23 2 months ago
great upload - to see these 4 great gentlemen debating over 2 hours (including part one) is a real treat. thank you
LittleBabyBum 2 months ago 3
Fantastic. Four intellectual giants of the modern era.
SissingPyd 2 months ago 35
@SissingPyd Your not intelligent if u end up in hell.
lalamusa1 1 month ago
@lalamusa1 Actually intelligence is a virtue that according to your holy book whether it be the koran or the holy bible, intelligence and logic is frowned upon so if the highly unlikely chance that hell is real and I went there I would be in good company :)
NateXzX 1 month ago
@lalamusa1 lol I bet you sleep with the light on.
SissingPyd 1 month ago
@lalamusa1
You're not intelligent if you really believe that there is a hell to go to
peenfluteking 1 month ago
@peenfluteking Your not intelligent if your willing to rule out the possibility of its existence without evidence?
lalamusa1 1 month ago
peenfluteking 1 month ago
@peenfluteking The Quran is only 1400 years old not 5000 years, so now you have something.
lalamusa1 1 month ago
@lalamusa1
Well you clearly proved your point.
The fact remains.
If you were saying to me "this is an ancient man made text that contains great wisdom that we can learn from but also socio, political, economical musings of the time that no longer apply" - I would take you seriously.
But you do not. You say "this is the revealed linguistic truth of the creator of the universe and you will burn in hellfire lest you believe it".
So it is clear to me that your delusions and cowardice
peenfluteking 1 month ago
@lalamusa1
are so overgrown that you can no longer separate reality from that which you wish to believe.
And so your world is made of up vapid, vacuous lies that you continue to espouse, so you can pretend to be more moral than others.
So you can pretend to know things you cannot possibly know, so that you may laud them over us and tell us how holy you are.
Fuck you.
Because the wisdom of your religion is lost on fools like you who have not the heart to truly understand it.
You talk.
peenfluteking 1 month ago
@lalamusa1
And you give absolutely no evidence for any of the claims you make.
All you say is "this book is so good that everything it says must be true".
So I know that for what I can, you are too lost, too craven, for me to reach any of the sliver of the soul you must barely have left.
If you had the balls or stomach to actually surrender yourself to the universal oneness, which is the "core truth" of your religion..
You merely tell people how moral you are.
That is all you can do.
peenfluteking 1 month ago
@lalamusa1
Come on, tell me how moral you are.
Come on, tell me that you know God's mind.
Your arrogance is disgusting. To think that God cares about you, that God has a special place for you.
You sit with the weight of gravity upon you on a floating rock, orbiting one of trillions of suns, in one of trillions of galaxies - and you genuinely think that the words in a single book you hold are the utterances of the creator of all of this.
Narcissist. Moron. Liar. Coward. Serf. Slave.
peenfluteking 1 month ago 19
@peenfluteking wait, i thought there are only ~100 billion galaxies?
ah well. i get what you mean.
OyonTheAdept 1 day ago
@peenfluteking *applause*
BeachlessIsland 21 hours ago
@peenfluteking You're an impressive man.
The amount of thought you have concentrated into one concise post is very impressive.
I congratulate you both on your ability to think and to articulate yourself in such a manner.
Thank you.
jinxxedlikeshit 16 hours ago
@lalamusa1
And with that, fuck you and everything you believe. The world will be a better place when people like you die out, and are ridiculed publically for the utter nonsense and bullshit you continue to steep in reverence and force upon others.
And when you're on your death bed, talking to the doctors about what medication you can take to keep your weak and withered body barely going... we'll see what you value.. scripture, or scientific knowledge.
Fuck you.
You are a slave.
Bye.
peenfluteking 1 month ago
@lalamusa1 I'm still waiting for you to give supporting evidence for the existence of your imaginary god type friend.
SissingPyd 1 month ago
@SissingPyd LOL if you cannot see the evidence then you truly are blind. Look into the mirror and you should see it or look outside.
"Haven't the unbelievers considered if this was from other than Allah, they would find within it many contradictions"?
[Noble Quran 4:82]
"If you are in doubt about it, bring a chapter like it".
[Noble Qur'an 2:23]
If you are intelligent, you would read the Qur'an fully before criticizing it. The Qur'an is evidence, my evidence for you, read it.
lalamusa1 1 month ago
@lalamusa1 So your evidence consists of reflections in mirrors and primitive visual inspection of the environment. No Nobel prize I'm afraid. You will need to do better than that.
The ramblings of your offensive PEDOPHILE prophet are of no relevance here, you child molester groupie. I see others have told you to go fuck yourself, so I don't need to do it again.
SissingPyd 1 month ago
Sam Harris was good, Dan was great...Dawkins really listened, wtf was Hitchens banging on about. Yesh...
mofomoffin 2 months ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Ep1 4
it's sad watching hitchens as he smokes like this :(
redryan20000 2 months ago
I can't believe it, Sam seems to be drinking at a faster pace than hitchens.
JarethGT 2 months ago 3
@JarethGT I think he's drinking something with a less kick to it
DZ252 1 week ago
Well this was great I'm going to watch people argue about Porsche's and Ferrari's now..Who's with me?
SacredSocietyAP 2 months ago
I could listen to them conversing casually for hours and hours. So entertaining, educational and enlightening...
kresimircindric 3 months ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Ep1 3
A fabulous discussion. This video introduced me to Daniel Dennett and his deepities.
lazycackle 3 months ago
What an absolute pleasure to listen to.
LARRYLONGSTRETH 3 months ago 2
to Dennet on 7:40, I don't know if anybody pointed this out. There is already a term for this, it is called 'doublethink' and it is a term (as far as I know) coined by George Orwell in his book 1984.
I think it is a term that accurately describes this situation.
LPN00b 3 months ago 5
Where's episode 2?
MurderMan11 3 months ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Ep1 2
On their point on religious art, religious art succeeds, because art in the most basic sense, is glorification of the false. "Juliet is the Sun" is of course a nonsense statement, but by calling it poetry, this gibberish takes on a greater meaning that saying simply saying the logical and accurate "Juliet is attractive." So, of course a good artist can create a great religious work(Handel of 'The Messiah' fame, arguably the pinnacle of sacred art), was a well recorded atheist.
cnmaster01 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Fantastic upload..should Neil Degrasse Tyson have been involved my head would have exploded
jaymuhumuza 3 months ago 4
As much as I love Hitch and wish him improved health, it is telling that he can't stop putting things in his mouth. Cigarette, liquor, his foot... Get well soon Hitch!
stlstg 3 months ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Ep1 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
I understand what Hitchens means about keeping theology around on a small level. It keeps the thought that such ignorance can exist and must be minimized, and the thought of theology as only a myth that may be artistically pleasing to some so one could openly claim they admire the Bible but only because they like it as a fiction book rather than a book of facts and history.
TheDethBringer666 3 months ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Ep1
@TheDethBringer666 My concern is that beautiful church buildings get abandoned. If the Catholic church ever folded, would we have the werewithall to save the Sistine Chapel? Well, probably, but what about all of the lesser works of art that are still worthy and magnificent and convey the human spirit in a way that's worth the time of anyone who is moved by art?
A potentially more serious problem is how to get secularists to come together to serve in their communities, as many churches do?
ChollieD 3 months ago
As a former christian I reckon tht the concept of transubstantiation is such an importsant aspect in the life of many christians. It culd be described as the 'orgasm' or euphoria of their delusive & possibly escapist connection wit the devine. I suppose it did for many christian artists wht a euphoric drug with a lasting affect, like LSD might do..lets face it, good art does come frm 'high' ppl.. I personally prefer the derivation of art frm religion - which exposes the real mind, than frm dope.
kennethhopkins 3 months ago
@kennethhopkins Yet 40+% of American Catholics are unaware of trans-substantiation, according to last year's Pew Report.
COEXISTential 1 month ago
Mr Hitchens... wow thats a lot of tar in ur lungs..
kennethhopkins 3 months ago 2
It worries me a bit that if Prof. Dawkins' foresight does manifest itself, it might lead to the propagation of a lesser imaginative and lesser artistic culture. I see why Hitchens would like to have matters to argue about. As a Biologist Dawkins sees poetry in his domain and often has a generalist view of humanity to an extent that he seems to unknowingly ignore individuality & individualistic forms of expressionism. I guess one can say we should take Prof Dawkins with a pinch of NaCl.
kennethhopkins 3 months ago
@kennethhopkins I think that even if Michaelangelo was asked to paint the ceiling of a science museum he might've painted the same fresco.. its all about giving individualism its fair acknowledgement..
kennethhopkins 3 months ago
I would like to point out that this video was posted by the official Richard Dawkins web site, this is a nice example of the true nature of the Atheist, information belongs to the people and is also to be shared free of charge.
brucey4409 3 months ago 9
@JSCwrd Calm down buddy, I love these guys. Hitchens is a drunk, like myself.
carpedium281 3 months ago
Everything they said about loving the art of superstition without liking the superstition is dead-on. And in fact, there's a great song that really exemplifies this: Tim Minchin's "White Wine In The Sun". He's an atheist as well, but the song's lyrics summarize much of this conversation. Plus, it's a beautiful song on its own.
IceMetalPunk 3 months ago
The dissociation is really interesting. I have only one problem as an Israeli.Jews came to Israel only because It's the only land we could have historical reason. most of the Zionist weren't religious. In the start there wasn't any problem between Arabs and Jews. the problem started when Jews brought education and medicine and the Arab serfs in Israel started to awaken and their rulers that didn't even leaved in Israel feared of rebellion so they send preachers to make the serfs hate the Jews.
noanissinboim 3 months ago
I don't know about anyone else, but I had a massive Nerdgasm when I first saw this video
TheAaj123 4 months ago 6
Having read both Dawkins and Hitchens, along with my recent discovery of Daniel Dennet, I was beyond excited. Sam Harris is certainly next.
capowned11 3 months ago 6
when hitchens is better. they should definitely make another one!
zerr0ww 4 months ago
Am I the only one who wished there were about four more hours of this discussion panel?
TheRealBozz 4 months ago 122
@TheRealBozz no not at all i wish there where more of this also
Mumraa27 2 months ago
@TheRealBozz Nope, I could listen to them all day.
rdunire 2 months ago