The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens (1/12)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- On the 30th of September 2007, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sat down for a first-of-its-kind, unmoderated 2-hour discussion, convened by RDFRS and filmed by Josh Timonen.
All four authors have recently received a large amount of media attention for their writings against religion - some positive, and some negative. In this conversation the group trades stories of the public's reaction to their recent books, their unexpected successes, criticisms and common misrepresentations. They discuss the tough questions about religion that face to world today, and propose new strategies for going forward.
Credit:
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
richarddawkins....
If you are interested in purchasing a high-quality DVD of The Four Horsemen, you can find it here:
richarddawkins....
(Note: All proceeds from the sale of this DVD will go to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust.)
Hitchens was easily the manliest person in this video.
He's stoned.
Something about Dawkin's and Hitchen's voices (especially dawkins) is very soothing. I could listen to them all day long.
thank you for breaking these up in smaller bits, which lets me convert them into mp3's. decent quality too!
oooh i'm so happy to see these four men in a room. So sad Hitchens is gone.
A very reasonable dialogue when taken as a whole among minds that do not seek definitive answers or a perfectly bifurcated lens on life, especially Dennett and Dawkins.
Almost forgot, these four are my intellectual heroes, and it's so awesome that they're having cocktails. How effing cool is that?
four great minds all in the same room. Why have I not seen this?
"I am profoundly...much more than annoyed."
Haha, me too Hitch, me too.
Knowing what we know about the complexity of everything in the universe, it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God.
This is epic, I feel like I'm on Mt. Olympus witnessing a conversation of the gods, and I appreciate the irony of that statement :)
I think that standar is very simple: A rational person questions everything and uses logic to decide what they believe, as opposed to believing in something something without evidence and still somehow be proud of that...
haven't watched this yet, but I can't wait. might be the best video ever created
As far as the resurrection goes, like I said, I would refer you to my source. What I can tell you drastically seperates the explosion of Christianity from any other religions in the world was this. Early Christians were killed for becoming Christian. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain by becoming Christian. Early muslims on the other hand were killed if they refused to become muslim. They had nothing to lose by becoming muslim and nothing to gain by not becoming muslim.
No, check the date! This video was uploaded in 2007--long before his diagnosis!
Some atheists here in Germany were pretty offended by the popes mere visit - some weren't. Some religious people are offended by Dawkins & Co. - some ignore him. So what? The problem is with the "The". There are neither "the" atheists nor "the" religious.
Wow, a video of some of my most favourite intellectuals talking for 120 minutes!
I am a Christian and I am not offended that the athesist doesn't believe in God. I am not offended if they think I do not have the intelligence to "know" the truth of life. But I worry when someone wants to control my life. I am not against atheists, and I don't want to control their lives...to each his own. But when I have experienced the supernatural and I know that God exists, I am being told that I am out of my mind, Atheists are very angry and I can't for the life of me understand why.
Hitchens with a cig and some Johnnie Walker BL looks so badass at the start of the vid.
For all their incredible intellect, these four have one thing that puts them at a disadvantage in understanding Christianity: they were never Christians themselves. Only when you've been a Christian, and then been freed from it, can you understand the warped logic used in defending the faith, which they discuss and find surprising and disconcerting.
RIP Hitchens.
And where do you get logic and the mind to comprehend it?
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
Dennett got hammered for being rude and aggressive. Hitch just got hammered.
4 of the greatest living thinkers on planet Earth
Sam Harris is in Bristol on Wednesday 13th April 2011 at the St. Georges venue.
4:23 "Apart from, say, how ugly your face is" Freudian slip? hilarious
I'd love have a blaze with hitchens. Guy talks so much sense
Religious persecution in Europe is indeed one of the reasons that people settled in America. Others were starvation and a deficit of farm land, as well as civil liberties in general. None of these are however what made America a great nation. Democratic institutions and separation of church and state had a much greater influence in developing a flourishing society, and the victory in WWII as well as great wealth in natural resources is what made the country prosperous in terms of the economy.
I want a framed picture of this moment
I love how Dennet's character/image reminds me of depictions of god. He is definitely a great replacement in my mind, or as someone I look up to for sure.
My brain hurts from too much awesomeness...Loving this :D
These men have a command of the English language second to none.
It should be pointed out that for most of the history of Christianity, the church burned people at the stake for heresy.
I'm a Christian, I believe in Evolution, I like Hitchens and think he's probably the most rational and respectable Atheist of the 4.
no three stooges is Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind
I agree. It also gives off the impression that atheism is an ideology that can be compared to religion; that it is in the same boat, and therefore most religious types treat us with the same attitude as they would one that belonged to another religion. Most of us know that isn't the case, seeing as all an atheist does is profess his/her non-belief
I think, we don't believe nor support any religions, should not label ourselves as "Atheists"
It's like labeling all people who are not fans of Justin Bieber as "NonBieleber"
Or people who don't believe in dragons and mermaids belong to a group
I think we should just stick to ourselves as human beings
Because what separates human beings from the rest of the species is their ability to think
That's what religious people haven't clearly demonstrated
Someone should rework a still shot of this discussion and turn it into a poker game.
The world is a lesser place without Hitchens in it.
I agree with the previous comment. As a writer, philosopher and independent thinker Hitchens was - in my view - more intelligent than Dawkins. Especially as a writer. His command of the english language was astounding. It's not something I dwell on much, but it's an observation I have made regardless.
I love how they are all drinking gentleman's drinks.
I recommend everyone watch the version on Richarddawkinsdotnet, which has better quality and will contribute to the author himself.
@Darragh62
I've looked up Dawkins schooling, nowhere does it say he took any Theology classes.
The horses state that physicist do not fight or argue amongst one another. The fields of science are extremely competitive.
There are big egos and dislikes like everywhere else.
The most compelling statement was that their strongest objectors were atheists who know their writing are all strawman arguments that are unwilling to actually confront real metaphysical arguments.
@isawman1 I think you're referring Hitchens being diagnosed with cancer, right? Are you implying christians don't have cancer or go through worse things in their lives? :O
The atheist view of death is a pretty morbid one. I mean, how incredibly depressing is it that you've lost someone FOREVER? That all they are now is absolutely nothing, you'll never see, hear, feel, or experience them in any way ever again. Now given that, why the hell would you EVER try convincing someone else of your beliefs if that's what it entails?
Perhaps the religious are offended because you are telling them that there closest friend, the one person who they love more then their own families! is not real, and you are not just suggesting this but you are providing very good arguments for the truth of your assertions.
Imagine if somebody told you that your child was not real (only your child not everyone else's), imagine if they actually had good evidence and irrefutable logic, Would you not be upset with this person?
I love the guy on the left sipping scotch and smoking like a chimney... :)
@Brazillianviking
"I dont understand how an atheist can say to a christian that our lives are being wasted."
It's perhaps too strenuous a conclusion, but I see it as a retort to the Christian appeal to Pascal's Wager - where the Christian says that if the believer is wrong, he's lost nothing.
The atheist says: Hold it - not necessarily. If you've spent your life believing in an illusion you've missed a great deal of what you could have learned and experienced about the world.
@greatgulffixed
Hi GreatGulfFixed,
I am no expert on the DSS or the book of Isaiah, so I was hoping you could help me out. I myself am an atheist, but not being an expert, the reason I do not believe in the supernatural is that nothing in this world requires that it exist. However, you say that prophecies were fulfilled in your comment, and validated by the DSS.
As someone who is not an expert on this, can you please tell me what these prophecies were, and how they have been validated?
Jax
four men agreeing with each other is nowhere near as interesting as watching one of them humiliating a debating opponant.
@urbanvintner It just comes down to people. Any person isn't going to enjoy seeing a view they agree with, or constructed, torn down and criticized as totally flawed.
@gdavid483 my mistake: the Quran was written about 450 years before the crusades.....
Anyone else ever notice how so many of the creationist videos disable comments? Isn't that something like, "na na na, I can't hear you"?
These four are greater and offer more to the progress of humanity, than Jesus and Mohammad combined.
"Physicists dont get offended when their ideas on the universe are challenged" What? This guy needs to do a first year class on the history of science. See Fred Hoyle for example.
@VJWU For an atheist to say "I don't know, but I don't believe" is not at all the same as saying "I know and I believe (in spite of no evidence for those beliefs)." And it is skeptical in nature. As for your question, I am an atheist and I disagree with anti-religion sentiments held by other atheists. I also disagree with Sam Harris' belief in the existence of objective morality.
Hitchens uses a much broader vocabulary and references a lot of places and figures the average man is not privy to. I enjoy reading Dawkins more because I am not on Hitchens level of literary intellect, but I believe Hitchens makes better arguments for debate. But we're comparing apples and oranges, and both are delicious.
@greatgulffixed Secular history does NOT attest to Christ's crucifixion, as far as I know. Please provide any secular historical evidence to back you up. To my knowledge, the only historical record of Christ being crucified is in the Bible. If there is any secular historical evidence of Christ's crucifixion, please point me to it.
@yamenhawit Dennett is a cognitive scientist, philosopher, humanist, etc. Since you watch online videos, I recommend his talks on TED (e.g. on memes, and religion in that context search for "dangerous memes" on the TED website ted.com).
My heroes...
Isn't the fact that religion is so sensitive one of its myriad problems.... and we (the atheists) are the ones whom should be annoyed by that.. not the other way around.
christian, muslim, jewish, atheist, or whatever, how does your faith (or lack of) respond to the suffering and status of the world? how does it benefit your brothers and sisters, let alone yourself? to debate religion itself can be somewhat ignorant to me... especially if it's nothing more than "whose God is right" or "is there a God at all". if you believe in God, then BE in God's image and do justice and love. if you don't, then YOU respond to the world's suffering--do justice and love.
That's one conclusion, not the only one. Religion has been with us this long because it's part of human nature to worship. Idolatry is the biggest problem in this and is precisely why God (Jesus) condemned religion in the first place. Religion gets in the way of God's grace. Religion is a cancer to the world and it should end...but it's always gonna be around, the same with nonbelievers
@Tapiola2007
AGREED, its not wether someone is atheist or religous but how they treat their fellow man.
Extremists views or actions are dangerous no matter what direction they come from.
(Continued 4.) The last thing i want to say is that it has been calculated that the chances of the universe being so finely tuned to support life is 1 part in 10 to the 10th power to the 123 power. This is a number no big that it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the visible universe. And you write to me like im delusional or crazy for believing their is a designer? Really? I will direct your quote back to you by saying, "If this doesn't convince you, nothing will."
@SOURCEw00t It might be true. But what about women (white or not) and the gays (men and women, white or not)? There doesn't seem to be a necessary connection between gender or sexual orientation and religiosity.
@vryc
1. How we got here : You assume God did'nt have a hand in it, Science is working on how God did it right now !
2. Where we are going : Is a question for science also.
3. Whats the meaning of Life : If it has no meaning then why have children ? Why bring another human into a meaningless world ?
4. Our Purpose : ?
5. Afterlife : ?
Religion tries to answer these questions because Science never can.
@DanFrederiksen What are you talking about? He welcomes dissent and then deals with criticism on an intellectual level.
@Tapiola2007
" " How stupid can a person be to say "homosexuality is wrong". It's a preference." "
Thats exactly why its wrong, its a preference !
wow!!! four fine well-rounded educated gentlemen!!!! XD thanx for sharing this :D
You put George Carlin there and BINGO!!
I'm so in love with Richard Dawkins
Amazing minds, thanks for uploading!
I would LOVE to see them make "The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Shermer 2". Unfortunately we no longer have Hitchens but I think that Michael Shermer would be a brilliant addition to a casual video recorded version of this.
God demonstrates his infinite grace by allowing these 4 to go on blaspheming his holly name.
From God’s Word the Bible: John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God
Please read the following questions carefully, be honest and listen to your conscience. Would you consider yourself to be a good person?
The Bible says in Proverbs 20:6. Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness. Let’s see if you qualify as being a good person. Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything, irrespective of its value? Jesus said, ?I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart? (Matthew 5:28).
@kaligrs
Not very fair of your god, to base your entire eternal existence on something so arbitrary as belief in an old story. What if theres a Hindu out there who's as perfect as a person can be, will he go to hell just for not being raised a Christian? Is Gandhi in hell? Or what about tribes who have never come in contact with Christianity before now? There are a large number in the Amazon. Are they all going to hell for being born in the wrong place? Your god is very unfair, my friend.
They were discussing if its wise to be rude to religion or being diplomatic to convey their message to the religious people. so far they have not been unanimous. Hitchen also imply that you could no longer win argument using science because there text in the bible that do talks about modern scientific discovery which dawkins was surprise.
Have you ever looked at someone with lust? The Bible says that if someone hates another person they are a murderer (I John 3:15). Have you ever hated anyone? If you have answered ?Yes? to the previous questions, then you have admitted that you are a liar, a thief, an adulterer and a murderer and we’ve only looked at 4 of the 10 Commandments.
@Lavulo187
Not really, Dawkins is a PhD in Biology and is a scientist, Dennett is a PhD in philosophy and while being very knowledgeable about science, is not a scientist. Harris on the other hand has a BA in philosophy and a PhD in neuroscience, and is a scientist.
@kingscat3 A scientific fact is that a random made universe is unlikely according to random probability.......Not impossible........ Just not probable. I don't understand why Atheist don't get that.
Creationism was ruled "not science" in the last court case. The science background of those working for creationist think-tanks is notoriously weak and shallow, like Babu's.
this was uploaded almost 4 years to the day before hitchens death
I feel like my brain just was gang raped and I didn't even realize it.
Why did you feel the need to upload this video when the richarddawkinsdotnet channel has the full 2 hours uploaded and split only once?
@drewwhonumba22
I saw that a while ago, Hitchens really wiped the smirk off the Rabi's face. Thanks for the compliment on my channel.
I think Hitchens excelled in writing, debating and speaking but Dawkins excelled in the Scientific side of things.
To rohenghale!
Life is a gift And we are not allowed such great gift to abuse or misused.
We are to follow natural law And divine commandments. If some people act against natural order or God's commandments then the punishment will follow.
People wake up! Convert! If not then you have to face everlasting punishment in hell.
God is good. God is merciful And God is also just And will net let evildoers go unpunished.
On the other hand Mahomet or Budda were not foretold by prophets, performed no any miracles.
The teaching Of Budda, Mahomet or Hinduism are bizarre And with many mistakes And contrdictions.
Moreover have you ever heard Of any miracles in their religions today?
Only Christianity can prove the miracles Happening in their communities now.
What more credentials could we expect from God in order to choose right religion?
If God revealed true religion, then only Christianity has all His credentials.
@ianman6 hehe that assumes humans are rational and that's quite a mistake. same as you refuse to think about it so do 'they'.
now you say I peddle same old tired argument but a few lines above you say you've never heard that argument before.. but you are too emotionally irrational to admit such obvious logical mistakes.
as for the argument, if you have any science background draw out a diagram of a simple screaming robot if you burn its hand. where is the pain.. that's how. I wont answer again
@ianman6 that's bs. he's the religious zealot. he has blind faith.
if I posed a logical point to him he would not recognize it if it in any way contradicts his blind belief.
one example is that a robot that screams when you burn its hand felt no pain, didn't need to nor could ever and by logical equivalence from copper and semiconductor to electrochemistry which we supposedly are, we should not need it either. yet we have it. why..
The original Pilgrims came to (what is now) America more than 150 years before it became the United States, so they were all dead by the time it became a separate country. The actual founders of the country went out of their way to NOT involve religion in government. That alone should tell you all you need to know about how much they wanted this to be a Christian nation.
@ThePhantom135 Those who would trade an ounce of freedom for pound of security deserve neither. Those who would, I formerly refer to as cowards. And after 911, I realized that our society, America that is, is pretty much jammed-packed full of them. It's a shame, really.
@doza2112 right, the atheist anarchists who tortured and killed thousands of priests, nuns, monks, even bishops, destroyed thousands of churches and blowed up religious statues in the Spanish Civil War did not killed in the name of atheism. Do you have any idea how absurd sounds that statement?
@keeyk118b Yes, emotions sometimes overpower logic, but it doesn't make beliefs anymore true. Read chapter 10 of The God Delusion, and you can seek better alternatives for comfort rather than superstition.
@Niekdvries248
I have read it, multiple times. Religious studies is my minor. Have you read it?
4 people who agree with each other is not as interesting as when these four debate the opposition.
@EastofForever What? Do you even know what your talking about?
If your going to troll a video of 4 smart people talking, atleast attempt to but a little bit of intellectual thought into your answers.
I loved the discussion of offensiveness. I grew up a non-Mormon in Salt Lake City, Utah, and only a handful of people EVER expressed worry about offending ME. One of the great evils of religion is the built-in, arrogant, self-righteous double-standard REQUIRED for them to survive. For instance, a Christian is unoffended by questions about the validity of Islam but HORRIBLY offended when his/her own faith is subjected to the exact same questions. Another such double standard is that theists believe without any objectively observable, testable evidence, YET they insist that atheists PROVE their position scientifically. I submit that the one who claims anything DOES exist is the one who carries the burden of proof, and in the absence of any such proof, non-belief should be the default.
@whauffend dude m also an atheist dats y i asked him dat question,a christian has a lot of explaining to do,christianity is entirely a religion based on mythology and stupid fairytales