1. Comment #81583 by obscured by clouds on October 24, 2007 at 11:35 pm

I'll take a box of these! ;)





Other Comments by obscured by clouds

2. Comment #81941 by skriv on October 25, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Hitch mentions a talk by Matthew Chapman. Is a video of that available?

Other Comments by skriv

3. Comment #82150 by obscured by clouds on October 25, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Not yet but I would imagine it will be soon.







Other Comments by obscured by clouds

4. Comment #82155 by admin on October 25, 2007 at 7:01 pm

I've still got Matthew Chapman and Richard Dawkins to upload, hopefully very soon.

Josh

Other Comments by admin

5. Comment #82265 by JemyM on October 26, 2007 at 1:06 am

Eeek, I have waited on the Sam Harris. *sobs*

Other Comments by JemyM

6. Comment #82284 by Simon Sherbourne on October 26, 2007 at 1:54 am

What a shame that these videos have been taken down.

Watching through these yesterday gave me a real sense of what is happening within the 'movement'–if you can call it that–and made me think for the first time about what I could do to help. Surely limiting the reach of these videos to the core of people who might buy RDF DVDs is self-defeating.

In particular, I'd like as many people as possible to see Eugenie Scott's excellent presentation.

Simon

Other Comments by Simon Sherbourne

7. Comment #83704 by notbadfora human on October 31, 2007 at 1:57 am

Are there any plans to release (or give us access to) mp3 files of these presentations? Some of us don't have the time to watch so many DVDs, but have lots of time to listen while driving, riding trains etc...

Other Comments by notbadfora human

8. Comment #84805 by Diacanu on November 3, 2007 at 5:01 pm

For crying out loud, where's the Dawkins one?

And are you just doing the big-whigs or where there more?

Did Julia Sweeney do one, and she doesn't get a vid cuz she's just a comedienne?
Or, did she really just do introductions?

Other Comments by Diacanu

9. Comment #85640 by BobFromOz on November 6, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Just found these videos - fantastic! Already watched several, and will be working my way thru them whenever I have the chance.

A friend of mine in the USA, who I regularly Skype chat with, attended several events at this conference and found it exhilarating. He sent me a souvenir he acquired there, which was personally signed by several speakers, including our beloved RD.

If you care, you can see it here;
http://www.silkyshrewgoddess.com/Bob/trinket/OnWall.jpg
http://www.silkyshrewgoddess.com/Bob/trinket/CloseUp.jpg

Other Comments by BobFromOz

10. Comment #86171 by sane1 on November 8, 2007 at 2:01 pm

I was so sad to have missed the conference...now I can watch it from my desk...yah, science!

Other Comments by sane1

11. Comment #86399 by namtog on November 9, 2007 at 6:24 am

Greetings,

DVD's, CD's, MP3"s. All well and good. Why isn't this
genre on one of my cable channels? There is a literal
ton of like material available.

Trouble be it's scattered all over the place.

In the last few days a torrent of The Man From Earth;

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3875447/The.Man.From.Earth.2007.PROPER.DVDRip.XviD-DOMiNO

went online. So for now we are limited to youtube
and various torrents for video that are of interest
to the "refuse to live as a caveman" crowd. Wink.

TMFE was made for a pittance. Distro rights can be had
for a song.

Maybe the people behind this web site, RD.net will
start a SopCast channel. Better than nothing.

24/7. With the whole nine yards. News, sports, gossip
and even daytime talk shows. This would sell. There
is a definite sizeable audience waiting to give up
the eye balls required to attract advertising money.

Just thinking out loud.

Namtog

Other Comments by namtog

12. Comment #86840 by Silent.Bomber on November 10, 2007 at 9:31 am

Very good indeed, they're all well worth watching.

Other Comments by Silent.Bomber

13. Comment #87095 by Clappers on November 11, 2007 at 7:41 am

"I think that the problem that atheists have not yet realised about their position is that their own system of morals is based on Christian morality and does not just come out of thin air neither does it fit the survival of the fittest theory nor the selfish gene arguments. If you take that to its logical extreme, then we are all out for what we can get for ourselves, which is no doubt what was happening centuries ago. We live in times where Christian legacy is still influencing our behaviour and our thinking about morals. But there are signs of this being eroded away. "

From Krisking.

Couple of thoughts

Don't think the Chief Rabbi would be referring to Christian legacy.

Referring to Selfish Gene arguments suggests that you have read the title, not the book. Just to repeat the point that has been made many times before it's the Genes that are selfish, not necessarily the People.

Other Comments by Clappers

14. Comment #88956 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 9:06 am

Comment #86908 by krisking

I think that the problem that atheists have not yet realised about their position is that their own system of morals is based on Christian morality

Not too many Chinese have morals based on Christianity, nor Indians either.

And a lot of so called "Christian" ethics are actually based on those developed in Greece by the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

Other Comments by epeeist

15. Comment #88959 by irate_atheist on November 19, 2007 at 9:18 am

17. Comment #88953 by krisking -

Yes. It is called learning and science. May I read between the lines and deduce that you regard only theology as a valid subject?

Perhaps we should start appending our highest level of qualifications to our postings. Somehow I don't think you'd win that particular pissing contest on this particular thread.

Troll somewhere else.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

16. Comment #88981 by phil rimmer on November 19, 2007 at 11:44 am

Irate,

krisking asks good questions. That you know the answers and are impatient is a little unfair. We'll have to tell our story many, many times yet. It'll be a long time before people understand that the ideas in religion, as in advertising, always follow the zeitgeist rather than lead it......

Other Comments by phil rimmer

17. Comment #88986 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Comment #88983 by krisking

If it's the word theory, that you object to, then please say so

The word "theory" can cause problems to non-scientists. It doesn't mean something that we just made up.

There are a number of attributes to a good theory - it must be predictive, it must be as parsimonious as possible, i.e. it should avoid the use of lots of auxiliary hypotheses. The main things about a theory though is that it must be both testable and falsifiable.

Only once a hypothesis has been through a significant amount of testing, including some critical experiments designed to test it to the limits does it get honoured with the title of "theory". Even then this does not mean to say it is true, merely that it is accepted as contingently valid.

Other Comments by epeeist

18. Comment #88988 by Goldy on November 19, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Survival of the Fittest theory

OK, krisking, this generally means that those organisms that are suited to a particular environment are generally the ones that live long enough to reproduce. "Fittest" here is a bit of a dodgy word, especially given today's obesity scares :-) To me, it's not the word "theory" that is misunderstood but "fitness" in this case.
You may have heard of the underwater vents spewing sulphur and boiling water and the creatures living there. OK, in this environment, they are "fit', that is, they can cope and indeed thrive there. Now, something like a trout won't - even though it also lives in water - it is not fit for that environment. A native of the Afar region in Ethiopia can cope with temperatures that would floor an Inuit, though should said Afari go to Tuktiuktuk, he'd suffer terribly. They can both be fit in terms of, well, fitness, but neither is fit for the "wrong" environment.
Is that clear - re-reading it doesn't convince me I put it right.
Books on science are very plentiful. As it's such a wide ranging area it would be hard to pick up a book that covers it all. The internet, on the other hand, is awash with the stuff :-)
As for morality, are you 100% sure that it is a product of Christian teaching? Or indeed, any current religious thought? Or is Christian teaching a product of morality? Were the pagans any less moral? Were early Christians as moral (they did like slavery...). As Epeeist said, are non-Christians less moral than Christians? If not, where is their morality from? Something to ponder...



Other Comments by Goldy

19. Comment #88992 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 12:39 pm

As Epeeist said, are non-Christians less moral than Christians? If not, where is their morality from? Something to ponder...

It surprises me that animal behaviour rarely enters this debate. There is plenty of evidence of altruism in many species.

Other Comments by steve99

20. Comment #88997 by Goldy on November 19, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Steve, I was getting there! ;-) Was the next line of attack. Ah, well...
Kris, have you also wondered why there are all these documentaries about baboons on tv (well, ok, not that many, but they are there)? The narrator will tell you how scientists are using them to try and understand early man - and notice all the things that baboons do which make you think "By 'eck, that's just like what we do!"
There are some research papers on animal behaviour showing what can be termed morality. Google it and see what comes up...
Edit - I found this book really good. Easy to read and tells you quite a bit about a few aspects of the science used when studying early man http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Bones-Search-Human-Origins/dp/0679747834


Other Comments by Goldy

21. Comment #89222 by saganist on November 20, 2007 at 3:16 am

I wish I could have been there! I hope Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Ali, and Chapman will return next year for AAI 08, because I plan on attending!

I shutter to think of our fate, if these wonderful men and women are unable to rid us of this disease that has plagued our world for far too long... it is the ultimate anachronism.

Perhaps thousands, millions or billions of years after we are gone, an archeological alien civilization will arrive on Earth and study our history; uncovering our tombs, technology and religious literature, immortalizing us as the laughing stock of the universe; the idiots of Earth who squandered their potential to grow as a civilization, and listen for other messages in the sky via radio telescope instead of relying on "prophets;" the daft species who could have furthered explored their true origins in the cosmos, but who instead opted for a fairytale they could never outgrow.

What will it take for people to realize the undeniably harmful effects of religion, demanding that we live perpetually in the dark ages, with reason in exile, drowning us in the blood of religions' innumerable enemies? All three monotheist religions which have stolen from the other, respectively, contain barbaric demands of bloodshed in the name of the lord, whether he be Yahweh, God, or Allah. That some of the more civilized followers of these religions opt to disregard their deity's heinous, murderous instructions is insubordinate according to those same people. These "holy" texts are presented as the word of God. Every scrap of them. If one finds any part of their sacred texts to be horrifying and/or nonsensical then one should discard the book in its entirety. To pick and chose messages from one's god is to disobey one's god and would result in damnation. This leaves the individual with two options: The person can either believe in and follow the sadistic messages as they appear, living perpetually in the dark ages, or one can live a life of reason and come to understand the true nature of the world, and the universe. To me, this doesn't seem like a difficult choice to make, but for some reason too many lack the reason to draw these conclusions on their own. There is an enormous pink elephant trumpeting across the world, and not enough people are willing talk about it. It should come as no surprise, then, if our fate ultimately lies beneath its monstrous, reckless feet.

For all those involved in the consciousness raising efforts - vive la revolution de raison!

With love and admiration,

Audrey

Other Comments by saganist

22. Comment #89421 by Goldy on November 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Hope you enjoy the book, Krisking!

the question of where the idea of a belief in god or gods comes from. Presumably, there is room for this in the theory of evolution.

Both bodies and brains evolve. Mental proceses evolve. The fact that westerners do not see slavelry as acceptable anymore could be said to be a form of evolution. Ideas evolve. There is indeed room in the theory :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

23. Comment #89525 by saganist on November 21, 2007 at 2:14 am

"Are these statement really opposites? Is it not possible to reason... 'I do not believe in God...if I kill all my enemies, I can remain in power'"

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make Krisking - That even atheists are capable of doing terrible things? (which is certainly true, we are still animals by definition.) I guess I need you to clarify your point.

If I can quote from Sam Harris:

"Nobody wants to believe things on bad evidence. The desire to know what is actually going on in world is very difficult to argue with. In so far as we represent that desire, we become difficult to argue with."

Other Comments by saganist

24. Comment #89578 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 6:57 am

krisking: I can accept that. The confusion for non-scientists is that "theory" often appears to be portrayed in the media as more or less absolute truth.

Interesting. In the US, the opposite misunderstanding is more common - e.g., "evolution is just a theory."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

25. Comment #89590 by _J_ on November 21, 2007 at 7:22 am

Dear all,

Sorry: though topical, this is way off topic. (Never know what to do with stuff like this.)

Today's Radio 4 Afternoon Play, 'Stardust: A Love Story' by Gwyneth Lewis, was a charming and unique blend of introductory physics lecture and everyday romance. Some may find it a little mawkish, but it really made me smile. It should soon become available to Listen Again to for seven days, probably on this page.

(If I knew how to make this play available long term in a friendly format, I would. Though doubtless the BBC would send its people after me.)

I think that part of what has made me want to share this is reading David Robertson's lead article in his church's magazine (here) in which, reflecting on his legendary adventures in extra-faith relations, he describes atheism as 'a black hole which leads to the pit of despair and meaningless'. Which upsets me. Things like 'Stardust: A Love Story' - ambitious, genre-bending, arts/science-uniting, poetic and factual and life-affirming - seem to me to be deeply important for showing just how false Robertson's unfortunate misconception is.

Cheers.

Other Comments by _J_

26. Comment #89606 by epeeist on November 21, 2007 at 8:32 am

Comment #89590 by _J_

I think that part of what has made me want to share this is reading David Robertson's lead article in his church's magazine (here) in which, reflecting on his legendary adventures in extra-faith relations, he describes atheism as 'a black hole which leads to the pit of despair and meaningless'.

A bit difficult to respond to a PDF ;-)

And we are the "heirs of Nietzsche", where is Henri Bergson when you need him?

Other Comments by epeeist

27. Comment #89615 by _J_ on November 21, 2007 at 9:03 am

epeeist

Quite so!

Rereading, I thought I'd made a cut&paste error with 'meaningless', but it turns out that that's what was in the original. Perhaps David is being ironic.

As for being an heir of Nietzsche, I for one haven't seen a penny.

Other Comments by _J_

28. Comment #89617 by Quetzalcoatl on November 21, 2007 at 9:11 am

I for one would have e-mailed a response to them, but I'm too busy wallowing in the pit of despair that all us atheists dwell in.

And I really felt for him when he revealed how much he'd been scorned and reviled by us heartless scum.

What perks does being an heir of Nietzsche offer? Do I get a membership card? An invitation to an annual family get-together?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

29. Comment #89619 by _J_ on November 21, 2007 at 9:16 am

Quetzalcoatl

What perks does being an heir of Nietzsche offer?

Presumably you at least have the standard-issue hereditary gigantic walrus 'tasche?

Other Comments by _J_

30. Comment #89621 by Quetzalcoatl on November 21, 2007 at 9:21 am

I do yes, but I have been denying my heritage by shaving. Perhaps I should let it grow as a tribute to my honorary father.

And that's probably not a question that the female atheists on the site would appreciate.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

31. Comment #89625 by epeeist on November 21, 2007 at 9:25 am

Comment #89617 by Quetzalcoatl

What perks does being an heir of Nietzsche offer? Do I get a membership card? An invitation to an annual family get-together?

I would settle for a season ticket to Bayreuth. I have been in the lottery for one for years with no success.

Mind you, that is probably because him upstairs has got it in for me (Okay, before anyone else gets there first "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me" - to be spoken in a Frankie Howard voice).

Other Comments by epeeist

32. Comment #89636 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 10:13 am

krisking: We clearly live in very different countries.

Another thing I notice: Europeans seem more upset about the excesses of "multiculturalism." I find myself in more debates with people on your side of the Atlantic regarding moral absolutes vs. "everything is permitted."

Does this false dichotomy arise out of a fear of the barbarian hoards? Surely a third choice is obvious: the exigencies of sustaining relationships forces people to adopt some basic, fairly universal behavioral principles, like doing to others as you would be done by.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

33. Comment #89682 by steve99 on November 21, 2007 at 1:33 pm

(Okay, before anyone else gets there first "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me" - to be spoken in a Frankie Howard voice).

Kenneth Williams, actually. (Carry on Cleo).

Other Comments by steve99

34. Comment #90083 by whollymackerel on November 22, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Sam Harris is making some very good points here. Becoming locked into labels is often counter productive. Also, in pointing out there are things about spiritual quests that are universally advantageous he gets to something that has to be at the core of inquiry based on scholarship, which hopefully leads to strong probabilities and truth.

For example, Leopold von Ranke, the father of modern history, said you can look at the primary source evidence until you are blue in the face, but finally interpretation is going to require intuition.

Where do we acquire intuition? Not at the local 7-11. It comes through contemplation, thinking and sometimes letting thoughts come of their own without trying to drag them to the surface.

Skeptics, agnostics and etc. need to step back from the perspective that contemplative spiritual quest has nothing to do with consciousness, or the raising of consciousness. More than rhetoric or a party line that spits out answer after answer, legitimacy within the non-religious community will be gained with intelligent questions rather than pat answers.

As one of my history profs once said... we are less concerned with your answers than your questions.

The power of non-belief is we have better questions than the other guys.

Other Comments by whollymackerel

35. Comment #90086 by Goldy on November 22, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Europeans seem more upset about the excesses of "multiculturalism."

Deeply rooted nationalism? All other immigrant groups, I think, slowly assimilated or stayed out of sight. In America, everyone brought their culture and roots with them and take pride in them, but keep being Americans first, as it were. I think. My theory.

Other Comments by Goldy

36. Comment #104804 by Ozymandias on December 29, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Any chance of getting these as a torrent so I can watch them on my iPod?

Other Comments by Ozymandias

37. Comment #151778 by SteveScott on March 29, 2008 at 11:14 am

Hey Richard,

I just wanted to say a huge "thank you" for uploading all your videos. I can't express the enjoyment I've had in watching them. Normally I could never afford them all and posting them is extremely charitable of you, it shows your heart is in exactly the right place.

Thank you,
SteveN

Other Comments by SteveScott

38. Comment #154404 by dgandhi on April 3, 2008 at 7:22 am

What is the license for these?

I'm hoping for a CC-by-nc-sa, but would certainly understand CC-by-nc-nd-sa, given what was done to the interview footage from "crossroads".

Either way I'd just like some clarification.

Other Comments by dgandhi

39. Comment #155576 by Three of Nineteen on April 5, 2008 at 12:22 am

Just a quick comment on a technical thing:

"This 2-DVD set was shot in HD at 24fps, color corrected, and compressed to DVD."

While shooting it in HD is great, I would not shoot this at 24 fps unless the plan is to release the material into cinemas (or HD DVD/Bluray). When you put 24fps material on DVD you have to convert to so it would actually be better to shot at 30fps, as this matches DVD refresh rate.

I very much enjoyed the lectures I have seen so far though :)

Other Comments by Three of Nineteen

40. Comment #180782 by jvt40 on May 15, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Dan Dennett just blew me away with his BRILLIANT talk.
Precise observations why rational ppl believe in god without shredd of evidence , loved the talk A LOT :).

jvt40

Other Comments by jvt40