1. Comment #345383 by SilentMike on February 23, 2009 at 11:32 am

That's great.

Everybody remember to rate. The creationist votebots are swarming YouTube. Don't let them win.

Other Comments by SilentMike

2. Comment #345388 by Lucas on February 23, 2009 at 11:37 am

Good to see. Spread the word. When I watched this about a year ago, I thought SH and DCD made the best points, though I'd have to dig a bit to find the actual quotes.

Other Comments by Lucas

3. Comment #345389 by Lithium_joe on February 23, 2009 at 11:37 am

I really am very appreciative of the RDF to make so many of these videos available (3 Horsemen, uncut interviews, Voices of Science and Reason etc.)

I am just curious: since these are available to be purchased on dvd, I'm just wondering what the reasoning behind making them available for free (and now in HD!)

I'm not complaining, mind - I, however, am genuinely puzzled - doesn't this undermine your ability to generate funds for the the RDF?

Other Comments by Lithium_joe

4. Comment #345391 by SilentMike on February 23, 2009 at 11:41 am

3. Comment #345389 by Lithium_joe

I ordered my DVD pack partly because the RDF has made an effort to make these videos available to everyone. I see these videos as having an educational value. If by buying them I'm encouraging this kind of bahviour, than I'm happy to do so.

Other Comments by SilentMike

5. Comment #345397 by admin on February 23, 2009 at 11:55 am

First and foremost RDFRS is about educating the public, in as many ways as we can. The DVDs are a way for our supporters to help us fund these video projects (in addition to donations), but we want these videos to be available to everyone, everywhere, all the time. Email them, tell your coworkers about them around the water cooler, etc.

All of us can help spread rational thinking and scientific ideas.

Josh

PS: I was up in Oregon visiting my family for Thanksgiving last year, and a friend of mine started telling me about this great video he saw online with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc—just having this great discussion that you'd never see on TV, and how it really made him think, and how much he loved it. Of course I was excitedly trying to tell him that I shot it!—but that's beside the point. What matters is that the video is out there on the web for all to discover.

Also, the DVD arguably looks better if you have a DVD player with 1080p upscaling, it has chapter markers, and has a booklet with chapter notes.

Other Comments by admin

6. Comment #345398 by JacksonDane on February 23, 2009 at 11:57 am

My first time watching this, it really is great hearing a conversation like this between so many excellent authors/thinkers.

Other Comments by JacksonDane

7. Comment #345402 by aquilacane on February 23, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Other Comments by aquilacane

8. Comment #345404 by dhudson0001 on February 23, 2009 at 12:11 pm

Everybody remember to rate. The creationist votebots are swarming YouTube. Don't let them win.

Yes.
As an aside, it's funny how odd and out of place the phrase "creationist votebots are swarming YouTube" would have sounded to me a mere couple of years ago.
Also, Isn't it ironic how the creationist fundies continue to "evolve" tactics to combat freethought and rational thought?

Other Comments by dhudson0001

9. Comment #345407 by SilentMike on February 23, 2009 at 12:16 pm

8. Comment #345404 by dhudson0001

Ironic. And very annoying. It seems these guys are not capable of playing fair. Maybe it's because they have a feeling as to what the end result of the game may be if they do.

Other Comments by SilentMike

10. Comment #345412 by aquilacane on February 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm

What the hell is a votebot?

Edit: Is Richard double-fisting in this vid?

Other Comments by aquilacane

11. Comment #345418 by SilentMike on February 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm

10. Comment #345412 by aquilacane

A bot is a program/script that does something automatic on the internet that usualy would be done by a human. A chatbot for example is a program that can handle itself in a chat and post messages at other users automatically.

A YouTube votebot is a program/script that automatically logs on to YouTube useing multiple acount in order to vote or favorate videos. Such programs can be used to pull a rating up or down. Creationists on YouTube have, for some months now, been attempting to use votebots to lower the ratings of pro-science users.



Edit:

An example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjPaCbas79k

Other Comments by SilentMike

12. Comment #345419 by HeyBishop on February 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Woah - I love HD. I can read the titles of the books on the shelves in the background.

Other Comments by HeyBishop

13. Comment #345426 by SilentMike on February 23, 2009 at 12:35 pm

I don't know why my link doesn't link. Just copy/paste or something.

Other Comments by SilentMike

14. Comment #345435 by Matt H. on February 23, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Chong, you are not being asked to pay to see those videos, so I don't see the point in criticising the re-release of them in HD.

Other Comments by Matt H.

15. Comment #345438 by SilentMike on February 23, 2009 at 12:45 pm

14. Comment #345432 by Mister Chong

Not everyone has seen this. See comment #345398. Of course youtube is full of people that have not seen this yet. And having it all in one piece instead of sliced up to 10 minute clips, and in HD, will make it more appealing. I think.

Other Comments by SilentMike

16. Comment #345444 by root2squared on February 23, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Awesome!

I haven't seen this and I just got an hd tv.

Other Comments by root2squared

17. Comment #345446 by Ewald on February 23, 2009 at 12:55 pm

Lovely to see yet another great RD video available on YouTube, this time in HD. I bought the DVD some time ago and love to every now and then let these wise men talk to me in the wee hours of the night.

On a different note, somehow the capitalist in me still feels a little betrayed when seeing material I had to put my hard-earned money down for, just enter the public domain like that. Fortunately, the rational RDFRS supporter in me takes over soon enough and assures me that these actions at least clearly show (pun not intended) where my RDFRS donation money is poured into. And it's used for a great cause indeed. Who knows, I might even be convinced to grab myself a YouTube account simply to support these videos with my votes.

Other Comments by Ewald

18. Comment #345463 by aquilacane on February 23, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Ah, you need to be signed in to rate. Well that explains why I couldn't find the vote button. Too bad, another password to forget isn't in the cards

Other Comments by aquilacane

19. Comment #345483 by Mister Chong on February 23, 2009 at 1:41 pm

This is amazing. It appears that no dissent whatever is tolerated on this website. Given the disgraceful censorship of even the slightest disagreement with Richard Dawkins' views, I fail to see how this community is any improvement on the religions it sets out to condemn. My following two posts were promptly deleted:

Comment #345432 by Mister Chong on February 23, 2009 at 12:41 pm

This video has been around for donkeys' years, and I'm sure we've all seen it. What's HD going to add? Ability to see their wrinkles in more detail? I don't understand.

Comment #345458 by Mister Chong on February 23, 2009 at 1:07 pm

One thing I'd like to say. The conversations videos, between Richard Dawkins and various famous intellectuals, can be absolute gold, in my opinion. Typically, though, this occurs only when they steer clear of the boring subject of atheism.

The conversations with Steven Weinberg or David Buss give us plenty of interesting material to talk about. The conversations with bishops and other religious apologists give us nothing to do but sneer at the opposition, or compliment ourselves for being atheists. This is exactly what most regulars on this site have been doing the past few years.

I hope Richard is reading this. His conversation videos about science are wonderful. His conversations videos about religion make me want to shout out: "LEARN SOME NEW CHORDS!"

That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the Four Horsemen video, even though in large part it does concern itself with religion. Perhaps that was because Richard didn't feel the need to chant once again his customary mantra.

Other Comments by Mister Chong

20. Comment #345488 by Lithium_joe on February 23, 2009 at 1:45 pm

Comment #345397

Thanks for the explanation Josh.

I hope you don't mind my asking, it's just a question I've had brewing for a while now. (Ever since the uncut interviews from Enemies of Reason started appearing in fact.) That was the next dvd I was thinking of buying (I already have both "Voices" DVDs and the 4 horsemen).

I suppose the point I was making was the decision to buy would now be driven by a desire to support RDFRS or just to own the dvd and have access to it offline, rather than purely curiosity about content.

I don't intend to judge the difference I just meant to note (Like Ewald noted #345446) to becoming aware of the difference.

I do applaud the sentiment of maximising the opportunities for education and discussion and understand (now) what the intention behind the releases is.

Thanks for the taking the time for clarifying my thinking about it. I appreciate it.

LJ.

Other Comments by Lithium_joe

21. Comment #345490 by Goldy on February 23, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Comment #345483 by Mister Chong
And maybe some new chords would be well learned by you too :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

22. Comment #345491 by Gregg Townsend on February 23, 2009 at 1:46 pm

19. Comment #345483 by Mister Chong

I completely agree! It is disgraceful that your posts are being shifted to the alternate comment thread.

Everyone, if you must use the troll button, please do it with extreme reluctance. We are making these threads unreadable!

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

23. Comment #345495 by Lithium_joe on February 23, 2009 at 1:49 pm

I should add when I've posted links to this this video I've had positive comments back from people who hadn't seen it before.
It's a tremendous things to see and listen to writers of such eloquence and insight in open discussion.

Anecdotally, I'd say the strategy seems to be working!

Other Comments by Lithium_joe

24. Comment #345497 by Sciros on February 23, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Chong, posts aren't deleted. They're just moved to the shit pile. I didn't troll you, but let me attempt to explain why others presumably did.

While it's true that your comment about the HD video of the Four Horsement being freely available online solely for wrinkle detail was insightful and exactly the kind of "clear thinking" that this site is an oasis for, it was your crude use of the the word 'donkeys', which conjures up images of large penises, that doomed you.

The second comment, while a gripping tale of your distaste for Richard's approach -- and one you really don't repeat enough -- suffered from a total non-sequitur. Why does Richard need to learn new chords? I have never even heard him play guitar.

Other Comments by Sciros

25. Comment #345514 by righton on February 23, 2009 at 2:05 pm

Chong,


Even though I find your posts incredibly annoying, I agree they should not be trolled. The troll button is stupid and should only be used in extreme situations.


Many people on this site like to talk about religion and atheism. Also there are a lot of new people who are not familiar with these topics and have questions. You are not going to get everyone to stop talking about it so why don't you just post on threads that are science related?

Other Comments by righton

26. Comment #345515 by Mister Chong on February 23, 2009 at 2:06 pm

While it's true that your comment about the HD video of the Four Horsement being freely available online solely for wrinkle detail was insightful and exactly the kind of "clear thinking" that this site is an oasis for, it was your crude use of the the word 'donkeys', which conjures up images of large penises, that doomed you.

The second comment, while a gripping tale of your distaste for Richard's approach -- and one you really don't repeat enough -- suffered from a total non-sequitur. Why does Richard need to learn new chords? I have never even heard him play guitar.

Other Comments by Mister Chong

27. Comment #345522 by Mister Chong on February 23, 2009 at 2:11 pm

OK, but really, I'm not trying to troll.

Other Comments by Mister Chong

28. Comment #345541 by Dhamma on February 23, 2009 at 2:27 pm

What other intellectual but Hitchens would sit in a discussion with some of the greatest minds and smoke?

Guess that's why I love him: he doesn't give a shit!

Other Comments by Dhamma

29. Comment #345544 by ColdFusionLazarus on February 23, 2009 at 2:29 pm

Mister Chong is continuing with his theme that Dawkins bangs on all the time about the problem that people believe in god-nonsense. You could say that Mister Chong should learn some new chords, although to be honest I don't think his point has been taken apart enough yet (it probably was taken apart years ago when some other irritant said the same as Chong, but I wasn't around then).

Clearly his other criticism is that there are a lot of sycophants on the site who are too much in awe of Richard. I have to admit, when I first came to the site that was what I was expecting to see. I now think most people are not like that, but when I keep seeing critical-of-RD-comments moved to the alternative thread then I guess we're just reinforcing the belief that we are all sycophants.

Oh hum. I suppose there's no point any more. Come on everybody, sing along, "5 troll pushes good, single moderator bad". Baa-baa!

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

30. Comment #345557 by righton on February 23, 2009 at 2:43 pm

BTW, the WAP is completely worthless.

Other Comments by righton

31. Comment #345570 by justdust on February 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Mister Chong got pinged for that! Someones troll trigger finger must have been twitchy.

Other Comments by justdust

32. Comment #345571 by SilentMike on February 23, 2009 at 3:05 pm

The trolling of Chong does seem a bit much. Unless you who clicked know something I don't.

As for the chanting of mantras. I find it inescapable. When one finds oneself, as our for hoursemen do, having to talk again and again about the same matter, one is basically forced to repeat oneself. Dawkins has a spiel, Hitchens has a spiel, and so do the others. That's how it works. At times a bit may be added, at times one may be neglected. Once every couple of years a massive rethink may be made. But all in all what you think is what you think, and the best points and analogies you make tend to stay the same. That's the way it is.

Other Comments by SilentMike

33. Comment #345572 by ColdFusionLazarus on February 23, 2009 at 3:05 pm

righton, I think WAP is pretty pointless, but when you see so many people, so much better than me, willing to discuss it in some detail, I have to nervously cower away and wonder what devil is in the detail.

I feel on much firmer ground when I say that belief in god is utter nonsense and has significant capacity to do harm. I'd agree that religion can do some good, but I'd prefer to see the good aspects carried out with god removed from the equation.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

34. Comment #345578 by Mister Chong on February 23, 2009 at 3:18 pm

Good grief. Concerning the anthropic principle, I'm a little nonplussed by how widespread the view that it's "worthless" or "pointless" has become on this website. I think it's preposterous that so many laymen are ready to act as if their own "off the top of the head" two cents is equally valid as the opinion of numerous respectable physicists, who've actually done professional work relating to the damn thing.

Not even Lee Smolin, the physicist who's best known for his opposition of use of anthropic principle, will say that it's "worthless" and dismiss it without further comment. He devotes a whole chapter (which I read last night) to the AP in The Trouble with Physics, and has further elaborated with a 42-page paper.

He never argues that the WAP is trivially obvious and therefore dismissible. He argues that despite its potential theoretical use, it does not help us make empirical predictions, which (he says) are essential for doing science.

Other Comments by Mister Chong

35. Comment #345583 by sornord on February 23, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Was this shot in Hitchens' home in Washington DC?

Other Comments by sornord

36. Comment #345592 by Fuller on February 23, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Chong, you obviously don't like it here. That's cool.

You know what I do when I don't like a website?

On topic, this is great to see - although I watched it a second time quite recently, which is annoying cause it could have been in high quality if I had waited...

A third time? Maybe.

Other Comments by Fuller

37. Comment #345600 by aquilacane on February 23, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Chong's comments seem lame but on topic. Not sure why he was trolled. I've been more lame than that. Kid likes a fight.

Other Comments by aquilacane

38. Comment #345602 by aquilacane on February 23, 2009 at 4:20 pm

anthropic mumbo-jumbo. Assuming this, assuming that, believed to be, must be, ergo... therefore. I've said as much in less.

Other Comments by aquilacane

39. Comment #345607 by itopal63 on February 23, 2009 at 4:39 pm

Comment #345602 by aquilacane:

anthropic mumbo-jumbo. Assuming this, assuming that, believed to be, must be, ergo... therefore. I've said as much in less.

Nothing wrong with assumptions as long as they lead somewhere concrete.

I personally detest the (elegantly mundane) Anthropic Principle being used as a justification; as reasoning; for a metaphysical supposition: of supposed fine-tuning thus done by a supposed tuning-entity.

Other Comments by itopal63

40. Comment #345609 by righton on February 23, 2009 at 4:57 pm

Chong,


I was just trying to rile you up.

Other Comments by righton

41. Comment #345611 by Chanc3 on February 23, 2009 at 5:37 pm

hehe... i think Hitchens could not survive without religious people. He like to kick their asses almost as much as he likes bars :)

Other Comments by Chanc3

42. Comment #345615 by DeludedNoLonger on February 23, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Thanks very much for making this accessible. Much appreciated. The Atheist Missionary.

Other Comments by DeludedNoLonger

43. Comment #345619 by root2squared on February 23, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Hmm...I just started watching this and I noticed Hitchens is smoking! The other guys must be really nice about that!

Other Comments by root2squared

44. Comment #345620 by Fuller on February 23, 2009 at 8:15 pm

Hmm...I just started watching this and I noticed Hitchens is smoking! The other guys must be really nice about that!

But of course, they're rational people who understand that being in the vicinity of smoke for a small period of time won't cause them any harm :)

Also, they seem to be in an open, airy room.

Other Comments by Fuller

45. Comment #345621 by Russell Blackford on February 23, 2009 at 8:17 pm

Mister Chong

This is amazing. It appears that no dissent whatever is tolerated on this website.

That's odd, I disagree with various of Richard's views all the time, and I never seem to have any problems from other regulars or from the folks who run the site. E.g., I think Richard underestimates the force of the Problem of Evil and overestimates how "nice" Jesus was. I also think that the ultimate 747 gambit is problematic - it's unclear exactly what it proves. And I find Richard's chapter in TGD on the "proofs" of the existence of God a bit philosophically thin and a bit outdated (though it basically does the job of giving an indication that all such "proofs" are likely to be inconclusive).

I've never hidden my views on this forum, whenever they've been relevant to a discussion, and many other people who post here could say the same thing. There's plenty of scope to disagree with Richard if you do so in a reasoned way, and when it's relevant, rather than turning up and spamming the forum with comments that are designed to provoke an emotional reaction (aka "trolling").

Reasoned discussion goes down just fine with other participants; blatant trolling doesn't.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

46. Comment #345622 by Chanc3 on February 23, 2009 at 8:30 pm

"19. Comment #345483 by Mister Chong
This video has been around for donkeys' years, and I'm sure we've all seen it. What's HD going to add? Ability to see their wrinkles in more detail? I don't understand."



i didn't get it to, at first, but now it looks much better in my ipod then the previous version.

Thanks

Other Comments by Chanc3

47. Comment #345623 by Chanc3 on February 23, 2009 at 8:42 pm

19. Comment #345483 by Mister Chong
"the boring subject of atheism..."


In breaking the Spell Dennett says something like that. Atheists do have the tendency to argue a lot. But there's one important issue i think active atheism, or skepticism, or whatever is very important. You know many religious people say that without religion there can be no moral life. This is just a subtle way to say everyone should be religious... and that atheism is intolerable (The nuts will say everyone should be a particular kind of evangelical... or Muslin...). See Hitchens debates and you will see this happens a lot (it happend in the last one with D'souza). So people like Hitchens are necessary to crush this lie. Perhaps only a devouted atheist could do this. Bless those boring bastards :)

Other Comments by Chanc3

48. Comment #345645 by Enlightenme.. on February 24, 2009 at 2:09 am

"35. Comment #345583 by sornord on February 23,
Was this shot in Hitchens' home in Washington DC?"

Yep, that's why he doesn't have to keep popping outside for a smoke!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

49. Comment #345651 by Russell Blackford on February 24, 2009 at 2:41 am

Fascinating discussion; I'll eagerly await Part 2.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

50. Comment #345664 by Dennis Sisterson on February 24, 2009 at 3:37 am

I've watched this before and will watch it again. There's something profoundly reassuring about listening to four intelligent people saying stuff I completely agree with for two solid hours. :-)

Other Comments by Dennis Sisterson