1. Comment #432056 by Fuller on November 16, 2009 at 4:25 am

Oooooh can't wait to watch this later on.

Other Comments by Fuller

2. Comment #432057 by FSM? on November 16, 2009 at 5:04 am

More of the same tired nonsense from the religious side. I don't know how Hitch et al can stand hearing it over and over. It has certainly got very old for me over the years.

However, glad they have the fortitude to keep espousing reason and evidence based thinking at events like this.

Other Comments by FSM?

3. Comment #432059 by Robert Maynard on November 16, 2009 at 5:13 am

I have bookmarked it for later.. but the audio seems.. really, really quiet. :\

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

4. Comment #432060 by mordacious1 on November 16, 2009 at 5:20 am

I'm tired of listening to D'Souza. The man never says anything original or new. I wish Hitch could find someone else crazy enough to debate him.

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #432061 by Alternative Carpark on November 16, 2009 at 5:23 am

Just when I was about to take a 15 minute after-lunch power nap in the toilet.

What's with the ring get-up? Maybe later, Professor Dennett will deliver an atomic elbow drop, to d'souzey's cranium, from the top rope later on.

Maybe it's just the Portuguese speaking audience, but just 1 minute in and already a Shmuley Bopeep joke falls flat on its face - When Hitch told it in a different debate, it brought the house down - I guess it's the way you tell 'em.

Ok, Shmoo is vindicated - not even a giggle at the suggestion that Brangelina have "27 children" by now.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

6. Comment #432062 by Slothhead on November 16, 2009 at 5:33 am

Just started watching, and happy to say that Boteach has been promoted to join one of those i adore. Up there with Cameron and comfort, d'Souza, the list goes on. These are those people that talk so much nonsense that they are probably good for the advancement of the spread of science.
Boteach "If the moon was closer then the tides would bring the oceans up and life wouldnts have been able to exist" HAHAHAHA, that is great. Someone obviously havent told him how the moon got there.

Other Comments by Slothhead

7. Comment #432063 by Metch on November 16, 2009 at 5:45 am

I haven't watched this yet, although I predict multiple "arguments" based on ignorance, combined with wishful thinking and straight up delusion.


Shmuley - "Where are all the fossils? There should be millions and millions of them!"

(no there shouldn't, fossilization is a rare event)

Dinesh - "I'm going to use reason and science to prove there is a god"

(but he doesn't, he uses illogical reasoning, special pleading, and religious references)


As much as I enjoy these debates, I think there should be rules against lying, and spreading false information. Many people are genuinely convinced by those who declare there "should be millions of 'transitional' fossils". How come no one has sat down with these religious debaters and explained to them how evolution works, why we are lucky to have the fossils we do, and how transitional forms are everywhere, all around us, even modern animals. Either they know they are lying, or they are ignorant, or they are too stupid to grasp many aspects of science.

I imagine they'll all use the same tired arguments, that do NOT convince anyone who knows anything about science, and has anything remotely resembling intelligence and critical thinking skills. I think it would say a lot if "the Hitch" and friends decided to boycott debating apologists until they adhere to the arguments against gods, and/or stop re-using long since debunked arguments.

Other Comments by Metch

8. Comment #432067 by s1mon on November 16, 2009 at 6:06 am

As painful as it was, i managed to watch Dinesh D'Moron D'Souza's opening. What utter baloney. This man can actually commit logical contradictions in a single sentence.

"How can atheists say they don't believe in the afterlife if they haven't been to the other side?" Hmmm!!!

Other Comments by s1mon

9. Comment #432068 by HKSARblog on November 16, 2009 at 6:43 am

I agree with Metch (Comment #432063) and s1mon (Comment #432067).

I haven’t watched this yet, but like most other debates of this sort I suspect the moderator (if there is one) is completely useless and accommodates all the nonsense being said by D’Souza and his cronies.
Why can’t moderators take a more active role and be like assessors or judges? This is supposed to be a debate that allows everyone to use critical thinking skills (not lying skills), so let the moderators judge. Moderators should identify any fallacies (perhaps hold up a placard in real time to indicate the various fallacies used by D’Souza and co, such as "false analogy", "begging the question", or simply "BS"). I’d like to see something like: “three strikes and you’re out” (or two yellow cards and you’re off).

Also, as much as I like to watch Hitchens perform, I think he should declare any conflicts of interests when doing these (repeat) debates with the likes of D’Souza. What does he get out of this (appearance fees, etc?). Previously, I have mentioned that Hitchens has said that he likes to have drinks or dinner with “his friend” Dinesh and his wife after these debates. What’s being discussed there?

Other Comments by HKSARblog

10. Comment #432069 by RightWingAtheist on November 16, 2009 at 6:52 am

Robert Wright commits a total strawman even after Hitchens clarified it in advance.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

11. Comment #432070 by RightWingAtheist on November 16, 2009 at 6:56 am

Oh boy.

Wright is worse than D'Souza. D'Souza may be wrong and deceptive, but at least he forms coherent sentences and paragraphs.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

12. Comment #432071 by Bob Johnson on November 16, 2009 at 6:57 am

I would like to give a big Thank You to Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. It must take an almost super-human ability to sit on the stage and listen to the other side give the same old arguments, the same old slanders, and the same old red herrings. I applaud you for taking your knowledge and passion to the public. Hopefully your words are heard by some; hopefully some can see through the hollow arguments of the other side.

Perhaps we could get a transcript of the religious side's speeches and then have a contest writing detailed rebuttals. (Probably to every word spoken.)

Thank you again for all your efforts.

Other Comments by Bob Johnson

13. Comment #432072 by RightWingAtheist on November 16, 2009 at 6:59 am

Ugh. Sorry for posting three gripes in a row, but I can't help asking... why the hell is Robert Wright even there? He has virtually nothing to say except to say that he doesn't know what to say.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

14. Comment #432074 by Alternative Carpark on November 16, 2009 at 7:00 am

I swear Hitch and Dinesh have some sort of secret arrangement. They are a double act - with Hitch as the straight man and D'Souza, quite brilliant, as the buffoon - and their performances must be quite a nice little earner for the both of them.

This is the only explanation I can come up with as to why Hitchens would want to be within 1 mile of the madness that is Souzy D, and on a number of occasions.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

15. Comment #432076 by glenister_m on November 16, 2009 at 7:08 am

As usual, a pleasure to listen to Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett (even if I have heard most of it before); while irritating to listen to the poor arguments and misinformation of Boteach & D'Souza.

Wright was a strange addition, who wasn't on anyone's side and didn't seem to me to have much to add - besides whining. How could the different religions reconcile with one another??

Other Comments by glenister_m

16. Comment #432079 by Ned Flanders on November 16, 2009 at 7:51 am

Audio on this is totally shit.

Other Comments by Ned Flanders

17. Comment #432080 by nonsuch on November 16, 2009 at 7:55 am

I've got my computer and youtube vol. turned to max. and yet have NO VOLUME at all. Anyone else having this problem?

Other Comments by nonsuch

18. Comment #432081 by s1mon on November 16, 2009 at 7:56 am

Awesome end speech by Sam Harris. Beautifully articulated and to the point. I must remember to use it in my debates with theists.

Other Comments by s1mon

19. Comment #432082 by s1mon on November 16, 2009 at 8:00 am

I am using headphones and the sound on max vol is fine. only the right channel is working though.

Other Comments by s1mon

20. Comment #432083 by DrawingYou on November 16, 2009 at 8:00 am

I'm sorry I didn't understand the Spanish part of the debate.

Other Comments by DrawingYou

21. Comment #432085 by s1mon on November 16, 2009 at 8:16 am

Dan Dennett called Boteach breathtakingly ignorant. Boteach got offended and accused Dan of name calling. But Dan Dennett was merely stating a fact.

Good going Dan.

Other Comments by s1mon

22. Comment #432087 by Paul42 on November 16, 2009 at 8:31 am

These "debates" are becoming embarrassing, pointless wastes of time...

These are supposedly the best debaters for the religious pov, but still must trot out the same old familiar non-truths, non-arguments and "deepities"...

For what other tactics have they got?
They have no arguments left that make any sense.

By debating these muppets we lend them credibility...

Enough already, even if there are fees to be had.

Love.

Other Comments by Paul42

23. Comment #432088 by Quine on November 16, 2009 at 8:36 am

Did you see the guy in the background hitting himself in the head with his program when the religion side was producing their howlers?

Yes, it must have been quite an ordeal for the reason side to sit through this. I was glad to hear Dan talk about his study of non-believing preachers.

Other Comments by Quine

24. Comment #432089 by 1town on November 16, 2009 at 8:40 am

Awesome!
I notices this debate on youtube last week, but it was dubbed in spanish. (probably why there's only one channel of audio on this version)
Was hoping a non-dubbed version would appear, and RD.net never dissapoints in serving me up -.-

I've been watching an embarrassing amount of Hitchens and Dennett this week, so I'm looking forward to this. Especially since I've heard little Sam Harris in a while. -.-

Other Comments by 1town

25. Comment #432091 by RobD on November 16, 2009 at 8:49 am

If only someone could rip the audio, boost the volume, make it dual channel and post it here...

Other Comments by RobD

26. Comment #432093 by Follow Peter Egan on November 16, 2009 at 9:02 am

I'll have a go watching this at home later, though my speakers are crap so, judging by others' comments, I may not hear a thing.

I'll be amazed if Dinesh "Shrill" D'Souza is inaudible, though...

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

27. Comment #432095 by jdaudett on November 16, 2009 at 9:07 am

I think I want to throw up at the disingenuous lies, and I haven't gotten past Boteach's introduction. It's one of the few times where I feel like someone really deserves to be soundly smacked down by Hitchens' rhetorical style.

I must be a masochist, because I'm still listening to this guy's crap.

PS: I listened to it all the way through. Someone really needed to call them out, a la "you're either ignorant, or lying about the science." I was incredibly happy when Dan Dennett did a minor version of that. The rabbi was intellectually dishonest, Dinesh D'Souza seemed intellectually sleazy, and the other faith guy just seemed kind of silly.

Other Comments by jdaudett

28. Comment #432096 by ClintBurky on November 16, 2009 at 9:14 am

2 hours and 16 minutes - long one!

Apart from the audio issues. Can Anyone who's watched it tell me if it's worth sitting through the entire thing? Or is there boring bits you'd recommend skipping through. (I'm short on time this week).

Cheers,
Clint

Other Comments by ClintBurky

29. Comment #432097 by Quine on November 16, 2009 at 9:20 am

Boteach complained bitterly, but Dan was actually quite gracious not to call him anything worse than ignorant (the factual case).

Other Comments by Quine

30. Comment #432105 by dazzjazz on November 16, 2009 at 10:16 am

Jesus! How did they get all those religious wackjobs in one room a at time. Dinesh and Schmuley should be locked up for sure!

Other Comments by dazzjazz

31. Comment #432109 by dsainty on November 16, 2009 at 10:23 am

Even though I vowed to myself never ever to bother paying attention to anything with D'Souza in it again, I may break the rule here to see the Hitchens-Harris-Dennett tag-team at work.

I'd never expect to find much common ground with D'Souza, but I wish he'd at least aim for a coherent argument, rather than just shouting a lot.

Other Comments by dsainty

32. Comment #432110 by Jiten on November 16, 2009 at 10:25 am

I'll watch it later but for now I just wanted to say that I'm surprised to see Robert Wright on the other side of the Vs from Dennett et al. Is he a religious nut-job? I read his The Moral Animal ages ago and I never would have guessed. Maybe I need to go back and see if I missed anything.

Other Comments by Jiten

33. Comment #432111 by Mark Jones on November 16, 2009 at 10:39 am

Boteach managed to suck all the humour out of Voltaire's alleged deathbed remark. When asked by a priest to renounce the devil he said "Now is no time to be making new enemies."

Other Comments by Mark Jones

34. Comment #432119 by Hominidae on November 16, 2009 at 11:36 am

oh I hate D'Souza...thank you Hitch for making him look like an ass.

Other Comments by Hominidae

35. Comment #432127 by weavehole on November 16, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Ouch! Remember to turn the volume on your speakers back down before listening to Nirvana.

Couple of quick points.

Firstly, anyone know what the Michael Jackson reference was in Sam Harris' introduction (at 10 mins in)?

At 1:54:00 Emmanuel Jal (apologies if I've got the name wrong) speaks of the hopelessness of young Swedes and the high suicide figures there. This is an old myth and shouldn't really still be floating around. Sweden's suicide rate is barely different from that in the United States. Even if it were true that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than theists this would not validate religious claims one jot. Reasons for suicide are multifarious and don't welcome this form of simplification.


Taleb should stick to regurgitating Popper.


At 1:02:17 we get the righteous face-palming in the background just before Boteach says "as religions begin to recede, marriages do as well". I assume that he's suggesting that a belief in god leads to monogamy and unbelief to adultery or some-such (am I being fair in this reading?). If so, then do Sea-horses, Voles, Marmosets etc have their own version of the 10 commandments?


Boteach also says that:

a child with Down's Syndrome will never be anything but a burden to his parents

Dick.


Edit: DInesh does't shout in this. That's progress, that is. I told you lot he was coming round to the good side.

... very

... very slowly.

Other Comments by weavehole

36. Comment #432131 by SaintStephen on November 16, 2009 at 12:28 pm

That was great. Thanks for posting it Josh.

One interesting moment was with Dan Dennett, who was referring to recently ordained priests who despair about their faith:

"They've been initiated into a sort-of conspiracy of silence, and for some of them, it eats into their souls terribly."

Just an expression of speech, or does Dennett have a concept for the soul?

Other Comments by SaintStephen

37. Comment #432138 by Roland_F on November 16, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Dinesh D’Souza has issued a new book : life after death’, and he claims that theist have at least the holy scripture as argument for this assumption, whereas atheist have no idea and just say it’s not possible which is much more ridiculous.
Has Dinesh ever seen or talked to a living person after her death £ Or does he mean again this non-material, spiritual, indefinable, unknowable soul which entered the fertilized egg during conception and stays to live on £
Science, especially Neurology has totally demolished the duality of body and soul, all the claims of some eternal soul leaving the body, that the mind/soul is something outside of a material brain etc… so what on earth is Dinesh writing and talking about £
And what is his content of a whole book £ Beside the claim that “life after death’ exists, what is his special knowledge about the content, daily activities and the purpose of living after death £

Maybe I should write a book “life before birth” as addition to it, and claim some divine guidance from Mickey Mouse as the only ‘pro’ argument whereas skeptics have not a single disprove at hand – so I win as I have a slightly more rational claim.

Other Comments by Roland_F

38. Comment #432140 by ridelo on November 16, 2009 at 12:55 pm

16. Comment #432079 by Ned Flanders on November 16, 2009 at 7:51 am
Audio on this is totally shit.

I also had to turn the knob on my speakers. But from then on it was quite understandable.

Other Comments by ridelo

39. Comment #432144 by Logicel on November 16, 2009 at 1:06 pm

The audience was listening to translations of the 6 anglophone debaters--you got to wonder how adequate they were. Speaking French and English myself, I am always astounded how hard it is to translate the finer nuances from one language to another. For example I do not laugh usually at a French translation of an English comedy, but roar at its anglophone version.

Though users of this site are fed up with likes of Boteach et al, it is important that the debate continues throughout the world. The best publicity for lack of god belief and rationalism is the nonsense that the creepy Boteach and D'Souza spout.

Mama mia, what a full blown schmuck and shyster is Boteach (this is the first time I have see him). He should patent his particular brand of suffocatingly creepiness and sell it as an insecticide with the sales pitch that no cockroach will ever become immune to it.

Boteach babbled loudly (another religious loudmouth preacher type) about if the only reason why people have drummed up religion is because of fear of death, it would make no sense for them to also make up judgement day after death.

Though religious beliefs are full of teh stoopid, they are very potent in covering all ground, keeping said ground so slippery that most rational people run a chance of breaking their necks on it. The ground that judgement day covers is that it keeps the followers cowed and in tithing mood. It also lessens their guilt that non-followers of their religion are doomed for all eternity, because they could have prepared properly for the inevitable judgement day and passed with flying colors. And since the followers will pass the judgement exam, they know they will get the eternity prize.

Boteach is evil because he conveniently leaves out the role of pure greed has played in the development of religious beliefs, the greed that Boteach refuses to own. The greed that popes, rabbis, and other religious leaders have bubbling up through their manipulative and lying words like so much noxious gas.

Other Comments by Logicel

40. Comment #432146 by Logicel on November 16, 2009 at 1:14 pm

Oh, and someone please give Wright a lollipop for surviving yet another day in fractious life.

Other Comments by Logicel

41. Comment #432148 by Roland_F on November 16, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Another Dinesh: So many creation myth of other religions get it all wrong and only the Bible has the creation from nothing, and the authors know something long ago which is now 3000 year later confirmed by modern science.
Well Dinesh maybe you should learn Hebrew to understand your holy book better, especially when you center your entire life on it. Or you could ask the Rabbi to translate it for you.

The creation is not from nothing, there was some formless mass and water as planet earth before “the beginning” of creation and Elohim (god of the Northern Tribes of Israel, not YHWH the fertility god of Judea) let there be light at first act rather than created the universe from nothing.

Here a proper translation from Hector Avalos (“the end of Biblical studies page 44) :

When Elohim began to shape the heavens and the dry land – the dry land being formless and empty and darkness on the face of the waters and the breath of Elohim blowing over the waters – Elohim said: “ Let there be light”.

So Dinesh this is the alleged knowledge of the big bang millennia ago, which the authors of Geneis-1 ('P' author) could only have had known based on divine input. Plus next the separation of day and night before the sun was created, and the waters were divided into a lower and upper reservoir (then rain should increase the lower level water e.g. ocean levels), then fruit bearing plants (flowering plants as first living organism !) even before the sun was created. Then fowl and whales before fish etc....
Well this is uninformed speculative drivel of Bronze age tribes and not divine given advanced knowledge !

Other Comments by Roland_F

42. Comment #432154 by Aaron on November 16, 2009 at 1:29 pm

I'm trying to stream from YouTube to my iPhone and for some reason I can't hear any of the audio...not even the raving loudmouths Boteach and D'Souza!

Other Comments by Aaron

43. Comment #432162 by ANTIcarrot on November 16, 2009 at 2:01 pm

I do wish they woudl fix the sound BEFORE uploading it. Not everone's computer has an amplifier.

Other Comments by ANTIcarrot

44. Comment #432171 by MMAtheist on November 16, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Ol' Shmuley is a perfect example of your typical theist opponent. Like Dennett said, breath-takingly ignorant but on top of that arrogant, loud and animated. Look at me waving my arms and using a PROFOUNDLY incredulous tone of voice! It's like he's waving keys in front of his babies to distract them from the fact that his arguments are nonsense. I guess it works with some people.

-------------
SaintStephen:
"Just an expression of speech, or does Dennett have a concept for the soul?"

It was probably just an expression of speech here, but I think you've missed the famous quote by Dan (the last sentence in this bit).

"An algorithm is a procedure that requires no intelligence. It’s just a mechanical procedure. And that’s what our minds are made of – lots of little bits doing very rigid, ungraceful, inflexible things – but, when you put them together in enough numbers and enough ways, the result you get is that wonderful, lifelike, mental world that we exhibit to ourselves and others.

Yes, we have a soul. But it’s made of lots of tiny robots."

He talked about this in the interview series The Atheism Tapes, which can be found on youtube.

Other Comments by MMAtheist

45. Comment #432176 by A on November 16, 2009 at 3:02 pm

35. Comment #432127 by weavehole on November 16, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Couple of quick points.

Firstly, anyone know what the Michael Jackson reference was in Sam Harris' introduction (at 10 mins in)?

Harris is doing an album of Jackson covers - to be released (hopefully) before Christmas - if you have been to any of his talks over the past 18 months you would have seen him end the evening with his emotionally charged version of 'Ben'.

Other Comments by A

46. Comment #432177 by Coestar on November 16, 2009 at 3:05 pm

I don't know about anybody else, but I can't stand Boteach whatsoever. He is an obvious liar and swindler. Everything about him smacks of greedy, shifty behavior.

The guy basically made a name for himself, from a nobody, by lying about his accomplishments and successes.

He's really only on this stage now by accident, in my opinion.

Other Comments by Coestar

47. Comment #432184 by Jos Gibbons on November 16, 2009 at 3:14 pm

It has been suggested on this thread a rule require these debaters avoid lying. One of the comments on the YouTube page suggested a video in which a buzzer sound or something similar accompanies every lie. I’ll limit myself to listing them (which sadly requires me to listen to the whole thing). I apologise for the sheer length of my post; since these speakers usually have arguments implicit in what they say which I’ve had to do my best to understand by reading between the lines, my definition of “lie” may be a little too broad, in which case perhaps this message could have been much, much shorter.

First round

Boteach
* A fear of death being the whole proposed explanation for the origin of religion
* People with less rational beliefs being considered less evolved
* Beneficial mutations being non-existent (he quickly backtracks on that)
* The timescale of adaptation being exponential (does he even understand how natural selection works? It’s a shame RD was the one horseman missing here, as he explains Boteach’s mistake well.)
* Evolution advocating genocide
* Morality’s reality requiring the rejection of whatever determinist or similar implications science claims

D’Souza
* The afterlife being evidenced
* Atheism being defined by propositions it denies rather than by ones it fails to assert
* One only being qualified to say whether there is life after death if one has in fact discovered there is (as opposed to relying on our understanding of neurology) – unless one read it in the right book, of course
* Christianity being the only religion to hold another to be completely true (exceptions including the Judaism-Islam relation the Christianity-Mormonism relation)
* The Big Bang, compactified dimensions, multiverses, dark matter/energy (see below) being contra-Newtonian (although maybe this error doesn’t matter, as he clearly meant to reference old science)
* Space-time having a beginning implying the existence of anything outside it
* Compactified dimensions being postulated as elsewhere
* Our knowing multiverses exist
* Either being the sort of world about which religion could speak
* Dark matter/energy being different in space-time terms, or in terms of natural laws, from baryonic matter
* Agnosticism being the intention to eventually form conclusions after future evidence (rather than simply not knowing now)
* Belief in an after-life somehow being justified from the above by a process of elimination

Wright
* Harris, Hitchens & Dennett having a faith
* “This purpose” of life having been demonstrated merely by his observation that machines CAN have one
* The sense in which Wright is “religious” being one lacking in and denied/disliked by many atheists in general and Harris, Hitchens & Dennett in particular

That economist guy who not only gave the religious side an extra voice unfairly but also cut in prematurely when he really should have at least waited until after Dennett had talked, but whose name I haven’t caught:
* Economic failures meaning equations can’t be used to track reality
* Everything being about our decisions in lieu of being about our beliefs (rather than beliefs being the context in which we make our decisions)
* Religion’s omnipresence across societies meaning it must be beneficial to us (rather than, for example, to memes)
* The etymology of belief proving an emotional justification for it
* Belief in God being a reliable way to recognise one’s ignorance just because of what “God knows” means (even though believing in God actually is a failure to recognise one’s ignorance)
* That pay-offs matter being relevant to this discussion (in other words, Pascal’s Wager)
* Religion serving us by giving sound economic advice

Second round

Boteach
* Morality being “of religion”
* Atheists being required to reject “religious” morality (as opposed to having different reasons for it)
* Evolution as atheism’s only possible basis for morality (rather than neurology)
* Hitler being an evolutionist
* Sir Arthur Keith being “the greatest” British evolutionary biologist (a title ill-deserved by Keith even if well-defined)
* Evolution being unable to account for love
* Monogamy being unnatural (it’s actually species-dependent)
* “It’s for the good of the species, not for humanity” (what does that even mean?)
* Evolution being about the good of a species
* Darwin saying either any such thing or the next topic Boteach mentioned in connexion with Huxley, of blacks as white-primate intermediates (rather than said abolitionist thinking of blacks as biologically the same as whites, which is an example of primates, not something different)
* Watson being forced to resign due to anti-black comments in 1994 (he clearly mixed up different events in Watson’s life)
* Religion being the source of the morality of Harris, Hitchens & Dennett
* The improbability argument, AGAIN

D’Souza
* The incompleteness of science on D’Souza’s three questions meaning they are beyond it
* Science having given us nothing here
* Atheists asking for us to trust in them because of our ignorance
* Religion’s change over time being analogous to science’s change (how anyone can compare the changes to the Bible described by Harris to the hypothetico-deductive method is beyond me)
* Harris, Hitchens & Dennett having provided no argument. “Now their argument comes down to this ...” Make up your mind!
* Absence of evidence as evidence of absence being cited by atheists as a general principle, rather than the aliens-gods distinction being in such things as our understanding of planets’ chemistry and how it relates to our own abiogenesis, the non-necessity of God, evidence that SHOULD be there being absent etc.

The blasted economist
* Religion good because of hygiene (even though many people became infected with the plague precisely because they attended church with the infected, while praying to avoid it)
* Science having achieved little in the way of saving or extending lives, just because things go wrong when you take away the hospital, i.e. the science ... wait, what?
* The art-science distinction implying that science cannot discuss certain topics, or that we need not justify our views on certain topics scientifically, or that we would be wise to have unscientific opinions on those topics rather than scientific or no opinions on them

Wright
* Putting words in Boteach’s mouth
* Dennett as not thinking enough about possible problems for Darwinian ethics
* Atheist “fundamentalism” (not believing something doesn’t come in gradations of literalist adherence to itself)
* People “like Hitchens” wanting to get rid of religion (Hitchens in particular would rather it stay)
* Harris’s plan being to tell Muslim fundamentalists they’re wrong (actually, his plan is to lift the taboo against criticism of religion)

Third round

Boteach
* Dennett as rude
* Hitler as pagan (Catholic, actually)
* Religion’s defenders in these debates as the tolerance-wielding victims of intolerance

D’Souza
* Religious people as doubting sufficiently (one wonders why they believe all that stuff at all; atheists are REALLY doubting these people)
* Genesis as accurately describing modern scientific findings (as opposed to being the reason science is now so heavily resisted in the Western world)
* Abolitionism as due to Christians instead of scientists (like Darwin, maybe? Has D’Souza forgotten that infidels defended abolitionism while churches quoted scripture to justify maintaining that which Christianity had accepted for 18 centuries? Note the only rule about slavery Jesus added to the Old Testament was to beat some slaves harder than others based on their knowledge.)

The blasted economist
* Evidence as relative or irrelevant
* Religion as normatively better at tweaking to social equilibrium (what’s so admirable about hundreds of years of punishing apostates?)
* The lack of known mathematical solutions to certain complexity problems as a reason why religion needn’t justify its beliefs with evidence
* Religion as necessary to NOT blow stuff up (seriously?)

Wright
* Atheists’ moral beliefs as unevidenced with atheists feeling a need to remove others’
* Christian proselytizing as the motivation for Islamist terrorism
* A religion as worthy of respect for relaxing uniqueness of salvation

That second voluntary speaker in English really wound me up, acting as if the fact that religion involves beliefs and causally related stuff other than beliefs somehow makes a demand for evidence for those beliefs the wrong focus. He missed the point that, if the beliefs are unevidenced, all religion’s components are then a crock. (To use a Biblical (!) example, consider the man who built his house on sand.) Then there was that guy who compared religion to economics saying that, since texting while driving does not refute the rationalism of human behaviour economists maintain, religion is ... what? I didn’t get his point. And what was with that guy who got applauded for calling God a smart scientist, as if somehow the fact that he would have to be if he did exist somehow means he does? He was the same guy who seemed to think Sweden’s suicide rate was astronomical. (13.3 per 100,000 per annum hardly seems huge next to the USA’s 11.1, but the less religious UK’s 6.8 is vastly better.)

By the way, could anyone who knows Spanish tell us what the introductions of the speakers said of them, or what questions were later asked in Spanish? Also, does anyone know whether there was a title question to debate in this video? Or was the challenge just to say stuff about religion?

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

48. Comment #432185 by RobD on November 16, 2009 at 3:14 pm

If only someone could rip the audio, boost the volume, make it dual channel and post it here...

http://www.mediafire.com/?q1j0hrgyyzj

You're welcome.

EDIT: you may have to add .mp3 as the file extension.

Other Comments by RobD

49. Comment #432191 by ElDiablo on November 16, 2009 at 3:26 pm

Even with my limited knowledge of evolution and religion, the creationsts' and Wright's points are weak.

Other Comments by ElDiablo

50. Comment #432211 by neorohit on November 16, 2009 at 4:22 pm

I feel our three heroes could have done a much better job at presenting their ideas. They could have directly ripped apart the arguments that the theists presented, they instead focus on their own lines of thought.

Other Comments by neorohit