1. Comment #432843 by BJPentecost on November 18, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Volume fail. Too low. I've got my speakers maxed and I can barely hear it.

Other Comments by BJPentecost

2. Comment #432845 by Jos Gibbons on November 18, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Isn't this a double-upload of what we saw days ago?

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

3. Comment #432848 by Rich Wiltshir on November 18, 2009 at 4:02 pm

I'd be interested to see the claim (made by the guy starting a 2:03: ish) that christians led the way in abolition of slavery. It's not a substantial claim in terms of validating religion, just an interesting side-show that begs the question as to why their sacred texts remain supportive of slavery.

Other Comments by Rich Wiltshir

4. Comment #432850 by 0strich on November 18, 2009 at 4:09 pm

QUICKTIME PLEASE

Other Comments by 0strich

5. Comment #432870 by Rodger T on November 18, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Apart from being speaking complete gibberish, Mr Taleb appears to be a very angry man for some reason.
Speaking words in no apparent order is not really what I would call making a winning point,in a debate.

Other Comments by Rodger T

6. Comment #432871 by AMreasonedthinker on November 18, 2009 at 4:50 pm

Have seen many negative comments on youtube for this - can people advise if it is worth the whole 2 hours, normally with Hitch, Harris and Dennett this is an obvious yet.

Other Comments by AMreasonedthinker

7. Comment #432873 by AMreasonedthinker on November 18, 2009 at 4:54 pm

correction - obvious 'yes'

Other Comments by AMreasonedthinker

8. Comment #432885 by Nunbeliever on November 18, 2009 at 5:13 pm

GREAT! I've been searching for this one, but have only found versions overdubbed in a highly irritating way. Or not even a total overdub. But some spanish guy commentating in real time what they are saying. I have always wondered why some countries don't use subtitles. Is the population illiterate or???

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

9. Comment #432893 by Colwyn Abernathy on November 18, 2009 at 5:25 pm

I see Boteach wastes no time in getting right into the Strawmen. "Inherrent faith in science."

Give me fucking break, Rabbi. How many times do we have to point out how fallacious you're being?

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

10. Comment #432920 by realjuancho on November 18, 2009 at 6:30 pm

Hey guys, I knew about this taking place in Mexico too late, if not i would have been there for sure.

For those of you that have problems with the audio, pan the volume all on the right speaker, or turn Mono ON.

Other Comments by realjuancho

11. Comment #432943 by Colwyn Abernathy on November 18, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Dinesh, of course, is no better with his "life after death argument." The rational default position of any claim is non-belief. I don't believe that there's life after death, because there's no evidence to suggest such. (Sagan's Dragon) The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence.

EDIT:

Really, Boteach? Adultery is natural, therefore, according to evolutionary "doctrine" (I C WUT U DID THAR) it's permissable? Bullshit. Evolution doesn't deal in OUGHTS, only IS OR IS NOT. Also, Naturalistic Fallacy: we cannot make moral judgements based on a behaviour's nature. In addition, the 10 Commandment argument is malarky as well. How on Earth did the tribes of Israel survive THAT LONG without killing each other BEFORE Moses came down to tell them that, "Oh, BTW. God says killing is bad, KTHXBI." Also, the Egyptians, Greeks, Sumerians, oh, and those pesky natives of the other continents the authors of the Bible didn't even know existed.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

12. Comment #432946 by Sciros on November 18, 2009 at 7:15 pm

The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence.

True, but utter absence of evidence and absence are indistinguishable and therefore the sensible default position to take in the face of utter absence of evidence is to assume absence.

Other Comments by Sciros

13. Comment #432955 by Bonzai on November 18, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Sciros

But what is really perverse about the theistic view is that the absence of evidence is taken to be an evidence for God. So you hear arguments like God is outside of spacetime and therefore not detectable etc.

Another argument along similar line is that the absence of an explanation for something is taken to be evidence for Godditit.

I cannot believe that people actually make a living out of peddling fairy tales for adults, and are respected and taken seriously for that. OK, I am not talking about the Hollywood celebrities.

Other Comments by Bonzai

14. Comment #432956 by Sciros on November 18, 2009 at 7:34 pm

Bonzai,

Indeed. They equate "no evidence" with "evidence" when it comes to religious ideas. They'd never do it with mundane things ("I don't see $100000 in my savings account -- that means I have $100000 in my savings account!!") because such people probably would never live to reproduce in the first place, heh.

Other Comments by Sciros

15. Comment #432957 by Dhamma on November 18, 2009 at 7:34 pm

Is there an mp3 of this?

Other Comments by Dhamma

16. Comment #432958 by carbonman on November 18, 2009 at 7:34 pm

Comment #432848 by Rich Wiltshir

I'd be interested to see the claim (made by the guy starting a 2:03: ish) that christians led the way in abolition of slavery.

Haven't viewed yet but this 'point' is a favourite of D'Souza and others. They overlook Christianity's age (allegedly 20 centuries) and the date of abolition (couple of hundred years ago).

Other Comments by carbonman

17. Comment #432988 by Drosera on November 18, 2009 at 8:55 pm

This debate smells fishy because of all the red herrings thrown about by the religionists. What a bunch of obnoxious little men! They have nothing but worn out, dead-on-arrival non-arguments, which they only keep on parading out of dishonesty, laziness and abysmal stupidity. They are like mathematical crackpots who insist, without giving evidence, that they know how to square the circle, while ridiculing the proof that this can't be done. The ignorance. The ignoramuses.

It is hardly worth watching this, unless you would enjoy the equivalent of a boxing match between Mike Tyson and your little nephew. These godbots are such dimwits that they are not even funny. They just irritate me.

Other Comments by Drosera

18. Comment #432992 by Colwyn Abernathy on November 18, 2009 at 9:00 pm

Thanks, Sciros. Much more apt.

Off-topic: 1:54...Holy shit. Dr. Zimbardo?

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

19. Comment #433003 by Modo on November 18, 2009 at 9:24 pm

Shmuley Boteach simply doesn't get evolution. He doesn't get Darwin's crucial discovery of non-random SELECTION. Yhis indeed is a secondary 'missing link' in Richard's work (after TGSOE). We need a moron's/childrens guide to the mechanism of natural selection, with pretty pictures, arrows, smiley and frowny faces etc.

Although, with the likes of Boteach, you can lead an equus ferus caballus to water...

Other Comments by Modo

20. Comment #433005 by Spinoza on November 18, 2009 at 9:40 pm

I can't watch this. Normally I'm empathetic to both sides, but this is beyond absurd.

Other Comments by Spinoza

21. Comment #433007 by Eventhorizon on November 18, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Shmuley makes my skin crawl. For me he has now overtaken D'souza in the sleezy stakes. He is the most insincere of all the religious apologists and reminds me of a seedy, slimey second-hand car salesman.
Ok I feel better for that

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

22. Comment #433026 by Stafford Gordon on November 18, 2009 at 10:53 pm

Dennett's sheer knowledge and logic won the day for me.

His annoyance and frustration at the ignorance and falsehoods was fully justified and good to see.

Normally preachers, rabbis and the like get away with it with their flocks, but unfortunately for them increasing numbers of people are beginning to think for themselves.

Perhaps they need their techniques to "evolve" to avoid becoming extinct; extinct! What a good idea!

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

23. Comment #433030 by stevenLagnew on November 18, 2009 at 11:14 pm

The arguments made by supposed "intellectual" Dinesh D'Souza were absolutely laughable. The best reason for faith were; you might as well, me may be right and you cant prove we're not!
Every silly man!

Other Comments by stevenLagnew

24. Comment #433034 by Spinoza on November 18, 2009 at 11:34 pm

None of these guys are really interested in the best possible arguments for one side or the other. Public debates just aren't like that. All you need to do is put forward the most persuasive arguments, or (what is much the same) the ones most likely to be understood by your audience.

Pretty lame.

Other Comments by Spinoza

25. Comment #433037 by Spinoza on November 18, 2009 at 11:39 pm

Nassim Taleb, epistemology is NOT about what is true and false. Logic is. Epistemology is about knowledge and conditions for/on it. Confusing these two things is something undergrad philosophy students do.

Other Comments by Spinoza

26. Comment #433067 by SyDaemon on November 19, 2009 at 1:46 am

I'm just starting to watch this. It's quickly becoming a comedy from the get go. Mr Boteach cracks two weak jokes to amuse nobody.

Then at about the 6 minute mark, the camera focuses on Mr Hitchens, Harris and Dennett looking both bored and disgusted at the same time.

Other Comments by SyDaemon

27. Comment #433069 by SilentMike on November 19, 2009 at 1:55 am

Shmuley Boteach is an embarrassing ignoramus. He's single-handedly destroying the "Jews are smart" stereotype that cultural jews like myself have always enjoyed.

Damn you Boteach! Shut up already!

Lucky I can always count on good old Dinesh to draw some of that kind of attention.


Also, it's not that I agree with him, but I think Robert Wright is somewhat amusing.

Other Comments by SilentMike

28. Comment #433089 by William Carlton on November 19, 2009 at 3:51 am

If anybody wants to see a video of me jerking off into Boteach's beard, I am willing to sell it for five dollars.

Other Comments by William Carlton

29. Comment #433096 by mordacious1 on November 19, 2009 at 4:21 am

I was just thumbing through D'Souza's new book "Life After Death: The Evidence" or at least the few pages they let you view at Amazon. It's interesting that in a 235 page book, Richard Dawkins is mentioned on no fewer than 23 pages. His debating partner Hitchens is only mentioned on 9 pages. If you were writing a book about life after death, how many times do you think you'd need to mention Richard? This guy is really bizarre.

Other Comments by mordacious1

30. Comment #433100 by Lucas on November 19, 2009 at 5:07 am

Yeah, no thanks on this one. Three great minds wasting their time on three morons who will never understand the truth.

Other Comments by Lucas

31. Comment #433116 by SyDaemon on November 19, 2009 at 8:58 am

I'm half an hour off the end of the clip and I couldn't continue watching. There's enough straw-men being spouted here to supply the world's farmers for millenia. D'Souza spouts a huge load of nonsense and proceeds to counter with arguments against said nonsense.

Why didn't the three horsemen do anything to correct such rubbish?

Other Comments by SyDaemon

32. Comment #433118 by RobD on November 19, 2009 at 9:01 am

Is there an mp3 of this?

Yes. I put this link up in the other thread.

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

EDIT: you may have to add .mp3 as the file extension (the file name is quite long).

Other Comments by RobD

33. Comment #433180 by 0strich on November 19, 2009 at 3:49 pm

Thanks for the MP3 RobD! Can't view video at work so this is great.

Cheers.

Other Comments by 0strich

34. Comment #433231 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on November 19, 2009 at 7:14 pm

I wasn't aware that Taleb was a) a theist and b) incoherent in a debate... not a flattering introduction to the man behind The Black Swan.

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

35. Comment #433289 by s1mon on November 19, 2009 at 9:54 pm

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Well, philosophically speaking, absence of evidence IS actually evidence of absence, not proof, but nevertheless evidence. Obviously quality and magnitude of evidence varies, for e.g. it would be ludicrous to suggest that lack of evidence for intelligent alien life in our galaxy is a good evidence for its absence, whereas it's reasonable to suggest that lack of evidence for intelligent alien life in our solar system is a virtual certainty of its absence.

Dinesh D'Idiot D'souza draws an "analogy" between god and alien life. But the moron doesn't seem to understand the distinction between a concept of something and it's actual existence. We know alien life is a plausible concept, therefore the only question remaining is whether it actually exists. The god concept is a vague nonsensical supernatural claim full of logical contradictions. It's plausibility is far from likely let alone it's actual existence. A much better analogy for his god concept would be santa claus.

Other Comments by s1mon

36. Comment #433295 by s1mon on November 19, 2009 at 10:18 pm

Taleb had absolutely nothing to say. He made no sense and just tried to sound 'clever'.

Other Comments by s1mon

37. Comment #433296 by Mbee on November 19, 2009 at 10:19 pm

I'm only 28 min in and wondering when they will put the gloves on (or should that be take the gloves off) and put 2 contestants into the boxing ring at the same time.

So far Harris was excellent - now it's HItchins. D'Souza was as lame as ever. (nobody knows if there is life after death therefore god exists!)

Other Comments by Mbee

38. Comment #433327 by lastgreekstanding on November 19, 2009 at 11:32 pm

Does Shmuley manage to complete a sentence without mentioning the word "Oxford"?

I'd rather have Kosher Sex than listen to that blowhard.

Other Comments by lastgreekstanding

39. Comment #433329 by lastgreekstanding on November 19, 2009 at 11:40 pm

Taleb had absolutely nothing to say. He made no sense and just tried to sound 'clever'.

That's Taleb . . . a tease!

Other Comments by lastgreekstanding

40. Comment #433331 by Net on November 19, 2009 at 11:55 pm

The thing that always strikes me about these debates, is that when, for example, Sam Harris speaks, I, as a person of average intelligence, can understand the words, and see how the lines of argument fit and cohere. When, on the other hand, I try to follow Boteach, I find that my mind is drawn to some of what is being said, only to be confused and disappointed because the sorts of things he says are limited to cogent but partial phrases strung together as if to convey a unified idea but overall leaving one nonplussed. It's as though he's trying to invest what he is saying with some sort of intellectual authority so as to sway us by impressing us. This together with a rhetorical style that is like being hit repeatedly hit over the head with a club so that you finally agree but only to stop him from hitting you, makes me shudder to think that people like him yield influence! Interesting also that a debate like this could only take place in a non-Muslim country, and in an era far removed from the time of the Inquisition.

Other Comments by Net

41. Comment #433376 by DalaiDrivel on November 20, 2009 at 4:49 am

OK- A spoiler alert is in effect for all ensuing paragraphs. However, I think that everyone, at least the atheists on this forum, should watch this video, for entertainment, but also for the bad form of the theists and the excellent form of the Horsemen.

It'll cheer you up. It did me :)

Alright then.

Sam Harris' contributions made this debate worthwhile in themselves for me.

Someone already pointed out I think what a gem his closing statement was. I fully agree. In fact, everything he said resonated with me, but he always does. He is my favourite public speaker. If Boteach had his delivery the Rabbi might actually stand a chance, but then, his arguments wouldn't...

I also echo others who say that Taleb was incoherent. His comment about blowing up the earth at the end of one of his speeches took me right off guard (perhaps I wasn't listening close enough, but he had already become of a waste of attention by that point). However a waste he was, his absurdity made him the most interesting to me. His logical fallacies that I hadn't heard before (belief in religion is based on probability, we were wiser before science than we were after its creation) and tone of a conspiracy theorist set him apart from the conventional worn arguments from D'Souza and Boteach.

Boteach's two flat jokes at the beginning of his opening speech sure made me laugh.

Hitchens I liked, although I thought he came across a little rushed and and not so smooth in his opening statement.

His second time around was more comfortable I thought, and I liked when he called D'Souza out on his (lack of a) standard of evidence. That's the fearless, flawless and merciless Hitch I know and love!

Dennet was as effective as ever. He didn't resonate me quite like the others (the theists and atheists for different reasons) but I think that's just personal preference. He is a force to be sure.

And Wright's "New Atheist" references spoiled his speeches for me. The accusation that the Four Horsemen are condescending is entirely in the eye of the biased beholder and not their intent, certainly.

It is a shame that many confuse their intellectual honesty with disrespect.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

42. Comment #433455 by Nunbeliever on November 20, 2009 at 1:36 pm

Oh my god... Is Shmuley Boteach on drugs. He's sounding crazier than ever. Fanatic.

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

43. Comment #433568 by Stafford Gordon on November 20, 2009 at 6:38 pm

Nassim Taleb can be seen and heard on the net; how does he imagine this is possible?

SCIENCE! - SCIENCE! - SCIENCE!

Give me a fucking break.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

44. Comment #433684 by kidigus on November 21, 2009 at 1:28 pm

I don't know if I can take Boteach and D'Souza in the same video.

Ughhh... here goes.

Other Comments by kidigus

45. Comment #434018 by dniete97 on November 23, 2009 at 1:05 am

did you guys know that dinesh dated ann coulter? no, seriously.

anyways, sam is razor-sharp in just about every debate and forum i've seen him participate in. this one was no exception. i agree with what was said above, about dan dennett's frustration being understandably visible. boteach didn't quite get that ignorance is a demonstrable quality. any fair-minded viewer with some knowledge of evolutionary biology would've concluded the same.

one last note, i saw a lot of people in the audience with headsets on, which suggests that there was a live interpreter at the event. just wanted to say.. i don't envy the person with the responsibility of instantly translating any of those speakers--including the theists.

Other Comments by dniete97

46. Comment #437315 by aboverise on December 1, 2009 at 2:36 pm

i cant watch it . . i'd have to put my ear inside the speaker to be able to hear it . . maybe it can be uploaded again louder please.

Other Comments by aboverise