The Four Horsemen Discussion(Richard Dawkins)

[Alkarin]

This is a discussion between the 4 most well known/renown atheists of our time discussing everything and anything about religion. For me their was not one dull moment through out the entire 2 hours of this discussion and would like to share it with you all.

Features:Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.


Hour 1



Hour 2

[Tankbuster]

It's indeed a pretty interesting discussion. I saw it a while ago.
I think Harris contributed the most valuable points.

By the by, Dennett gets pretty drunk about an hour in

[Alkarin]

yet he could still manage to outwit any theist even while drunk

[Ummon]

Religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them without being rude.

That is when I stopped listening. I don't feel like I missed anything, and it must be 30 seconds in.

Guys: study, study hard, and forget these mediocre thinkers. They are there to live off your money without teaching you anything but fallacious thought.

[My Favorite Martian]

Guys: study, study hard, and forget these mediocre thinkers.

Support that advice.

[Markas]

Religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them without being rude.

That is when I stopped listening. I don't feel like I missed anything, and it must be 30 seconds in.

Guys: study, study hard, and forget these mediocre thinkers.

Somebody who didn't watch past 30 seconds of the video is telling other people to forget 'these mediocre thinkers'. You're basing that on the opening 30 seconds? Interesting.

They are there to live off your money without teaching you anything but fallacious thought.

Who would you recommend, then?

[Ummon]

Somebody who didn't watch past 30 seconds of the video is telling other people to forget 'these mediocre thinkers'. You're basing that on the opening 30 seconds? Interesting.

Actually, more on previous experience. Except Dennett, who is infact a decent thinker, not a mediocre one.

Who would you recommend, then?

Anyone who is not a hyped media figure. Pick your nobel prize winner or great philosopher, I will probably agree.

This is when I stopped reading any of your posts in this thread. Opening mediocre responses are a good show of mediocre thinking Ummon.

I have never in my whole life experienced thinking mediocrely, I am afraid. A real torture, if you ask my opinion. At times, understanding too much is a curse.

[Gaidin]

Religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them without being rude.

That is when I stopped listening.

This is when I stopped reading any of your posts in this thread. Opening mediocre responses are a good show of mediocre thinking Ummon.

[Phier]

Guys: study, study hard, and forget these mediocre thinkers. They are there to live off your money without teaching you anything but fallacious thought.

So be the gospel of Ummon.

While I find a great irony claiming atheists are just out for your money with empty promises, fallacious thought goes a bit wonky on me. It makes it difficult to respond because its like arguing with someone who says the world rides on the back of a giant turtle and trying to find a common ground to start.

[Ummon]

So be the gospel of Ummon.

While I find a great irony claiming atheists are just out for your money with empty promises, fallacious thought goes a bit wonky on me. It makes it difficult to respond because its like arguing with someone who says the world rides on the back of a giant turtle and trying to find a common ground to start.

It may just be a metaphorical turtle made of very real gravitons.

I think there is some question regarding who is a specialist, and in what. For example, it's my understanding that Richard Dawkins is by any professional standard an accomplished geneticist and academic scientist. So then we come to the question, does that qualify him to discuss religion, a topic that's supposedly not within his field of expertise?

I rather like Howard Zinn's answer to this, which is that specialists are for questions of fact, but there can be no specialists when it comes to the most important questions. He refers here to overarching questions of morality, political causes, and - I would imagine - religion.

In a way, religion falls under the speciality of an etologist and a geneticist. It is an animal behaviour (humans are animals), and as such, genetically programmed (or provisioned for).

But how is the problem here. It falls under his speciality in a complex way and he expects to give black/white judgements on it.

[Tigrul]

They are there to live off your money without teaching you anything but fallacious thought.

That is a very accurate description of each and every orthodox christian priest I've ever known or read about. And I'd go farther and claim that that is an accurate description of any priest of any religion, and of any champion of various scams such as fortune telling and what not.

[Playfishpaste]

Religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them without being rude.

That is when I stopped listening. I don't feel like I missed anything, and it must be 30 seconds in.

Guys: study, study hard, and forget these mediocre thinkers. They are there to live off your money without teaching you anything but fallacious thought.

I wouldn't call em mediocre, they do make clever points sometimes.

Though if you are to suggest the rejection of their teachings, people virtually can't look to any modern pop philosophers for any insight into theology. Ya can't really call someone like D'souza any better then these guys.

[Alkarin]

well if you refuse to listen to all of it i highly reccomend atleast watching the last 30 minutes of the 2nd hour.

[Ummon]

I have long passed the point of my life when I could learn anything by such stuff without losing more from not doing better things.

[Alkarin]

very well continue to ignore a completely legitimate argument.

[Ummon]

If it is so legitimate, the case is I will stumble upon it someday (without losing good useful time). I suspect that infact, I could have already, and found it rather miserly.

[Alkarin]

if you have nothing to contribute here theirs no reason to continue on with posting in this thread?

[Ummon]

I am curious about your opinion on how guy A's rudeness is the fault of guy B. A rather interesting premise, found at 30 seconds into the video.

If we judge a good day from dawn...

That for starters.

[Alkarin]

you would have to watch the entire session to have his statement justified.

[Tankbuster]

Ummon, one of these days you'll have to teach us how to judge a 120-minute video just by listening to the first line of the discussion.

Is it the same technique you used to (erroneously) deduce the content of "The God Delusion" without reading it?