Hitch was simply the best. Never, ever, did I see him beaten in any debate. He was succinct, intellectually disarming and erudite. He had wit, common sense in abundance and his rational debunking of religion was a joy to behold. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett are all excellent in their own way, but Hitch? He was in a league of his own, and died leaving so much unsaid.

Lawrence Krauss isn't one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism. Daniel Dennett is the other.

I am curious as to why this particular TEDtalk has not garnered more outraged discussion considering the recent hem-haw over a user's comments regarding the notion of mind-over-matter in issues of chronic physical or mental disease.
(http://videosift.com/video/Going-to-the-Doctor-in-America)

Newsflash: Satisfactory explanations just in, more to come with additional, epiphanous information.

One YT user today suggested the following:
"@2:51 The real reason that this was banned: the audience is laughing. And the joke is - no not on science - in this case the joke is on Daniel Dennett = one of the 'anonymous' jurors. He seems to have neither a sense of humour, nor a sportsman attitude, nor the wit to stand his ground on his own two feet."

You are greatly missed Christopher. Dawkins. Dennett and Harris are doing a good job. But the master was/is Hitchens. Can't add anything to the accolades paid to the great man, except to say, faith based apologists are happy that they can no longer be torn apart by him in debate.

"The film includes interviews with celebrities and other influential people who support the work of these controversial speakers, including:

Ricky Gervais
Woody Allen
Cameron Diaz
Stephen Hawking
Sarah Silverman
Bill Pullman
Werner Herzog
Tim Minchin
Eddie Izzard
Ian McEwan
Adam Savage
Ayaan Hirsi-Ali
Penn Jillette
Sam Harris
Dan Dennett
James Randi
Cormac McCarthy
Paul Provenza
James Morrison
Michael Shermer
David Silverman
...and more.

www.unbelieversmovie.com"

@enoch
I'm gonna respond as I run through your comments.

To talk about fundamentalism, you have to have a foundation (something holy) to be fundamental about. Secular fundamentalism is a misnomer, but I do know what you mean - militant, head-in-the-sand atheists, who are right no matter what, with nothing to back up their case. Those do exist. Heh, I guess the establishment clause or the constitution might be regarded as sacred in some circles.

I am constantly surprised when otherwise very smart people attest to a faith, or indeed a religion. It's not that they are stupid, but they don't apply critical thinking to their faith, for whatever reason, some say "it's meant to by mysterious", "it can't be analyzed with critical thinking", "it's beyond reason". It is like an alcoholic justifying his addiction.

Of course, the word "faith" may mean different things to different people, so to preemptively judge someone before they've said anything about what it means to them is unfair. "I have faith in love".. well la di dah, that so nice.

Stubbornness is the death of discovery, I completely agree there. "The sun revolves around the earth.. because... YOUR FACE that's why!"

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

I would love to purge you of your faith, enoch, but I don't want to do it by fire. I want you to essentially do it yourself by looking at the world in amazement, looking at how things work, and so on and so on in the same way as I came to this conclusion myself.

I would agree with Harris that all other things being equal, the world would be better without religion than with it. Not a heaven on earth at all, but better.

Harris and Hitchens do go at religion from different angles. Hitchens attack religion, while Harris is attacking faith. You have to remember their background as well, Hitchens was a historian and journalist, while Harris is a neuroscientist. From a neuroscientist standpoint faith is the interesting part, while from an observational position like a journalist the results of faith and religion is the interesting part. So they go after what they think is interesting.

Daniel Dennett also goes against faith, because he's a cognitive scientist (and a bloody brilliant one at that).

Like arguing about God, arguing about Faith requires a definition of the word, otherwise we all just talk about different things.

"the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value."
This cannot be proved either way, but that does not at all mean the two sides are equal. The argument is a waste of time until someone who claims X exists brings some evidence to the table to back up the claim, until that time the discussion is moot.

Why someone has faith, religion etc. is far more interesting, agreed.

Faith carries a stigma, because it implies a whole lot of things, which is why it is judged very quickly.

I'll concede that I may simply not understand people of faith, I don't see the allure of it. I don't have it and I don't miss it, and essentially I see it as a breach of an otherwise floating reasonable boat. heh. I've still not really seen good results of anyone having faith.

geo321; What a great, great, post. It is a true tribute to Hitch, and i thank you for it.

Hitch was never, despite what his detractors claim, bested in ANY debate. How could he be, coming to each with logic, free thought, rationale, common sense and intellect? It is left to the three remaining horsemen of the apocalypse - Dennett, Dawkins and Harris- to continue Hitchs' legacy. I'm sure they are up to it but, alas, we may never see another Christopher Hitchens. I, for one, will NEVER forget him.

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

Dawkins, Hitchens & Harris - The three wise men:)



Not to forget Dan Dennett who makes up; Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, "The four horsemen of the apocalypse." long may they continue to inspire with their logic, intelligence, freedom of thought, clarity, and debunking of Medieval religious myth.

I'll repost what I posted in the other thread:
I like Daniel Dennett's way of looking at Consciousness. "That which experiences", to me, insinuates that this thing in our brain is what actually experience things. Like a homonculus argument. In reality, I believe, that the brain generates the consciousness stream from the constant experience of sensory input. This explains how our brain can autocorrect itself after something has occurred, or call attention to thing we otherwise aren't paying attention to - a constant noise suddenly stopping will seem like we listened to it intently all the time, while we actually never was paying attention to it; or hearing our names in a crowded room.

It's sorta like software on hardware. Of course, it's gonna be insanely hard to "guess" how the software works, it's hard to do that on a computer now from just the electrical impulses, we need to translate upwards in abstraction layers.

Well, gee, God made it into our lexicon too.

I like Daniel Dennett's way of looking at Consciousness. "That which experiences", to me, insinuates that this thing in our brain is what actually experience things. Like a homonculus argument. I reality, I believe, that the brain generates the consciousness stream from the constant experience of sensory input. This explains how our brain can autocorrect itself after something has occurred, or call attention to thing we otherwise aren't paying attention to - a constant noise suddenly stopping will seem like we listened to it intently all the time, while we actually never was paying attention to it; or hearing our names in a crowded room.

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^hpqp:
@bmacs27
Okay, now I'm simply stumped. Define "consciousness" please (for a layperson like myself).

Some people call it an "inner monologue." I don't really like that, instead I prefer something like "that which experiences." It's a notoriously difficult term to define in a way that is not circular, but most people report having some intuitive sense of what it is. I find it hard to believe the word would have made it into our lexicon if there weren't some genuine basis for it. I know I have some unified percept through which I experience reality. Do you?
In case you were wondering, I don't mean the medical definition (i.e. responsiveness to stimuli) because that isn't really getting at the phenomenon in question.

>> ^kceaton1:

That's it. Faith won't make a decision; reality does that.


What does that even mean? Noone is saying faith makes descisions, they are saying you decide to trust faith instead of evidence (and that that is a bad descision) Now you may aruge that you dont really have a choice in the matter because the universe is deterministic, which is an interesting discussion of course.( And one of the more interesting books on this topic IMO is Daniel Dennetts "Freedom Evolves" which he really goes into this subject.)

Whether it is the deterministic universe or ourselves that makes the descision to rely on faith, I'll say its a bad descision either way.

Yes. I know the time is in the by line nowadays, but the long sidebar-tab is not on the videopage for me, nor is it on the listings page. Looking over things, it appears as though neither brief or long are showing up over there, as well as nsfw! yay chrome

>> ^gwiz665:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GDGD" title="member since December 29th, 2007" class="profilelink">GDGD yes it is. Look next to the thumbnail also at the length in the posted by line.

Except it isnt?

>> ^siftbot:

Video is already flagged long - ignoring long request by Hive13.

Finally, I think there is definitely a need to distinguish atheists (i.e. people who don't believe in a deity or deities) from people like Sam Harris and the other "new atheists" who are on a crusade to destroy religion. The term militant atheism is not an attempt to subvert Sam's argument; it's a practical necessity to differentiate his ideas and the people who share them from those atheists who aren't hostile to religion.



What a blatant strawman of a loaded argument. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. You might want to demonstrate that they are on a "crusade" to "destroy" religion before assuming it, prima facie. If you had read anything from Harris, Dennett, Stenger, Grayling, Dawkins, Hitchens, and so on, you would know this, that they do not want to "destroy" religion. You're being totally unfair and/or unintentionally using imprecise, inflammatory language or playing semantic games, which does a great disservice to your original point.

No, "militant" is not a fit descriptor. The common usage of Militancy implies the willingness to do violence to achieve one's ends, which you already know is patently false of . I ask you to stop spreading misinformation and false equivalences, please. You're helping to water down the actual meaning of the word "militancy" by including an essentially peaceful and non-violent movement under that umbrella. There are plenty of other words which fit the bill in a far more practical and truthful, less ideologically loaded way. Cut it out.

Daniel Dennett, just in time for Christmas!