Four Atheists over cocktails

[Atticus_of_Amber]

This was a filmed conversation between (from left to right): Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

It's unlikely to be persuasive to theists as its mostly a discussion of tactics and recent experiences. But it is still a fascinating discussion.

Hitch, as expected, comes across as a politically savy rhetorician; but he's clearly out of his league on substance.

Dennett is lovely as always.

Dawkins is at his usual charmingly naive self.

But Sam Harris remains my favourite.

Hour 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890)

Hour 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-225595257312538919)

[Trainz]

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou.. .

[Harry]

I watched 5 minutes and can extrapolate the rest. I have about as much desire to listen to that than to listen to two hours ( :shock: ) of preachers on tv at some mega-church.

Atheism is something that doesn't bear up under public discourse to me. Same as political arguments, ideological arguments, abortion debates, Ford vs. Chevy, Kirk vs. Picard. We all have made our own personal decisions regarding faith, or politics, or cars, or abortion, and in flapping our gums all we do is raise the collective blood pressure of mankind and add nothing of substance to anyone's life.

As for myself, I'm an atheist, as I've stated on many occasions here and in real life, but nothing is served by describing the process or the thoughts that went through my head when I arrived there, as I made that "journey". It was years and years of internal debate, mostly. The only person who ever figured heavily into process, with whom I discussed my feelings and shared my "journey" [for lack of a better word], was, of all people, the pastor who was grooming me to be a preacher. To this day, he's the only person with whom I can have a rational discussion about my belief [or lack of].

And when Brother Budlong passes away, which won't be long coming as he's almost 90 now, there will be no one I can share that long ago thought process with who will understand or respect it. Certainly not Dawkins, Harris or any of their ilk. And I certainly don't want to listen to them justifying their invasion of the public spotlight.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I watched 5 minutes and can extrapolate the rest. I have about as much desire to listen to that than to listen to two hours ( :shock: ) of preachers on tv at some mega-church.

Atheism is something that doesn't bear up under public discourse to me. Same as political arguments, ideological arguments, abortion debates, Ford vs. Chevy, Kirk vs. Picard. We all have made our own personal decisions regarding faith, or politics, or cars, or abortion, and in flapping our gums all we do is raise the collective blood pressure of mankind and add nothing of substance to anyone's life.

As for myself, I'm an atheist, as I've stated on many occasions here and in real life, but nothing is served by describing the process or the thoughts that went through my head when I arrived there, as I made that "journey". It was years and years of internal debate, mostly. The only person who ever figured heavily into process, with whom I discussed my feelings and shared my "journey" [for lack of a better word], was, of all people, the pastor who was grooming me to be a preacher. To this day, he's the only person with whom I can have a rational discussion about my belief [or lack of].

And when Brother Budlong passes away, which won't be long coming as he's almost 90 now, there will be no one I can share that long ago thought process with who will understand or respect it. Certainly not Dawkins, Harris or any of their ilk. And I certainly don't want to listen to them justifying their invasion of the public spotlight.

Fair enough. But why does their "invasion of the public spotlight" offend you so?

[Harry]

At least talking about cars has a point. Talking about religion, it just riles people up on both sides and convinces no one of anything. It just wastes time and patience.

But I did not say their public discourse offended me. Can I trust you not to misconstrue what I say? If not, then I am better off not replying to such threads as this.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

At least talking about cars has a point. Talking about religion, it just riles people up on both sides and convinces no one of anything. It just wastes time and patience.

Interestingly enough, the books are selling like hotcakes and a great many readers are reporting that they've changed their minds as a result...

But I did not say their public discourse offended me. Can I trust you not to misconstrue what I say? If not, then I am better off not replying to such threads as this.

I might misconstrue what you say, but if so, I promise I'll be happy to be told I've misunderstood you and honestly try to understand what you are saying.

[Harry]

I write what I am thinking, quite literally, but I'm told my construction is quite odd. If you were to ever meet me in person, you would be surprised I'm sure to find that I talk very much like I write [ask Dekster or Feats if you care that much]. And if I mean something, generally I'll say what I mean. I'm funny like that.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I write what I am thinking, quite literally, but I'm told my construction is quite odd. If you were to ever meet me in person, you would be surprised I'm sure to find that I talk very much like I write [ask Dekster or Feats if you care that much]. And if I mean something, generally I'll say what I mean. I'm funny like that.

Sure, but language being imprecise as it is, people often misunderstand each other. But if you say something I misunderstand, feel free to point out that isn't what you meant.

[Special K]

I'm going to agree with Grey on this. I am an atheist as well, but frankly, I don't care what any other atheist has to say on the matter. Its an entirely personal decision for me, and it really doesn't involve anybody else. And I don't want it to. I could try to explain my thought process to someone but I'd expect their reaction to be the same as mine if they were explaining it to me: "Interesting, but ultimately irrelevant, because I still think for myself regarding the matter."

Besides that, I've always been a little annoyed by any sort of atheist group mentality. I don't look at atheists as a community.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Besides that, I've always been a little annoyed by any sort of atheist group mentality. I don't look at atheists as a community.

Neither do they. As someone recently said, "atheism is a belief system the way bald is a hair colour."

[Special K]

Now see, if they truly didn't believe in atheism as a community, why would they be the type of people to write books and give lectures on atheism? I don't believe it is something one should actually try and spread, and yet I see no other reason why people like these men would become prominent atheists and not just prominent people.

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

My only question is...where are their other hands?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Watching the first hour now

The first ten minutes are great - really really good. After that my mind wanders slightly and I start trying to identify their cocktails (two martinis and two whisky-based things I believe)

I'm at around 25-30 minutes and they're starting to display their ignorance. Have any of them heard of Tom Wright? Graham Dow is an arse-hat of the highest order, but what he actually said was a fairly reasonable statement about climate change being a consequence of human moral weakness. He was a victim of a similar hatchet job to the one the Torygraph pulled on Rowan recently

[Hastur T. Fannon]

35 minutes and they're starting to pick up again. They're much more comfortable when they're talking about philosophy...

[Hastur T. Fannon]

45-50 minutes. I wish they'd stop conflating Christianity and American-style fundamentalism. Do you know few Christians (proportionally) believe in Biblical inerrancy?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

57 minutes, 10 seconds. Sam Harris raises a very scary speculation about why radical Islam is less common in the US than it is is Europe. Basically, because US society has more respect for religious belief in general, Muslims are less insular and feel that their faith isn't under as much attack. What do you think about that, Atticus?

Overall, I really enjoyed it. Thanks for posting it. I'll watch the next half later this week

[Eliezer]

57 minutes, 10 seconds. Sam Harris raises a very scary speculation about why radical Islam is less common in the US than it is is Europe. Basically, because US society has more respect for religious belief in general, Muslims are less insular and feel that their faith isn't under as much attack. What do you think about that, Atticus?

Overall, I really enjoyed it. Thanks for posting it. I'll watch the next half later this week

Actually, I've wondered about that one... Kansas City isn't as polycultural as Toronto or London, but probably more so than much of Europe. It isn't so much the large influx of immigrants, but the mixture of immigrants. I've heard in my local Wal-mart Arabic, Swahili, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog and several other languages. My check out people have been Sikhs, Hindus (outwardly observable religious preference due to dress or make-up) and a host of nationalities where they are clearly not native English speakers. I've never been bothered by this nor have I heard anything negative from any people in my checkout lines.

We have Sudanese refugees, people escaping from violence in Haiti, Mexican and other Latin American migrants settling down. I love my fairly authentic Mexican place and talk to my waiters in Spanish. I go to my favorite "Japanese" place and talk to my waitress who is in American high school, but from China. Her parents are still in China, but she's living with her aunt in the US to have a better life/opportunity.

Yeah, I'd have to say where I love the tolerance of other religions and cultures is pretty huge.

[AZRogue]

I'd have to agree. You are constantly bombarbed by so many different religions and cultures here that it numbs the phobias a bit and, since they live near you, in your neighborhoods usually, and share common problems, it's much easier to include them when you think the word "US" as it would be in some other places.

The looks of disbelief passed around when the fundies (of whatever) make the news cross cultural and religious lines, which is a very good thing that we may too often take for granted.

[Northcott]

57 minutes, 10 seconds. Sam Harris raises a very scary speculation about why radical Islam is less common in the US than it is is Europe. Basically, because US society has more respect for religious belief in general, Muslims are less insular and feel that their faith isn't under as much attack.

IIRC, the first two cities in the world to have women leading Muslim prayer services were Toronto and New York. Just sayin'. ;)

One of the most popular comedies on the CBC right now is "Little Mosque on the Prairie". I shit you not. It had a fairly uneven beginning, but it's a damned funny show, and does a pretty good job of highlighting the Canadian experience with Islam, and vice versa. Fans of 24 might recognize some of the lead characters, playing humble, everyday people instead of world-threatening terrorists.

Now see, if they truly didn't believe in atheism as a community, why would they be the type of people to write books and give lectures on atheism? I don't believe it is something one should actually try and spread, and yet I see no other reason why people like these men would become prominent atheists and not just prominent people.

I'm so damned glad I'm not the only one who sees that. There's a fundamental disconnect between statements made and actions taken. There's been talk from that quarter about how they're not a community while framing such discussions with inclusive, group-specific language; usually hand in hand with lip service about how prejudicial thought won't serve them well, but all religions are dangerous and need to be dealt with.

It's that kind of crap that scares me. That kind of innate dishonesty of purpose has never turned out well when it gathers a sizeable following.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Watching the first hour now

The first ten minutes are great - really really good. After that my mind wanders slightly and I start trying to identify their cocktails (two martinis and two whisky-based things I believe)

I'm at around 25-30 minutes and they're starting to display their ignorance. Have any of them heard of Tom Wright? Graham Dow is an arse-hat of the highest order, but what he actually said was a fairly reasonable statement about climate change being a consequence of human moral weakness. He was a victim of a similar hatchet job to the one the Torygraph pulled on Rowan recently

I'm sorry, but you've totally lost me with that comment. I think I need the Clift Notes.

35 minutes and they're starting to pick up again. They're much more comfortable when they're talking about philosophy...

Ditto.

45-50 minutes. I wish they'd stop conflating Christianity and American-style fundamentalism. Do you know few Christians (proportionally) believe in Biblical inerrancy?

About one third of the population of the USA, according to Gallop (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx). I think you may need to get your head out of that "negative theology" ivory tower of yours and wake up to what bulk of Christians actually believe.

57 minutes, 10 seconds. Sam Harris raises a very scary speculation about why radical Islam is less common in the US than it is is Europe. Basically, because US society has more respect for religious belief in general, Muslims are less insular and feel that their faith isn't under as much attack. What do you think about that, Atticus?

I think it (along with his recent musings about the usefulness of the term "atheism") shows just how scrupulously honest Harris is. He's basically prepared to calmly and seriously consider that the project he's been engaged in for the last four years is dangerous. The guy never ceases to leave me in awe.

It's a worrying prospect, but it does seem to me to be tantamount to appeasement. But sometimes appeasement is a rational strategy (as any spouse or parent can tell you).

Personally, I think the real reason for it is the greater self-confidence of the America culture. The US has a very well developed "civic religion" - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Founding Saints, I mean Founding Fathers, etc - and a "love it or leave it" attitude. Personally, I think its this lack of self-confidence and a retreat into an apologetic, mushy multiculturalism that has caused Europe's problems.

Canada is an interesting case that I need to do more reading about.

[there_is_no_bob]

Personally, I think the real reason for it is the greater self-confidence of the America culture. The US has a very well developed "civic religion" - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Founding Saints, I mean Founding Fathers, etc - and a "love it or leave it" attitude. Personally, I think its this lack of self-confidence and a retreat into an apologetic, mushy multiculturalism that has caused Europe's problems. I pretty much assumed it was a function of number of oceans between the nearest radical islamic country and the country in question.

Hmmm. How's Australia doing?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I pretty much assumed it was a function of number of oceans between the nearest radical islamic country and the country in question.

Hmmm. How's Australia doing?

Better than Europe; worse than the US.

We have some crazy mullahs who call non-Muslim women "exposed meat" because of the way they dress and argue Muslim pack rapists were provoked by their victims. We have Muslim youths who sexually harass non-Muslim women on our beaches until they boyfriends over-react and start the Cronulla riots. We have the occasional "honour killing". We have an Australian citizen who trained with Al Qaeda and appears to have provided them with "material support". And we have local terrorist cells who've made moves towards bombings - but ones so unbelievably incompetent that they were caught at teh planning stage.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

About one third of the population of the USA, according to Gallop (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx). I think you may need to get your head out of that "negative theology" ivory tower of yours and wake up to what bulk of Christians actually believe.

Statistically insignificant compared to the number of Christians worldwide :) And it's falling

Politically significant though...

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Statistically insignificant compared to the number of Christians worldwide :) And it's falling

Politically significant though...

Political significant would be more than enough to justify the new anti-dogmatists campaign.

But are you really suggesting that the average pew-filler in Africa and Asia is a Tillichian quasi-agnostic like yourself?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Political significant would be more than enough to justify the new anti-dogmatists campaign.

Agreed

But are you really suggesting that the average pew-filler in Africa and Asia is a Tillichian quasi-agnostic like yourself?

I have no idea what's going on inside their heads (somehow you think you can - perhaps you should go for Randi's challenge?) I can, however, tell you what (e.g. Catholics) are taught: paragraphs 109-119 of the Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM)