51. Comment #81278 by Roll on October 24, 2007 at 2:24 pm

RD: Only depressing if you acknowledge that there is a 50/50 chance of these ideas being correct - my point at #23. Why give these fantasists equal space to debate their loony tunes ideas?

He had good debating skills. This is what makes you depressed. He can have these skills without one good idea in his head. And I repeat, he came much better prepared to this debate.

Other Comments by Roll

52. Comment #81280 by Vaal on October 24, 2007 at 2:28 pm

What is it Shakespeare said, and applies well to the apologists...

What's the matter, you dissentious rogues,
That, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion,
Make yourself scabs?

Other Comments by Vaal

53. Comment #81281 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 2:30 pm

I have started a thread over at the RD Forum so we can list our refutations to the 'points' D'Souza makes in a place where they can be collected. Here is the link to the thread.




Other Comments by Quine

54. Comment #81285 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 2:33 pm

I have a question for all. Is it time that Dawkins comes out to play with D'souza?

In writing, yes, in person, no. In person, you have to play D'Souza's weasel game, which takes special training.




Other Comments by Quine

55. Comment #81290 by DPR on October 24, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Acccording to D'souza, he and hitchens will be on hannity and colmes tonight. d'souza surprised me in the debate. i didn't think he was that stupid.

Other Comments by DPR

56. Comment #81291 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Richard: I don't think anyone is saying Christopher lost the debate due to his lack of good argument or reason, but rather due to his inability to refute the idiotic claims made by D'Souza because of various issues we are discussing. Each debate is a learning experience and we must all learn to fully refute lunacy of D'Souza's ilk if we are to debate them in such a live format - debate formats that are inherently "stacked against" intellectual argument.

Quine: RD.net has also started a section devoted to "debate points"
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1781,A-new-website-addition-Debate-Points,RichardDawkinsnet

How about RD.net sets up a Wiki? Could be quite useful, although we'd have to be vigilant in regards to vandalism.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

57. Comment #81308 by Michael P. on October 24, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Formal debate is a highly artificial construct, bearing no resemblance to any sort of natural dialogue. D'Souza used this and the craft of oration to his advantage. It's not about ideas and thinking, it's about rhetoric and stage presence. D'Souza was probably on the debate team in college and has clearly studied the craft. Hitchens relies solely on the vast expanses of his intellect and verbal virtuosity; his is a "performance" bereft of D'Souza's stand-up rhetoric. Bottom line: formal debates are pretty boring stuff... even with a wit like Hitchens in your corner. I'm sure most here would agree that the dialogues with Sharpton were far more exciting than this.

Considering the largely xian makeup of the audience, Hitchens came off quite well; we KNOW that D'Souza had the home field playing advantage. As a debate, I'd say it's a draw; as a dialogue on ideas... come on - it was a bloodbath.

Other Comments by Michael P.

58. Comment #81318 by THEEVANGELIST on October 24, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I think Dinesh D'Souza is the most slippery of the slimy quartet (D'Souza, McGrath, Lennox and William Lane Craig). None of his arguments are logical and consistent. I think we have to development different strategies for dealing with each one of these apologists for superstitions. I suggest we clamour for a different debating format. I wonder what aspect of christianity these quartet would agree on if you were to engage them collectively in a debate/discussion about tenets of the christian dogma.

I think Dinesh could be comprehensively beaten on his own home territory of christianity and the bible if the atheist debater focuses the debate on contradictions, un-historicity, atrocities, crimes of clergy, possible mythical aspects of its origin and such like. To venture outside of such areas is to give him room to bamboozle his audience with pseudo-science and half-baked philosophical arguments.

Other Comments by THEEVANGELIST

59. Comment #81322 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 3:29 pm

"Bamboozle" - Perfect word in reference to D'Souza's "performance." Thank you, THEEVANGELIST.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

60. Comment #81332 by UncleJJ on October 24, 2007 at 3:42 pm

I agree with Comment #81250 by Mr DArcy, Hitchens did well in this debate and nothing like as badly as the report in the other thread suggested. D'Sousa certainly didn't win anything here although he did perform well and put his case better than any other religious speaker versus Hitchens, it's just a hollow case that makes no sense.

D'Sousa is an eloquent debater, and had done his homework on his opponent with several well prepared jokes and surprises. Hitchens is much better natural speaker and has much more powerful arguments. Considering where this debate took place and who the audience mostly were, Hitchens did a good job and sowed doubt among previous believers.

Other Comments by UncleJJ

61. Comment #81334 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Ladies and gentlemen, guys and girls, comrades in arms, D'Souza did a little trick. In his blog there was just the poll, for a while. But now there is a whole article 'explaining' how he won the debate; to prime the voter to his point of view.

Maybe the initial disappointing results have something to do with it. We can wait and see how it goes. I wonder if he has any plans to close the polls.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

62. Comment #81357 by Russell Blackford on October 24, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Just one thing: you can't measure who "wins" a debate in terms of audience support. On that basis, the believers will always win when an unbeliever goes into their den, and someone putting an "out there", unpopular position will always lose. It's very different from a political debate where much of the point is for each side to craft an electorally popular position.

You can only measure it either by the cogency of the arguments or by who was shown to be the better presented debater on the night (which often comes down to who had the nicest voice or the more confident body language, or who could project a likeable or somehow impressive personality) ... or by some subjective mix of the two. Hitchens usually wins in the sense of presenting an impressive package: solid, well-structured material; a forceful personality; and a beautiful speaking voice.

Really, these debates prove nothing. Their merit is that they (1) sell Hitchens' book and (2) show that someone with an unpopular view such as atheism can put nonetheless articulate reasons in support of it ... and have the guts to do so in front of audiences that may not be sympathetic.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

63. Comment #81358 by gyokusai on October 24, 2007 at 4:12 pm

D'Souza is a dangerous and very eloquent demagogue, and he will not be the last one to be so. Dangerous, that is. The atheist "onslaught" came as a surprise for these people, but they're beginning to shape up.

With people like D'Souza, you can't just do your brilliant routine and hope to be clear and witty and logical enough to appeal to an audience crammed with people who professionally or by calling refuse to think rationally. Not with debaters like D'Souza you can't.

You have to prepare your act in advance, check your opponent's speeches, writings, and arguments. And then go for the kill. Like in, say, sports. I was pretty sure Hitch wouldn't look too good (some overconfidence plus these loads of shit from D'Souza you can't possibly refute in detail in time), and he didn't. And RD wouldn't take on any ID nutcase on principle. But, with some preps and pre-tunings of his sights, I'm pretty sure Sam Harris would be able to show D'Souza the door.

Other Comments by gyokusai

64. Comment #81361 by DarwinsPitbull on October 24, 2007 at 4:14 pm

WOW, how can this guy say that it was a tie. Hitchens just wiped the floor with him and made his points very well. It was a great debate to watch. One of the better debates I have seen Hitchens in.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

65. Comment #81362 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Unfortunately, I have to say that there were several points that can charitably be given to D'Souza... though by proxy of the hard to understand Tongan man who asked the question about the cannibals of Fiji.

He had a valid point. The question is "Is Christianity the Problem?"... well, of course, Christianity HAS problems, and blind faith, dogmatism, gibberish, bad metaphysics, etc, are among them.

But in that particular case, I think the descendants of Fiji's cannibals are grateful for being provided with an escape from what would have been a WORSE religious morality.

Hitch's rebuttal to this claim was surprisingly weak and uncharitable... and for him to be consistent, he should have acknowledged that in that particular case, Christianity DID do something good. Namely, it stopped people from eating each other.

But, he should have argued, that does not excuse the myriad wrongs Christianity has with itself, NOR the fact that Christianity is ultimately a lie.

Just disappointed about that one particular point, and D'Souza did a much better job here than he did against Shermer (who was less formidable).

I should add, this criticism is on top of the fact that I wanted to punch Dinesh in the nose several times throughout that debate.

Other Comments by Spinoza

66. Comment #81374 by plastictowel on October 24, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Let's be candid Hitchen was more drunk than usual, and he did let a few points he can usually vindicate slide right by.

Professor Dawkins, I plead you to debate this man. He's one of the terrors we deal with in the USA and a scientist with a real understanding of our evolutionary background needs to shut him up. You or Harris please. Shermer was way too kind and humored him on way too many points. And again, Hitchens was simply too drunk, and he's not a scientist. The USA needs your knowledge.

Other Comments by plastictowel

67. Comment #81410 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 24, 2007 at 5:11 pm

It is almost impossible to exagerrate the intellectual inadequacy of this man. Has anyone else here heard of 'The Enemy at Home'? That's Dinesh arguing that 9/11 was basically caused by Western decadence - MTV and all that.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

68. Comment #81423 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Intellectual inadequacy? No. Intellectual dishonesty. Yes.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

69. Comment #81447 by notsobad on October 24, 2007 at 6:26 pm

It's pointless to debate people like D'Souza, period.

People who listen to him are not going to prefer reason and logic to fallacies, wishful thinking and sweet lies.

Other Comments by notsobad

70. Comment #81453 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 6:56 pm

As someone who once experienced a profound numinous experiences, I'll offer a comment in response to the young man who near the end of the debate asked Hitchens to comment about such a situation: 30 years after my numinous experience, I consider it to have been the result of brain chemicals. My experience sent me running back to church(es) where I searched passionately and diligently for years for the "God" I believed had chosen me for something very, very special. My advice today to those who might have such an experience: consider it an unexpected but delicious brain orgasm sourced in your own body chemistry---and move on. Leave "God" and church out of it.

Other Comments by Lauregon

71. Comment #81458 by Zzyx1170 on October 24, 2007 at 7:00 pm

I placed an mp3 of this debate on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/64966581/Christopher-Hitchens-Debates-Dinesh-D_Souza.mp3

I think Hitchens did as well as can be expected under the circumstances. In this kind of debate, the bullshitters always have an advantage over the rationalists because the BS-ers can throw out more BS in one minute than the rationalists can debunk in ten minutes. Given that the BS-ers and the rationalists both have equal time to speak, the rationalists can't keep up with the rate that BS is generated.

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

72. Comment #81462 by Tommykey on October 24, 2007 at 7:04 pm

I only watched the beginning of it so far, but I noticed that D'Souza used his standard joke line when giving his first rebuttal to Hitchens, "I feel like a mosquito at a nudist colony, where to begin."

Since it can be expected that he will use this line again in the future, his next opponent should shoot it down before D'Souza even has a chance to open his mouth.

Other Comments by Tommykey

73. Comment #81470 by Circumspect on October 24, 2007 at 7:22 pm

D'Souza reminds me of the over-confident half-wits we all remember from student government in high school. He appears as a creepy amalgam of Ralph Reed, Ann Coulter (who used to be his main fuck--how revolting), and Bashar al Assad (habitual lies and weak chin). Hitch, unfortunately, appears not to have been at one-hundred percent here... or he would have killed the little shit with a mere glance.

Other Comments by Circumspect

74. Comment #81477 by The Inimitable Dave on October 24, 2007 at 7:51 pm

I've not yet watched the whole debate, just the short section on D'Souza's blog.

For the first couple of minutes, I thought the responses here were very over-reactive, but I was amazed at what D'Souza pulled next...

At around -5:30 from the end of that video, he complains to Hitchens, "I ask a question and you take up all the time!"

At -2:45 from the end, he complains at Hitchens for not spending enough time talking about secular regimes!

You can't have it both ways, Dinesh!

And then he has the gall to say that atheists "hog the public square completely to [them]selves and drive all the religions out!" It really seems pathetic when such a large majority complains of being victimized.

D'Souza strikes me as being only interested in "winning an argument", not in searching for truth.

Other Comments by The Inimitable Dave

75. Comment #81479 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 8:00 pm

"D'Souza strikes me as being only interested in "winning an argument", not in searching for truth".

*Shrug* that's what the far-right is all about philosophically.

(Drill Sargent bark) WIN!!! WIN!!! WIIIIIIINNN!!!


Other Comments by Diacanu

76. Comment #81491 by Teratornis on October 24, 2007 at 8:29 pm

In reply to comment #81264 by Richard Dawkins:

Only a decibel meter could seriously think D'Souza got the better of the debate. In every one of his orations, he simply let his voice crescendo to a shout. As soon as the dopey audience heard him shouting (it wouldn't have mattered what he was shouting about) they started automatically applauding. Hitchens, by contrast, was actually making valid points. D'Souza said some astonishingly stupid things, but because he shouted them at the top of his voice, the audience assumed that he must be saying something sensible. Deeply depressing.

Well, speaking as someone who could have fit comfortably into that dopey audience and cheered with the best of them a few decades ago, I might suggest that after the hooting and shouting of the group bonding ritual dies down, a few of the tribe might pause to reflect on what they heard during a quiet moment on the next mammoth hunt.

I too had received years of state-of-the-art indoctrination as to how utterly evil those godless evil-utionists were. But I was just curious enough to wonder about how science could have been so obviously right about so many things while getting the matter of origins so completely wrong. So I started reading to see what the evil-utionists had to say in their own defense, and I discovered that they had some pretty good arguments.

It took years for the battleship of belief to completely reverse course in my mind. So I have some idea what it takes to deconstruct the faith that takes years to build.

I would like to personally thank you, Prof. Dawkins, for your role in peeling the scales from my eyes.

Please don't feel depressed, if doing so diverts one joule of your productive energy from the fight. Your message is getting through, but it takes time and repetition. Be sure your efforts are bearing fruit.

At the risk of blaspheming, dare I say "keep the faith."

Other Comments by Teratornis

77. Comment #81500 by tedlove on October 24, 2007 at 8:57 pm

i would LOVE to see Dawkins take this nut on.

Other Comments by tedlove

78. Comment #81502 by sent2null on October 24, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Finally!

One of the popular rationalists takes some times to explain the "pre revelation" problem of believers of monotheistic religion.

I wrote a post about this problem a few days ago here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1707,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox,Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox,page5#77153

I think it is a powerful argument to dismiss the protestations of the deluded that see Christianity as any more special than any other religious system that Man has created in his 150,000 years on Earth.

Other Comments by sent2null

79. Comment #81504 by Denevius on October 24, 2007 at 9:03 pm

I don't think Hitchens lost the debate at all. I was actually there, and what I felt more than anything else from him is boredom. He seemed totally disinterested, and slightly distracted. He basically gave his argument word from word from previous arguments, and I think one of the reasons why D'Souza seemed like he gave a better performance is because we who follow these debates don't get to see him as often as Hitchens. However, even D'Souza gave the exact same argument that night as he had on the evening he debated Micheal Shermer.

I think Hitchens should take a break for a year so that he doesn't sound like such a recording anymore. He's a great thinker, but now he's just repeating himself.

Other Comments by Denevius

80. Comment #81506 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 9:08 pm

A year? Screw that noise. He just needs a Rocky training montage.
;)



Other Comments by Diacanu

81. Comment #81513 by oxytocin on October 24, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Spinoza,
xianity may have done well in Fiji, but the same effect could have been achieved by sending in the police. Again, secular people could do the same thing that any theist could do. That xians show some form of human decency is something they do despite their barbarism, not because of it.

Other Comments by oxytocin

82. Comment #81515 by Cthulance on October 24, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Note Dinesh's equivalance of 'militant' atheism with writing books about it.

How DARE you write a book reasoning in support of atheism? Never mind the rather large number of books in existence reasoning in support of theism. Their authors aren't militant. Not like those militant atheists.

How dare they voice their opinions and make their case?

I suppose there's no need for 'militant' aunicornism unless you exist in a culture in which the vast majority keep insisting--in the absence of either evidence or reason--that unicorns exist, and in which belief or unbelief in unicorns forms and drives everything from foreign policy to funding of domestic charities, as well as drives persecution and deliberate intimidation and silencing of those who don't believe in unicorns.

In such a hypothetical society, the moment you voice your aunicornism, you're 'militant.'

But it's a hypothetical, and so of course people who don't believe in unicorns aren't labeled as militant, even when they voice their unbelief. Even Christians (currently) don't usually believe in unicorns.

Other Comments by Cthulance

83. Comment #81519 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 9:26 pm

"How DARE you write a book reasoning in support of atheism?".

Theists have God all twisted up with everything good, so attack God, they act like you attacked children, or love, or sunrises.

....no, it's even weirder than that.
If I wrote a book attacking children, or love, or sunrises, it wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

Well, that proves it's really all political.



Other Comments by Diacanu

84. Comment #81522 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 9:36 pm

I disagree that Hitchens needs to "take a year off" of debating or anything of that nature. I just think he needs to challenge himself. Whoever said he seemed bored in the debate could be onto something. Intellectual growth only comes through challenge, and of course he'll rise to it.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

85. Comment #81523 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 9:38 pm

With a stirring training montage?
:D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHp0szBvdG8




Other Comments by Diacanu

86. Comment #81524 by Cthulance on October 24, 2007 at 9:46 pm

Well, it seems to me that Dinesh (and others) equate their invention of 'militant atheism' with atheists who speak their mind.

Of course, thinking about it that means every theist--like Dinesh himself--who speaks his or her mind is just a 'militant theist.'

Honestly, if every atheist who dares write a book arguing for atheism is militant, than so is every theist who dares write a book arguing for theism.

Other Comments by Cthulance

87. Comment #81525 by zarcus on October 24, 2007 at 9:46 pm

Richard Dawkins
As soon as the dopey audience heard him shouting..

Brilliant. It makes absolutely no sense to keep up this type of name calling. Perhaps I will be told, as offered in Free Inquiry, that I am engaging in "belief in belief", but to think headway is made making such statements is irrational.

.

Other Comments by zarcus

88. Comment #81527 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 9:47 pm

On the topic of Fijian cannibalism, let's not forget the Christian eucharist which involves the ritual eating/drinking of the body and blood of Christ.

Other Comments by Lauregon

89. Comment #81549 by PeterK on October 24, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Logical thought will eventually triumph. As long as theism is defended in the manner similar to the likes of Dinesh D'Souza, theism in any form cannot and will not survive. Its demise just may take longer than we would like it to.

Other Comments by PeterK

90. Comment #81552 by Vardu on October 24, 2007 at 10:40 pm

I agree, Hitchens did all right.

What we've got to keep in mind is that the religionists have had thousands of years to hone their arguments. Despite that, their endless nullities ring so emptily.

Other Comments by Vardu

91. Comment #81555 by Vardu on October 24, 2007 at 10:44 pm

I agree, Hitchens made a number of valid points while D'Souza screamed his nullities.

You would think, wouldn't you, that considering religion has had thousands of years to hone its arguments, it would be able to convey something that didn't ring so emptily to the educated ear?

Other Comments by Vardu

92. Comment #81558 by Vardu on October 24, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Sorry, didn't think my first post had gone through.

I think D'Souza could now do with a real good thumping from Richard to bring him somewhat back to reality.

Other Comments by Vardu

93. Comment #81621 by Scientifical Madness on October 25, 2007 at 1:23 am

That has to be one of the most frustrating debates that I have seen. D'Souza is like a used car salesman. There is solace, however, and not just because Hitchens clearly triumphed. D'Souza is only likely to fool those who are already indoctrinated, or those who don't possess the relevant knowledge to see through his misrepresentations and fallacies - which is, of course, an insult in itself.

As somebody has said previously, D'Souza is quite prepared to use dishonesty in that arena. The best way to prevent that, and/or deliver a blow to his reputation, is for us to methodically expose him and make sure that it is as widely distributed as possible.

Other Comments by Scientifical Madness

94. Comment #81633 by Ilovelucy on October 25, 2007 at 1:38 am

After listening, I think Hitchens did just fine. The only way in which D'Souza looks better is because there is a largely Christian audience and that he had the good luck to be given the last word every time by a moderator that got his arse handed to him by Hitchens a few months ago.

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

95. Comment #81637 by Ilovelucy on October 25, 2007 at 1:40 am

I actually think Sam Harris is the ideal choice for debating D'Souza. D'Souza's main tactic is to try and rattle his opponent with spurious claims, Harris is a very difficult man to rattle in contrast to Hitchens and Dawkins.

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

96. Comment #81660 by Last Man In Europe on October 25, 2007 at 2:27 am

When Dinesh tells his joke about feeling like a mosquito in a nudist colony, the reply is:

"The thing about mosquitoes is they're pests, and it stings, doesn't it?...How a bare, naked body ... of KNOWLEDGE and TRUTH can be infected by just one annoying little prick."

Other Comments by Last Man In Europe

97. Comment #81661 by decius on October 25, 2007 at 2:27 am

There is no doubt that Hitchens wasn't in great shape. Many here have sensed it and pointed it out. Whether it was boredom, drunkenness, or distraction, only he can tell us.

I found particularly weak the way Hitchens counteracted D'Souza's pseudo-scientific rubbish by appealing to the audience to read Stenger's book. I have serious doubts that Hitchens himself has actually read it, otherwise he would have been perfectly able to put to shame D'Souza's nonsense.
On a side note, it's terrifying that anyone could utter such crap in a university with impunity.

Hitchens fell also short of addressing the historic revisionism built on falsehoods, which constitute D'Souza's core argument in his opening speech.

I know that the format of the event was poor and the time limited. However, Hitchens just stuck to his routine arguments, molding them to fit the format. In other words, he underestimated the gladiatorial skills of D'Souza, probably the most formidable contemporary snake oil salesman, who found it just too easy to hoodwink yet another illiterate audience.

Sigh.

Other Comments by decius

98. Comment #81684 by Summer Seale on October 25, 2007 at 3:13 am

I think Dr. Dawkins is right.

After all, what the heck did D'Souza actually....accomplish? Say that Atheists are "just as wrong" as religionists? That's about it, really. He showed that atheists have faults too. Great. What a huge success. Atheists are human.

He never even tried to prove that God exists, or that religion can actually know his/her/whatever's mind if it does exist.

Shouldn't that have been the point of the debate?

It was kind of like watching two lawyers in court determining the fate of somebody's future, and one of the lawyers is just jeering and jumping around and instead of arguing his case, says something along the lines to the other lawyer "ha ha, you're fatter than I am. Your case is stupid. How can such a fat person take himself seriously?"

That's basically what D'Souza "accomplished" in that debate.

And then the family members behind D'Souza shouting "yeah! He's really ugly too!"

That's about the gist of it. Wasn't much of a debate, if you ask me. Then again, it never is. Nobody that Dr. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or any other debates actually *defends* religion as it stands on the books and in the churches etc.... and why is that? Because they know it's bunk. D'Souza is the only one that I came across in those debates who actually almost goes out of his way to start defending "miracles". But I bet you that if you challenged him on hellfire and if he thinks that Anne Frank is burning in hell for not being a Christian before she was murdered..his answer would be no. Either that, or he's more insane than his other co-religionists.

No, I think Hitch may just have been tired, or is burning out, or just didn't happen to feel the vibe with that audience that day. Whatever it was, though, it wasn't a debate. D'Souza proved nothing. What Hitchens did prove, however, is how incredibly stupid and offensive the very tenets of religion truly are. That, he did prove without any seeming rebuttal from D'Souza.

So I wouldn't say Hitch lost. I'd just say that he made his case and only got some hot air and stupid cliches in return from idiots who had all the air of never having heard those "arguments" before.

[

Other Comments by Summer Seale

99. Comment #81690 by decius on October 25, 2007 at 3:29 am

Here is a link to a recorded interview to Vic Stenger, author of God-the Failed Hypothesis, where he outlines its content in detail.

I warmly recommend this book and I wonder why this site doesn't promote professor Stenger at all, or why he is never invited to conferences and debates .

Just listen to him and you will realise what powerful and lucid arguments Cosmology and Physics have to contribute to the debate.

Stenger could have easily torn apart D'Souza's nonsense in seconds.

http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=187989#
Click on "pod" to download the mp3.



Other Comments by decius

100. Comment #81712 by Last Man In Europe on October 25, 2007 at 4:29 am

It's incredible that Dinesh can say he is going to refute Hitchens using scientific/reasoned arguments and not use theological arguments, appear to do so and come off looking reasonably good.

This should NOT be allowed to happen. Hitchens was rather off form, and I'd hoped he'd tear Dinesh a new arse hole. That's what he deserves, especially when he is seemingly using rational arguments to support claims which have no basis in rationality.

The reason that Dinesh appears to do so well (apart from his eloquence and fluency) may be he is not falling back onto theological arguments, which have been rather successfully combated in books and talks by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens previously.

Dinesh is using pseudo-science to take the battle to the scientists. A scientist has to prove what he is saying is true. These proofs can be complicated and involved sometimes. They don't always lend themselves to easy understanding. They demand reference to other studies and the data gathered. Dinesh capitalises on this to win a sound-bite argument or rather, a series of arguments, which are often not based on evidence or fact. Because he spouts so many of these inaccuracies, it is hard to call him up on them all. To do so would take time and more scientific argument and data. This eats into the time of his reasoned-thinking opponent.

When a reasoned-thinking opponent tries to argue based on data, Dinesh interrupts and spouts more factoids or lies/inaccuracies. Thus, he is able to take advantage of the good natured approach the scientifically minded have to take to establish a truth and not rush to judgement not based on evidence. It is not a level playing field when the audience is unaware that this is happening.

It is a little bit akin to when Dawkins is surprised by the intelligent design film crew who put him on the spot. They are not playing by the rules of fairness. An uneducated audience (or one not aware of the nuances of the issues) sees Dinesh sounding fluent and confident, able to question his opponent and make more and more demands from his opponent. That makes Dinesh seem to be doing well when in truth, his position is baseless from a reasoning viewpoint.

For Dinesh to be able to do this consistently and well points to being well practised. He knows what he is doing because he can do it so well in so many different circumstances. He is not willing to be open minded in the slightest. That takes a trained closedness of mind. He deliberately avoids answering some points and ripostes with his own. That's not moral, it's an obscuring of the truth to one-sidedly favour one's own selfish goals of appearing successful/gaining power or influence/getting money from books or media appearances.

And I do agree that debating the likes of Dinesh is a waste of time. He is not interested in reaching the truth at all. He is closed to it. Being religious in the way he is demands being closed to any reasoned discussion, regardless of what he says in his sophistical claim to be reason-based here.

Other Comments by Last Man In Europe