101. Comment #81732 by jaytee_555 on October 25, 2007 at 5:32 am

A central plank of De Souza's argument is that scientists are essentially 'faith-heads', taking a leap of faith when they place reliance in scientific laws. This is a completely false argument, and what is more, De Souza knows it. Whatever else he may be, he's not a fool.

Scientists' commitment to the laws of physics is evidence based, and totally unlike religious faith, which is no more than wishful thinking. Religious faith is man-made, and varies from religion to religion and culture to culture. There is no leap of faith involved in accepting the laws of physics. Indeed, they are called 'laws' precisely because they are demonstrably universal.

Note that De Souza does not even try to elevate 'faith' to the level of the rationality of science; he betrays his position's weakness by trying to drag science down to the level of 'faith'. He instinctively recognises the strength of the scientific position, and hopes he can disarm it by relegating it to the insubstantiality of 'faith'.

JT (UK)

Other Comments by jaytee_555

102. Comment #81759 by andest01 on October 25, 2007 at 6:19 am

Most people seem to agree that D'Souza uses rhetoric and a lot of sophistry, so Sam Harris would be the best match-up because the guy is 100% unflappable. The guy studies Buddhism - he is the calm center of the universe.

Of course, Harris has his Ph.D to worry about.

Other Comments by andest01

103. Comment #81766 by Infozombie on October 25, 2007 at 6:36 am

Is it an ad hominem to say that in Harry Potter D'Souza would be a Slytherin?

Anyway, it was funny when he quoted Shakepeare about no one ever having come back from the dead, about ten minutes after defending the veracity of Jesus' resurrection.

Other Comments by Infozombie

104. Comment #81775 by oxytocin on October 25, 2007 at 6:57 am

decius,
I totally agree with you about Stenger. I found his book the most enjoyable of the recent literature on atheism. The strength of his book is that he takes the time to really discuss science and the nature of evidence. Also in his favor is the brevity and clarity of his work. It's a quick read, and one that leaves a lasting impression. Highly recommended.

On the other hand, decius, it is perfectly reasonable for Hitchens to refer his opponent to work in areas in which he is not an expert. Hitchens remained with the content that he felt he could contribute to. He has tended to be very humble with regard to his knowledge of science, defering to the experts. We all need to take this as an example of competency: knowing where your strengths and weaknesses are. This is what we do in science.

Other Comments by oxytocin

105. Comment #81789 by Aequitas12345 on October 25, 2007 at 7:25 am

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza/

He must of advertised at his Church.



I see people saying that Hitchens is not fit to debate D'Souza. I completely disagree. I doubt he was drunk, or under the weather. To me, he seemed very nonchalant about the whole situation. Lets see this happen again, in a structured debate more familiar to Hitchins; one where the chance is given to rebut until the argument comes to a natural close.

Perhaps Hitchens & Dawkins vs D'Souza & McGrath.

I think with Hitchens fervor and Dawkins' expertise, no debater would really stand a chance... assuming an appropriately structured debate. Perhaps slightly longer than the usual 1 hour + question and answer.

Other Comments by Aequitas12345

106. Comment #81822 by apaeter on October 25, 2007 at 8:37 am

That was really hard to watch. The worst part for me was the utter drivel about the laws of nature and evidence. I was going to go on about it, but my hands start shaking from all the rage ... can't type. He really is a mosquito in a nudist colony - a bloodsucking tiny-brained nuisance to everyone else having a good time being mammals.

Other Comments by apaeter

107. Comment #81827 by irate_atheist on October 25, 2007 at 8:43 am

Comment #81822 by apaeter -

Oh, come on. Surely Mr. Hitchins deserves a better description than that...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

108. Comment #81852 by apaeter on October 25, 2007 at 9:51 am

Comment #81827 by irate_atheist

Hey, how dare you burst my beautiful bubble of hate? :)

Other Comments by apaeter

109. Comment #81855 by decius on October 25, 2007 at 9:59 am

Oxytocin,

I agree with you that deferring to the experts is generally the right approach when the argument shifts outside of one's area of expertise. However, when the most basic scientific concepts are subverted by a loud prick in order to score cheap debate points, not allowing oneself to be caught off-guard is advisable. Don't forget that the cosmological underpinnings, at their most elementary level, are central to the discourse and bound to emerge in a heated debate.

D'Souza's tactics are known as well as his fallacious arguments. It seems to me that Hitch partially failed to prepare himself to counter them adequately and a great opportunity to expose D'Souza's ignorance was lost.


I hope not to come across as too arrogant, this is just the impression that I was left with after watching the debate.

Other Comments by decius

110. Comment #81875 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 10:31 am

I like many others felt the sudden urge to strangle D'Souza where he stood and am amazed Hitchy didn't walk over to him and slap him upside his bean. I think I've kind of realized why Hitch seemed to pull all of his punches. Generally, and Hitch has said this himself, he likes to allow hucksters and charlatans to hang themselves with their own words. To all of us here on this board, D'Souza does just that. However, all the "white noise" Hitchy complained was being spilled on stage that day was exactly what the audience wanted to hear, and endeared D'Souza to them instead of hanging him like we all wished it did. Hitch is still #1 in my book because he's right, and because he's a fantastic journalist/writer, and because he's entertaining as hell.

D'Souza's use of "logic" was fallacious at best. At BEST. D'Souza clearly had Hitchens in a bind, because Hitch never had a chance to respond to 75% of D'Souza's bullshit rhetoric. With all the BS D'Souza spewed from his corn hole it would take 5 hours to refute it all. D'Souza knew this and used the format to his advantage with this in mind. If D'Souza "won" anything, it's the race to spout as much inanery as possible to overwhelm your opponent in the time allotted.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

111. Comment #81878 by Veronique on October 25, 2007 at 10:35 am

70. Comment #81453 by Lauregon

consider it an unexpected but delicious brain orgasm sourced in your own body chemistry

What a delightful description:-). Thank you and I will use it if I may.

85. Comment #81523 by Diacanu

That video was utterly hilarious:-).

99. Comment #81690 by decius

Thanks for the link. I have just listened to Stenger (I read his book a few weeks ago) and found him easy and calm and he presented his arguments extraordinarily well:-).

So I am wondering, like you, why Stenger isn't more visible. He certainly should be promoted on this site; his arguments against the existence of god are well described. He would be another string to the bow and is needed.

I would guess that he would also be unflappable in debate. Though debating, as has been pointed out, is an art, certainly not one in which I am versed. I'd be hopeless. Do you know if Stenger has been in live debate?

These guys are all so different and start from different vantage points. Practically all bases are covered by now; you'd think that the line-up would be far more formidable to theists than it appears.

Ah well, keep on keeping on, I guess.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

112. Comment #81880 by PJG on October 25, 2007 at 10:39 am

"I don't believe in unicorns but I haven't written any books on the subject. I don't spend a lot of time denouncing unicorns, I live my life as if unicorns did not exist" as a criticism of the interest in the subject of religion by atheist authors, is just mind-bogglingly stupid.

Whilst many atheists have likened the belief in God to a belief in unicorns, it is unusual to hear a Christian do so!!!! Heh heh!

Seriously though, Mr. D'Souza may be prompted to write a book about belief in unicorns if he felt that belief was threatening to our world. Either he was not able to grasp that point or deliberately glossed over it. His reference to the number executed in the SALEM Witch Trials was equally misleading and that, I do suspect, was deliberate.

Other Comments by PJG

113. Comment #81924 by Linda on October 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Hi Richard,
I was quite astonished to hear D'Souza claim that the Inquisition wasn't that bad and only about 2,000 people died. Is he a liar, stupid or deluded then since that ridiculous figure fails to account for the annihilation of the Cathars in the Langue D'Oc region of France, the brutal slaughter of indigenous populations in South and Central America and for the continued harassment, torture and murder of women in Europe for practicing natural healing? Please keep reminding the proponents of religious superstition that Stalin was educated in a monastery, that Hitler learned his vile ways as a child raised in the criminal Roman Cult. I may also suggest that there may be a connection to early childhood indoctrination in Roman Cultism that facilitated the emergence of the vicious Italian Mafia. Would that mob be so powerful if clerics ceased to forgive their sins at confession on Saturdays and refused to marry and bury them with religious rites?

D'Souza, McGrath and the others who boast special insights into the supernatural have yet to produce evidence of their claims. How on earth can he/they speak with authority about the Jesus/Joshua figure as if he is a next-door neighbour or a live person that they know intimately?

Sometimes I think that you and Hitchens are too nice to them in debate. Is it that you feel some sympathy for their emotional immaturity?

Best, Linda

Other Comments by Linda

114. Comment #81927 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 12:06 pm

In the Fox clip D' says: "faith itself is reasonable" This is pure doubletalk. What kind of a theocratic Orwellian world are we seeing materialize before our eyes? Scarlet 'A' notwithstanding, we need a flood of T-shirts going down the street with:

"FAITH IS NOT REASON"





Other Comments by Quine

115. Comment #81928 by decius on October 25, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Veronique,

you're welcome.

To be honest, I have scarce info on Stenger. He is now retired from his many academic positions, but he still writes and I saw him recently on a QA session in a webcast.

He certainly used to debate religionists even before it became fashionable to do so. All agree that he is formidable at that.
Here is a link dating back to 2003, you may find more such references by googling him.

http://community.elevatorup.com/Brix?pageID=5838

In my opinion, retirement or not, he could easily be catalyzed back into action. I may be wrong, though.

Cheers

Other Comments by decius

116. Comment #81946 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Decius-

"God: The Failed Hypothosis", is right in the recommended reading section here.

So, it's wrong to say this site doesn't plug him at all.



Other Comments by Diacanu

117. Comment #81952 by Lauregon on October 25, 2007 at 12:47 pm

consider it an unexpected but delicious brain orgasm sourced in your own body chemistry - Lauregon

What a delightful description:-). Thank you and I will use it if I may. - Veronique

Thank you! I'd be honored.

Other Comments by Lauregon

118. Comment #81953 by oxytocin on October 25, 2007 at 12:48 pm

decius,
While I agree with regard to the scientific basis for many of the arguments, Hitchens is clearly uncomfortable asserting himself in this domain, and that's ok. I think one of the most powerful things that scientists [and proponents of science] can teach religionists is humility. We need to admit when we don't know something and emphasize that gaps in knowledge don't need to be filled with fluff. We need to refer the questioner to individuals who DO know the answers, and be honest about the state of our knowledge in general. We also need to remind people that even if a scientific answer proves to be wrong, it doesn't prove a religious idea to be right. These are very basic cognitive errors that many religious folks make, and I think that above and beyond our specific arguments, our arguments about critical thinking and evidence-based reason in general are the sharpest tools in our shed.

For example, I understand that Michael Behe makes some pretty ridiculous statements about the irreducible complexity of cells. Even though I have read counter arguments by Dawkins, Coyne, and Miller [amongst others], I wouldn't feel comfortable debating the point with him as a non-biologist. I would defer to the experts.

Other Comments by oxytocin

119. Comment #81970 by decius on October 25, 2007 at 1:08 pm

oxytocin,

you are right, I find no flaw in what you say.
Except for one little detail: a debate is a verbal gladiatorial contest. Blood must flow and it mustn't be yours.

Diacanu,

I stand corrected. Thank you

Other Comments by decius

120. Comment #81985 by Veronique on October 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm

116. Comment #81946 by Diacanu

Well, you are quite correct!! I scoured this site when I first found it in Dec.'06. I had double copies of everything written by RD and then I just kept gathering books as they were published and didn't bother going to the recommended list again.

Thank you for setting us right. I'd still like Stenger to have a higher profile somewhere, even if he is retired.

And thanks for that link decius

I'll start looking for an audio of that debate. I am pleased that he is formidable in debate:-). Let's hope that he returns to the fray – he said he's in Colorado enjoying nature, bless his cotton socks.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

121. Comment #81992 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 2:01 pm

D'Souza sure likes to masturbate his poor ego and where else to go than "fair and balanced" Faux News.

Anyway, thanks, decius, for the link.

Other Comments by notsobad

122. Comment #81997 by Goldy on October 25, 2007 at 2:06 pm

I was quite astonished to hear D'Souza claim that the Inquisition wasn't that bad and only about 2,000 people died. Is he a liar, stupid or deluded then since that ridiculous figure fails to account for the annihilation of the Cathars in the Langue D'Oc region of France, the brutal slaughter of indigenous populations in South and Central America and for the continued harassment, torture and murder of women in Europe for practicing natural healing?

You may also want to ask why some Jews are referred to as Sephardim, the origins of Ladino and where all the Muslims from Andalucia went...

Other Comments by Goldy

123. Comment #82014 by decius on October 25, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Veronique,

I've just found an on-line two-hour audio debate between Stenger and creationist Hugh Ross. I've listened only a few minutes into the show and it appears that the host is a slanted IDer, but Vic holds his ground beautifully.

If you find something else, let me know, please.

http://www.thethingsthatmattermost.org/gallery.htm

Other Comments by decius

124. Comment #82037 by IndyHoosier on October 25, 2007 at 3:20 pm

I don't understand the viewpoint of those that consider Hitchens to be a good or accomplished debater. He is a terrible debater. Absolutely abysmal.

I refer you to his debate with George Galloway. Or his lecture at the recent AAI 07 conference.

In the former, the "debate" devolved into a full fledged cat fight. There was no discussion of ideas, only a tiresome series of personal attacks.

In the latter, Hitchens is asked a question about his support for the Iraq war, and he immediately attacks the person as someone who does not know what he is talking about. Hitchens is very ill tempered and cannot handle a challenge to his perceived superiority. It makes him a very poor debater.

And as far as debating D'Souza goes, Hitchens is not versed in the sciences and is ill prepared to challenge the pseudo science and total nonsense D'Souza spouts.

Other Comments by IndyHoosier

125. Comment #82075 by Prufrocks on October 25, 2007 at 4:22 pm

YAWN! to both D'Souza and Hitchens. (First time I've ever yawned thru Hitchens; have never not yawned at D'Souza, although he almost always says at least something of merit.)

Re: science, both are particularly unqualified debaters, with D'Souza only marginally less poor than Hitchens (Hitchens recognizes and acknowledges the fact; D'Souza exploits the predictably greater ignorance of his audience. Total waste of time here, except for, deliciously ...see below)

Hitchens, admitting that Christianity has inspired beautiful [transcencent & numinous?] music and art, should have titled his book "God is Not Great: The Poisons of Religion." Part of the relatively mild weakness of Hitchens in this contrived silliness was because of his indefensible rhetorical excess: there is undeniably a hell of a lot of destructive disgusting poison in religion, and it is plenty bad enough, but does it really poision EVERYTHING?

Hitchens was correct: the "Good Samaritan" story from within Christianity, historical or not, shows morality and charity-in-action are neither original to nor dependent on Christianity. "Love they neighbor as theyself" is from Leviticus and long predates Jesus regardless of the Samaritan. D'Souza, bright as he is, totally missed the point as leaped to apologize for the Samaritan as living, obviously, before Christianity existed. Well...duhhhh...that was the point.

Within the animal world, primarily mammals, there is extraordinarily evolved social order: ...nurturant protection and education of the young, and more or less peaceful, orderly and cooperative social groups. The only other thing that is needed for "morality", in addition to the ability of the individual to experience pleasure and pain, is the ability to empathize. (Jesus was empathic, as was the ancient author of Leviticus). Behavior indistinguishable from "moral" and "compassionate" is seen in sub-human primates and other mammals.

D'Souza is correct, of course, that regarding human rights and murder, Christianity is NOT the worst offender in history, at least not after the 19th Century (damnation by faint praise?) On the other hand, more Christians and Jews were killed by Christians (in the name of god and religion) than by the Romans. More importantly, there is no question that centuries of murderous Christian anti-semitism, rooted solidly in New Testament texts and in the mouths and writings of Christian "leaders" ENABLED (but did not predict or require) the Holocaust. D'Souza has a rather disingenuous and minimalist take on historical Christian carnage. (It's a tragedy what Paul, the "New Testament", the Christ Myth and Christianity did to the real Jesus.)

D'Souza mentioned the defense in his book of the resurrection of Jesus on 'historical grounds.' It cannot possibly be the case that his use of "history" & "method" can be any more compelling for the reasoned non-believer or genuine historian than, say, Strobel or poor Josh McDowell, given that virtually everyone has exactly the same unconvincing body of evidence with which to work (except for the internal warm-fuzzy.) There is virtually no creditable historiographic, textual or archaeologic evidence, or compelling logic or common sense to believe or argue otherwise about a literal physical bodily "resurrection." And a lot of Christians know it, more all the time. Hope, belief, acculturation and warm fuzzies, yes. D'Souza's is less a case for the historicity of the resurrection than merely presenting his personal non-rational non-scientific reasons to belief, as weak as they are. (One needn't, of course, be dumb or backwards to be seduced by the extraordinary power of the Christ Myth: consider C.S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, and many others superior to D'Souza. And Paul of Tarsus, who in complete believing sincerity created much of it, was a bona fide religious genius. As was the less sincere Joseph Smith. Genius for all their faults and falsities.)

As far as the 'parameter tunings' of the strong anthropic principle which D'Souza merely parrots with conviction to a dimbulb audience (and to Hitchens, who SHOULD have done better), one can neither simply dismiss the legitimate criticisms, argument or debate about it, nor rule out, by either physics or logic, any number of possible alternatives. Including "a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions" (Collins and Hawkings, 1973). Within an infinitely large and variable set of universes/multiverses, with an infinitely large set of possible 'tunings', what is the chance that there will not be at least one (or millions of millions) 'tuned for life'? These are not ad hoc explanations invented by atheists to attack Christianity or creationism/theism, but logical extensions of theoretical physics or informed "thought experiments" and speculations from well within the bounds of both physics and logic. With a dash of metaphysics. Why does D'Souza chose the Strong Anthropic over other equally (or more) logical, rational and plausible alternatives? Ignorance of cosmology and the full discussion of anthropic principles and debates. (What does String Theory say about anthropics?) A need to support his otherwise irrational faith. D'Souza wouldn't be caught dead debating cosmology before an informed audience, much less with an even a moderately informed and competent physicist: ...this was a total laughable waste, and also a deliberate calculated choice by D'Souza. It made me cringe on one hand, but, if that's the best the best that Christianity can do, what can you say? Bring 'em on!) But, Hitchens, with not much study, certainly could have done much better here.

Obviously questions of origins and emergence remain unanswered (for now), but there will ALWAYS be unanswered questions. So what? Given the unanswered and unanswerable questions WITHIN Christianity, BETWEEN Christians, ABOUT Christianity and its heaven, hell, god, history, rapture, Christian scriptures and their origins and literalness, theology, etc., it is unbelievably ironic that unanswered questions and uncertainty regarding the real world is such a barrier issue. Ultimately for D'Souza and all Christians, it comes down not at all to logic, science, or reason as he claims, but to hope, fear and, again, subjective warm fuzzies. (Including, apparently, fear of being left alone to decide by himself right from wrong, good and bad, better or worse. How do gorillas and elephants do it? Experience and empathy, just like Jesus and his Hebrew predecessors who wrote Leviticus.) The ONLY rational solution for unanswered questions of science is more science not more religion.

A great shame in history is that, in the centuries surrounding the beginning of the C.E., Greek "God fearers" at the Synagogue, strongly attracted to Jewish ethics and community (and with no perverted Christian sense of sin, heaven, hell, bloody human Jesus sacrifice, etc), did not ascend as a historical force rather than Christianity (which actively later, as an arm of the State, suppressed it). Imagine: "Love thy neighbor" as a guiding principle, untarnished by the Christian grotesqueries above, and without all those centuries of murderous Christian anti-semitism or "The Protocols."

If I were Christian and a true follower of Jesus, I must needs be loving and charitable to the "Islamo-fascists." Such Jesus-inspired 'love-your-enemy-do-good-to-those-who-hate-you' Christianity would obviously only aid and abet an all but eschatological catastrophe. Which, of course, is not only NOT a bad thing for Christianity but, rather, a devout wish and rapturous anticipation. (The perpetual and forever non-return of Jesus is another story as well as a reality check.)

Other Comments by Prufrocks

126. Comment #82079 by Summer Seale on October 25, 2007 at 4:42 pm

#124 IndyHoosier

"I don't understand the viewpoint of those that consider Hitchens to be a good or accomplished debater. He is a terrible debater. Absolutely abysmal.

I refer you to his debate with George Galloway. Or his lecture at the recent AAI 07 conference.

In the former, the "debate" devolved into a full fledged cat fight. There was no discussion of ideas, only a tiresome series of personal attacks.

In the latter, Hitchens is asked a question about his support for the Iraq war, and he immediately attacks the person as someone who does not know what he is talking about. Hitchens is very ill tempered and cannot handle a challenge to his perceived superiority. It makes him a very poor debater."

Something tells me that you don't like Hitchens because of his support of the Iraq war either. Something also tells me that you think Galloway made a good case in defense of himself?

Just asking... =)

I think Hitchens is a wonderful debater. I think he was just not his usual self that night with D'Souza.

Other Comments by Summer Seale

127. Comment #82081 by Styrer- on October 25, 2007 at 4:44 pm

To those continuing to deprecate the Hitch's performance here: let us not, please, ignore his glass and his slower movements in delivering a speech which - I propose to every single one of you - was superb when we realise it was delivered PISSED.

There is no chance on earth, I fear, of my ever being as articulate, rational and persuasive either with or without the nectar of the gods as Hitchens has been in this 'debate'.

We might perhaps only criticise him for that slight sense of continuing 'ennui' evident here, not at the notion previously of agreement promised by his attandance at the AAI 07, but by the promise that he will have to repeat the same old stuff in front of an unsympathetic audience.

Despite this, I think it is his delivery which the critics here are taking to task, rather than his content. It's still all there, if you will take the time to listen.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

128. Comment #82109 by Linda on October 25, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Prufrocks - #125 - That is an excellent analysis of this latest encounter between Hitchens and D'Souza. Hitchens knows the material and should have been more aggressive in responding to the pompous, infantile fantasies that D'Souza offered as evidence for for the supernatural. Perhaps CH is tired and road weary from being on the sold out and demanding 'god is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything' tour.

Pssst DD - you are a front man for a diabolical marketing campaign that sells lies in the disguise of Bronze Age science fiction myths. Not being able to distinguish between fantasy and reality is a sign of an infantile, emotionally immature intellect.

Other Comments by Linda

129. Comment #82111 by IndyHoosier on October 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm

#126

Something tells me that you don't like Hitchens because of his support of the Iraq war either. Something also tells me that you think Galloway made a good case in defense of himself?

Just asking... =)

I think Hitchens is a wonderful debater. I think he was just not his usual self that night with D'Souza

======

I think that Hitchens dissection of religion is brilliant. He has used his talents well in wading through the vast oceans of faith based muck and outlined what an amazingly absurd proposition it is.

The point of my reference to Galloway was not to suggest that Galloway was a good debater or made good points. That "debate" was a street fight that shed no light on the subject matter, because all they did was attack each other's credibility. It doesn't matter that Hitchens is an alcoholic, as Galloway suggests, when he declares that the invasion of Iraq is a noble cause. It matters what the principle points that justify such an invasion are. Likewise, it doesn't matter that Galloway offered words of praise for Palestinians and met with Assad when he says that the invasion was illegal. It matters whether the law is clear on whether the invasion is illegal or not.

The debate was about the Iraq war, not about the personal failings (as described by the respective opponents) of the debaters.

In order to be a good debater, one has to counter the arguments of the other side. Whenever Hitchens is tasked by an opponent to counter an argument, as opposed to restating his primary thesis, he instinctly just scratches the eye out of the questioner/opponent, and does not address the issue.


As far as Hitchens support of the Iraq war goes, I am flabbergasted. He makes noble speeches about lofty ideals of freedom and the horrors of totalitarianism, yet completely ignores the lies, corruption, destruction of rights of the administration. Either Hitchens is an idiot/savant, or he is in the pay of the Neocons. I cannot understand how he can have such a large grasp of history, governments, and religion, and be utterly unable to see the downside of what has happened in Iraq.

Other Comments by IndyHoosier

130. Comment #82122 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 5:42 pm

Heh, I actually kinda LIKE it when Hitch has a snootfull.
I was kinda guiltily hoping for him to snap at D'Souza with his "fascist crackpot!! Fascist crackpot!! Go away!! Get out!! No!! No!! Go away!!", routine.
B-)
But that's me, I'm a little twisted.



Other Comments by Diacanu

131. Comment #82137 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 6:21 pm

IndyHoosier (Hey, I'm from Fort Wayne!): Hitchens is quite good under many circumstances. If you want an Atheist to make an appearance on Fox News or on a talking heads show, book Christopher. The man is always entertaining and can hold his own in such a format. Many who've encountered him on primetime cable news have come to regret their encounter. I submit this D'Souza debate and the Galloway "debate" are anomalies. I think Hitchens could use our support as well as our level criticism. I think he appreciates honesty above all.

EDIT: I just watched the D'Souza appearance on Fox News and I want to puke. The man claims a 50/50 split in the audience and then claims the atheist half was cowered by his performance! What an ass. From the very beginning it was clear the crowd was something like 60/40 or 70/30 in favor of christians to begin with, based on initial applause factors as well as reports from people who were actually there. Also, no where did Atheists "yell and scream" during their applause. Many times I could hear such things occurring during the applause for Dinesh's remarks. Faux News strikes again! Using its television audience's ignorance to parrot Fox's own interpretation of events. Disgusting.

The "Atheist Avenger" within me wishes someone: Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, I don't care who, would debate D'Souza, in the Lion's Den - Fox News - and beat him solidly on his own ground. The Fox News report just pisses me the fuck off. Whoever does it needs to make sure the format is amiable to real debate and rebuttal and the audience must include a real 50/50 split. D'Souza's debate style must be studied, dissected with the microscope of reason, then charred black by the gigantic Bunsen Burner of Inquiry (TM)!!!

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

132. Comment #82182 by SmartLX on October 25, 2007 at 7:55 pm

What gets me the worst, by the way, is that D'Souza refers to us as "the atheist", singular. You can hear echoes of old hate speeches..."the Jew", "the infidel", "the uncivilised man", "the Hun" and of course "the unbeliever".

As if we all have a single psyche and he has his finger on it. That's what makes me mad.

Other Comments by SmartLX

133. Comment #82220 by stevencarrwork on October 25, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Evil people will do bad things.

The difference is that religious people will often praise the murders committed by other religous leaders.

I wonder why D'Souza does not include the public beheadings of 600 or 700 Jews by Muslims after the Battle of the Trench in 627 AD?

Perhaps because D'Souza knows that Muslims can be scary , but he can attack atheists without having to go into hiding.

Strange, when atheists are all mass-murderers?

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

134. Comment #82231 by stevencarrwork on October 25, 2007 at 10:39 pm

D'Souza trying to convince the world that religion does not condone killing is facing a David and Goliath task.

Still, at least D'Souza has the consolation of knowing that David killed Goliath, so perhaps he can show the world that religion does not condone killings.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

135. Comment #82232 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Evil people will do bad things.
-Steven Carrwork

With atheism, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things, you need religion.

Think about it, supposedly God can suspend the laws of nature, so he can suspend the laws of morality, so if God says it's good to do an atrocity, it is, and if a wicked person claims to have God on his side, well, there you go.

It's incumbent upon the religionists to show how freethinking and reason can lead to wickedness in the same way history has shown religion has.

Just shouting "Stalin!", won't cut it.



Other Comments by Diacanu

136. Comment #82389 by glittergulch on October 26, 2007 at 8:14 am

I can't believe how stupid D'Souza is. He is such a moron. He says more than once "Atheists don't know blah blah blah. They are confused and lack the information. But we KNOW the answers. We have that information." What the hell is he talking about? If "atheists" decided to pick some random answer and "know" it then would they be on equal footing with big smart Dinesh and his pals? I mean, is he saying that ANY answer that you convince yourself of is equally valid?

And how is it a Christian view of the universe that the laws are constant? He talks about miracles in one breath and then claims the constancy of the laws of nature to be a CHRISTIAN concept in the next. He is a very, very stupid man.

Other Comments by glittergulch

137. Comment #82409 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 8:46 am

Comment #81513 by oxytocin:

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.

Absolutely right, but that is not what the point was. The point the man was making was that Christians, acting Christian (converting...) did it. (you may want to say, knee-jerk, "So What!"... but that doesn't really suffice... and just for posterity, I am an atheist, but I think it is only fair to acknowledge valid points).

The claim that sending in POLICE would work is a bit absurd. That's an empirical claim, not one that can be assented to a priori.

Though it is true (and blatantly obvious) that any act of GOODNESS the religious can do can be accomplished by secular people... in this particular case, it should be noted that the evil act of "brainwashing" was probably a much easier way to get the Fijians to stop eating themselves... whether we want to admit it our not... secular policing and scapegoating and the like may or may not have worked...

But, the only thing the Fijian comment shows is that Christianity succeeded in doing SOMETHING good in this case, however INADVERTENTLY (they weren't going to Fiji to stop Fijians from eating each other, but to "save their souls" and colonize...), something that secular work would perhaps have a harder time doing, and indeed, didn't do (whatever this means).

It is a very small, very weak point of concession, but it is one, nonetheless.

Other Comments by Spinoza

138. Comment #82411 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 8:48 am

Oh, and just so y'all know. Both of them got Spinoza's ontology wrong. LOL.

Other Comments by Spinoza

139. Comment #82421 by exhindugirl on October 26, 2007 at 9:52 am

This is the first time I am posting here. Just wanted to say that I do not think Dinesh is a good debater. He was verbose, and the main crux of his argument was that atheism is evil, and there can be no good without god, specially the christian god. I don't know he truly believes that, or whether he is just setting up atheism as a bogeyman to scare the naive.After all, atheism is just an absence in a belief in a deity, and that should be too scary to anyone!

Other Comments by exhindugirl

140. Comment #82451 by Mr DArcy on October 26, 2007 at 11:05 am

I'm going to pick up on something that I don't think anyone else has which is that D'Souza said something very like "miracles might just be possible". He was arguing that scientists take a leap of faith by assuming the laws of nature apply equally everywhere, and that as you can't prove it, there may be exceptions and possibly miracles.

I like it. Here we have a "modern" Christian who is actually prepared to sanction the miraculous. This surely is dry powder in our arsenal. Most "modern" Christians are just so slippery about what they believe in, that they are impossible to pin down, or even understand what they are saying. But here we have a prominent Christian who is prepared to defend miracles. This is perhaps an avenue of ridicule, that could be exposed, unless of course miracles are possible!

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

141. Comment #82490 by Russian Freethinker on October 26, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Let's post a few comments on D'Souza's website:

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/26/atheisms-contribution-to-humanity/

Other Comments by Russian Freethinker

142. Comment #82510 by Corky on October 26, 2007 at 2:05 pm

I think that since Hitchens knew that D'souza's stawmen and his reference to Hitler/Stalin were coming, he should have answered them in his opening statement. This would have forced D'souza's hand early and the burden of proof would have been on D'souza.

Other Comments by Corky

143. Comment #82563 by eXcommunicate on October 26, 2007 at 6:06 pm

I am engaging fundies on at the Youtube links above (I am under the moniker 'MythosRuler'), so please join me if you have such an inclination (most notably @ Video 8/10). :)

EDIT: I've changed my Youtube name to "eXcommunicate1979"

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

144. Comment #82575 by Inoculatedcities on October 26, 2007 at 7:10 pm

"You have literary theorist Christopher Hitchens and biology major Sam Harris positing..."

What a condescending dolt. Notice he didn't challenge Dawkins' or Dennett's or Stenger's credentials. Very telling and pathetic to resort to ad hominem attacks in a formal debate. How about "former Reagan aide and self-proclaimed political, historical and religious 'scholar' Dinesh D'Souza"?

"Modern science itself is based on three Christian assumptions...1) The universe as a whole is rational...2) The universe obeys laws in the language of mathematics..." etc. etc. etc.

What does such a statement mean when discussing the origins of time and space? What is rational about quantum mechanics? I am willing to bet a fair number of cosmologists would have a problem with the blanket statement "The universe as a whole is rational." SOME of the universe can be understood in a way deemed rational TO US (including mathematics) but is the universe as a whole rational to an ant? To a chimpanzee? To a human?

"How does the electron know what to do?!"

Well, clearly a supernatural creator and leader named God tells every electron how to move. Isn't that obvious? And this is the problem with the debate in general: if anything appears to be in doubt, if the jury is out on anything pertaining to the matter, "God" wins by default, without ANY further examination or inquiry. In its scientifically illiterate form it's "No clear record of a perfect gradient of transitional fossils? Then, obviously, GOD did it!!!"

Ugh... I could go on responding but it's just too much nonsense at once to handle.

Other Comments by Inoculatedcities

145. Comment #82595 by exchemist on October 26, 2007 at 9:18 pm

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been brought up yet, but what I found the most jaw-dropping from Dinesh were:

1. "Why do neurons in my body follow the same laws as atoms on far-off planets?" I simply can't believe someone could ever ask themselves this question and be genuinely perplexed. It makes sense that they would. They're made of the same stuff, obey the same laws of nature, and so forth. I wrote a midterm exam three days ago on, among other things, the histology and anatomy of the nervous system. And I never found myself incredulous that electron transfer occurs the same way in the human body as I've learned previously in electrochemistry, electricity in physics or photosynthesis in biology. I've always maintained that those who have devoted any amount of time to studying those fields don't have the luxury of abusing them to fit their philosophical worldview. Which brings me to my next point:

2. Of Professor Dawkins, "This is what happens when you let a biology major out of the lab." Now I don't want to seem like I'm offended on behalf of the good professor, but anyone who has done graduate and post-graduate work in a certain field has earned the courtesy to be referred to as more than a "major" of a subject. I would never have the disrespect to refer any of my professors or teaching assistants, regardless of my opinion of them, as mere majors of their chosen fields. I've also noticed that arts & humanities students are often referred to as A&H/liberal arts majors, while science students are called scientists and engineering students engineers. Perhaps Dinesh is harbouring jealousy that his field of study doesn't carry the noble spirit of the scientific revolution, or allow him to wear a lab coat? My general dislike for liberal arts types aside, it avoids the fact that scientists are the most qualified to take part in discussions about religion and philosophy, as they know the most about the intricate details of the universe, and most of them (I hope) have enough respect for their work not to try to corrupt it into something it is not meant to be.

3. Dinesh seriously needs to study maths and sciences. If he finds it weird that matter follows the same laws no matter (pun intended) where it is found in the universe, he should also be amazed that two plus two always equals four. Or that choose notation (i.e. four choose five) always uses the same formula and arrives to the same result, whether you're finding a binomial probability or computing a maclaurin series. And he should also take a statistics course while he's at it, and learn about null and alternate hypotheses. Towards the end of the debate, when he goes on his "It's equally irrational to declare that there is or isn't a god; christians just admit the possibility ergo ipso facto are correct" tangent, he's essentially taking a position that, like a null hypothesis, cannot be rejected, and argues that because it can't be rejected it must be correct. There's more moral courage to be found in taking a position that could very quickly be proven wrong, either by departing into hell upon death or having the almighty let us all know in no uncertain terms what the deal is, but it's easy to tell that moral courage is not something Dinesh possesses.

Other Comments by exchemist

146. Comment #82600 by pyjamaslug on October 26, 2007 at 10:41 pm

oh, dear.
After watching the video I have to report that Hitch was utterly and comprehensively creamed. Sorry if that offends but it seems there is a lot of wish fulfillment going on here. He made his usual points cogently and politely but his debating style was no match for D'Souza who understands much more completely that the last word is the winner, and that the crescendo of the emotional high leaves a more lasting impression than the quieter satisfaction of a point well and completely made.

We learn from our experience, and Hitchens admitted early on that he found D'Souza a most formidable opponent; I would say that he is right and that this is nothing to do with the quality of the arguments put forward but everything to do with the way they are phrased and the targets they are aimed at. As an aside, I would complain that the debate format was not helpful but in other circumstances (and with the same moderator) Hitchens has had no problems.

Yes, I observed that D'Souza's techique is mere demagoguery but there is something to it. So what did he do which was so effective? simply put, he kept to the belief which Hitchens referred to and pushed his assertions as factual and beyond contradiction. His basic point (totalitarians aside) that we cannot understand the universe or our place in it without god was the underlying theme and it is a basic weakness of Hitchens' position, if viewed from the standpoint of a christian.
The fact is that we do *not* understand the universe and this leaves an opening for theists to insert their speculations. This is what D'Souza did, of course, but the point is that he did it in such a way as to make the rational viewpoint look irrational and the magical viewpoint look reasonable.
I would be very interested to see an honest discussion of how to combat his points.

Peter

Other Comments by pyjamaslug

147. Comment #82602 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 26, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Reposted from the Sam Harris AAI thread:

Hitchens great strength (and really, one of his few genuine strengths) as a advocate for the cause is that he knows how to rough-hosue: until D'Souza came along, I'd never seen anyone able to throw rhetorical elbows and dominate a stage like Hitchens.

The reason D'Souza won agaisnt Hitchens is that he was almost as good a rough-houser as Hitchens, and he was significantly more on top of the material. I'm not sure Sam Harris would do better, but for different reasons. Sam would kill D'Souza on substance, there's no doubt about that. But Sam just doesn't have it in him to throw an elbow. As I said before, what we need to do is lock Hitchens in a room for a week and have Harris, Dennett and Dawkins give him a very stern tutorial on the substance. Then Hitchens should ask for a rematch (cue "Eye of the Tiger" from Rocky II). The only alterative would be for a WRITTEN debate between D'Souza and Sam, much like Sam's blogalogues with Andrew Sullivan (good bloke) and Dennis Prager (spit). In that forum, Harris would *massacre* D'Souza.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

148. Comment #82609 by eXcommunicate on October 27, 2007 at 12:24 am

As I said before, what we need to do is lock Hitchens in a room for a week and have Harris, Dennett and Dawkins give him a very stern tutorial on the substance. Then Hitchens should ask for a rematch (cue "Eye of the Tiger" from Rocky II).

Nice! This is the exact image I had in mind days ago when these videos were posted: That of a re-energized Hitchens dominating a "rematch", ala Rocky II (cue training montage of Hitchy running up the steps in Philly, scotch in one hand, cigarette in the other).

I'd also envision a kind of "tag team" match or a "debate team" match-up between any number of theist apologists and 3 or 4 of our guys. Not sure how The Hitch would fit into that scenario, as he's an avowed individualist. I think the Rocky II scenario is more likely in his case. ;)


Other Comments by eXcommunicate

149. Comment #82610 by Paine on October 27, 2007 at 12:26 am

Hitchens did alright, I thought. On the socio-political-historical aspect, he owned D'souza.
On the scientific aspects though, he was quite lacking and let Dinesh get away with murder. I dont blame him at all, but it was unfortunate that Dinesh would stoop to misrepresent the facts.

I think the key is that the audience seemed completely science-illiterate and swallowed Dinesh's nonsense whole. Any group of halfway decent science students would have ripped him to shreds the moment he brought up that rubbish about natural 'law' and science being an 'act of faith'.
I cannot assume that any responsible adult could be mistaken on these points, and therefore am forced to conclude that D'souza was being deliberately misleading.


PS. I dont know much about this D'souza specimen, but I must say his interview with Stephen Colbert was a real pleasure to watch. Makes you wonder if the only way to defeat fraudulent bombast is with your own fraudulent bombast!

Other Comments by Paine

150. Comment #82612 by stevencarrwork on October 27, 2007 at 12:37 am

D'Souza
Why do neurons in my body follow the same laws as atoms on far-off planets?"

CARR
SO D'Souza is now complaining that nature is just so damn unnatural?

Why does D'Souza think that nature is behaving unnaturally, and that this is proof that something is making it behave differently to what D'Souza thinks it should behave?

Other Comments by stevencarrwork