351. Comment #93554 by ClemIsMe on December 3, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Has anyone watched any these debates (the above or any others from this site) and come away with a changed mind? I think I prefer lectures.

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

352. Comment #93558 by ungodlystheist on December 3, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Dinesh, drives me mad.

Talk about verbal diarohea, is the man capable of answering a question without delivering a sermon of meaningless cliches.

Firstly the debate, I though Dennet did well. Basically he was not going to get into a one and one with some of Dinesh's stupid comments and therefore treat them with any credibility. For me it worked well, considering the audiance that the debate was taking in front of.

Not sure how well it will go down over the internet, with a less informed audiance.

I wish someone would point out the biggest fault with Dinesh argument - this one fault applies to most of his arguments. And that is, he thinks if he destroys the alternative, naturalism, then by default he has proved his position of supernaturalism. He never actually establishes the supernatural.

Take his diatribe about the origin of the cosmos, beginning of life, the finally tuned universe, the source of consciousness, and the source of morality. He claims, wrongly, that science cannot and will not be able to answer these questions.

Well let us, for the sake of argument, assume he is right, this does not mean 'God' did it. He provides no proof of that.

Here is analogy I like to use in debate when people bring up this argument.

Imagine you live in China 2,500 years ago. The ancient Chinese believed that when an eclipse of the sun took place, it was caused by the sun dragon, trying to devour the sun. If the dragon succeeded, the world would be left in perpetual darkness.

To revent this from happening, the ancient chinese would set of fire crackers, bang drums, and generally make as much of a hollabaloo as possible, in the belief that this would drive the dragion away, before he had finished swallowing the sun, and so the world would be saved.

So imagine, you watch this, and when the eclipse ends you say to your neighbour, "You know I do not Think there is a sun dragon... and I do not think that is what causes the sun to go dark."

The neighbour responds, "If it is not the sun dragon, what is the cause of the sun going dark!"
To which you respond "I do not know, but I do not believe it is the sun dragon."

The neighbour responds,"See it must be the sun dragon, since what over explanation can there be."

Dinesh believes in his sun dragon God, and he should be told that because he does not know what is the origin of the cosmos, beginning of life, the finally tuned universe, the source of consciousness, of morality. (proves he is ignorant on alot.)" it does not therefore mean his sun drago did it, no more then it meant it once use to cause an eclipse of the sun.

The rest of his arguments sound no better then the God of the gaps argument to me.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

353. Comment #93559 by Diacanu on December 3, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Well, reading D'nesh's reply to the debate, and right off the bat, he calls atheism a "grim philosophy".
I seem to recall a couple times him being cornered into admitting you can be a moral atheist, then he turns around, and says it's "grim".
What's so grim about being moral without the aid of an invisible boogyman?
What a two-faced liar.

Other Comments by Diacanu

354. Comment #93563 by Bonzai on December 3, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Steve99

I think it is far more important than that. A lack of a parsimonius approach would be disastrous even for an isolated individual.

I would suggest that anyone who questions parsimony as a good approach to understanding reality needs to consult the following, in the order listed:

1. A dictionary
2. A therapist

It is not that I want to be a contrarian, but I think this needs clarification and qualification. I think things are not so black and white even in the hard sciences, there are legitimate reasons to violate Occam's razors sometimes.

An example would be Fermi's hypothesis for the neutrino to account for missing momenta in order to rescue the principle of conservation of momentum. There was really no evidence for the existence of the neutrino at that time, its existence was experimentally confirmed by Anderson
a few decades later. Fermi was motivated by theoretical considerations which were beyond the principle of parsimony. If he strictly stuck to finding the most parsimonious explanation he would have simply said that the principle of conservation of momentum was violated, it was empirically proven to be wrong.

Another example was Einstein's General relativity. Newtonian gravity worked perfectly fine in 1915. There was no empirical data that suggested any new theory was needed. Einstein was motivated by something more elusive like aesthetics and general symmetry consideration (covariance). Einstein didn't have any empirical data, the data caught up with him later.

I agree that under most circumstances parsimony would be preferred, but it should not be elevated to an absolute principle, sometimes it is defensible to override it for other competing considerations.

P.S. Now of course you may say that these examples really didn't violate parsimony because a single principle of conservation of momentum is really simpler than a patch work of laws and GR affords a more unified description of nature than Newtonian gravity, but in that case "parsimony" would become too flexible to be very useful as a practical guide line.

Other Comments by Bonzai

355. Comment #93565 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Bonzai:

I have to disagree with you about these. This is not a matter about parsimony in terms of data, its about parsimony in terms of ideas and principles. Fermi's ideas were indeed parsimonious. The idea of the neutrino maintained a simple idea - the conservation of momentum.

And Einstein's idea of general symmetry was also parsimonious... take a simple rule and assume it applies universally, without odd exceptions. Assume there are no additional laws for those accelerating as for those at constant velocity.

In both these situations, the scientists were trying to look for an increased generality and simplicity.

I am not suggesting that parsimony is a universal rule. What I am saying is that when someone actively rejects it as a general principle, as D'Souza does, then one really does have to question their motives and intellect.

Edit:

but in that case "parsimony" would become too flexible to be very useful as a practical guide line.

You read my mind! No, on the contrary, this is an illustration, I feel, of how parsimony is a useful guide, not how it has become too flexible. A single principle is more parsimonious that a patchwork.

Other Comments by steve99

356. Comment #93566 by Bonzai on December 3, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Yes steve, see my PS. Just edited it before I saw your reply.

Other Comments by Bonzai

357. Comment #93567 by ungodlystheist on December 3, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Ridelo

I wonder if D'Souza is honest in his arguments. He certainly is enthusiastic and eloquent. I find it hurting that somebody who isn't a fool can err so much. He promised to read Dennett and hopefully also Dawkins (not only TGD) more attentively. I hope so. And not only with a hidden agenda to search for more straw men. It would be wonderful if he could be converted.

You think Dinesh is sincere?!? He may believe in God or not, I don't know. But his 'preaching' -sorry debating engagements- are more about using religion to support his social agenda.

ie, without religion, what will happen to bigotry? without bigotry what will happen to Dinesh?

But seriously, Dinesh sees religion has a force for 'concervative' social co-hesion, and that is what he is really trying to propergate.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

358. Comment #93570 by John_Geeshu on December 3, 2007 at 2:11 pm

@ eXcommunicate

I did read the preceding 7 pages, and I saw a lot of anger and ad hominem. I didn't like D'Souza's rudeness any more than you did, which is why I thought the moderator should have addressed it during the debate. In any case, ad hominem is not a valid critique of any argument and is certainly not justified just because you think they are easily refuted. My argument is not that D'Souza has sound arguments -- I think that he committed the same fallacies that other religious apologists do, but as has been mentioned many times previously post-debate, winning a debate is less about the substance of the arguments you produce and more about how you present them. On those grounds I did not see D'Souza humbled by Dan's intellect and he did manage to put Dan on the defensive. I'm not saying I like D'Souza, but you write a few refutations on a website and then write him off -- I think that's a mistake.

Other Comments by John_Geeshu

359. Comment #93571 by robert s on December 3, 2007 at 2:15 pm

However parsimonous or otherwise they might have been, neutrinos and GR only became accepted as scientific fact once they had passed empirical tests - modifying NM to incorporate light being affected by gravity is much less parsimonious than GR.

Other Comments by robert s

360. Comment #93573 by Diacanu on December 3, 2007 at 2:16 pm

John Geeshu-

winning a debate is less about the substance of the arguments you produce and more about how you present them.

Watching the O.J. Simpson trial displayed that principle.

America's diseased and decrepit judicial system seems to revolve around who has the best carnival barker.
It'd be farcical if it weren't nauseatingly tragic.



Other Comments by Diacanu

361. Comment #93575 by ungodlystheist on December 3, 2007 at 2:20 pm

fides_et_ratio wrote

Despite yours and numerous other posters' low opinions of D'Souza's debating skills, Christopher Hitchens says he's one of the most formidable debaters he has faced.

You think that was meant as a compliment?

Debating can be about actually debating an idea, in search for the truth. Or it can be a hookers platform in which through 'slight of argument', try and prostitute themselves and their 'broken products (idea)'.

One can call the slight of hander a good debater, because they know how to work a crowd. Granted, Dinesh does that quite well - and in that sense he is indeed a good 'salesman'.

But if by debate you mean actually an exchange of arguments - Dinesh stinks. Usually he relies upon religious credibilities in his audience - and works them up the way a some fundy preacher 'works' his congregation.

At Tufts he did not have his usual 'credulous crowd' and the silence his comments were greeted with, shook Dinesh up a bit. Why else would he lie by saying he would read Dennet's books - implying that he would read them in search for valid arguments - rather then for misquotes.

Dinesh will never read them looking for valid arguments- he cannot recognise one, which is why he preachers rather then debates.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

362. Comment #93577 by Riley on December 3, 2007 at 2:21 pm

I think that the best way to respond to the issue of Stalin and Mao as atheists, is this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the debate over weather or not religion is a source of much trouble in the world, it's irrelevant to point out that Stalin was an atheist. The question must be: was or was not Stalinism a religion. It's religion and religious thinking that is at issue here after all, not any one particular answer to a difficult question."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would argue of course, that Stalinism meets most of the necessary criteria. Stalinist Russia was a society ruled by the ideological commandments and the dogmatic/supernatural beliefs of it's messianic leader: Joseph Stalin. So I ask D'Souza, why should Stalinism not be considered as yet another example of the trouble caused when societies become fully engaged in religious thinking?

Other Comments by Riley

363. Comment #93581 by ungodlystheist on December 3, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Dinesh had the nerve to bring up the caveman example.

The caveman looks out of his cave, sees one or two miles, and then assumes it is only what he sees that can exist.

At least the caveman does not claim to know what he has no evidence for. Dinesh claims that he too is a caveman, and he too can only see one or two miles. But despite that, he can see way beyond the universe it self and find God on the horizon??????!!!????

If Dinesh wants to argue form ignorance then he should acknowledge that he too is equally ignorant, and propergating Gods from ignorance is to say the least creduless

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

364. Comment #93582 by Diacanu on December 3, 2007 at 2:36 pm

ungodlystheist-

If Dinesh wants to argue form ignorance then he should acknowledge that he too is equally ignorant, and propergating Gods from ignorance is to say the least creduless

That's where Pascal's wager comes in.

Man, I'm sick of hearing that thing; it's such a miserable argument.

Other Comments by Diacanu

365. Comment #93585 by Dr Benway on December 3, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Bonzai: I agree that under most circumstances parsimony would be preferred, but it should not be elevated to an absolute principle, sometimes it is defensible to override it for other competing considerations.

I think the problem sometimes isn't parsimony but trying to develop explanations with insufficient information.

Example:

Hypothesis A: Thing X is the result of A(known) + 2B(known) + whatsit-1 + whatsit-2
Hypothesis B: Thing X is the result of A(known) + 2B(known) + whatsit-3

Which is more parsimonius? B has fewer values. However, maybe whatsit-3 is more complicated than whatsit-1 and whatsit-2 combined.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

366. Comment #93588 by Aldebaran on December 3, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Science has come up with the Big Bang model and now theists see in it evidence for a first cause argument. They argue that from the fact that the universe has a beginning it follows that the universe has a special kind of cause: an intelligent first cause (preferably the christian kind in D'Souza's case). How should the philosophical and/or scientific community rebut? How should Dennett have rebutted? In my opinion there really is a host of arguments that is applicable.

The more or less implicit claims made by D'Souza are the following:

1) The Big Bang shows that the universe had a beginning.
2) 'Outside' the universe, there is a realm of existence (let's call it the realm of god) from which the universe is caused
3) The beginning of the universe is the beginning of everything with exception of the realm of god.
4) Although time is an intrinsic aspect of the universe alone there is a causal connection between the god realm and the universe (causal bridge).
5) The realm of god and god himself is static and uncaused.
6) The universe was caused intentionally and deliberately
7) God intended to create the universe as it is.

Some remarks on these assertions:

(2) The Big Bang model in its present form by no means requires a realm of existence outside the universe that is causally connected with the universe. Yet this causal connection and this outside realm both are necessary in D'Souza's argument.

(3) Why not allow (from the 'outside realm') for the unintentional causation of many universes (rebutting 3), or for unintentional triggers in which the same universe is created and destroyed over and over? Indeed, in buddhism there is no divine cause required to cause the universe. Then shouldn't D'Souza make perfectly clear on what grounds he can falsify buddhistic cosmogony over the christian one? Shouldn't D'Souza make perfectly clear from what solid fact it follows that we are in need for an intentional and deliberate causator? The blunt fact is that no religion can infer an intentional causation of the universe from the Big Bang.

(4) How can 'cause' have meaning without time to line up cause and consequence?

(5) This assertion allows for uncaused existence. Why not allow this for the universe itself? And why should this causator itself be uncaused. From what facts of the Big Bang model should this plug-in-the-bath-tub argument follow?

(6) If we allow for a causal connection between a realm of existence 'outside' the universe and the universe itself, then why not allow for an unintentional causation of our universe from that realm? There is no need for assertion intentional and deliberate causation. This is an unneccessary addition that further complicates the model. When Ockham's Razor is applied to it, it is clear that should be left out. Furthermore couldn't god have created a more clearly purposeful universe. There's a lot of waste about. His rolemodel as a good housekeeper in the universe lies in shambles. A holodek for mankind would have been enough.

(7) Wouldn't D'Souza shout the same argument in any universe that brought him about? And wouldn't he be silent in any other universe? Is the carbon base of life necessary for the existence of intelligent agents such as us? How does he know?

All in all D'Souza is in great need of filling the gaps. I see a strong analogy between Thor's thunder and god's Big Bang. Why doesn't D'Souza demand the full rehabilitation of Thor now we know he didn't cause thunder but a much bigger bang?

Other Comments by Aldebaran

367. Comment #93590 by Dr Benway on December 3, 2007 at 3:08 pm

The question must be: was or was not Stalinism a religion.

Laying responsibility for mass cruelties at the feet of either the religious or the non-believers seems misguided. There's a more general problem here.

Mass cruelties typically are the result of leadership with too much power and too little accountability combined with credulous followers blindly doing as they are told.

All social groups, whether religious, political, corporate, cultural, etc., are vulnerable to problems with unchecked power.

If we hope to prevent the rise of god-men like Hitler and Stalin in the future, we must be mindful of our own gullibility. We have to establish systems to double-check the things our leaders tell us.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

368. Comment #93592 by meraj on December 3, 2007 at 3:44 pm

I'm sorry, but did any of you also feel like throwing Dinesh out a window?

Other Comments by meraj

369. Comment #93593 by notsobad on December 3, 2007 at 3:50 pm

When someone starts with, "the communists were atheists and muss murderers," remind them that communism is a totalitarian ideology similar to religions without the supernatural part.

Tell them that you are against all irrational and totalitarian ideologies (well, if you are), which includes communism, Nazism, etc.

Also, suggesting that Nazism in itself and specifically Nazi Germany were atheist is beyond ridiculous.
Hitler's words:

The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgment of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie.

Other Comments by notsobad

370. Comment #93595 by Riley on December 3, 2007 at 3:59 pm

All social groups, whether religious, political, corporate, cultural, etc., are vulnerable to problems with unchecked power.

I agree, except that I believe it's religious thinking itself, both among leaders and the populous that enable such institutions (corporate and/or governmental) to seize dictatorial power. If it were possible to eliminate religious thinking from the human mind, the problems caused by dictatorial power might go away.

Since we can;t do this (or until we can) I definitely agree that systems are necessary to keep society safe. Systems like: separation of government powers, anti-trust laws for corporations, constitutional governments that include universal human-rights guarantees, science, and other liberal institutions. These institutions work I think because they keep our mob-formed human tendency for religious hero-worship from consolidating power around any one particular icon, be that icon human, corporate, political, or supernatural.

Other Comments by Riley

371. Comment #93596 by Tagred on December 3, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Why do people go on about the universe seeming to be fine tuned for life. It seems more to reason that life is fine tuned to exist in the universe.

If there were different laws there could be a different type of life. I think we are being a little closed minded if catagorically satate that all life is solely based around carbon compunds/molecules; silicon can form a huge amount of molecules also.

Life is in the universe it's in, life evolved because of the universal laws not the other way round, of course any universe will always seem to be fine tuned for a particular type of life, that looks pretty obvious to me.

Or have i missed some incredibly simple thing here?

Other Comments by Tagred

372. Comment #93597 by Diacanu on December 3, 2007 at 4:06 pm

notsobad-

When someone starts with, "the communists were atheists and muss murderers,"

When someone pulls that, ugh, I'm just about to the point of just telling them to eat shit and die, really.
I'm fed up with it.
It's such a nasty piece of business.
Pointing out the abominations religion has done is just that.
The Stalin argument however is always said in a tone that says you're a budding Stalin without religion.
In fact, that's exactly what D'Souza thinks.
That he calls atheism a "grim philosphy", pretty much nails that he thinks without religion, we'd be living under a new Stalinism.

I'm running out of resolve to prevent myself just exclaiming "you fucking little weasel fuck!!", I really am.
Letting such wretchedness roll off my back, it's so fucking draining.

Other Comments by Diacanu

373. Comment #93598 by Diacanu on December 3, 2007 at 4:11 pm

meraj-

I'm sorry, but did any of you also feel like throwing Dinesh out a window?

He'd love that though.
He'd go "See? I told you so!".
Then he'd turn his newfound martydom into more book sales.

Other Comments by Diacanu

374. Comment #93599 by robert s on December 3, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Tagred: Or have i missed some incredibly simple thing here?

Yeah, the sorts of problems the fine-tuning avoids are things like a universe that recollapses very quickly or blows itself up to enormous size. Obviously in either of those cases you don't get large-scale, complex structures.

Some of them are more subtle and cause problems with fusion in the cores of stars (without fusion not only do the stars not radiate energy, but they also don't synthesise heavy elements from the primordial hydrogen).

There are a lot of examples of that kind of thing, and it certainly does need an explanation.

ISTM that 'goddidit' doesn't explain much of anything, though.

Other Comments by robert s

375. Comment #93600 by tommcc on December 3, 2007 at 4:34 pm

D'souza.... he doesn't half go on about nothing!
All that shouting, the eric morcombe play with the glasses. Was he auditioning for pantomime season? what part could he play?

Other Comments by tommcc

376. Comment #93601 by zeppado on December 3, 2007 at 4:45 pm

I find D'Souza's incessant use of funny voices frankly risible

Other Comments by zeppado

377. Comment #93602 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 3, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Contrary to my fears, I think Professor Dennett did very well here. I'd go so far as to say that he did significantly better against Dousche I mean D'Souza than the Hitch did. However, in fairness to the Hitch, he did have a relatively hostile audience and Dennett here had a relatively sympathetic one.

What I'm waiting for is the Sam Harris vs D'Souza smackdown. If Sam is on form, it could be good to watch.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

378. Comment #93605 by Dr Benway on December 3, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Riley: The question must be: was or was not Stalinism a religion. It's religion and religious thinking that is at issue here after all, not any one particular answer to a difficult question.

Hitchens and Dennett do something like this. I think it's poor form. You can't call atheistic communism a religion. You just can't. Unless you want people to think you are a loon.

Better:
1. Note that secular and religious mass cruelties have two things in common: a) a large group of poorly informed, gullible, vulnerable people and b) an absolutist leader with unchecked power.
2. Religions encourage people to be submissive and trusting of holy men, so it's no wonder that religion has often served the purposes of manipulative sociopaths.
3. Vigilance against our own gullibility can help to prevent these problems.
4. Demanding the right to corroborate the claims of our leaders also can help.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

379. Comment #93606 by plastictowel on December 3, 2007 at 5:46 pm

It's an ideology not a religion, however both rely on a heaping dose of "faith," and blind support and belief in the "one true power," replace god with stalin. I say as atheist we be careful, don't call it a religion, call it a dogmatic ideology and we are fine.

Other Comments by plastictowel

380. Comment #93608 by edejard on December 3, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Notsobad wrote: "When someone starts with, "the communists were atheists and muss murderers," remind them that communism is a totalitarian ideology similar to religions without the supernatural part.
Tell them that you are against all irrational and totalitarian ideologies (well, if you are), which includes communism, Nazism, etc."

I think that this comment is historically naive. It is something of an anachronism to refer to Marxism as "an ideology" (I know Notsobad didn't refer explicitly to 'Marxism,' but he's clearly alluding to the Marxist/Leninist Soviet Union when he says "communism"). Marxism was, in its day, considered to be a scientific conception of history. It was Popper who ultimately buried the notion that Marxism was in any sense scientific, and who thus opened the door to our current understanding of it as an ideology.

The main point is that our understanding of just what is or isn't scientific -- or even of what is or isn't rational! -- is often in a state of flux (some would say 'development' or 'progress,' but that's not always so obvious, so I'll stick with a neutral term). This is not to say that we shouldn't try to be rational, of course. Rather, we should be aware of the fact that some of the things that we consider to be rational, scientific or obvious today will, very probably, be seen as ridiculous tomorrow -- perhaps as ridiculous as the notion that Marxism is scientific.

Other Comments by edejard

381. Comment #93622 by drbreakfast on December 3, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Desouza is comparable to Anne Coulter, a conservative commentator who seems to have no problem with pulling assertions out of her ass and repeating them loudly as if statements made at the highest decibel level possible converts them into facts.

However, Desouza's method of debate is very similar to most theists in that they jump around every 3 seconds, but with Desouza, he throws in so many half-truths or outright lies that one cannot start to rebut them without a heck of a lot of time.

For example, the lie that Hitler and the Nazis were atheists. True, Hitler's regime could not be fairly characterized as "Christian;" however, it was not atheistic. Indeed, Desouza himself said that it appeared to be pagan. Pre-Christian European pagans had gods/deities. Pagan does not equal atheist. Of course Dennett knows this, but he could not spend the time to rebut this untruth and the 20 others that Desouza spits out.

And of course Desouza was heavy on Pascal's Wager arguments. The chief problem with PW is well, which "God" do I place my bet on? The Hebrew Yaweh? Jesus? Allah? Vishnu? If I bet on Allah, but turns out that Vishnu was the one I should have chosen, do I get more points than the atheist? Or less? Is it a wash?

PW is one of the weakest of the theist arguments and Dennett really did not effectively knock it down.

Other Comments by drbreakfast

382. Comment #93633 by BeyondBelief on December 3, 2007 at 7:14 pm

To Comment #92788... Regarding the need for comparative religions courses.

I agree, except they should be retitled, "Comparative Belief Systems," or "Comparative Worldviews" courses, and one of the beliefs presented should be the secular/rational/scientific.

If you start from only comparing "religions", you have poisoned the well just about as badly as if you only discuss theists and atheists. Using their term only sets them up to win the debate. We can't continue to stand on the sidelines and accept the presentation as "Here's all of the varied religious experences of the world... and oh yeah, there are these carpers over here who believe NONE of them!"

Stand as equals.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

383. Comment #93643 by Sid on December 3, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Pat Andriola,

I thought you did an excellent job with the format and control of the debate. I liked that the moderator was mostly seen and not heard. I liked that the time limits were for the most part enforced. And the audio and video were mostly very good. I also liked that the debate was promptly placed on YouTube (if that was your doing).

D'Souza was shrill, off point, and long-winded, but you could not help that. I just lowered the volume when he was talking. I don't know if Dr. Dennett was supposed to use slides or not, but I enjoyed the slides too.

Sid

Other Comments by Sid

384. Comment #93655 by Prodigy on December 3, 2007 at 8:39 pm

To the people saying that Sam Harris would do better I don't agree with you. Sam isn't going to be able to pin him down when he's constantly spewing so much babble that it's hard to keep up with. However, if it was a text debate like some of Sam's recent ones it would be a smackdown.

In a a text debate D'Souza would get pinned down on what exactly he believes, there would be no mistake. I think Sam would expose D'Souza's GIANT non-sequitur for what it is. D'Souza claims the world not having a creator is non-rational. Sam would likely then nail him down on just what his supernatural claims are. He would show that even if the universe does have a creator there is no evidence to suggset he is all knowing and wants to be prayed to. Furthermore he would show why D'Souza's acceptance of Jesus Christ as this creator is completely without merit.

Other Comments by Prodigy

385. Comment #93714 by Roedy on December 4, 2007 at 1:42 am

Where D'Souza scores is pointing out atheists can be just as nutty as religionists. They will kill too in the name of stomping out religion, as Stalin and Mao did. D'Souza failed to mention Christopher Hitchens, one of the four horsemen of atheism, who wants to kill off all the world's 1.6 billion Muslims in preemptive self defense. Atheism does not innoculate you against paranoia or other forms of monomania.

There is a fundamental dishonesty in discussing the behaviour of atheists vs Christians in this context because whether the tenets of atheism are true have nothing at all to do with whether holding such beliefs makes you behave better or worse. There is an implication if atheists behave worse, it is ok to lie and claim atheism is false, or vice versa.

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
~ Martin Luther

Other Comments by Roedy

386. Comment #93718 by Roedy on December 4, 2007 at 1:53 am

Did anyone understand what D'Souza was getting at with that weird rant about OJ and the parallel universes and his lack of accountability for crime?

I could not follow any of his free will arguments. It seems to me, whether there as a god up in the clouds doing nothing to interfere in my life, has no effect one way on the other on my free will.

Free will may well be an illusion, like the free will of characters in a movie constrained to behave the same way every time the DVD is played.

But it does not matter. The onerous thing is being forced to do something you don't want to do. I don't mind being constrained to do the optimal thing or the thing I wanted to do anyway. I am far more concerned with bullies than some metaphysical lack of ability to choose what I did not want to choose.

Other Comments by Roedy

387. Comment #93723 by epeeist on December 4, 2007 at 2:35 am

Comment #93600 by tommcc

Was he auditioning for pantomime season? what part could he play?

The back end of Jack in the Beanstalk's cow?

Other Comments by epeeist

388. Comment #93724 by dazzjazz on December 4, 2007 at 2:50 am

Dinesh is a total moron. I will never listen to one of his facile "analogies" again.

Other Comments by dazzjazz

389. Comment #93733 by Vinelectric on December 4, 2007 at 3:49 am

I haven't read the atheist manifesto that D'Souza was referring to.

Does it say: kill the believers?

On the other hand religious texts are either suggetive of such an approach or promise torture worse than death itself specifically for the crime of unbelief.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

390. Comment #93734 by Vinelectric on December 4, 2007 at 3:49 am

I haven't read the atheist manifesto that D'Souza was referring to.

Does it say: kill the believers?

On the other hand religious texts are either suggetive of such an approach or promise torture worse than death itself specifically for the crime of unbelief.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

391. Comment #93750 by Bertybob on December 4, 2007 at 5:41 am

This is the first time I have managed to listen to D'Souza.

Wow!

What a jumped up little turd. I know it's purile and I shouldn't but I can't help myself.

All that shouting and raised voices, the slights of hand and duplicitous arguments. Snake Oil Salesman is all I could think of.

I kept shouting "god of the gaps" at the little turd.

I thought Dan did OK. I got the message, although a bit of honing of the presentation skills wouldn't hurt.

Other Comments by Bertybob

392. Comment #93858 by Vendetta on December 4, 2007 at 10:32 am

Well, I tried. I made it to vid 9 and then I just couldn't take it any more. To those that soldiered on and watched it all... wow. Dinesh is just too much to take. Why? Well perhaps if I talk like him it will be clearer. DINESH IS JUST TOO MUCH TO TAKE!!!!! I'M SHOUTING BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!!!!

What a fucking spud. He's exhibit A in the case against intelligent design.

Other Comments by Vendetta

393. Comment #93859 by jpvillar on December 4, 2007 at 10:34 am

DeSouza ought to seriously consider being a spokesman for RED BULL. Was he shouting at you all like he was me? His passion makes him appear so smart yet the substance of what he says makes him appear like an idiot.

Other Comments by jpvillar

394. Comment #93874 by walk on December 4, 2007 at 11:17 am

Roedy (389), a couple of things . . . Could you tell us what you mean by:

the tenets of atheism

And could you provide a reference for this statement:

Christopher Hitchens, (...) wants to kill off all the world's 1.6 billion Muslims in preemptive self defense.

I don't believe I've ever heard Christopher say this, or write this.

Other Comments by walk

395. Comment #93888 by Tagred on December 4, 2007 at 11:56 am

"Roberts: Yeah, the sorts of problems the fine-tuning avoids are things like a universe that recollapses very quickly or blows itself up to enormous size. Obviously in either of those cases you don't get large-scale, complex structures.

Some of them are more subtle and cause problems with fusion in the cores of stars (without fusion not only do the stars not radiate energy, but they also don't synthesise heavy elements from the primordial hydrogen)."

There are a lot of examples of that kind of thing, and it certainly does need an explanation.

I can understand that the universe hangs in the balance for either collapse or expansion or stagnation. However, despite that, life has evolve in the universe. surely if there were different laws then it stands to reason that life maybe not as we know it, (Sorry Spock :oP) could surely exist within it anyway?

The universe has the laws the universe has. We live in a time where the universe is approx 12-15Ga, and life has evolved so far only on this planet we know of. What is stopping a different form of life evolving? Isnt it just as improbable as us? If the universe was kick started again with the same laws, i very much suspect that humans as we know them wouldnt exist either. Why not silicon based life forms, or other types? Why not life forms that could evolve & die off extremely quickly relative to the age of the universe?

Ok so i might be going into the realms of multi-universes and weird dimensions etc, but i still dont get that the universe is fit for life, surely life is fit for the universe. We fit in it not the other way round. Of course looking from within it would always look like the universe is fit for life. It sounds a little bit faith based to me when scientists say that the universe is just so, so that life can evolve.

I was trained as a geologist so i see life as fitting within its environment, not the other way round. Perhaps this is my failing.

Anyway, i suppose why cosmologists exist are to find some way to answer these questions. God did it holds no water.

Dinesh seriously needs some basic lessons in history, as well as on practically every single physical & humanity science. It's is disgusting that some one can sput complete and utter nonsense without the least bit shred of evidence. It really is sickening this person might actually believe the rubbish he talks about.

Other Comments by Tagred

396. Comment #93893 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 12:11 pm

surely if there were different laws then it stands to reason that life maybe not as we know it, (Sorry Spock :oP) could surely exist within it anyway?

Not really. I have just been watching the excellent videos of Beyond Belief 2, and there was a great presentation by Peter Atkins. One of his messages was that if there was any purpose to the universe it was to go from total nothingness to basically empty flat spacetime (probably the eventual fate of our universe).

Tune the laws of the universe even the slighest bit, and you simply end up with a more or less direct progression from nothing to flat empty spacetime, with none of that complex fiddly 'matter and atoms and structure' bit on the way.

To dismiss the 'fine tuning' argument is as fallacious as to dismiss the 'life is complex' argument. Life IS complex, but we know how that complexity arose (natural selection). Sooner or later we will solve the fine tuning problem too. But to say it does not exist is dishonest.

The 'universe is fit for life' is not the real question at all. The fact that the universe has any complex structure at all within it is pretty astonishing in terms of fine tuning.

Other Comments by steve99

397. Comment #93908 by Riley on December 4, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Dr Benway wrote: You can't call atheistic communism a religion. You just can't. Unless you want people to think you are a loon.

think of me as a loon, but I call Stalinism a religion. I simply reject the view that non-belief in god provides an immunity against dogma and religious thinking as implied by your categorical rejection of the notion that "atheistic communism" could even be considered a religion.

steve99 wrote: To dismiss the 'fine tuning' argument is as fallacious as to dismiss the 'life is complex' argument. [...] Sooner or later we will solve the fine tuning problem too. But to say it does not exist is dishonest.

Steve, I think the logical fallacy worth pointing out comes after the initial "fine-tuning" claim. Those who argue that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life (complexity) make a flawed argument when they then assume this "fine-tuned" state to be unlikely - and so argue (as Dinesh does) that because this "fine-tuning" is highly unlikely, it's reasonable to assume that it didn't happen by chance, thus: "God did it".

The other non-complexity supporting states that are hypothetically modeled, might not be possibilities at all, or maybe they were possible, but less likely. We simply don't know.

Other Comments by Riley

398. Comment #93912 by Scep on December 4, 2007 at 12:51 pm

This was a debater and a thinker exchanging convictions. The thinker's delivery was at times irritating and the other guy was preaching with little reference to truth and evidence.

A perfect reason why Richard does not debate with the moonstruck religious!

Other Comments by Scep

399. Comment #93930 by Venice on December 4, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Its really unfair to say that about Dennet.This just isn't his kind of forum. He is not a debater, he is a scholar, and an incredibly brilliant one at that. I remember he had some serious trepidation about getting out on the forfront of this and for the longest time he disagreed with Dawkins on his harshness. Put frankly, Dennett is too nice of a guy.

A good debater not only knows how to use logic to explain his ideas, he also know hows how to incite an emotional response from the audience, which Dsouza does very well. Everything from the joke about the podium at the begining (which came off very incongruent, but still worked strangley) to his use of metaphors as answers, which of gave the illusion of an adequate response. These are all tactics, and clearly Dsouza has rehearsed them. He pulled them off well, despite his funny looking oversized jacket, wierd ticks and overall twitchy mannerism.

I've seen Dennett in debates before. He was interviewed by Robert Wright once and it quickly turned into a debate. Wright is incredibly rude, interrputs him and doesn't let him talk numerous times and Dennett is (I think) way too polite about it.

Dennett had a lot of trepidation about getting into the forefront on these issues, and for the longest time he disagreed with Richard Dawkins because he thought he was too harsh. Eventually Dennett started on the offensive too because I think he realized these issues far too important (I'm really glad he did too). But he isn't seasoned for this kind of stuff I think, and despite being one of the greatest intellectuals of our day, I think he is too mild mannered for this.

Dsouza may have had a lot of tricks, but no serious thinker can take him seriously. He is at best a sharp tongued preacher with no new ideas to bring to the table.

On the other hand, 100 years from now I am willing to bet people will still be talking about Dennett's ideas.

Other Comments by Venice

400. Comment #93936 by Dr Benway on December 4, 2007 at 1:27 pm

I call Stalinism a religion

Okey dokey Humpty Dumpty.

Other Comments by Dr Benway