1. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93183 by Pin_Cushion on December 2, 2007 at 11:36 am

I've heard a number of times that these debates do nothing but provide D'Souza with attention that he doesn't deserve, and thereby validate his shoddy ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When I watched his debate with Shermer, I assumed he won but was struck by the hollowness of that win. He wasn't righter, but just louder. I thought the same of his debate with Hitchens, but his arguments seemed even more transparent. After watching this one I didn't even see him "winning" by out-shouting his opponent. I saw him losing loudly, because after hearing him speak several times I am no longer moved by his shrill delivery. His arguments do not impress me in the least, and his passion has grown tedius with overuse. Had I only heard him speak once I don't know if I could have come to that conclusion.

I look forward to hearing him speak again and again, and sincerely hope to see some growth of oration or thinking skill. What I expect, however, is to hear more cymbal and less symphony. Grand-standing grows stale. Patient sensibleness never does.

2. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92949 by Pin_Cushion on December 1, 2007 at 8:01 pm

I think classifying D'Souza as unintelligent is a mistake. He's obviously incredibly intelligent! He's simply applied that incredible intellect to a mistaken premise. Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" has a chapter on this sort of behavior. Dinesh illustrates the point perfectly. Dinesh is a master at intelligently defending conclusions that he has accepted for stupid reasons. That is one of the very reasons I find him so entertaining, in a masochistic sort of way.

3. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92812 by Pin_Cushion on December 1, 2007 at 2:00 pm

I found this debate both entertaining and informative, mostly because the participants did not strictly adhere to the topic posed. Dennet thinks that God is a product of religious thought, and D'Souza thinks religious thought is man's attempt to emulate God. Dennet approached this problem quite adroitly by pointing out that every religion not only worships it's god(s) differently, but most religions have very different gods. He brings up John Frum as a way of illustrating why that is. While his presentation wasn't highly structured toward the topic, I felt this helped him illustrate his point without beating us over the head with it. Also, it made his points more difficult to attack. This is normally D'Souza's tactic, and it was pleasant to see it turned on him in such a warm and informative manner.

D'Souza repeatedly tries to instigate a fight by attacking atheism in specific, and suggesting that if we should be required to learn about the differences between religions we should also be required to learn about atheism. It is unfortunate that Dennet did not speak to this point, because it's an excellent idea. The realm of atheistic thought is a goldmine of philisophical ideas, from Epicurus to Hume to Dennet himself.

4. AAI 07

Comment #82762 by Pin_Cushion on October 27, 2007 at 1:42 pm

"No, it is immoral that you think that someone's irresponsible decisions should be paid for by another.

With that logic I guess you agree with the religious that jesus should pay for their sins through his death/resurrection."

How is getting hit by a truck, getting Parkinson's, or getting cancer a decision? There are a thousand ways to blame the victim, but they're still the victim. Not only that, but they are our countrymen. What ever happened to "taking care of our own?" What does that have to do with Jesus?

I find it morally reprehensible that we don't care for our weak (and yes, that include people who may have committed the mortal sin of making a bad decision). I also find it internationally embarrasing that many other countries do.

5. AAI 07

Comment #82749 by Pin_Cushion on October 27, 2007 at 1:11 pm

"Certainly there are numerous charities, not invoking god or religion, who give generously to support others in need - why does it need to be my tax dollars! It doesn't."

Blaming the victim is always easier than doing anything. Car accident victims are told they should have driven more carefully. Parkinson's patients that they shouldn't have done so many drugs. AIDS carriers that they should have used a condom. This callous indifference to our own countrymen is the height of barabaric behavior.

All people make bad decisions. For some of us those decisions have a lot of fallout that is more than we could possibly afford. Some of us lack the immediate kin to begin to help us with these decisions. That is why we bother to have an extended network of affiliation called a nation. How does this help when the Big Men of the tribe tell the weak men to go f*ck themselves?

Social Darwinism, which is what you seem to be advocating, only works for the meanest, the strongest, and the luckiest. I am making this post from a public library, and most of the other people in here probably didn't choose between disability insurance and an IPod. They chose between disability insurance and a car, or food, or a pair of shoes. If they become very ill they won't have to surrender their IPod. They will have to surrender their car, food, and shoes. I am ashamed to live in a country that is willing to let that stand out of sheer avarice.

6. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82147 by Pin_Cushion on October 25, 2007 at 6:34 pm

I think Harris's point is that our efforts should be used to get things done. If we're talking about why stem-cell research should be pursued with all scientific diligence and we are asked what our religious views are, to answer "Atheist" is to completely doom whatever cogent argumentation we might have had behind the issue to, "Well of course he thinks that...he's an atheist."

The same could be said about abortion legislation, gay rights legislation, war protests, or any number of real-world goals we may have. As soon as The A Word comes up we are viewed merely as pawns of a morally bankrupt ideology. It sucks, but it's the case.

90% of the time, when someone says "What are you?" they are searching for a beachhead from which to make an ad hominem attack. We see it all the time. Athiest is mentioned, and suddenly it's Atheist=Stalin=Evil=You QED. If we just adopted a codeword, such as Rationalist, then it's simply one more easy step to say Rationalist=Atheist=Stalin=Evil=You. You see this logic work for the opposition quite frequently with the Christian=Christ=Good=Me, and faith-based audience members eat it up. Easy thinking, no matter how sloppy, is attractive because it is easy.

Far better to attempt to hold people up to their own moral ideals, or challenge those ideals if they are bankrupt (i.e. killing abortion doctors is my Christian duty), than to exclude ourselves from the debate before it even starts.

That being said, I do think the banner of "Atheism" is a useful construct under which we can gather relevant ideas and like minded people. It simply isn't very useful in mixed company.

7. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81241 by Pin_Cushion on October 24, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Personally, I think Hitch is the "winner" because he made me snort loudly in laughter at the mention of a rabbit that was religious as an Ex Rabbit! I love Pythonisms.

There were quite a few more times that I chuckled, and I think that Hitch is by far the funniest and most emotionally accessible or the two debators. He really seems to be saying the things he is saying because he's morally offended that I've been lied to. D'Souza sounds like he's really trying to sell me something, and really cares about whether I buy it. In fact, the linchpin of Hitchens' entire ideology is the statement, "that it is immoral to lie to children and ignorant/uneducated people." I never once heard D'Souza even approach this argument. That's because he can't. If he does he has to either claim that everything in the Bible (and therefore taught in Sunday School to millions of children) is true, or he has to admit that lying for a good reason is okay (which flies in the face of the percieved "Christian Ethic").

All of D'Souza's argument dance around the entire concept of truth. Nobody knows if there's an afterlife, so it's okay to tell every child that there is one. Christianity has done great things, so it's basis in truth is irrelevant. Atheism has done great harm, so it's basis in truth is also irrelevant. Dawkins said it best, I think, when he wrote that if the universe is actually indifferent to our existence hadn't we best know about it? D'Souza would vehemently disagree.

8. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81200 by Pin_Cushion on October 24, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Okay, my mind is reeling from his sloppily strung together logic regarding Hume and miracles.

1) Scientific laws may not be universal. We can't see everything at once, so we can't know.
2) Since we can't know everything then miracles might be possible (something quantum physics is quite plain about).
3) Since miracles might be possible then everything in the Christian Bible must be true because its contents are miraculous. <--HUH?!?

And he makes this claim by referencing HUME?! ::boggle::