1. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92811 by yoyoman812 on December 1, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Re: Comment 16

yoyoman812 - How does that follow? Dennett was probably saying that you may thank "god", but all you're doing is thanking "goodness." Not necessarily that god = goodness.

HERE IS HOW IT FOLLOWS:
Dennett never explained at the beginning a definition of God that he was going to prove is manmade. This is extremely problematic.

Dennett says he believes in goodness. So I am not going to dwell on defining goodness, proving that exists metaphysically ect. Since we agree, I am going to accept it.

Carrying on...

I thank goodness, appreciate goodness, am spititual about goodness. I reflect to myself on occasion, how amazing it is that there is goodness ect. ect.

For intents and purposes, goodness is my god. GOODNESS = GOD.

Hence, GOD isn't an invention of humanity, because GOODNESS isn't an invention of humanity.

2. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92761 by yoyoman812 on December 1, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I wanted to mention that I was at the debate and thought the Dennett did not prove his point.

He did make some terrific arguments on a variety of subjects.

I'll also be honest, I was impressed with a few of the counterpoints that D'Souza made as well.

I think Dennett made a good case that religion is man-made invention just like language...

However, he didn't prove the point of the debate which was the GOD is a man made invention.

Dennett thanks goodness that he is alive. Some people thank God they are alive. Couldn't you see this as exactly the same thing? I asked him this very question (after the video cut off) and he responded with "yes, in fact you can see god = goodness")

In which case, goodness exists is to say god exists, which is to say that God isn't manmade.