1. Comment #92722 by maton100 on December 1, 2007 at 10:30 am

I've been waiting all evening for this!

Other Comments by maton100

2. Comment #92724 by dylan0516 on December 1, 2007 at 10:31 am

Part 13:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADLjLcS2kJs
Part 14:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KgVtKKgoks
Part 15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM5mv-g2kUU

Other Comments by dylan0516

3. Comment #92725 by MarcKeys on December 1, 2007 at 10:31 am

D'Souza is a goddamned idiot. Why is he shouting when he answers the dude's question at the end.

Other Comments by MarcKeys

4. Comment #92729 by Ludacrispat26 on December 1, 2007 at 10:45 am

Hey guys,

I was Pat Andriola, the President of the Freethought Society that opened the debate.

What'd you guys think about it overall? I know what you think of D'Souza, but how about all the other stuff that went on?

Other Comments by Ludacrispat26

5. Comment #92731 by aoratos philos on December 1, 2007 at 10:53 am

Thx for putting this up, I'll watch over dinner. (Net is way better than TV) :D

Other Comments by aoratos philos

6. Comment #92733 by FoundLink on December 1, 2007 at 10:55 am

Oh, Boy! This should be a "smack down"! Dennett should do an even better job than Hitchens did and Hitchens debated this knucklehead quite well. Thanks
for the links.

Other Comments by FoundLink

7. Comment #92737 by eXcommunicate on December 1, 2007 at 11:22 am

Part 4: D'Souza just called South Korea a "continent." So much for correcting Dennett's "factual errors."

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

8. Comment #92738 by Spinoza on December 1, 2007 at 11:23 am

I wonder what people here think of Dennett's proposition that we should teach world religion.

Other Comments by Spinoza

9. Comment #92740 by plastictowel on December 1, 2007 at 11:24 am

I love Dinesh's comment: The Muslims and Palestinians aren't fighting over religion, but land!

How daft is he? They are fighting over the land BECAUSE THEIR RELIGION says it's holy land.

Other Comments by plastictowel

10. Comment #92742 by obscured by clouds on December 1, 2007 at 11:34 am

Well it's clear that D'Souza does not know the first thing about how to debate. Rather he launches into a sermon. I feel sorry for Dennett, though he is a good guy for putting up with that intellectually challenged nonsense.

I guess D'Souza book is not selling and needs all the help he can get to peddle his wretched diatribe. Maybe he should stick with coloring books.

Other Comments by obscured by clouds

11. Comment #92743 by SameerMarathe on December 1, 2007 at 11:35 am

Dear Mr. Pat Andriola

Your opening remarks introducing Dinesh D'Souza as an "authority" or at least an authority of comparable depth of understanding in his area as Dan Dennett can claim in his area simply astounds me. I wish you had a more serious and less frivoulous opponent for this debate. I can almost predict the shoutfest I am going to see from Dinesh for the typical questions that have been asked to him (e.g. in previous debates... like the one with Christopher Hitchens).

Other Comments by SameerMarathe

12. Comment #92747 by eXcommunicate on December 1, 2007 at 11:41 am

I agree with Dennett's proposition of teaching religions in school. Not much else to say about it, other than it should not evangelize. As long as religites stop trying to push religion into Science class.

I love how Dennett calls out D'Souza's bullshit in Part 7. Hallelujah.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

13. Comment #92748 by Ludacrispat26 on December 1, 2007 at 11:41 am

SameerMarathe:

1. I said they were authorities in their fields. I never indicated the level of authority. Remember, as President of the Freethought Society at Tufts, I have to seem bipartisan or religious groups on campus or around can say I was being unfair.

2. This debate also brought great promotion for our group and we really wanted Daniel Dennett to be involved. To do both, Dinesh was needed. For future debates that you will see (you will enjoy the fact that Tufts will have numerous debates over the next few years) different debaters debate different topics.

Other Comments by Ludacrispat26

14. Comment #92752 by GBG on December 1, 2007 at 11:48 am

While these debates interest me and i enjoy watching them, I can't help but think it's a complete waste of time.

The only person on that stage with the intellectual ability to change his mind is Dan Dennett.

Christians have had centuries of evidence contradicting their scriptures and blowing their "reasons" for believing in god out of the water, and they still hold their facile beliefs. It's pointless to have a "battle" where one side is able to concede defeat and the other only able to deny that they were defeated.

Was Pat Condell right when he said debating these people is nothing more than a "hobby"?

Other Comments by GBG

15. Comment #92753 by Verylee on December 1, 2007 at 11:49 am

I have forgotten all the false "arguments" that debaters or apologists use, but is there one known as "the argument of the empty vessel" (makes the most sound!)?

Other Comments by Verylee

16. Comment #92756 by eXcommunicate on December 1, 2007 at 11:59 am

I am onto Part 8 now, and D'Souza is "rebutting" Dennett. Here's my Youtube comment:

Part 8: Dinesh recycles the anthropic principle over and over and over ad nauseum. He is quite thick, isn't he? Hey, Dinesh, the Universe is just how it is. Life evolved according to the conditions in which it found itself, not the other way around. No matter how much you polish your turd of an argument, Dinesh, it's still just a high polished turd.

Part 9: Again with the strawmen, D'Douche. Dennett did not say we evolved as a species, no. He said our morality evolved. Jesus, Dinesh, are you willfully mendacious or are you mentally deficient? I'm sorry if this is an ad hom, but at some point that's all you deserve.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

17. Comment #92757 by MarcCountry on December 1, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Does Dinesh actually think browbeating an intelligent audience is going to sway them to his (ridiculous) position? He is risible...

Other Comments by MarcCountry

18. Comment #92758 by Dutch_labrat on December 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm

First time I witnessed Dinesh.

People fall for this contemptible little prick?

Other Comments by Dutch_labrat

19. Comment #92759 by FoundLink on December 1, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Re: Comment #10 Obscured by Clouds

Sadly, D'Souza's book is #33 on the NY Times bestseller list. I am not sure how many he has sold so far, but #33 is still pretty high up there. He is just a few places below the lovely(adam's apple and all) Ann Coulter. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/books/bestseller/1209besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Other Comments by FoundLink

20. Comment #92760 by Ludacrispat26 on December 1, 2007 at 12:08 pm

MarcCountry:

The intelligent audience was put off by Dinesh's fillibustering, loudness, constant analogies, asking questions back to the questioner, and mocking voices.

Other Comments by Ludacrispat26

21. 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.

Other Comments by yoyoman812

22. Comment #92762 by eXcommunicate on December 1, 2007 at 12:15 pm

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.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

23. Comment #92763 by maton100 on December 1, 2007 at 12:17 pm

D'Souza is loud, obnoxious, dribbling, gesticulating and full o' shit. A fool of cosmological proportions. He should be a preacher at the Alabama State Fair.

Other Comments by maton100

24. Comment #92764 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Hey, Dinesh, the Universe is just how it is. Life evolved according to the conditions in which it found itself, not the other way around.

I see your point, but I think this is the wrong way to deal with this.

I believe there is an issue about why the universe seems so suitable to life (and, despite what so many have argued, this really is the case, or so I believe). I don't think this issue can be easily dismissed.

However, what can be easily dismissed is the idea that a universe suitable for life could be the result of an enternal first-cause creator called God.

Whatever the fine-tuning we may currently think is needed for a universe which allows sufficient physical complexity to permit life to appear, that is unimaginable orders of magnitude less 'fine-tuning' than that needed to allow a God-like creator to exist.

This was expressed very well by Dawkins in TGD.

I believe that this is the argument we should use. If you want to declare the universe unlikely, fine. But then you have to accept the vastly greater unlikeliness of an infinite and omnipotent mind, so your argument fails.

Other Comments by steve99

25. Comment #92766 by Inoculatedcities on December 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm

D'Souza sounds positively exasperated and overwhelmed. Rather than respond to specific questions regarding his positions, he prefers to promote some vague (and long-disposed of) concept of all religions as institutions that have 'a few bad apples' but are morally superior (self-evidently and by default, it seems) to nonbelief. He never seems to grasp the idea that disbelief requires one to rationalize actively, understanding moral choices and facts on the basis of reason, not prescription. Without dogmatic prescription, D'Souza has said time and again, what's left is nihilism. Apparently crediting people with the ability to reason and think for themselves never occurs to him, maybe for obvious reasons.

Also, what might be worse, D'Souza's jokes are infinitely corny. He seems a rather smug, joyless twit, but excuse the ad hominem.

Other Comments by Inoculatedcities

26. Comment #92767 by Prazzie on December 1, 2007 at 12:24 pm

I greatly admire Dennett. Having to watch that ignorant little twit D'Souza in order to follow this is pure torture for me.

My molars will be ruined before the end of this debate.

Other Comments by Prazzie

27. Comment #92768 by Prazzie on December 1, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Inoculatedcities, I started writing my comment before I saw yours.

"He seems a rather smug, joyless twit, but excuse the ad hominem."

I concur.

Other Comments by Prazzie

28. Comment #92770 by Shane Williams on December 1, 2007 at 12:34 pm

I'm so tired of these D'Souza debates. The more people we send his way the larger that smile grows. Every time we reference his god its image becomes more defined. He feeds on events like these, he needs them.

I'm pretty much calling him ignorant, so there is no point in all of this debating. Unless of course 3 or 4 of our best could take a swing at him. Any man can argue fiction, but surely it takes more to reveal the truth.

Other Comments by Shane Williams

29. Comment #92771 by Quine on December 1, 2007 at 12:35 pm

D'Weasel knows the old saying from law:

"If you don't have the facts, pound the law. If you don't have either the facts or the law, pound the table."

Other Comments by Quine

30. Comment #92773 by SameerMarathe on December 1, 2007 at 12:37 pm

"For future debates that you will see (you will enjoy the fact that Tufts will have numerous debates over the next few years) different debaters debate different topics."

I look forward to them.

BTW I am on part 6 and this guy brought up Pascal's Wager. I don't know whether to laugh or cry :(

Other Comments by SameerMarathe

31. Comment #92774 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:38 pm

He feeds on events like these, he needs them.

Agreed. Which is why I feel such debates should stop. There is no winning debates with those who won't play by the rules of rational discourse, and if he can present himself as 'winning' against each of the supposed 'New Atheists', this would be regrettable.

Other Comments by steve99

32. Comment #92776 by jakelovatto on December 1, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Dennett, in his kind, soft-spoken, measured voice destroys Dinesh.

Other Comments by jakelovatto

33. Comment #92778 by Ludacrispat26 on December 1, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Just a question to all:

Do you think Dennett did better than Shermer and/or Hitchens?

Other Comments by Ludacrispat26

34. Comment #92779 by Vinelectric on December 1, 2007 at 12:54 pm

steve

The rarity of life in our own solar system seems to suggest that life managed to come about inspite of the physical constants. They maybe fine tuned for the universe to exist in the way it does but this universe seems to do a bad job in supporting life as we know it.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

35. Comment #92780 by Shrunk on December 1, 2007 at 1:03 pm

I believe there is an issue about why the universe seems so suitable to life (and, despite what so many have argued, this really is the case, or so I believe). I don't think this issue can be easily dismissed.

A couple of counterarguments to this.

1) As far as we know, earth is only place in the universe suitable to life, let alone where life actually exists. I think it's a stretch to describe the universe as "suitable to life" when only an almost infinitesimally small portion of it supports life.

2) Your statment assumes that life as it exists on earth is the only possible form life can take. I can think of no reason why, theoretically, for any planet in the unverse, there could not be a form of life that could exist there. In other words, every planet has a particular set of conditions that could allow life to emerge there, but those conditions are different for each planet. It's a matter of if and when those conditions will arise. Earth just happened to win the lottery.

Other Comments by Shrunk

36. Comment #92781 by SameerMarathe on December 1, 2007 at 1:04 pm

This is my first time listening to D'Souza in a full length debate. This guy basically has amazingly shallow understanding of cosmology, theory of evolution and natural selection, fundamental physics.

Very very very bad choice...

Other Comments by SameerMarathe

37. Comment #92782 by Terry Thompson on December 1, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Pat Thank you so much for this debate, I have been hoping to hear these two debate for a long time. I am curious as to the copyright of the debate. I would like to possible do something like extant dodos to expand some of the debate points (mainly for my own development) would this be OK?

My comments on the debate:
I think that we atheists make a mistake in arguing any hypothesis as to what "preceded" the big bang. At this point there is no consensus and it looks silly when we supply hypothesis with little or no evidence. Instead we should point to the fact that the supernatural has now been pushed back from explaining why it rains to reason for the big bang back 13.7 billion or so and THANKS in no small part to Daniel Dennett that our understanding now includes conciesness.

Also I think that we need to distinguish between science and our philosophical suppositions based on our current understanding of science. Evolution is a well tested theory, but to go from the fact that now we do not need supernatural to explain life to the conclusion that there is no supernatural is well rationed philosophy. We can argue that it has much more weight than christianity or any supernatural, but it is a philosophical metaphysical argument nonetheless.

and lastly we need to show why this world view will benefit man better than supernatural. Just arguing it is infinantely more probable does not mean it is a better understanding. It is one argument, as would an argument that understanding better the basis of our morality (from biological and cultural evolution IMHO) will better aid us in improving our morality and culture.

Other Comments by Terry Thompson

38. Comment #92783 by Matt7895 on December 1, 2007 at 1:08 pm

In 'Root of all evil?', Professor Dawkins mentions to Ted Haggard that his church service reminded him of a Nuremburg rally. I think that analogy would actually be best given to Dinesh D'Souza's talk... or rather shouting, during this debate. He was pretty much screaming down the mic at the audience..

Way to go, Dinesh. You really showed yourself up there.

Other Comments by Matt7895

39. Comment #92784 by Ludacrispat26 on December 1, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Terry:

This is Dinesh's video of the event. We have our own that we will post as well.

Other Comments by Ludacrispat26

40. Comment #92786 by Terry Thompson on December 1, 2007 at 1:16 pm

A note to Daniel Dennett:
I have learned more from you and enjoyed your talks more than anyone else I have ever heard. I thank Goodness for living in a world with you in it.

Other Comments by Terry Thompson

41. Comment #92787 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 1:17 pm

The rarity of life in our own solar system seems to suggest that life managed to come about inspite of the physical constants. They maybe fine tuned for the universe to exist in the way it does but this universe seems to do a bad job in supporting life as we know it.

I think the opposite is true. Our solar system is probably wonderfully adapted to life. There is liquid water everywhere.. in the atmosphere of Jupiter, almost certainly in the oceans of Europa and Callisto, and it looks likely that underground seas exist on Enceladus, a moon of Saturn. The old idea of a 'Goldilocks zone' - a narrow band around a Sun where life could exists as a result of the heat of the Sun - looks very out of date.

Also, we have hardly explored our Universe. Who knows where life could exist? There have been suggestions that life could even be most abundant between the stars, on numerous extra-solar planets, using radioactive heating as a source of energy.

But anyway. The real issue with the physical constants is that until we know why they are as they are, we have no reason to pin them down to values friendly to life, or even to allow complexity. If you look at the cosmological constant, unless it is extraordinarily fine tuned, the universe would not even allow atoms, let alone complex chemicals or life.

At least that is my understanding of things. I have yet to read Stenger's writings on this matter, and the contrary views of Martin Rees and others.

EDIT:

2) Your statment assumes that life as it exists on earth is the only possible form life can take.

You make a good point. However, if I understand things right, the issue of fine tuning is primarily not about whether or not life can exist in a universe, but whether or not anything like atoms can exist.

Other Comments by steve99

42. Comment #92788 by Zaphod on December 1, 2007 at 1:18 pm

@SPINOZA

Like it or not religion is prevalent in the world. I think a critical and comparative teaching of the different world religions is a good idea. In Scotland when I was at school about 7-9 years ago we had Religious Education class which taught about other religions. We also had Modern Studies and History. Surely within those 3 disciplines it could be taught. I would however like it to be taught in an unbiased manner.

Other Comments by Zaphod

43. Comment #92789 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 1:23 pm

ignoring the content of the debate for now dinesh sounds just like a preacher, in front of an unsophisticated audience he would have hands waving and cheers of agreement. Does dinesh always shout at his deliveries? when he starts equating faith in god with faith in knowing how a relationship will progress (so you have to make a rational decision to take the leap)he sounds like hes actually begging for people to agree with him. This led to pascals wager at which point you see how unsophisticated an audience he must usually get, im trembling in my boots as i write, where the wager is brought up the bottom of the blackmail barrel is being struck, a perfect antidote for naughty children.



Other Comments by phasmagigas

44. Comment #92790 by Prazzie on December 1, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Ugh. D'Souza is reiterating the exact same "argument" he used in the debate against Hitchens. Word for word. This is disappointing. He has only one speech and it's one long list of fallacies. And he insulted Dawkins. And he Godwinned himself within minutes. And I saw that he's bringing out Pascal's Wager soon.

The things I do to get to see Dennett in action. This, people, is pure devotion.

Other Comments by Prazzie

45. Comment #92791 by eXcommunicate on December 1, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Part 14: Dinesh tries to have it both ways (and this is the crux of his entire argument). First he posits that we can't know what happened before the Big Bang or what happens outside of the Universe, because we are limited by the Universe. We are of this Universe and thus cannot fully (or even partially) understand anything outside of it. HOWEVER, then he (and others like him) says, "Ah, but there's a god, and I know this." Someone needs to ram home "how does he knows this?" if he is constrained by the Universe and the "lens" of his own senses.

EDIT: Bleeding Christ... D'Souza just chalked up the placebo effect to the immaterial (Majik?).

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

46. Comment #92794 by Terry Thompson on December 1, 2007 at 1:33 pm

I did not percieve Dinesh as shouting in his other debates. It really stood out in contrast to Dennetts calm tone and may have even been a reaction to it or to the overwhelmingly atheist audience?

Other Comments by Terry Thompson

47. Comment #92795 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Someone needs to ram home "how" he knows this if he is constrained by the Universe and the "lens" of his own senses.

Well argued. However, I think you find that consistency is not one of D'Souza's virtues.

Other Comments by steve99

48. Comment #92796 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Ludacrispat26

Thank you for your hard word organising this. I am watching now and it's very interesting.

I thought your intro was fine and well balanced :)

Other Comments by Corylus

49. Comment #92797 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 1:39 pm

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

I felt that to, im not sure that is actually important, when challenging the notion of an all powerful supernatural deity it is impossible to show it is in actual fact a human construct (in the same way that cthulhu may or not be), dennet knows this and i think the point he makes by displaying the various religions is to introduce the notion that how people interpret god (irrspective of its existence) is instrumental to how they act and if there are various ways of behaving how god wants then maybe this will lead ultimately to questioning the validity of one and alls religion and ultimately god/s it/themselves.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

50. Comment #92798 by Lagomort on December 1, 2007 at 1:40 pm

OK, Dennet sucked.

I am sick of people that think they do not need to take the time to consider the arguments before time and work out quick responses for the debate. Dennet's "ums" and, "That is just that ol' argument" type of responses just made him look like an ass...

Other Comments by Lagomort