151. Comment #82667 by Mr DArcy on October 27, 2007 at 7:11 am

D'Souza certainly made the most noise in this debate, but in my book he was not the winner. His theatrical utterances may have convinced a few people but anyone who actually thought about what he said, would be correct in saying that his contribution contained little of any substance.

After all the man has equated science with faith. He has argued that all good things in society came from Christianity, and he believes in miracles. Perhaps whoever takes on D'Souza next would like to consider these particular ridiculous views, in their preparation. The man is a showman, and has nothing positive to say about the human situation.

Like Hitchens, I was sickened by his fawning weasel words about Mother Teresa. Yuk. The man and his ideas are an easy target.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

152. Comment #82684 by sppach on October 27, 2007 at 8:09 am

I was very dissapointed with Christopher Hitchens he wasnt on form, i expected more from him, although at the beginning he acknowledged D'Sousza as being formidable, and i think we saw it tonight, i go along with some of the other comments, Dawkins to be the next contender

Other Comments by sppach

153. Comment #82700 by eno on October 27, 2007 at 9:04 am

Man alive, that was painful. D'Souza is unbelievable (no pun intended). Hitch is right when he says that D'Souza really does believe the non-sense that he comes up with. I urge you to watch part nine again and not be flabberghasted with absurdity about what comes out of D'Souza's mouth. He is delusional and doesn't do his side much good.

Other Comments by eno

154. Comment #82741 by teapotbishop on October 27, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Although victorious , this is a poor Hitchens performance. And not for the first time . I watched him being "owned" by George Galloway a while back and i fear that there may be a lack of voracity frequenting his debacle , sorry , debating . Someone as poor as D'souza should have been slaughtered with guile and tenacity . This was average at best......

Other Comments by teapotbishop

155. Comment #82857 by Diacanu on October 28, 2007 at 3:35 am

Well, I need to soak my knuckles in ice for awhile, anyone else want to play??

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



Other Comments by Diacanu

156. Comment #82890 by remy on October 28, 2007 at 6:39 am

While Hitchens did better than Shermer, both debates were a disappointment. However, if either of them felt as I did, I doubt that anyone could order one's thoughts, given the onslaught of specious statements from D'Sousa.
I am still reeling from the amount of nonsense he was able to present; the contradictions, the incredible stupidity. In almost every sentence one could write pages of refutation, but would it be worth it.

Other Comments by remy

157. Comment #83335 by eXcommunicate on October 29, 2007 at 5:48 pm

D'Souza bitch slapped by Robert Spencer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-G-GT2gMoE&

I don't know who Robert Spencer is (he may be a neo-con shill, I have no idea), but it is gratifying to see Dinesh get squashed.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

158. Comment #83392 by 35bluejacket on October 29, 2007 at 10:25 pm

"Such is the power of reason to overcome inborn vices, that nothing prevents our living a life worthy of gods." (Lucretius)

Thank you RD for inspiration.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

159. Comment #83657 by AfraidToDie on October 30, 2007 at 7:56 pm

D'Sousa is sharp enough (as an example he wouldn't let Hitchens lure him into asking D'Sousa to ask a question Hitchens wanted more time to answer), but Hitchens blew him away with logic. If you prefer logic over irrational belief, it was no contest. And even if Hitchens was having a "down" day, he still had more dynamic personalilty and persuasiveness than D'Sousa could ever have. I'd like to see a format where each one could ask a specific question and be allowed to force the other to address that question (both sides). As an example, the 100,000+ years of human existence with a late arrival of jesus 98,000 years later to an isolated fragment of humanity would be a good place to start demanding D'Sousa to try and justify. To my knowledge, he never once tried to justify this?

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

160. Comment #83706 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 31, 2007 at 2:10 am

I think D'Souza was wrong in the following arguments he made:

1. He argued that it is an article of faith to think that physical laws are absolute and hence miracles cannot happen, implying that similarly to believe in miracles is a valid article of faith. He argued that we can't really know if or when or how exactly physical laws apply. Now, first of all, the physical laws we know about do allow for all (or virtually all) miracles in the Bible even if they are absolute. For example quantum mechanics does allow for water suddenly turning into wine or for dead people resurrecting. But miracles are miracles not because they break the laws of physics but because they break the laws of probability.

2. He argued that the theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of life (true), nor the origin of consciousness (as far as we know also true), nor the origin of morality (almost certainly false). He claims that Darwinism can explain perhaps 1% of moral behavior, namely that moral behavior that benefits the genes of the person who displays that behavior, but that the rest of moral behavior cannot be explained by Darwinism. I think that's false, as sociobiology has convincingly shown. Even though human behavior is a very complex subject matter, I think by now it's clear that all moral behavior, including the most self-sacrificial one, can at least in principle be explained on purely naturalistic grounds, and hence without recourse to God.

3. He was terribly confusing when he contrasted knowledge to belief, saying something like "I can't have knowledge about this, therefore I have belief in it". In all of philosophy the meaning of "to believe" is "to hold true", no matter on what grounds and no matter whether one is in fact right. Contrasted to that, the concept of "knowledge" turns out to be very problematic. Knowledge is normally defined as "justified true belief", but one of the various problems that definition has is that we can only check if there is good justification for a belief but we can't really check whether it is in fact true. There is no such thing as an absolutely certain proof of truth, not even in mathematics (for mathematics too depends on some axioms that are presupposed to be true). Strictly speaking the only knowledge we can have are subjective experiences, because what we right now experience is the only thing we can be absolutely certain about. So when we use the concept of knowledge outside of the context of subjective experience we are simply expressing our confidence that our respective belief is true.

As for Hitchens what disappointed me most is how, when somebody made a very good question (at about min 5:00 of the 7th video), he completely avoided answering it. The question was that if, as Hitchens himself has stated, morality has merely evolved, i.e. has evolved anthropologically, and hence one can transcend its current state, then what standard can one appeal to. Instead of trying to answer Hitchens just spoke of how imperfectly designed our bodies are, and that you can't make people sick and then order them to be well, and that's why God is totalitarian, and whatnot. But the question was challenging Hitchen's views on morality and had nothing to do with theism.

Another thing that struck me is how Hitchens at some point proclaimed that the world is exactly as it would be if no God existed. I have always wondered about this popular atheistic claim because it's so obviously question-begging. If theism is true then the very universe we observe around us is created by God, so that atheistic argument makes as much sense to a theist as saying that Beethoven's music would be exactly the same if no Beethoven existed. The only reasonable atheistic argument works the other way around, namely to point out that if God existed then the world we observe would be different than how it in fact is. In other words the atheistic argument is to find contradictions between the proposition "God exists" and other propositions we strongly believe are true, and thus falsify the theistic worldview. Similarly theists can argue that there are contradictions between the proposition "only the physical world exists" and other propositions we strongly believe are true, and thus falsify the atheistic worldview (or at least the typical atheistic worldview).

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

161. Comment #83710 by Diacanu on October 31, 2007 at 2:55 am

Blauugh!!

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/30/panic-in-the-atheist-camp/

Other Comments by Diacanu

162. Comment #83714 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 3:12 am

Similarly theists can argue that there are contradictions between the proposition "only the physical world exists" and other propositions we strongly believe are true, and thus falsify the atheistic worldview (or at least the typical atheistic worldview).

We have had enough of this nonsense on other threads. Sorry Dianelos, but if you are going to simply keep switching threads and posting rubbish like this which has been clearly contradicted in past posts again and again over months, you are going to end up flagged as a troll.

There is no typical atheist worldview, and you damn well know it. Atheists can range from mystical Buddhists to pure rationalists. Count up numbers and you will find that the mystical Buddhists outnumber the rationalists, and so the majority of atheists may well believe that more than the physical world exists.. as usual you bring out one of your hundreds of carefully made straw men.

So stop posting stuff which you know just isn't true, simply to try and justify what you want to believe. If you want to invent your own straw man versions of what others believe, if you want to persist in the illusion that truth is democratic, and what people think must be true is what is actually true, and that what you personally can't conceive is possible defines boundaries of human knowledge, then that is fine, but you aren't going to find many if any supporters for that approach on this site. If I see any more posts which are just going over the same old ground, ignoring past discussions, I will be sorely tempted to flag as troll (or perhaps spam is more appropriate?).

Other Comments by steve99

163. Comment #83716 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 3:16 am

Blauugh!!

What an unpleasant fellow.

Other Comments by steve99

164. Comment #83720 by epeeist on October 31, 2007 at 3:35 am

Comment #83714 by steve99

We have had enough of this nonsense on other threads. Sorry Dianelos, but if you are going to simply keep switching threads and posting rubbish like this which has been clearly contradicted in past posts again and again over months, you are going to end up flagged as a troll.

Agreed - the only differences I can see between DG and the likes of devolved is that he is obviously better educated and that he doesn't do the standard creationist cut and run trick.

Instead he posts the same points as he started with in the Dawkins/McGrath thread many months ago.

And for all of you who haven't seen DG before - he is an idealist theist who believes that the mythos of the Norse gods, the matriarchal triune goddess and the Celtic Cernunnos is as valid as his belief in Jesus, that there is an objective morality that derives from theism but that there is no objective reality.

Other Comments by epeeist

165. Comment #83722 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 31, 2007 at 3:47 am

Steve99 (post 163, or #83714):

Similarly theists can argue that there are contradictions between the proposition "only the physical world exists" and other propositions we strongly believe are true, and thus falsify the atheistic worldview (or at least the typical atheistic worldview).

There is no typical atheist worldview, and you damn well know it. Atheists can range from mystical Buddhists to pure rationalists. Count up numbers and you will find that the mystical Buddhists outnumber the rationalists, and so the majority of atheists may well believe that more than the physical world exists.. as usual you bring out one of your hundreds of carefully made straw men.

Well, as I have explained in in comment #83567 I think it's unreasonable to call "atheist" a religious Buddhist monk praying and chanting in some monastery and fully convinced that after death they may well reincarnate as supernatural gods. But, anyway, as you seem to put great importance on this issue, let me restate the above thus: Similarly theists can argue that there are contradictions between the proposition "only the physical world exists" and other propositions we strongly believe are true, and thus falsify the atheistic worldview (or at least the atheistic worldview of Richard Dawkins and of those atheists who agree with it).

If I see any more posts which are just going over the same old ground, ignoring past discussions, I will be sorely tempted to flag as troll (or perhaps spam is more appropriate?).

On the other hand, if I see any more posts where you just keep insisting that Buddhist monks are atheists I won't be tempted to flag you as a troll. Believe what you wish if that makes you feel better, and defend your beliefs any way you like.



Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

166. Comment #83729 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 31, 2007 at 4:12 am

Epeeist (post 165, or #83720):

And for all of you who haven't seen DG before - he is an idealist theist who believes that the mythos of the Norse gods, the matriarchal triune goddess and the Celtic Cernunnos is as valid as his belief in Jesus, that there is an objective morality that derives from theism but that there is no objective reality.

Misrepresenting other people to such a degree does not speak well of your intellectual honesty Epeeist. I anybody wants to know what I have said about ancient peoples' beliefs being as valid as mine, as well as that I do believe there is an objective reality, read comment #83524 I posted to Epeeist only yesterday.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

167. Comment #83730 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 4:14 am

Well, as I have explained in in comment #83567 I think it's unreasonable to call "atheist" a religious Buddhist monk praying and chanting in some monastery and fully convinced that after death they may well reincarnate as supernatural gods.

Nonsense. They aren't praying *to* anyone or anything, at least not in any sense common with monotheisms, and they certainly don't believe in reincarnation as 'gods'. Buddhas are not Gods.

In the original theravaddin Buddhist schools, there is no concept even of a 'self', so there is no soul or person that reincarnates - nothing supernatural.

And guess what? The leader of the Tibetan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama, is actually prepared to give up some beliefs (such as determinism) if science proves otherwise. No 'I can't conceive, so it can't be true' for him!

Trying to classify others with different philosophies as having the same beliefs as you just doesn't work - facts (not your opinion) show otherwise.

This is so typical - you post what you want to believe about something, rather than researching.

I think actually, spam may be a better classification for your posts - repeated and unstoppable attempts to sell a viewpoint under false pretenses, based on either false or no evidence. Yes, I think that fits well.

Other Comments by steve99

168. Comment #83732 by BMMcArdle on October 31, 2007 at 4:20 am

DG #166

Believe what you wish if that makes you feel better, and defend your beliefs any way you like.

And with that, hundreds of long-winded and vacuous posts disappeared. POOF!

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

169. Comment #83737 by epeeist on October 31, 2007 at 4:55 am

Comment #83729 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Misrepresenting other people to such a degree does not speak well of your intellectual honesty Epeeist. I anybody wants to know what I have said about ancient peoples' beliefs being as valid as mine, as well as that I do believe there is an objective reality, read comment #83524 I posted to Epeeist only yesterday.

But I thought you believed that reality flows from god who is a person. As far as I understand that makes reality subjective.

As for the ancient peoples beliefs I leave it to everyone else to view the post you reference and make up their own mind.

Other Comments by epeeist

170. Comment #83739 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 31, 2007 at 5:18 am

Steve99 (post 168, or #83730):

Well, as I have explained in in comment #83567 I think it's unreasonable to call "atheist" a religious Buddhist monk praying and chanting in some monastery and fully convinced that after death they may well reincarnate as supernatural gods.

Nonsense. They aren't praying *to* anyone or anything, at least not in any sense common with monotheisms, and they certainly don't believe in reincarnation as 'gods'. Buddhas are not Gods.

In the original theravaddin Buddhist schools, there is no concept even of a 'self', so there is no soul or person that reincarnates - nothing supernatural.

Well, my understanding is that Buddha taught the way to escape from the suffering of continuous rebirth, so this seems to me is a central ontological belief of Buddhism. Not to mention the belief that Buddha in his previous incarnation was a Bodhisatta. But I do not know a lot about Buddhism, so let me quote from the Wikipedia:

From the article about Bodhisattas in the Theravada Buddhism you prefer:

The term Bodhisatta was used by the Buddha in the Pali Canon to refer to himself both in his previous lives and as a young man in his current life, prior to his enlightenment, in the period during which he was working towards his own liberation. (my emphasis)

From the article about Rebirth (Buddhism):

In traditional Buddhist cosmology, these [reborn] lives can be in any of a large number of states of being, including those of humans, any kind of animal, and several types of supernatural being (see Six realms). (my emphasis)

From the article about the Six realms:

The Six realms are six divisions of the possible states of rebirth in traditional Buddhist cosmology. They represent all the possibilities, good and bad, of life in sansara. They include rebirth as a deva, an asura, a human being, an animal, a hungry ghost, or a being in Naraka (hell) according to the individual's karma. [snip] The Deva realm is sometimes also referred to as the gods' realm, because its inhabitants are so powerful that, compared to humans, they resemble the gods of Greek or Roman mythology. (my emphasis)

So, in Buddhist ontology we have rebirths, supernatural gods resembling the gods of Greek mythology, not to mention hungry ghosts. These beliefs look quite supernatural to me, but if you prefer to call Buddhism atheist because it does not have the concept of God the three great monotheistic religions share then be my guest. But I wish to point out that the existence of gods and hungry ghosts is not compatible with atheism in the way that I (as well as I dare say most atheists in the West) use the term. And if anything traditional Buddhism's ontology strikes me as even more supernatural than traditional Christianity's.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

171. Comment #83797 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 10:06 am

Well, my understanding is that Buddha taught the way to escape from the suffering of continuous rebirth, so this seems to me is a central ontological belief of Buddhism. Not to mention the belief that Buddha in his previous incarnation was a Bodhisatta. But I do not know a lot about Buddhism, so let me quote from the Wikipedia:

I do know quite a bit about Buddhism. The problem is that these are western translations. 'Rebirth' can mean all kinds of things, depending on the Buddist school. Only in some (such as Tibbetan) does it mean 'the same person comes back').

So, in Buddhist ontology we have rebirths, supernatural gods resembling the gods of Greek mythology, not to mention hungry ghosts.

There is no such thing as 'Buddhist ontology', just like there is no such thing as 'atheist ontology'. Both terms are so broad, that to pin them down to one thing is just a total misrepresentation. You will find Zen Buddhism and Tibettan Buddism to be fundamentally different.

This is my point - you can't just grab terms out of thin air (or even from Wikipedia pages) and use them as you wish. Things are far more complex.

These beliefs look quite supernatural to me, but if you prefer to call Buddhism atheist because it does not have the concept of God the three great monotheistic religions share then be my guest.

Indeed I do. But it is not my preference. It is that of Buddhists themselves:

The Buddha did not claim to be in any way divine, nor does Buddhism involve the idea of a personal god.

The Buddha suggested that it was fear that produced the religious impulse in humanity.

Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.
The Dhammapada, 188

Try and claim Buddhist ideas as your close to your own and you will be labelling yourself as attempting to go to the sacred due to fear.

But I wish to point out that the existence of gods and hungry ghosts is not compatible with atheism in the way that I (as well as I dare say most atheists in the West) use the term. And if anything traditional Buddhism's ontology strikes me as even more supernatural than traditional Christianity's.

But that is the point. Atheism has nothing whatever to do with supernaturalism or not. They are independent concepts. Each supposedly supernatural idea has to be subject to independent verification.

I am entirely prepared to believe in ghosts, fairies and so on providing someone supplies independently verifiable evidence.

From the BBC website on Buddhism:

Most Buddhists, especially western Buddhists, don't spend much time worrying about whether gods exist or not - it's just not an important question.

Buddhism is essentially about living one's life so as to gain enlightenment; there may or may not be some gods or spirits around, but they're not of any real importance.

That is a rather wonderful form of atheism/agnosticism in my view.

Other Comments by steve99

172. Comment #83817 by SilentMike on October 31, 2007 at 11:56 am

It pains me to say this but as I see it to the external observer I believe that D'Souza won. There was no KO, but the point margine was quite clear.

D'Souza is low, he makes personal attacks, he plays dirty saying egregious things when there is no time for an answer. And Hitchens lets him. This is a real disappointment for me. I don't know what happened to Hitchens. He was just standing there reciting his regular lines. I'm sorry to say but some of them were just not appropriate.

He's no McGrath this guy. He's good at what he does.

Other Comments by SilentMike

173. Comment #83834 by Diacanu on October 31, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Guys, click my link in my last post, DD reads this board, and pulls his pud to it.
The walls have ears.



Other Comments by Diacanu

174. Comment #83838 by SilentMike on October 31, 2007 at 12:44 pm

It's a free web. If he wants to read my comment he's more than welcome. I'm not going to censor myself because he might be reading. He's not the secret police and we're not in north Korea, so there's nothing to fear.

BTW. I find his arguments utterly unconvinsing (and quite dishonest). I just think he's effective on people who aren't well aquainted with the arguments and facts (and this is true of many people who are not as obsessed with this nonesense as we are).

Other Comments by SilentMike

175. Comment #83841 by Diacanu on October 31, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Meh, not suggesting self-censorship, but he took a bunch of our posts, and rubbed 'em on his butt.

He's like Andy Kaufman when he got into wrestling.

Just saying, be careful.
If he's gonna rub 'em on his butt, hide a shiv in there.
B-)

Other Comments by Diacanu

176. Comment #83844 by mcadamsdj on October 31, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Sorry if this was mentioned already...I didn't have a chance to read all of the comments...

As always I think that Hitch was the winner in this debate. The problem I had was with the moderation. It falsely appeared that D'Souza did better in the second half of the debate. I think that's because almost every question was directed at Hitchens! Hitch responds, then D'Souza gets a rebuttal; However, Hitchens does not get to comment on any rebuttal (I mean, not really...Hitch pretty much says whatever he wants and for how ever long he wants, regardless of the format). So in essence D'Souza gets the last word on each and every question!

The fool of a moderator (aka chipmunk face, aka "dean" of King's college, aka one Marvin Olasky; who Hitch mops the floor with in this debate http://richarddawkins.net/article,1284,The-Future-Forum-Presents-Christopher-Hitchens-and-Marvin-Olasky,Future-Forum-Christopher-Hitchens) should have either allowed more discussion post questions (eg two replys each) or asked that questions be directed at debators in an alternating fashion. But that seems like it would have been too complicated for Olasky...

D

Other Comments by mcadamsdj

177. Comment #83851 by SilentMike on October 31, 2007 at 1:29 pm

177. Comment #83844 by mcadamsdj

I agree with your analyses on the last word thing. The fact remains that for the average person it would seem that D'Souza made some points. He didn't in our eyes because we know all these arguments and why they're wrong, but it seems that he did in the eyes of someone who doesn't know that.

Other Comments by SilentMike

178. Comment #83854 by Diacanu on October 31, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Ugh, now he's trotting out the "America was founded on christian principles", crap.

It's always the same from these people.
Nothing new, ever.

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/31/is-america-a-christian-nation/

Other Comments by Diacanu

179. Comment #83880 by Tyler Durden on October 31, 2007 at 2:13 pm

D'Souza's hubris knows no bounds. His childlike crowing about the debate with Hitch on his "Panic in the Atheist Camp" blog was just galling.

(I cannot imagine Dawkins, Dennett or Harris doing the same. Hitch, yes, but at least he'd do it with some style and humour :) D'Souza seems to think he's still in high school.)

Does D'Souza not realise that we can rewatch the debates, transcribe his words, and reread what utter nonsense he spews?

This guy deserves the title of a "flea".

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

180. Comment #83884 by SilentMike on October 31, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Yes. "Panic" is a bit of an exaggeration. My someone thinks highly of himself!

We're just honest enough to state it when something less than favorable happens. D'Souza probably isn't used to that.

Other Comments by SilentMike

181. Comment #83957 by BeyondBelief on October 31, 2007 at 9:23 pm

I'm a late arrival to watching this, but I just have to add: Anyone who can make Christopher Hitchens say (as he does very near the end) "Gag me with a spoon" has surely gone beyond the rhetorical pale.

What a load of assertion parading as discovery or revelation. Dinesh (and his ilk) look at the wonders of nature and say, "Ah ha... proof of God." It explains nothing, adds no insight... and equating that stance with Keppler's discovery of the laws of planetary motion, which had to built on deduction and mathematics and observation... oi vay!

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

182. Comment #83981 by Diacanu on November 1, 2007 at 12:33 am

I finally made myself sit through the whole thing.

....you people who said D'souza won are nuts!

Hitchens mopped the floor with him!

Oh, D'souza was slick, and a lot of the audience wooed him, but Hitchens got his share of applause too, and argument wise, he trounced D'Souza!!

What debate were you people watching?!?!

Other Comments by Diacanu

183. Comment #83996 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 1, 2007 at 1:15 am

Epeeist (post 570 or #83411):

But I thought you believed that reality flows from god who is a person.

You are conflating phenomenal reality and objective reality. The distinction should be clear to anyone who knows the first thing about ontology.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

184. Comment #84001 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 1, 2007 at 1:28 am

Diacanu (post 183, or #83981):

What debate were you people watching?!?!

:-P That's really funny.

And it's amazing how posters' judgment of who won the debate changed once you alerted them in post 156 that D'Souza is actually reading this thread.

But I will agree that debates of this kind evidence more the debaters' quick wit, or even their having done their homework, rather than how solid their thinking is. Nevertheless the fact that atheists are not clearly winning (to put it mildly) their debates with theists as evidenced by the various debates linked to in this site, is clear evidence that the theistic position is not as moronic as atheist mythology would have it.

A much better format I think are written debates. There are at least two book length cases: "God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist" by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and "Does God Exist" by J.P.Moreland and Kai Nielsen. I have not yet read the second book, but I can recommend the first (and don't worry, the theist does not clearly win the debate), and I believe the second is a good book also and, interestingly enough, in the end includes some other thinkers commenting on the debate.



Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

185. Comment #84003 by epeeist on November 1, 2007 at 1:42 am

Comment #83996 by Dianelos Georgoudis

You are conflating phenomenal reality and objective reality. The distinction should be clear to anyone who knows the first thing about ontology.

I wandered into Manchester over the weekend. Bought myself Bach's "The Art of Fugue", then went into Blackwell's to pick up the copy of "Philosophy of Logics" that I had ordered. I also bought Alasdair Macintyre's "After Virtue" and just for fun Nigel Warburton's "Thinking from A to Z".

The latter is a splendid little book just to browse through. Lots of things to amuse, for instance he defines the word "Humptydumptying", something that I hadn't come across before but strikes an immediate chord.

Other Comments by epeeist

186. Comment #84019 by Corylus on November 1, 2007 at 2:54 am

Comment #84001 by Dianelos

There are at least two book length cases: "God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist" by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and "Does God Exist" by J.P.Moreland and Kai Nielsen.

As yes, Lane Craig, I wondered if you were going to recommend him again. Might I suggest you read a recent bit of moral "philosophy" from this man before you push his work.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

This man is not a proponent of virtue ethics (as you sometimes seem to be) or Kant (as PaulE said he was) his is not a utilitarian or any other respectable form of moral philosophy. He is a full blown proponent of divine command theory: one of the most nauseating, inhumane barbaric and cowardly forms of moral understanding.

You might want to try to argue that his theist views are superior and the 'logical path to good action'. However, I doubt it.

Other Comments by Corylus

187. Comment #84031 by SilentMike on November 1, 2007 at 3:22 am

183. Comment #83981 by Diacanu

I finally made myself sit through the whole thing.

....you people who said D'souza won are nuts!

Hitchens mopped the floor with him!

Oh, D'souza was slick, and a lot of the audience wooed him, but Hitchens got his share of applause too, and argument wise, he trounced D'Souza!!

What debate were you people watching?!?!

We were watching this debate. On pure logic and to the informed person D'Souza was pitiful. You could have put a traffic cone in Hitchens' place and D'Souza still could not have won with what he had. The problem is that in a public debate you can't count on people being well informed and sharp minded. Naturally some viewers will be, but not all.

I was trying to pretend I didn't know what I know about this subject. I was trying to think like someone who was wandering whether "Christianity was part of the problem" or not. I think to those people D'Souza seemed to make some good points. In actuallity these points weren't even real points. But he timed those fake points in a way that Hitchens could not reply. Hitchens on the other hand gave the usual spiel. Don't get me wrong, I love that spiel but this time it wasn't always appropriate. This is Hitchens' problem. He always seems to give the exact same points in the exact same way. It seems that D'Souza studied Hitchens and managed to give the right questions so that Hitchens' ready made answers won't sound as good as they usually do.

Maybe I am judging Hitchens a bit too harshly. I tend to be critical and have high expectations from "our guys". And on the other hand I really don't expect much from the likes of D'Souza. I may be wrong (Though I think I'm right), but in any case my point is this: D'Souza is no Mc'Grath (ever notice how all the apologists have an apostrophe in their names? what's up with that?). He's an effective debater.

On the plus size D'Souza probably lost all those people who don't like aggressiveness because of all his personal attacks. This was probably the first time Hitchens ever got those guys on his side.

Other Comments by SilentMike

188. Comment #84211 by Diacanu on November 1, 2007 at 12:28 pm

SilentMike-

Hitchens on the other hand gave the usual spiel.

Eh, recycled points they may have been, but I thought he used the right points at the right time.

I think he did good to keep pointing out that D'Souza did nothing whatever to prove the claims of religion.
Especially where D'Souza tried to shoehorn miracles into probability, but then did nothing whatever to show there have ever been miracles.

Hitchens "usual speil", went largly unassailed.

The immorality of vicarious redemption.
Untouched.

Heaven watching the rough condition of mankind for 98,000 years?
Tapdanced around.

And so on for all of it.

D'Souza's retorts went along the lines of "Jesus is so good! And Hitchens hates him!! There's atheism for you!!".

Like arguing with a teenage girl.

Other Comments by Diacanu

189. Comment #84292 by SilentMike on November 1, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Many people have the mentality of teenagers. I don't remember all the details (and I have no intention of watching this again) but when I watched this I got the distinct impression that Hitchens missed some marks and that some of his ready made stories were themselves showhorned as responses to questions and challenges. One that comes to mine is the somewhat inadequet response to the "constants of the universe" nonesense. Another example was the "where did our morality come from" point, though this is probably due in part to Hitchens' lack of scientific knowledge.

The details are by now a blur in may head. The overall impression was and remains that Hitchens gave D'Souza rope, and he did not hang himself with it. In the words of the second responder, Hitchens was too defensive.

Other Comments by SilentMike

190. Comment #84378 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 2, 2007 at 12:07 am

Corylus (post 187, or #84019):

I recommended the book that Craig co-authors not because I agree in all particulars with Craig but because I think books with written debates are a much better avenue for understanding the issues than oral debates (that sometimes resemble catfights of wit) or books written by well-meaning but quite ignorant authors, such as TGD.

As for command ethics I think they make no sense at all and therefore deeply disagree with Craig. What I find remarkable in the article you linked is that Craig actually starts pretty well, reasonably arguing that the slaughter of the Canaanites is probably a nationalistic myth, that God would not order such a thing, and that a literal understanding of the Bible is probably not viable. But then, for some reason I cannot really fathom, his goes on to defend a literal understanding of this passage in the Bible, and to claim utter nonsense such as that God is not bound by the same ethics we are. (Which, incidentally, contradicts one of the most beautiful passages in the Gospels where Jesus calls us to be as perfect here as God in heaven is perfect.) So, again, I deeply disagree with him. But please try to sympathize with Craig: as many an Protestant apologist he has not only to defend a religious understanding of reality, not only theism, not only the Christianity of Jesus's message, not only dogmatic Christianity, but even a Bible-centered Christianity which comes perilously close to Biblical literalism.

Anyway, thanks for that link. It was a rather shocking read for me. And quite instructive too, for it shows what happens when one believes in idols, even idols built of paper and ink.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

191. Comment #84380 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 2, 2007 at 12:18 am

Epeeist (post 186, or #84003):

Speaking of books, I recommend "Naturalism in Quesition" by Mario de Caro and David MacArthur, as state of the art compendium of what philosophers today think about naturalism. Here is a quote from the introduction: "The papers collected here discuss such issues as intentionality, agency, freedom, meaning, reference, rationality, and personal identity in the belief that all attempts to reduce, eliminate, or re-conceive these concepts in terms of supposedly more scientifically legitimate notions do not just fail – they entirely miss the kind of importance that these notions have in our lives and experiences."

You know Hegel's idea of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I think what's happening is that after the popular thesis of a demon-haunted world, and the popular antithesis of a mechanical world, a synthesis is now being formed that transcends them both.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

192. Comment #84382 by epeeist on November 2, 2007 at 12:29 am

Comment #84380 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Speaking of books, I recommend "Naturalism in Quesition" by Mario de Caro and David MacArthur, as state of the art compendium of what philosophers today think about naturalism.

I will have a look. You miss the quantification, is this "some philosophers" or "all philosophers"?

You know Hegel's idea of thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Given the atmosphere of Marxism I grew up in I should do ;-)

However, my personal opinion was that Hegel was a buffoon, where he wasn't an establishment lackey.

Other Comments by epeeist

193. Comment #84578 by Corylus on November 2, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Comment # 191. by Dianelos

... thanks for that link

Thank you for reading and engaging with it DG.

I agree that being an apologist is not an easy job: I wouldn't care to try it. ;-)

Other Comments by Corylus

194. Comment #84584 by Diacanu on November 2, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Indeed, I believe the ranking goes somewhere between PR man for Blackwater, and mop boy at a peep show.

Other Comments by Diacanu

195. Comment #84733 by Elcristoph on November 3, 2007 at 11:23 am

Good Afternoon, Ive been following these debates for some time now, and decided to join this website to voice my opinions and vent some frustration, what got me about this debate wasn't just D'souza's constant use of god of the gaps, that atheists just want to avoid a higher judgment and wave after wave of strawman logic, it was the fact that he would always get the last word, so the impression that he had won that argument was put to the audience who I'm sorry to say would accept anything he said despite the fact most of it was nonsense purely because they want anything to validate there pre conceived idea that atheists are without morals, such as saying Hitler was an Atheist when Hitler himself said he believed in a Creator

very depressing

Other Comments by Elcristoph

196. Comment #84844 by Jeff R. on November 3, 2007 at 11:52 pm

I like Rowan Atkinson's comedic characters. This Dinesh character is a good one, full of pathos and feelings of inadequacy, but I still prefer Mr Bean.

Other Comments by Jeff R.

197. Comment #85011 by girlperson1 on November 4, 2007 at 1:51 pm

D'Souza is very confused on history. He also turned the debate into personal attacks on Hitchens. "Tisk Tisk", very unprofessional.

Other Comments by girlperson1

198. Comment #85081 by Consider on November 4, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Other Comments by Consider

199. Comment #85103 by Consider on November 5, 2007 at 1:40 am

Christopher Hitchens should have been ready to dispute D'Souza's introductory diatribe regarding the emancipatory virtues of Christianity, as well as his nonsense regarding the natural laws and the 'rationality of the universe' (whatever that might mean) allegedly derived from Christian theology.
The validity of testimonials of people like Galileo and Keppler about their religiosity in an age when one could be put to death for lesser deviations than being atheist also went unchallenged.
The defense of atheism when linked to left wing dictators Like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, also has been weak.
He let D'Souza go with the argument that religious conflicts aren't really religious at all (" don't be naive") while communist crimes were done for the sake of atheism ("read Lenin").
The performance of Christopher Hitchens is so much more disappointing, since he could now D'Souza arguments in advance, from the debate between D'Souza and Shermer that took place few days earlier.

Other Comments by Consider

200. Comment #85148 by voiceofreason12 on November 5, 2007 at 5:51 am

D'Souza's argument was weak from the outset. It would have only fooled the ignorant masses like those present at King's "College."

D'Souza makes the argument that if you didn't believe in something then you wouldn't focus on it and write books about it and simply behave as if it did not exist. He uses unicorns as his example. Well, this would be a decent argument if it were not for the fact that people aren't trying to subvert science, murder, and infiltrate government and schools for the sake of unicorns. They are however doing these things for "god."

As I said, only the ignorant would have been able to hold down their lunch in the presence of such an uneducated argument. A true Christian champion is D'Souza.

Other Comments by voiceofreason12