1. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157356 by Terry Thompson on April 9, 2008 at 1:19 am

This video missed the real danger of belief in a Devil. If you are going to blame the actions of Hitler on a supernatural devil, you miss the opprotunity to find the real causes. We can investigate these causes, and work to avoid them in the future. To just say "The devil was in him" is simplistic and does nothing to teach society how to stop this from happening in the future. So aside from the fact that there is no devil, ascribing acts to him actually causes harm.

2. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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?

3. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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.

4. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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.