51. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93518 by eXcommunicate on December 3, 2007 at 10:39 am

Well, let's be honest - Dan pulled a "Dinesh" and didn't fully address the topic of the debate. He kind of beat around the edges and then it's off to a new topic. I don't blame him - Dinesh came up with the Debate Topic and might have been setting Daniel up for a rhetorical "fall". This is why I don't like American style "debate" where the moderator rarely, if ever, steps in to keep both sides honest and on track. Having said that, Prof. Dennett still did an admirable job parsing D'Souza's circus act and responding appropriately and with the proper authority.

John_Geeshu: Have you even read these last 7 pages of talkback? It's chocked full of refutations of D'Souza's supposed "good points" and "eloquent" answers. On YouTube, likewise, you'll find over a hundred responses refuting Dinesh's presentation. The ad homs come because of D'Souza's easily refuted arguments, not because we're threatened by his intellect. I agree, the man's not an idiot. But I think he willfully obfuscates and equivocates. It's a conscious decision from him to do this. It's his "schtick". It's what gets him famous (for riling atheists) to sell books that make him rich. It all just means more professional speaking engagements for him. If only I could morally and intellectually bankrupt myself to his extent - I could make a bunch of money at it and be on easy street.

52. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93502 by eXcommunicate on December 3, 2007 at 9:51 am

phasmagigas

No, your example is something that would be valid: Determing your adversary's level of understanding. If the topic is about cooking, for example, and I ask my opponent if they know the basics of cooking, and they do not, then the topic of "debate" is moot. There is no debate; now one must be the teacher and one must be the student.

What Dinesh tries to do is something like this:


Atheist: Don't you think the Laws of Thermodynamics contradict your Faerie Theory of cuisine preparation?

Dinesh D'Souza: Let me ask you this. Can you prove that the Laws of Thermodynamics are either thermo or dynamic?

Atheist: Errrr...

Dinesh D'Souza: I rest my case. *sits down*

I call it "Dinesh D'Souza's Big Tactic of Obfuscation".

53. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93379 by eXcommunicate on December 3, 2007 at 2:12 am

On the contrary to some here, I think debates like these do not "elevate" D'Souza's position, rather they undercut him. As Hitchens is fond of saying, "...your character committed suicide some time ago." Let's continue to hand Dinesh the noose with which to hang himself (and his kooky ideas). To back up my claim, look at the video talkbacks on Youtube. D'Souza and his "ideas" are being torn asunder by comment after comment after comment on a rather public and very popular website. Let's continue to turn up the heat on these charlatans.

Dr. Benway: Your list of debate tactics is comedic gold. Hats off to you, my good sir. You're right - a good defense is a good offense. Undercut the Dims' "arguments" from the outset. With humor if possible. Biting, raucous humor.

54. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92801 by eXcommunicate on December 1, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Lagomort: Far from looking like an ass, Dennett handed Dinesh his own.

---

Someone else asked if Dennett did better than Hitchens. I think he did. :)

55. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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?).

56. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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.

57. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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.

58. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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.

59. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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."

60. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92717 by eXcommunicate on December 1, 2007 at 10:00 am

Dawkins: (paraphrased) "We do not have a Darwinian explanation for altruism, but we will find it."

This is most assuredly a form of faith. Perhaps not faith in the sense of "God exists," but faith nonetheless. At the very least it is faith in a process.

I suspect it's rather more like confidence than "faith."

61. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92446 by eXcommunicate on November 30, 2007 at 2:07 pm

It's not easy, and it's still painful, but it is another--and better--option.

I think Richard's point is that if we discussed these things more often, as a society, and opened our minds, then the "painfulness" of lost desire would be moderated extremely (if I may use those two words side by side). Because we are such a sexually repressed society, these issues are rarely brought up, let alone discussed in a rational way.

62. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92290 by eXcommunicate on November 30, 2007 at 8:39 am

To paraphrase the gigantic post I lost due to the login cookie timing out(wtf?), I think it's brave of Richard to bring this issue up. It's a clumsy piece and I think even Richard admitted in his addendum that it wasn't his best written article.

The thing is, arguments evolve. They aren't always static. Look at Dawkins in 1990 and look at his presentation today. His methods and presentation have reached a maturity because he's honed them over the course of 2 decades. I think this is a relatively new tack for him (although he's touched on it briefly before) and that it too will evolve.

63. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92283 by eXcommunicate on November 30, 2007 at 8:19 am

Oh my... I just lost a 3 or 4 paragraph response. Bleeding Christ! Josh, any possibility of converting the site to a PHP portal? I can't believe I lost my entire post.

64. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92268 by eXcommunicate on November 30, 2007 at 7:03 am

Works fine on my FireFox. Anyways, good interview. Where does Allan Gregg's show air? What network/stations?

65. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #92261 by eXcommunicate on November 30, 2007 at 6:39 am

This was a positive little interview. Too bad it wasn't more in depth. It would have been fun if Cooper also had on a raving Islamic lunatic.

66. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #91824 by eXcommunicate on November 29, 2007 at 11:46 am

Hmm, too bad the synopsis is so brief. I doubt Ms Jones has much knew to say, but you never know - we have to keep on our toes.

67. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91276 by eXcommunicate on November 27, 2007 at 11:08 pm

In regards to the propensity for theists to "out breed" secularists: Am I the only atheist who wants as many children as I can afford? :) I love children (currently have two very beautiful kids). I want a whole squadron of precocious, intelligent, beautiful children who will hopefully grow up to be active and socially, politically, and environmentally conscious atheists. :)

68. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91031 by eXcommunicate on November 27, 2007 at 3:04 am

Post #66 mejdrich, got it exactly right. None of this exists in a vacuum. The fact we had a spirited (to say the least) talkback regarding the AHA Fund, Sam's reply to criticisms, the hate for fellow atheists who dared question Sam, and then this (admittedly small) quip, all adds up. That's where I was coming from.

I readily admit I overreacted a bit initially in this talkback, but my objections and views still stand, being as they are moderated by a few hours of thinking upon.

Oh, and...

Okay, Sam Harris isn't 'fighting for our cause', he - and a brave group with him - IS our cause. I intensely dislike collectivism.

This statement is so far out there I don't know where to begin. How about some clarification?

69. 2006 Charles Simonyi Lecture: 'Can the Internet Save The Enlightenment?'

Comment #90933 by eXcommunicate on November 26, 2007 at 5:44 pm

LOL - The gunshot sound effect made me jump! :D

70. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90891 by eXcommunicate on November 26, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Yes, a pastor didn't hesitate to help out, but neither did countless other nameless atheists, or does their contribution warrant a cute joke at their expense? If you'd notice, Sam didn't say "Lefty Atheists" he said "atheists." It's just slightly annoying. I am quite alright, thank you (i.e. "sucking it up"). Do you think you have a monopoly on moral outrage, Fanusi Khiyal?

71. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90882 by eXcommunicate on November 26, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Fanusi Khiyal: I'm a cultural liberal, but one that also sees Islam as a threat and wishes it was combated more effectively. The key word is effectively, in that I don't believe the Iraq War is doing that. Does that make me an elitist defeatist? According to Hitchens maybe. Does that mean I'm a "do nothing" who would let Islam run all over the West? Why is there only one way (the Rightists' way) to fight Islam? Maybe I'm a minority on the Left. I live in Indiana for Darwin's sake - a place wholly bereft of anything but Rightist "thought". Personally, I found the socialist's question to Hitchens at the FFRF conference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwDk8LOD5Go) quite cringe worthy, but I suspect Hitchens would find just as much contempt for my more moderate viewpoint as he did for the misguided ("it's the West's fault") socialist in the audience.

Now, Sam seems to like to make these small quips towards fellow atheists, goading us. Why is it not okay to be slightly annoyed? It's not like we're going to go protest his next book signing. I don't think some atheists understand that there are those atheists on the Left, like myself, that do share their points of view regarding Islam. Well, if they do understand it, they seem to delight in lumping all liberals as "do nothings" or bereft of "morality", as Hitchens does, when I know for a fact this isn't the case. If anything I find many "Rightist" atheist morality, in their everyday, economic and social values, combating Islam aside, distasteful, but I wouldn't say they are all less moral than I or more or less moral than Christian rightists.

I just think his quip in Newsweek was unfortunate in that it perpetuates the stereotype of the "amoral" atheist - a stereotype some of us here in the breadbasket of Christianity (Midwest USA) have been struggling against.

72. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90869 by eXcommunicate on November 26, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Fanusi Khiyal - Or some of us have already proved him wrong by donating our time, money, and efforts into *other* charities and projects, just not his. This is not "whining", this is standing up for ourselves. Labeling our objections as mere "whining" smacks of more peer pressure/social arm wringing displayed in the previous talkbacks.

73. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90858 by eXcommunicate on November 26, 2007 at 2:12 pm

"Rick," Harris jokes, "may yet convince me that Christians are more moral and socially engaged than atheists."

hahaha, hohoho...


An unfortunate "joke". I'm sure plenty of Christians are having a belly laugh at that one.

I donated, despite my questions and despite supporting those that chose not to donate. Not donating to the cause celeb can also be a moral choice, Sam.

74. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #90274 by eXcommunicate on November 23, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Got this in my email from paypal:

Dear Michael Hafer,

Two days ago you sent a payment to sam@samharris.com. This payment is still
unclaimed. Often, unclaimed payments are a result of a payment being sent to a
misspelled or otherwise incorrect email address. Please double-check to make
sure you sent your payment to the intended recipient's correct email address.

One common cause of unclaimed payments is that the intended recipient has two
duplicate email addresses, but only one version of it has been registered to
their PayPal account.The four most common examples of this are:
recipient@webtv.com & recipient@webtv.net; recipient@msn.com &
recipient@email.msn.com; recipient@earthlink.com & recipient@earthlink.net; and
recipient@att.com & recipient@att.worldnet.net. So if your recipient has an
@webtv, @msn, @earthlink, or @att email address, please verify that you have
sent it to the version of this address which is attached to their PayPal
account.

If you did not intend to send a payment to sam@samharris.com, it is easy to
cancel the transaction:

1. Log in to your PayPal account.
2. Go to the "History" subtab of the "My Account" tab and find this
transaction (with a status of "Unclaimed").
3. Press the "Cancel" button in the "Action" column.
4. On the confirmation page, press the "Cancel Payment" button to confirm.
Your payment will be cancelled and the funds returned to your PayPal account.

If you intended to send a payment to someone who is not yet a member of PayPal,
you can forward them the below reminder message, which explains how to sign up
for a PayPal account and accept your payment.

Sincerely,
PayPal Operations

Please do not reply to this email. This mailbox is not monitored and you will
not receive a response. For assistance, log in to your PayPal account and click
the Help link located in the top right corner of any PayPal page.

Anyone else run into this when paying through pay pal?

75. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89460 by eXcommunicate on November 20, 2007 at 8:30 pm

6. Why single out Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Don't other Muslim dissidents need our support?

There surely are other Muslim dissidents who are threatened and deserve our support. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the most visible, however. In the event we raise enough money for her security, we will help others as well. Several of us are in the process of forming non-profit foundations for this larger purpose.

I'm not arrogant enough to say it was my question he was specifically addressing here, but generally he did just address my suggestion/questions about this. See? All it takes is simple, straightforward, honest answers like Sam gave to abate reasonable people like myself. No need to call names and accuse people of callousness. Just donated a modest amount (I'm "between careers" at the moment).

76. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89103 by eXcommunicate on November 19, 2007 at 5:58 pm

*Whew*

I'm glad no one jumped all over my innocuous comment/suggestion/question. And to Josh, man, there are dissenting opinions all over this site, on every news item, and in nearly every forum thread. Not all of them are rational or logical or even nice, but they are dissenting opinions. If you didn't want dissenting opinions on this issue, could you not have disabled the talkback feature for this article?

Anyway, I personally can spare $5 for Ayaan's protection, maybe a few bucks more. BUT, all of you who have appointed yourselves as the moral judgers of all need to back the fuck off. Yes yes, you're responding to "the idiots", and there are plenty of them on this talkback, but you cross the line when you make blanket statements about all those who will not/can not donate or all those who have the "gall" to question one of your idols, Sam Harris. Y'know, some people might be all for something more broad, like a fund to protect lesser known atheist dissidents. Let's hear all sides and opinions.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure Dinesh D'douche does read this entire site, "religiously."

77. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88697 by eXcommunicate on November 18, 2007 at 3:18 pm

As much as we all respect Ayaan Hirsi Ali, can she not afford her own security? She seems reasonably well-off. I'd prefer such a campaign of contributions be aimed elsewhere, not at Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Perhaps making the secondary goal of Sam's drive, protecting other dissidents, the primary goal instead. Ayaan Hirsi Ali could be a good public face for such a campaign.

78. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87647 by eXcommunicate on November 12, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Wow, this thread illustrates, yet again, how my fellow atheists can and do screw each other as royally as any theist. Baseless accusations of "idiocy" come shooting out of nowhere, so rapid fire my head was left spinning.

I don't need to have read anyone's author du jour on the subject of god or atheism or scientific "proofs" to be a non-believer. While I have read so many books and articles on the subject (and watched videos), please forgive me, I haven't read "your" favorite book on the subject and I guess I "just don't get it" and am an "idiot" for not making my non-belief "fool proof" to your satisfaction.

79. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #87558 by eXcommunicate on November 12, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Great video. Thanks for posting.

EDIT: PAH!!! "Nick Good" beat me to it. ;)

80. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #86896 by eXcommunicate on November 10, 2007 at 11:48 am

" We may not suffer the religious piffle that the US of A has to put up with, but let's not get complacent ... the bloke running the country is delusional. And his belief in The Big Sky Fairy is not going to stop our taxes getting spent on subsiding religious organisations or funding 'faith' schools to indoctrinate the next generation. "



This is a joke, isn't it? So you are saying anyone with religious belief should be disqualified from holding public office? How about womanizers? Smokers? Boozers? Ugly people who are deluded enough to think that they are good looking?

Bonzai, I think the idea here is that he is worried the PM will continue to support state funded "faith schools" and I don't blame him(her?).

81. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #86673 by eXcommunicate on November 9, 2007 at 11:52 pm

Bummer. Videos taken down. :( There was something like 2000 comments in 2 weeks spread over the 10 videos. Oh well.

82. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #84340 by eXcommunicate on November 1, 2007 at 8:01 pm

I think if you don't like RRS, you should ignore them.

I enjoyed Dawkins' interview very much. He has a very good voice and chooses his words well. Economy of language must be this man's mantra. :) Unfortunately I haven't seen any new videos of him on YouTube. I've been spending the last few days on YouTube bashing heads with theists on the "D'Souza Hitchens Debate" video talkbacks (as eXcommunicate1979).

83. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

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.

84. AAI 07

Comment #83070 by eXcommunicate on October 28, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Running the risk of ganging up on libertarians here (I'm sure they're used to it), but they do not think rationally about the health care issue. Buy Insurance = Pay your own way, right? You're looking out for yourself!

Wrong.

The premiums one pays over the course of, say, 5 years will not pay for an open heart surgery or something of similar gravitas. Other people in your plan are paying for it, not the one having the surgery. Likewise, one is actually paying for "other people's kids" and "other people's mistakes" all the same when one buys insurance. So... I wish they would drop the "individualism" rhetoric and focus on the governmental concerns instead. Libertarians don't trust the government with their money, which is understandable (but trust their money to a giant corporation *shrugs*). I'm just sick of the social darwinism defense, when buying insurance is anything but.

85. AAI 07

Comment #82731 by eXcommunicate on October 27, 2007 at 11:40 am

Sorry Bonzai, perhaps I am too U.S.-centric. Yes, it is controversial in the U.S., even between American atheists themselves (although I happen to support it). We're a contentious bunch already (we fight about the word 'atheist' for christsake). The last thing we need is to latch onto an issue like Universal Healthcare and divide our ranks further. As a movement we should stick to those issues that are directly related to Church/State/Rationalism. That's not to say atheists shouldn't fight for universal healthcare, but those who do should not do so under the "atheist" banner.

86. AAI 07

Comment #82722 by eXcommunicate on October 27, 2007 at 10:57 am

Personally, I believe the only way to get the masses to move away from religion and fear is through a secular safety net. Religion provides this net and it is a very powerful force. Even people who don't quite believe everything at church still won't leave for fear of losing this support. IMHO, and I may be overstating it a bit, but there might be a causal correlation between universal health care in certain Western European countries and the rise of non-belief. Of course there are many other socio-economic factors, but I believe the safety net of health care has allowed many Europeans the luxury of throwing off the religious yoke.

Having said that, there's no reason for the Rationalist movement to delve into such controversial topics at this time. We currently are only beginning to set the stage for change. Wading in whole hog into issues not defined or corrupted by "faith" would water down our current message and alienate libertarian atheists who could be a big help to the cause in these early stages.

87. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82609 by eXcommunicate on October 27, 2007 at 12:24 am

As I said before, what we need to do is lock Hitchens in a room for a week and have Harris, Dennett and Dawkins give him a very stern tutorial on the substance. Then Hitchens should ask for a rematch (cue "Eye of the Tiger" from Rocky II).

Nice! This is the exact image I had in mind days ago when these videos were posted: That of a re-energized Hitchens dominating a "rematch", ala Rocky II (cue training montage of Hitchy running up the steps in Philly, scotch in one hand, cigarette in the other).

I'd also envision a kind of "tag team" match or a "debate team" match-up between any number of theist apologists and 3 or 4 of our guys. Not sure how The Hitch would fit into that scenario, as he's an avowed individualist. I think the Rocky II scenario is more likely in his case. ;)

88. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82563 by eXcommunicate on October 26, 2007 at 6:06 pm

I am engaging fundies on at the Youtube links above (I am under the moniker 'MythosRuler'), so please join me if you have such an inclination (most notably @ Video 8/10). :)

EDIT: I've changed my Youtube name to "eXcommunicate1979"

89. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82276 by eXcommunicate on October 26, 2007 at 1:38 am

I too noticed this got taken off the front page. Too bad. Some good posts in this talkback. I also understand AAI wants control of the footage from its conference, but I am confused as to how you were allowed to film if AAI retained all the rights to video footage? Not sure what's going on here, but I'm sure everything will be worked out. :)

@Scientifical Madness: You don't live in America. That explains it, at least for me. I am sure there are some Americans who would be willing to give up the term just to "make life easier" when discussing things. That's perfectly fine for them to do that. It might be a tactic that works for them. However, some of us will continue the fight, despite preconceived notions about the term "atheist" and use the term proudly. If you are weary, then perhaps you should give up? Not sure how abandoning the term "atheist" will prevent theists (oh, sorry, "those who happen to believe in a personal deity") from being bigoted towards your views once you start actually delving into what you actually believe and they feel they were "duped" by you when you didn't come out and say you were an atheist. Oh, I have no doubt that you fight the good fight on your own terms. However, being a non-American I can see how you wouldn't view the term "atheist" with the kind of pride an American would. Is it just me being another pig-headed American?

And everybody needs to drop this act that just because some of us disagree with what Harris and his supporters are saying, that somehow we don't want to "talk tactics." I'm pretty sure that's what we've *been doing here* or am I wrong? No one is shouting down Harris. No one is calling him a heretic. I am pretty sure we'll all still buy his next book.

90. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82245 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Scientifical Madness: No reporter, Atheist or otherwise, would throw the word "atheist" into a question 3 times like that. Neither would a christian reporter. Sam's example is spurious. When speaking with a theist, one need not preface every question, statement, or rebuttal with the phrase, "as an atheist, I..." Usually the label is applied once in the conversation, if at all, and we're off and running.

If one is worried about the "atheist" terminology baggage, then one can use some other word or none at all. Like my previous posts have said, it depends upon context whether a specific label is warranted or not. But some of us will go ahead and take the brunt of the bigotry for you and still use the term "atheist." We'll take the heat, then slowly change the zeitgeist, benefiting all of you who shy away from the label.

91. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82176 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 7:41 pm

RainDear: I don't understand what you're saying. What have we said that insinuates some of us "require a flawless leader"? The very fact that we critique the voices of our movement is sure fire evidence we *don't* see them as flawless. Perhaps I am missing something. Do you advocate we stop critiquing the statements made by the prominent members of the Rationalist movement?

92. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82158 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 7:04 pm

It's one thing to say, "atheist is not my label." But to have no label at all will not work in everyday conversation. Someone will always ask you. Will you simply say, "I don't like labels," and dodge the question? Then a label will be imposed upon you without your consent: Waffler, Dodger, or worse, Deceiver, as if you're trying to hide something. Looking like you're evading the question will garner you as much or more suspicion than if you came outright and said the eeeeville "A" word.

Okay, you say, I'll just use a different word. Do you say "Humanist" when in the context of one's belief in god or when talking about the existence of god? Of course not. Someone can be a Secular Humanist and still be religious or at least Deist. No, you are an Atheist. When you describe your views you will be labeled as an "Atheist" anyways. We might as well embrace it, IMHO. If you don't want to, that's fine. I like that we are talking about tactics and all voices should be heard. I do think labels are important in discussions and in tactics. They can be used in specific instances, no matter how "dirty" the word may be. "Atheist" when talking about the existence of god, "Antitheist" when talking about the negative effects of religion, "Rationalist", "Humanist", and so on and so forth.

93. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82137 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 6:21 pm

IndyHoosier (Hey, I'm from Fort Wayne!): Hitchens is quite good under many circumstances. If you want an Atheist to make an appearance on Fox News or on a talking heads show, book Christopher. The man is always entertaining and can hold his own in such a format. Many who've encountered him on primetime cable news have come to regret their encounter. I submit this D'Souza debate and the Galloway "debate" are anomalies. I think Hitchens could use our support as well as our level criticism. I think he appreciates honesty above all.

EDIT: I just watched the D'Souza appearance on Fox News and I want to puke. The man claims a 50/50 split in the audience and then claims the atheist half was cowered by his performance! What an ass. From the very beginning it was clear the crowd was something like 60/40 or 70/30 in favor of christians to begin with, based on initial applause factors as well as reports from people who were actually there. Also, no where did Atheists "yell and scream" during their applause. Many times I could hear such things occurring during the applause for Dinesh's remarks. Faux News strikes again! Using its television audience's ignorance to parrot Fox's own interpretation of events. Disgusting.

The "Atheist Avenger" within me wishes someone: Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, I don't care who, would debate D'Souza, in the Lion's Den - Fox News - and beat him solidly on his own ground. The Fox News report just pisses me the fuck off. Whoever does it needs to make sure the format is amiable to real debate and rebuttal and the audience must include a real 50/50 split. D'Souza's debate style must be studied, dissected with the microscope of reason, then charred black by the gigantic Bunsen Burner of Inquiry (TM)!!!

94. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82133 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 6:03 pm

I'm not too sold on the idea of getting rid of the "Atheist" moniker. I mean, when talking about religion with someone or in a public forum, we are "atheists". It doesn't matter if you're a Buddhist Atheist or a Humanist Atheist or Agnostic Atheist when you're debating the existence of your enemy's god. You may have different approaches to the argument, but in the central question of "is there a god?" then we are simply ATHEISTS. Now, when the discussion comes to ethics or politics that's when other monikers come into question or come into play.

When someone says, "I am a Catholic. What are you?"

"Atheist" is the correct response.

When someone says, "I am a christian conservative. What are you?" or, "I am a Communist. What are you?"

Then "Secular Humanist" or something else is preferable.

95. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81875 by eXcommunicate on October 25, 2007 at 10:31 am

I like many others felt the sudden urge to strangle D'Souza where he stood and am amazed Hitchy didn't walk over to him and slap him upside his bean. I think I've kind of realized why Hitch seemed to pull all of his punches. Generally, and Hitch has said this himself, he likes to allow hucksters and charlatans to hang themselves with their own words. To all of us here on this board, D'Souza does just that. However, all the "white noise" Hitchy complained was being spilled on stage that day was exactly what the audience wanted to hear, and endeared D'Souza to them instead of hanging him like we all wished it did. Hitch is still #1 in my book because he's right, and because he's a fantastic journalist/writer, and because he's entertaining as hell.

D'Souza's use of "logic" was fallacious at best. At BEST. D'Souza clearly had Hitchens in a bind, because Hitch never had a chance to respond to 75% of D'Souza's bullshit rhetoric. With all the BS D'Souza spewed from his corn hole it would take 5 hours to refute it all. D'Souza knew this and used the format to his advantage with this in mind. If D'Souza "won" anything, it's the race to spout as much inanery as possible to overwhelm your opponent in the time allotted.

96. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81522 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 9:36 pm

I disagree that Hitchens needs to "take a year off" of debating or anything of that nature. I just think he needs to challenge himself. Whoever said he seemed bored in the debate could be onto something. Intellectual growth only comes through challenge, and of course he'll rise to it.

97. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81423 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Intellectual inadequacy? No. Intellectual dishonesty. Yes.

98. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81322 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 3:29 pm

"Bamboozle" - Perfect word in reference to D'Souza's "performance." Thank you, THEEVANGELIST.

99. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81291 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Richard: I don't think anyone is saying Christopher lost the debate due to his lack of good argument or reason, but rather due to his inability to refute the idiotic claims made by D'Souza because of various issues we are discussing. Each debate is a learning experience and we must all learn to fully refute lunacy of D'Souza's ilk if we are to debate them in such a live format - debate formats that are inherently "stacked against" intellectual argument.

Quine: RD.net has also started a section devoted to "debate points"
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1781,A-new-website-addition-Debate-Points,RichardDawkinsnet

How about RD.net sets up a Wiki? Could be quite useful, although we'd have to be vigilant in regards to vandalism.

100. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81249 by eXcommunicate on October 24, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Yes, we should make a compendium of all the specious arguments these people trot out, but it will, also, be necessary to generate a number of answers that can be used based on who is listening. In many cases, you can't win outright then and there, but what you say can connect with what people do know is true, and make a small extension in the direction of enlightenment. Add up enough small extensions and you will get there.

You are absolutely right, Quine. That was Hitchen's problem in this debate - he didn't modulate his message to the make-up of his audience. We all instinctively do this in everyday conversation, but it's much more difficult in a formal debate, so I'm not entirely criticizing Christopher on this. His standard arguments and tactics usually carry weight on a talking head "news analysis" program on FOX or CNN or in other debates with different opponents, formats, and audiences. I think in this debate Hitchens was hamstrung not just by the format and D'Souza's hucksterism, but also by his inability to tune his message to the situation at hand. I don't think I'm being overly harsh to Christopher for saying that. I think he himself might have a "transcendent" experience because of this and change his rhetoric and tactics regarding the atheist vs. theist argument so that he may be more flexible in dealing with different arguments and settings. At least I hope so. I don't want to see a liar like D'Souza "beat" another atheist again. Having said that, I think if this debate had been sponsored by the Royal Society or Google or some other more "intellectually friendly" venue, Hitchens would definitely have had the upper hand, especially in the hackneyed "Q&A" session. What Christopher needed was an audience that wouldn't let D'Souza's lies and distortions off the hook, because the format didn't allow Hitchens to do so in an effective manner.