Dinesh D'SOuza debates Daniel Dennet

Another atheist embarrasses himself.
You can watch the whole debate (15 parts) on youtube..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0JYo4C0tn0

(Part 1)

And apparently Dawkins refuses to debate with D'Souza.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Ugh. I hate the way D'Souza calls it embarassing when atheists debate religion as it is outside of their field, and yet it is fine for theists to comment on atheism, and science and beyond no matter what their field is.

I didn't like either guys approach to the debate. Particularly Dennett's flipant, childish jokes. And also D'Souza apparently comparing the teaching of atheism to the teaching racism.

Oh and also since when is most people believe it therefore it must be true a valid logical argument?

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Part 14 D'Souza is badly exposed by an audience member. D'Souza argues that we should be open minded to god since there may be things beyond our comprehension. This is correct in part, we should remain open minded. However he takes this as evidence FOR god, it is NOT.

The more I watch the more I think D'Souza has embarassed himself. Whilst Dennet has hardly distinguished himself.

Wow. You've seen all 14 parts already? I've only watched part 1.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

No they got a little out of order, 1, 2, 3, 11, 10, 14 (that's how we count in England).

[1337]

I saw this posting on Part 2

"Atheism is an illogical fallacy. In order to be an atheist, you have to be absolutely positive there is no divine being anywhere in the universe. In order to achieve that you have to be at every part of the universe to observe this claim. If you were able to achieve that you would have to be omniscient and omnipresent. If you were able to achieve that, you would be God, which would contradict your entire claim. "


That mean, if you were a Theist, that you would abosolutley postivie there is a devine being? That you would have to travel the ends of the universe in order to observe this?

Why does a Atheist have to prove there isn't, when a Theist can assume there is?

[1337]

Dinesh also goes on in PArt about Hilter/Stalin/Mao/Castro all being Atheists.

Most of these fellas were as religous as it gets. Hitler was even quoted to say he was finishing Gods work!

So how can he say Hitler and Nazi Germany was killing by the Millions out of Atheism?

Full of garbage I think.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: T-pot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I saw this posting on Part 2

"Atheism is an illogical fallacy. In order to be an atheist, you have to be absolutely positive there is no divine being anywhere in the universe. In order to achieve that you have to be at every part of the universe to observe this claim. If you were able to achieve that you would have to be omniscient and omnipresent. If you were able to achieve that, you would be God, which would contradict your entire claim. "


That mean, if you were a Theist, that you would abosolutley postivie there is a devine being? That you would have to travel the ends of the universe in order to observe this?

Why does a Atheist have to prove there isn't, when a Theist can assume there is?
</div></div>

Well, that argument is the challenge of trying to prove a negative, which is often impossible to do.

One thing in that logical chain that is missing is that you'd also have to be transcendent, because being able to seach the whole universe for God also implies that God is somehow visible or physically present in that universe.

But He isn't physically present in the universe.

The theist accepts the existence of God by faith that is based only partly on evidence.

I have arrived at that point where I have watched some of the best debates by the best minds out there (insofar as I can understand them) And I am convinced that all things being equal, the debate will always arive at an impasse.

And I think it has to be that way, because God (assuming there is one, of course) has always required that we come to Him by faith.

There has to be a gap of uncertainty there, in order for us to trust Him.

I am not absolutely certain that my wife will never, ever cheat on me (perish the thought!)

But I trust her implicitly. So it is a certainty, but it is not based on hard evidence. It is partially based on her self-revelation to me as well as my decision to love and trust her.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: T-pot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dinesh also goes on in PArt about Hilter/Stalin/Mao/Castro all being Atheists.

Most of these fellas were as religous as it gets. Hitler was even quoted to say he was finishing Gods work!

So how can he say Hitler and Nazi Germany was killing by the Millions out of Atheism?

Full of garbage I think. </div></div>

I am surprised that you refer to Dinesh as 'full of garbage'. Did you listen to all he had to say about Hitler? If you want more documentation on Hitler's religion, it can be provided.

[1337]

He was saying he laid out millions of people out of atheism. Which was untrue.

Part 6 he goes on to say "I have no proof there is a god, but I believe he exists, Dennett has no proof there is a god so there for he must not exist"


I find that wrong as well. I don't know how to say this, but he is looking at it at two different angles.

Bottome line, they both have no proof that God exists.

#1 Dinesh BELIEVES he does, so in the same thinking Dennett BELIEVES he doesn't.

[1337]

I should rephrase, i don't think Dinesh is full of garbage, just the theory of Hitler wiping out a race out of the name of Atheism.

[1337]

They are both interesting to watch though. Dinesh avoids of alot of facts though and questions from Dennett.

This is why I stay neutral in the religion world.

I can't prove god exists, and I can't prove he doesn't. I was brought up in a proof based way of thinking, and not a faith based way of thinking. Which makes it real hard to believe in something that holds no proof.

#1 You have a being, that created the whole universe &lt;-- hard to believe in my mind
#2 You have science, Darwin, big bang theory &lt;--- hard to believe in my mind.

Either way, I can't believe them, either of them.

It is hard to believe the big bang theory, only because there was no time, if there was no time, there was no matter, if there is no matter, there is no big bang!

Also, it is hard to believe a being created all of this.

The way I see it, you can't prove it, so you have to believe. But to make up character to explain what can't be explained only to rest easy at night, and calm wide spread chaos is ridiculous.