Dennett is mistaken, big bang cosmology came long after Darwin and in fact has nothing to do with Darwinism or the modern synthesis of evolution. Even Dawkins doesn't hand wave the the fine tuning of the universe and admits it is the best evidence for someone believing in God. Coming from Dawkin's that is an amazing statement. The Stalin argument is weak. A cult of personalities is not theism. Stalin never declared himself a God & If that's the case then Dawkins is a god. Strawman arguments.
"n. Even Dawkins doesn't hand wave the the fine tuning of the universe and admits it is the best evidence for someone believing in God."
He does no such thing. He merely says that he understands why someone would come to the conclusion that a god did it, but we would still challenge that notion.
@MomoTheBellyDancer His opposition to a creator concerning whats referred to as the fine tuning problem is that invoking a creator begs the question of infinite regression (who created the creator). We don't use this self defeating logic in paleontology, anthropology & forensic or other similar earth sciences.
When we find artifacts that show specified complexity like a cave paintings we cant just pretend that natural forces created them because we cant know who painter or his parents were.
Dinesh D'Souza is parroting the typical apologist diatribe with the ad hominem attack on atheists. Marx's Communist Manifesto was, in my opinion, based on the biblical verses (Acts 2:44-45) & (Ex. 16:16-18). Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al. never killed anyone because they didn't convert to atheism, unlike their Christian, Muslim, or Jewish counterparts. Also, never has an indigenous peoples been considered non-human, therefore acceptable to slaughter, because they didn't follow the atheist precepts.
D'Sousa is the #1 abuser of the strawman fallacy, but it is simpler just to call him out & let it go at that. The anthropic principle is a canard, in the 1st place & he is conveniently mis-stating it in the 2nd. If the 'knobs' where fiddled with we would be a different us. We could still be mono-cellular, apes, fish, maybe even reptilian, but we are here because the universe is in this configuration, it's not in this configuration so we can be here. That is so arrogant & anthropocentric. Silly!
Dennett concedes the anthropic principle and, as such, concedes that the universe is fine-tuned for life. He just argues that there may be other universes out there that may or may not support life. There is, of course, no evidence for the existence of other universes.
He kind of accidentally showed how silly it is to say "the universe is fine-tuned for life" when he said: "The universe has to be exactly as old as it is [for life]". Well, goodie. that would mean if the universe were too young, life could evolve later, if it were too old, life would probably have evolved in the past.
You can't kill in the name of atheism. You can't kill in the name of not believing in something. That makes as much sense as killing in the name of not believing in Santa.
Holy fucking /FACEPALM, Dinesh.
"...done in the name of atheism."
Are you really that retarded?
GjVj 1 year ago
Dennett is mistaken, big bang cosmology came long after Darwin and in fact has nothing to do with Darwinism or the modern synthesis of evolution. Even Dawkins doesn't hand wave the the fine tuning of the universe and admits it is the best evidence for someone believing in God. Coming from Dawkin's that is an amazing statement. The Stalin argument is weak. A cult of personalities is not theism. Stalin never declared himself a God & If that's the case then Dawkins is a god. Strawman arguments.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"n. Even Dawkins doesn't hand wave the the fine tuning of the universe and admits it is the best evidence for someone believing in God."
He does no such thing. He merely says that he understands why someone would come to the conclusion that a god did it, but we would still challenge that notion.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer His opposition to a creator concerning whats referred to as the fine tuning problem is that invoking a creator begs the question of infinite regression (who created the creator). We don't use this self defeating logic in paleontology, anthropology & forensic or other similar earth sciences.
When we find artifacts that show specified complexity like a cave paintings we cant just pretend that natural forces created them because we cant know who painter or his parents were.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Dennet is a bumbling fool. He had no valid points to offer refuting dinesh's assertions in his opening statement. Elitist Intellectualism=pride.
powderhunter127 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@powderhunter127
"He had no valid points to offer refuting dinesh's assertions"
You mean, aside from totally demolishing Dinesh' ramblings.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza is parroting the typical apologist diatribe with the ad hominem attack on atheists. Marx's Communist Manifesto was, in my opinion, based on the biblical verses (Acts 2:44-45) & (Ex. 16:16-18). Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al. never killed anyone because they didn't convert to atheism, unlike their Christian, Muslim, or Jewish counterparts. Also, never has an indigenous peoples been considered non-human, therefore acceptable to slaughter, because they didn't follow the atheist precepts.
Bigbeechbum 2 years ago
D'Sousa is the #1 abuser of the strawman fallacy, but it is simpler just to call him out & let it go at that. The anthropic principle is a canard, in the 1st place & he is conveniently mis-stating it in the 2nd. If the 'knobs' where fiddled with we would be a different us. We could still be mono-cellular, apes, fish, maybe even reptilian, but we are here because the universe is in this configuration, it's not in this configuration so we can be here. That is so arrogant & anthropocentric. Silly!
Bigbeechbum 2 years ago
It's painful to watch Dinesh talk, He hardly understands what he talks about and what professor Dennett says.
TrueUnishred 2 years ago 8
Dennett concedes the anthropic principle and, as such, concedes that the universe is fine-tuned for life. He just argues that there may be other universes out there that may or may not support life. There is, of course, no evidence for the existence of other universes.
emailgarbage20 3 years ago
He kind of accidentally showed how silly it is to say "the universe is fine-tuned for life" when he said: "The universe has to be exactly as old as it is [for life]". Well, goodie. that would mean if the universe were too young, life could evolve later, if it were too old, life would probably have evolved in the past.
Mithcoriel 3 years ago
Sadly Daniel is not debating very well. For an uncritical theist it might actually seem like Dinesh is winning.
PSGJ 3 years ago
I want to sit this guy down and as him to explain to me Dennett's "Breaking the spell" or his views on consciousness.
I guessing he doesn't know enough to be criticizing it like this.
facelessone86 3 years ago 3
It seems to simple to say, but Dinesh as all talk
funincluded 3 years ago
So basically he's saying "try to see all things as evidence for God, because that way you won't believe in God without evidence"
funincluded 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funincluded
'So basically he's saying "try to see all things as evidence for God, because that way you won't believe in God without evidence"'
That's a really, really good way of putting it (and also perfectly sums up the entire ID argument). Nice one, I'm stealing that. ;)
GjVj 1 year ago
You can't kill in the name of atheism. You can't kill in the name of not believing in something. That makes as much sense as killing in the name of not believing in Santa.
EnigmaHood 3 years ago 7