Dinesh D'Souza vs John W. Loftus Debate, February 9, 2010

[ShinoCunning]

Even Loftus manages to get some followers. What has the world come to, lol.

[IntelEngineer1]

If you read his book "Why I became an athesist", it may become clear why he has followers....

[urbster1]

Dinesh: "strawman strawman strawman strawman strawman." I have never heard anything Dinesh said that was not a perfect strawman of an atheist. Thanks, Dinesh.

[CrisisofCivilization]

@urbster1

Actually, I think Dinesh makes an excellent point about the genetic fallacy. Many atheists (including Dawkins) emphasize the fact that believers of a particular faith believe in that faith largely because of their upbrining, but, as Dinesh points out, that is true of almost any worldview, ect. and says nothing at all about whether or not that belief is true. That argument at least is not a strawman.

[IntelEngineer1]

Recent scientific evidence in psycology suggests that our brains make up the idea of god. We simply have in inborn desire to believe in what we don't know and this is what Dawkins in his writings is refering to.

[urbster1]

I really do like Loftus, and his book shows that he has quite a wealth of knowledge. I am excited to see him debate more of the Christian apologists and watch his skills improve.

[david521598]

I think D'Souza is a master of setting up strawmen. He took much of what John said out of context.

[theareohbee]

Thanks for posting.  I wasn't impressed by Mr. Loftus at all. His info. was strong, but his debate skills are lacking.

Mr. D'Souza's performance was consistent with others I've seen.

I'd like to see Loftus debate again after he gains a little more experience.

[TheNorthernSun]

Did Dinesh win the debate? That may be true based on the technicalities of scoring a debate but its not true based on the substance of what was said (at least not what I have heard up to this point). Dinesh is a polished speaker and an experienced debater. He knows how to sway an audience. Oratory, however, is not a substitute for valid arguments.

[BudUzoras]

If D'Souza can win debates by employing tactics like his unicorn argument, then Loftus isn't the one who fails; it's the people in the audience who actually buy Dinesh's rhetoric who lose.

[Ryansarcade9]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Christianjr4]

Amazing!! If John Loftus can't perform well against D'Souza in a debate then there is no way on Earth he could best William Lane Craig in one, especially considering Craig is much more highly regarded as a debater than is D'Souza (not to mention his academic credentials).

[pobanmanu]

There is not even a shadow of doubt that Craig would floor Loftus but I still think Loftus would perform better against Craig than he did against D Souza as the debate would be more logic based.

[Ilikejpgs]

I don't know if souza isn't any better than Craig then I don't think there will be any problem.

[CrisisofCivilization]

@Ilikejpgs

Dinesh, at any rate, has a better sense of humor, I think.

[IntelEngineer1]

...Ya, he's also full of shit.

[CrisisofCivilization]

@IntelEngineer1

We also have an inborn desire for food, sex, and sleep, but that hardly disproves the reality of either of the three. If we have an inborn desire for those things and theyre real, it seems to me at least possible that if we have an inborn desire for God, then God is real.

[IntelEngineer1]

What a load of crap. If you look exclusively at science and science along, and mind you there are many that do, you will realize very fast that current data that is generated by experiment show otherwise. The data agrees with observation and also verify everything we know about the cosmos. That being said, the burden of proof still lies in your lap. D'souza hasn't offered any data for science to scrutinize or any experiment. Thus, we don't acknowledge his "philosophy".

[CrisisofCivilization]

@IntelEngineer1

I think you should reread my comment as what you've written doesn't really address my point.

As for looking at science alone...

You need to be less vague. All I'm hearing from you is "science says" and "Dinesh D'Souza hasn't offered any data". Any data for what exactly? Dinesh isn't a scientist and he's not claiming to be doing science. Rather, Dinesh is asking questions like, "Given the current state of scientific knowledge is it possible to believe in God?"

[IntelEngineer1]

....Only because I couldn't make sense of your point....

Who says I have to be less vague? And why should I listen to that person or thing? Also, I know what he's saying because I also listen to this audio. And, no, if he's claiming or even hinting that the current state of scientific knowledge makes it possible to believe in God he is dead wrong...Probably because isn't, as you say, a scientist. If he is claiming it's possible, show me the data....that's all I'm saying...

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

My point was simply this: just because our brains instill in us certain desires (as you suggested), it doesn't follow that the object(s) of those desires are non-existent (which you seemed to be implying). Does that make anymore sense to you?

Now, as for data... Dinesh has written two books offering what he feels is compelling evidence, from science, that there is a Creator God. If you haven't already, and you want to explore that evidence, read his books.

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

Dinesh's argument is more a reflection on what, overall, the scientific evidence points toward: theism or atheism? His argument is not in itself a scientific argument, though it draws on science, just as (say) ethical arguments (such as whether animals have rights) are not scientific arguments, but they draw on what science tells us about animals in helping us come to a decision, which is (in the end) not a scientific, but a philosophical decision.

Is that any clearer?

[IntelEngineer1]

Actually no, because your last post cleared up the ambiguity I was having with your original one...Looking at the universe through science alone, it clearly shows a godless universe. Anyone who claims otherwise is either naive and ignorant, or driven from religious bias and dogma. It's just ridicules the level of stupidity certain people will go to in order to prove their case...At the same time, make idiots of themselves. D'souza is a perfect example of one of these people.

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

1) Dinesh isn't a Creationist or an ID advocate. He is a theistic evolutionist.

2) Creationism and theism are not synonymous.

3) Science alone says nothing at all about God, one way or the other, just as science alone says nothing at all about whether or not any given action is immoral. Atheism and theism are philosophical worldviews that arise from reflection on scientific (and other) data.

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

4) People convert from atheism to theism, and from theism to atheism (not to mention to Deism, ect.). You're assertion that theists have already made up their mind ahead of time as to whether or not God exists may be true for some theists (and some atheists), but it certainly isn't true for all. What is more, even *if* they made up their mind ahead of time, it says nothing at all about whether or not their beliefs are true. You must look at the arguments and see.

[CrisisofCivilization]

*your* Sorry about the typos. ; )

[CrisisofCivilization]

@IntelEngineer1

5) I'm glad you've read Dinesh's books. A lot of people wouldn't do that. Still, it seems to me to go a bit far to call Dinesh an idiot. You may disagree, but an idiot? Certainly Christopher Hitchens hasn't come to the same conclusion as Dinesh has, but I don't think he would call Dinesh an idiot. Whatever we believe about God, I'm sure we can agree that we ought to conduct these arguments with a bit more charity on both sides? ...Or am I an idiot?

[IntelEngineer1]

D'souza was raised catholic and is not Evangelical. I think it is more than clear what his addenda is, which is similar to Creationists and ID. Science has more than one model that fits current data to amazing precision and agrees with all we know about the cosmos: Our universe came from a preexisting one through a process called quantum tunneling. That said there was NO CREATION. Therefore, no God was needed to create it like theist want to believe. I can tell you need to take some physics

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

Surely you would agree that quantum tunneling (or any other theory about the origination of the universe) has yet to win universal consent? It's one theory, but only one, and I do not think the question of where the universe came from is so near to being settled as you're suggesting, whatever my personal knowledge of physics. But let's grant (for the sake of argument) that your theory is true. Where, then, did the universe come from that gave birth to our own universe?

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

The only universe that we have near-inarguable evidence for is our own, and it is a finite, contingent universe. Now, seeing as the only sort of universe we have evidence for is a finite, contingent universe, it would seem rather brash to claim (if indeed you do claim) that the universe that gave birth to our own is an infinite, non-contingent universe, in which case you've only pushed the problem of "where did the universe come from?" back one universe.

[IntelEngineer1]

I'm going to assume for the passed ten years you haven't been following scientific discovery and what's been learned about our universe. If you had, you wouldn't be making the statements that you are. The size of our universe is finite, yes, and is 13.7 billion years old, but space and time did not begin when our universe was born. That's all we've learned from these models. These facts are hard for theists to accept because of what it would mean for the bible, but the facts are what they are.

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

I'm sorry, but there are, in fact, cosomologists who hold that space and time began with the Big Bang. Dinesh mentions some of them in this very debate. Perhaps it's not the view you take, and that's fine, but it's simply wrong to assert (as you have) that the scientific community has settled the matter.

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

That said, you've still not touched the question of where the pre-existent universe that gave birth to our own came from. As I said, we really only know (beyond a shadow of a doubt) of one universe: our own, and it is not (apparently) a non-contingent, infinite universe, and therefore I see no reason to assume the pre-existent universe is either. That being the case, it is fair to ask, "where did those pre-existing universes come from?"

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

It is not an argument to tell me I am ignorant of science or that I want to believe that space and time came into being at the Big Bang because I want shore up my belief in the Bible. Those arguments are ad hominem and not fit for serious discussion. Why? Because they can very easily be turned round. Why don't you believe space and time came into being at the Big Bang? Why, because you don't want the God of the Bible, who is going to judge you for your sins, to exist.

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

Two can play at that game, but it's a silly game, so let's drop it, why don't we?

[IntelEngineer1]

Now I'm going to say something that will probably shock the living daylights out of you: I happen to be a devoted Christian. I'm not joking with you either. I've simply reached the conclusion that we at this time cannot reconcile our faith with modern science. That does not mean it never will be again. We are in a similar situation Galileo was 300+ years ago when the church thought the earth was the center of the universe. Even though Galileo "proved" otherwise, they still denied it!

[CrisisofCivilization]

@ IntelEngineer1

That's one view. You've obviously thought about it. I accept that. Of course, I still reject the two can't be reconciled, but I suppose the two of us could go on debating that until the evidence falls unambiguously on one side or the other. In which case, our fellow YouTubers can sigh a relieved sigh. That said, 1) I'm not interested in going into the Galileo debate at the moment, but I think it's a bit more complicated than you've suggested. Others should read into it.

[CrisisofCivilization]

2) Seeing as how you're a self-professed Christian, I find it a bit strange that your comments (for the most post) are utterly lacking in charity. Going around calling people "idiots" who disagree with you seems rather unChristian to me. Don't worry, though. I forgive you. : p

3) Just out of curiosity, why do you believe Christianity is true?

[IntelEngineer1]

"Where did those pre-existing universes come from?" -- That we don't know. "...where the pre-existent universe ...came from" -- Again, we don't know. "We really only know of one universe: our own" -- Everyone would agree. "Therefore I see no reason to assume the pre-existent universe either" -- But as long as science has models to fit data that describes observation, it really doesn't matter what anyone things. Nature answers to know one. Again, the facts are what they are. Period.

[IntelEngineer1]

The "Standard Model" is also a model, so yes fine. But mind you there are others that have replaced it, fit the same data that describe observation to better precision...Just because a few think otherwise doesn't mean we should all jump with joy and agree with them...even though that's what a thesist would love to do; probably only because the outcome would mean the bible is right....religious dogma again is the motivation...not hard to see that one.

[IntelEngineer1]

In the scientific community is has. Quantum tunneling is only one of several models that beautifully fit current data to amazing precision and describes observation to amazing accuracy. It is one model among many that shows a universe that was birthed from a preexisting one at the instant of the big bang. Thus Craig's Kalam argument has been falsified because the universe did not have a beginning and thus didn't have a cause. Space is limited here. I suggest consulting astronomy to answer that.

[IntelEngineer1]

....is now evangelical....refering to D'souza. I made a typo in the last post.

[IntelEngineer1]

I've read all of his books which is what qualifies me to speak critically of him. Data? What data? After reading his book I couldnt find any. He offers nothing new. Just more ID bogus. "What he feels is compelling evidence..." -- That's just the problem...only a creationists/theist knows what answer they're looking for and will ignore hard-core evidence when it's staring them in the face while adopting and/or extrapolating what they want in order to aid in their biased conclusion.

[IntelEngineer1]

Seriously, they are both idiots and are ignorant of what science means and how science is done. If they were not, they wouldn't be talking like they are...Wait, scratch that, on the other hand they probably still would. Both are famous because they've both made tons of money doing what they're doing..That's probably why they keep at it...

[CrisisofCivilization]

Both? Dinesh and... who?

[IntelEngineer1]

That response was supposed to have gone to llikejpgs below when he was refering to D'souza being similar to Craig. That one is down a few...