D'Souza Challenges Dennett's Ridicule of World Religions

[TheoK444]

Yes, lets ignore actual evidence because we 'feel' it isn't true. A truly stunning assertion.

[kaduisaui]

I no longer take religion seriously. I was wrong to take religion seriously in the first place.

[mistereveready]

damn, dsouza is a fucking idiot. he might have been something intelligent w/o all that brain washing.

[whoo689]

There's a reason why Bob Altemeyer referred to his classification as "Right-Wing Authoritarian." Religious conservatives talk a big game about freedom, but they don't TRULY believe in it. They want to run your lives and be your strict father figure. They want to "save" you from what they see as a destructive life. They like being in control. Power is what makes them feel strong because they're weak inside. Many of their pasts are mired in personal crisis and tragedy.

[keoniili]

@whoo689 With all due respect, how exactly are right-wingers like D'Souza going to rule your lives? They believe in limited government by definition. The American Left believe in social engineering via the long arm of central authority, confiscatory taxation and regulation on a massive scale. Though the Right would like to see regulations on a couple of social issues, the Left's effect on citizen's lives is much more far-reaching in my view.

[Ematched]

@keoniili My guess would be that the Right's derision of big government, at the same time implementing big government (Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage Act, plethora of proposed ammendments to the Constitution), reflect the circular logic inherent in the core religious ideology that supports the legislative agenda. The Left is honest about what it does, erradicating social blocks, and spending tons of money in the process The Right likes to restrict gay rights, and hump another dude in the dark.

[keoniili]

@Ematched The Right doesn't deride big government. it is frightened by big government. You don't amend the Constitution with big government -- the states have to ratify changes -- there has to be agreement across the society to do this. The Right merely advocates social policy -- it cannot dictate it. The Patriot Act had minimal impact, affecting only a handful of citizens' privacy. However, there was a lot of disagreement about it on the Right. And George Bush was not a true conservative.

[keoniili]

@whoo689 This is a ridiculous charge often repeated by the Left. Right-wingers advocate limited government and therefore cannot be authoritarian. They advocate moral positions in the society at large, but again they cannot dictate moral policy. It's the crushing regulations and taxation in the economic arena that ultimately affects your life and your liberty. Don't confuse conservatism with fascism.

[whoo689]

The Bible's canon wasn't even started or compiled until at least the Babylonian exile of the Jews in the 500s BC. Yet we're supposed to believe over thousands of years generations successfully preserved all that knowledge about Moses and Abraham and Adam and Eve and Lot and Noah and Jacob through word of mouth alone?? Nonsense

[whoo689]

If I think somethign is idiotic, shouldn't I be allowed to say so? Isn't that the whole point of freedom of speech? Yet Dinesh acts like anyone who has a differing view of religion in general should just keep his mouth shut, as if it's not "intellectual" to question something that has wreaked so much havoc on the world and civilization in the last several thousand years.

[keoniili]

@whoo689 The secular authoritarian regimes in the 20th century alone -- Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot -- murdered nearly 100 million of its citizens. It's one of the great secular lies that religion, Christianity in particular, has produced most of the world's violence.

[tsunami770]

@keoniili Hitler was a self professed Catholic and the rest... Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were evil dictators but you may never infer rightly that their killing was part of a secular doctrine or in the name of secularism as religion does. They wanted to be adored as god figures or father figures themselves so you are wrong and clearly don't know what you are talking about. Religion has the blood of far more people than you care to remember. Seculars don't need to lie against recorded history.

[whoo689]

Religion is one of the main reasons why homosexuals and sexual minorities are still treated with such disdain, even here in America. Even today, only about 40% of Americans actually approve of gay marriage. So still every 3 out of 5 thinks it's a sin.

Why? There's no logical reason to doubt homosexuality. It's just as normal as being straight. Homosexuality is not "destructive." It's BEHAVIOR that one chooses with his own will that can only be destructive.

[keoniili]

@whoo689 I don't know anyone on the Right who treats gays with distain, though I'm sure it exists. One of the consequences of same-sex marriage is that you will no longer be able to prefer that infants put up for adoption be routed to heterosexual couples. I believe that whenever possible, children have a right to a mother and father, which models for the child a male and female view of the world. This will be obliterated in an expanded definition of marriage.

[whoo689]

You want me to believe straight people can't be self-destructive?? Please...

Homosexuality does nothing to contribute to destruction of society or man. It's just 2 people of the same-sex in love or sexual relations. Only individuals are responsible for their behavior, not something like sexual orientation. Sexual orientation only gives you the temptation or attraction. Blame individuals if they screw up, not the fact that they like men or women.

[whoo689]

Conservatives need to quit trying to ram their own insecurities and uncomfortability with things like 2 men kissing down everyone's throat. Humanity is not that fragile. Nor is America.

[whoo689]

Dinesh is just another religious nut who thinks anything else BESIDES his sacred cow religion is allowed to be questioned. It's "wrong" to question religion to these people. You're "mocking them" (so what?) and being "elitist." Well, you know what? Sometime's "elite" is a good thing! Sometimes the "elitists" know better. They can't always be wrong.

Don't you want the most elite fighting force? An elite academy to enroll your kids in to get the best education? And so on?

[whoo689]

Sometimes the common man is, quite simply, an idiot. H.L. Mencken knew this, and he wasn't afraid to say it. Democracy is just a bunch of idiots voting to make themselves worse off but being tricked into thinking it's help.

[whoo689]

Faith in anything, esp. "god", is nothing more than a copout. "I have faith, so I know God exists, therefore, I don't have to prove it or question his existence." What nonsense. We don't take ghost sightings or UFO sightings nearly as seriously, but because "EVERYONE" is religious, people jump on the bandwagon.

D'Souza is using the bandwagon fallacy. "Everyone is religious, so therefore it's elitist to mock them," no matter how infantile it is.

[whoo689]

Religion is bullshit. Always has and always will be. It's perhaps the most easily debunkable nonsense on the planet. It's for primitive folks who can't think for themselves. I mean, why do you think religion started in ancient times when man had very little tools to prove how the world works??

And then as time went by, the world, for the most part wised up, and the cruelest and most barbaric superstitions and beliefs were gone. Of course, we still have some craziness left.

[whoo689]

Mocking religion is in no way comparable to mocking people's races. We can actually PROVE that humans are all pretty much the same regardless of race. You cannot prove that God exists. There never has been proof.

On the flip side, of course, you can't disprove his existence. But you can make a strong case against RELIGION. Religion, as bill maher once said, is simply a bureaucracy between man and god, if god even exists.

[whoo689]

Religion is a man-made concept. Most of the world's religions have been copied from EARLIER religions usually from civilizations located not far from them. Who here really thinks the Bible is completely original? Of course not! It was taken from Babylonian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, and plenty of other Middle Eastern sources developed earlier.

Besides, if God really wanted to prove he existed, why would he trust his holy teachings to man to write in some book over millenia?

[moh490234890238490]

Someone needs to spackle D'Souza mouth closed before the rest of his intelligence escapes.

[Esandero]

I simply lack a belief in metaphysical naturalism.

[jeitomoloch]

D'Souza is an idiot.

[melonbarmonster]

You may think so but from a strictly debate perspective, Dinesh wipes the floor with Dennet in this debate.

[alphacause]

As an atheist, I have to agree that Dennett does a poor job against D'Souza. I think Dennett has some great ideas, but he should stick strictly to writing, because his oratory skills are not very convincing. Most of D'Souza's arguments were clichéd, and have been refuted thousands of times in books, but Dennett for some reason seemed incapable of marshalling a defense to DSouzas rhetoric.

[rationalskeptic7718]

Wow, D'Souza, who is an expert in nothing but apologetics/theology and he wants to criticize others for going outside of their respective disciplines? How ironic. If you don't want your beliefs ridiculed, don't have such funny beliefs. C'mon, he wants to talk about science and then, w/a bit of sleight of hand, slip in that god 'poofed' the universe into existence complete w/his own nemesis, the talking snake and fruit that magically imparts knowledge of right and wrong. That's real science.

[dunnonuffink]

I watched the whole show, and Dennett did not ridicule the world's religions. In the section just before the start of this clip (not coincidentally) he merely listed the current major world religions and included two newer ones (Mormonism & Frum cargo cult). I suspect that the perception of ridicule comes from Christianity being mntioned alongside a cargo cult, as if cargo believers were less religious and their belief any less coherent. Mimicking Dennett's voice is ridcule by any standard.

[dealerovski82]

I think they call it a ridicule because of qouts like "Disney magic kingdom of Allah" and the fact that people are laughing alot during his session...

[dunnonuffink]

You're probably right. Some people enjoy being martyrs to ridicule on behalf of religion, even when it hasn't been ridiculed.

What it has been is subjected to logic. (What else is Paradise but the magic kingdom of Allah? And who more natural to run a themed museum than Disney?)

Interesting that feeling ridiculous and taking offence seems to whenever a premise is played out logically in normal, everyday language.

[dealerovski82]

I watched the whole debate now, and this answer from Dinesh was cut out like in the end of the debate, and the so called ridicule was right in the beginning and had a totally different answer from Dinesh where he just rebuked with hard facts.. So this title is missleding I say!

[dunnonuffink]

Basically, Dennet presented an argument about the historical (and future) contexts of religion: Dinesh basically presented no material and argued against Dennett - and anyone who's not themselves religious - being allowed to comment on religion. Or even philosophy!

[lakumbar]

Religion, more so the Abrahamic-cult-of-death, should and must be ridiculed whenever and wherever possible as delusional just as ancient mythologies were mere fairy tales. Dennett is kind enough to relegate religious monuments as show pieces but as for me it's rightful place by now, is probably in the Dictionary of Mythology.

[maruthanimarutha]

This feller Lakumber's seems to be getting his inspiration from the the Indian neo-nazi websites (they call it Sang Parivrar in India)that proliferate in the virtual space. The language looks similar. May be I am wrong. Just a guess.

[melonbarmonster]

That kind of self-righteous attitude is why there are wars and hatred in this world. Go learn some tolerance.

[sammcalpine]

"I agree with the spirit of his proposal, I just don't want him to be the guy doing it"

Intellectually honest criticism sounds like "Good idea Dan, but have you considered this or that issue"

The dishonest criticism that D'Souza has leveled is just a repeat of a well worn tactic of theologians. "Only a [Christian, Muslim, etc.] can seriously criticize [x] but if you criticize [x] you are not a real [x] and therefore have no authority to criticize [x]"

[Xenoce]

I watched this whole series. It was almost painful to listen to D'Souza's string of loosely interconnected rants, appeals to emotion, and blatant mischaracterization. He clearly has no understanding of the concepts he is attacking. It seems he knows this, too. He seems very uncomfortable, very nervous. It shows through in his body language and voice.

Poor guy.

I wish I could understand these people.

[maruthanimarutha]

On the contrary, I think all of Xenoce said applied to Dennet and not to D'souza.

You see it is just a perspective, depending on which side you are on.

[rmeddy1]

Dennet made a mistake with his making fun of religion like that, and Dinesh let him have it even though i am an atheist.the religious experience is something to be taken seriously.

[NumberNile]

Thank you for your rationality :)

[felixpetrar]

Dinesh expressed 3 ideas:

1."Dennett is not competent in talking about god."-What makes a priest more competent in this?

2."there are serious arguments in the philosophy,history,science about god."-Where are they?

3."accused of a crime where the evidences are against you"(bad analogy)-maybe he was crazy and he don't recall it or he is innocent and has bad luck.This is his argument that Dennett might be wrong...

4."if 2/3 of world population believe in god,it has to be true"...no comment...

[baifulong]

there are 4 and not 3 :)

[felixpetrar]

There are three categories of people in the world: those who can count and those who can't. :)

Yes, I noticed but I couldn't edit. The frame is too small, I was tired and I didn't see the beginning of my comment. There are more ideas but I'll comment a little number 4. If the majority agrees that 2+2=5, does it make it true?

[dealerovski82]

It seams to me you watched this and started to think he has a good point. But because you hate christianity and God you just had to come up with these arguments against his to feel normal again. But you ended up making no point at all. Watch it again.

[felixpetrar]

I don't hate Christianity and God. I didn't make any point because my intention is to invite you to think. I usually ask questions, your have to find the answers. Everyone who tells you what to believe is your enemy (usually that person doesn't think so).

Watch my video: watch?v=ejUdNllbask

[johnPhilos]

Dinesh is smart enough to not try to prove anything because he knows his claims are baseless.

[dealerovski82]

you dident listen did you?

[jeffbrown8]

If we throw away the Resurrection, what then do we have? we have no guarantee of eternal life and forgiveness of sins. i think everything comes down to that.

[harrycrumb1989]

Dinesh couldn't come up with anything substantial to support his rant; but his arguments were always weak. This was a very unfair match-up. I was rooting for you D'Souza lol

[jonstewartfanboy]

He wants respect for those that "experience the world" as if by that very fact it is worthy of special consideration. Arguments made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Nearly everyone experienced the world as flat did that make it true? At that time a lunar eclipse provided direct evidence to the contrary as well as other methods. He argues truth by majority from subjective experience!? That's intellectual dishonesty and/or foolishness I cannot say for sure.

[GBS990]

A lunar eclipse only proves it's a flat disk.

Athiests just want to impose their views on the very young. What a lousy world it would be. Look at what it did to Russia.

[jonstewartfanboy]

How silly. Watch Jesus camp. Russia was a political dictatorship.  The young aren't yet prepared to have a religous position either way. Athiests don't need to indoctrinate kids nor want to. Kids shouldn't be imposed any particular view, at best they should be taught comparitive religion and let them decide without indoctrination. As Dawkins noted, it's a silly to say that is a "Democrat child" or a "Keynesian child" as it is to say it's a "Catholic child" etc.

[Wintermute01001]

Wow. Lots of D'Souza's sheep are downrating comments, I see. Maybe they should watch the whole debate and look up the terms "ad hominem" and "red herring."

[havock89]

I dont see the relevance. D'Souza states that people who believe in religion should be taken seriously and those beliefs should not be ridiculed or attacked by people who do not share their understanding.

[soloman81]

In this clip, Dinesh is simply criticizing the person who makes opposing arguments, rather than actually critcizing the ideas themselves. Weak.

[Alturasyouthgroup]

Does anybody notice Dinesh's head is in the bottom left corner of Dennet's slides? It's ok, Dinesh spanked Daniel Dennet ten times over in this debate.

[dudsiroll2004]

heck yeah!!

d'souza swallowed dennett then spit out, seriously tho dennett look really bad here

[lakumbar]

Is this the kind of Christian neuroticism that V.S. Naipaul (in his book Beyond Belief) refers to when he explained in his prologue regarding Muslim converts neurotic state of mind? I bet he did.

[guitarfaces]

Is your comment the kind of fallacious off-topic accusation that becomes prevelant when we must confront an inarguable truth?

I bet it is.

[lakumbar]

Yeah, it sounds off-topic cos it was actually intended as a reply to a comment further down the page, I just don't know how it ended up here! Sometimes the indent function just refuse to obey.

[guitarfaces]

Oh - sorry about that, then. I thought you were referring to D'Souza's commentary.

[akamola]

Dinesh's analogy is completely retarded. He bamboozles himself by saying that even though all the evidence is in front of him, he wants to shrug it away and live a life of ignorance in his little fantasy world. I think he's on Peyote !!!!! Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris sound a lot more intelligent than him !!!!!!!

[mishyprizes]

You should rewatch the video. You clearly misunderstood his point.

[mishyprizes]

You should rewatch the video. You clearly misunderstood his point.

[redheadfo847]

did you watch the video?

[deBeuk]

I seriously don't understand how people can think D'Souza is a great debater. Can anyone point me to these great debates he's said to have had?

[Boanerges7]

Do a search in you tube for D'Souza and Hitchens.

[deBeuk]

"Do a search in you tube for D'Souza and Hitchens"

I've seen it. Are you really going to tell me that D'Souza was good in that debate?

[Boanerges7]

Good is a subjective term. What you and I perceive to be good are probably contrasting perspectives. Actually I think Hitchen's just likes to hear himself talk. I also think he likes to twist things into his thought process, promoting his perspective. As well he overspeaks people in his debates. I think D'Souza handled himself well in the debate, and performed admirably, when he DID get the opportunity to talk.

[deBeuk]

"Good is a subjective term"

There are most certainly objective standards by which to judge. D'Souza's continuous use of logical fallacies is not "good" by any of them.

"I think Hitchen's just likes to hear himself talk. I also think he likes to twist things into his thought process, promoting his perspective. As well he overspeaks people in his debates"

I notice a complete lack of arguments. Attacking the person is also a logical fallacy, in case you didn't know. It's called an ad hominem.

[Boanerges7]

I'm not making an argument, I'm trying to answer the questions that were posed to me. Ad Hominem? I think not, especially when D'Souza complained of the very same thing during the debate. How is that a logical faalicy? You're groping in the dark here, and trying defend a strawman argument you have created.

[deBeuk]

"I'm not making an argument, I'm trying to answer the questions that were posed to me"

I asked you if D'Souza was good in the debate, but you told me what you thought of Hitchens.

"Ad Hominem? I think not, especially when D'Souza complained of the very same thing during the debate"

How is it not an a hominem because D'Souza said it?

"You're groping in the dark here, and trying defend a strawman argument you have created."

I asked a question, I didn't create anything.

[Boanerges7]

"I asked you if D'Souza was good in the debate, but you told me what you thought of Hitchens."

I think D'Souza handled himself well in the debate, and performed admirably, when he DID get the opportunity to talk.

- guess you missed that.

"How is it not an a hominem because D'Souza said it?"

Better question below...

How is it an ad hominem when it was a factual, and objective complaint D'Souza made? If you can't see he was overalking him,then I don't know what to tell ya.

[deBeuk]

"How is it an ad hominem when it was a factual, and objective complaint D'Souza made? If you can't see he was overalking him,then I don't know what to tell ya"

It's not an ad hominem because D'Souza said it? What?

And how is this objective? "I think Hitchen's just likes to hear himself talk. I also think he likes to twist things into his thought process, promoting his perspective. As well he overspeaks people in his debates".

[deBeuk]

"guess you missed that"

You paint a charicature of Hitchens and then say "I think D'Souza did well when you see what Hitchens did". That's not an answer at all.

[Boanerges7]

It's evident that you are not considering my responses, with your actual query in mind. If your going to quote me,cut and paste. You're confusing yourself by twisting my words. I've answered your questions, and if the answers are inadequate in your perception, not much I can do about it. It's apparent you are just sitting at your keyboard and firing things off without taking the time to consider the responses given to you.

[Boanerges7]

There is no "ad homimem" attack on my part,because I am just reiterating, and agreeing with what D'Souza clearly stated during the debate. Therefore, to accuse me of an ad hominem attack is fallacious. I answered your question regarding my opinion of whether D'Souza was good or not during this debate. Again, if my response is insufficient in your perspective, my apologies. But the question was asked and answered.

[deBeuk]

"You're confusing yourself by twisting my words"

How did I twist your words?

"It's apparent you are just sitting at your keyboard and firing things off without taking the time to consider the responses given to you"

Go ahead and think that if it makes you happy.

[deBeuk]

D'Souza questions the credentials of Harris, Dennettt, Dawkins and Hitchens, but what are HIS credententials? How come he thinks he can tell Dennett that evolutionary theory can't explain altruism when he's ignorant on the subject?

[Boanerges7]

It's the same reason that Dennett, Dawkins, etc, as well as their supporters perceive their opinions to be authoritative, and unbiased regarding "religion." None of them have degrees in Theology, or World Religions. The fact that they just correlate them all in one big mass, when in fact considering that denominationalism is a reality, it's indicative of their superficial knowledge of the subject, and their complete ignorance of the distinguishing tenets that seperates them.

[deBeuk]

"It's the same reason that Dennett, Dawkins, etc..."

You're just repeating D'Souza's accusation. What are HIS credentials?

[Boanerges7]

D'Souza is the Robert and Cashwayne

[Boanerges7]

Sorry, I didn't get to finish that.... Dinsesh D'Souza is the Robert and KAREN Rishwayne fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, Phi Beta Cappa graduate from Dartmouth, and also served as a policy advisor to Ronald Reagan. He is an accomplished author, apologist, and Christian conservative. Those are some of his credentials.

[adiprai]

Dinesh's parody 'impressions' (eg. 3:55) are downright embarrassing. It sounds exactly the same regardless of who he's debating and is an idiotic debate tactic.

[peymaania]

Dinesh De Souza has taken on the body language of Tele-Evangelists/Crooked Salesman.

If you think Religion is a force for Good, please go and see the Movie, "There will be Blood", it is a Great Film. De Souze as usual

has no real point, plus his Suit does not fit him well at all, and those Specs have to go!

[brdinus]

Thanks for the cartooning.

It is a sad day indeed when the rigors of intellectual inquiry trade serious study and scholarship for comic relief and two hours of "the movie has got to be better than the books."

Admittedly, the "movie" comment is a bit premature for I haven't seen the film yet. Even so, this is sad.

[Therwood]

go see there will blood again because clearly you missed the point

[48acar19]

Suza is a screeming idiot!

[darktwist5]

There is no such thing as god.

[lazerbud]

Amen

[kirafan68]

This was not really a debate; Dennet was so much above his opponent intellectually, it was like shooting fish in abarrel!

[ETworldjone]

ya...for joking and insulting. wat was that? intellectualism?

[jtmckee27]

anyone neutral on this subject would have to come off thinking Dennett is a smart ass.

Neither has presented any evidence but this round I score 9-3 D'Souza

[Hottides]

Following D'Souza's argument, one would have to accord respect to Astrologers, soothsayers, fortune tellers, witchdoctors. The doctrines were enshrined in elaborate and subtle metaphysical belief systems (theologies) Further, most people through history believed their pronouncements and entrusted their well-beings to their dictates.

D'Souza may be visibly more impassioned, but Dennett's position is more rational.

[inveilid]

If someone told you they didnt believe in homosexuality, yet made a life out of debating it, would you say they were probably homosexuals themselves? conversely, self proclaimed atheists who seem to obsess over debating about God make me wonder if they are not religious after all.

[LouGojira]

Very interesting point...I've often wondered the same thing.

[RT83]

So by the same logic, religious people who obsess about debating FOR the idea that there is a god could secretly be atheists.

Don't you think it applies both ways? If not, then why not?

[inveilid]

thats a good counter argument except for the fact that by proclaiming a belief in god religionists are already making an argument by default. But atheists need not argue a point they believe to be futile. you can not argue, in fact, about fiction.

In other words, we believe God is a fact, rationally and metaphysically, atheists dont. the burden of proof is on the one who believes in the existence of an entity. those who dont believe in it neednt waste time arguing it.

[RT83]

Nice to find a theist who agrees that the burden of proof is on them.

Arguing against religion is not a waste of time however, considering the impact religion has on the world. If all religious beliefs were relatively benign then I would tend to agree with you, but that's simply not the case.

[ChristianViewer08]

You're correct, its not the case. But the profound impact that Christianity (keep in mind Dinesh is not arguing for Mormonism or Scientology) in particular has had on our world has been very positive. As Dinesh explains in many of his lectures, core moral beliefs that seem to be universal (value of human life, compassion, etc) were largely due to a Christianized culture. If you were to remove religion from the societal picture, you would be threatening all that it brought with it.

[RT83]

"core moral beliefs that seem to be universal (value of human life, compassion, etc) were largely due to a Christianized culture"

Care to give any actual evidence for this disgustingly arrogant statement?

[ChristianViewer08]

"Disgustingly arrogant"? This isn't new information RT, atheists worldwide recognize the good that Christianity has brought to our world even if they don't agree with Christianity itself. Even if you don't agree with religion in general, at least look at what Christianity has done for society. Don't let your arrogance lead to ignorance.

cont...

[ChristianViewer08]

cont...

Simply look at ancient Greek and Roman times where Christianity was NOT an influential part of society like it is today. There was slavery, genocide, infanticide. It was with the introduction of Christian morals that these things were diminished. Make a list of values you have in life. Take a look at pre-Christian civilizations and notice that those were not commonly accepted like they are in Western Christian culture that you live in today.

[RT83]

The reason why we have these values is because moral sensibilities have progressed substantially from the times when ancient religious texts (such as the bible) were written.

Its funny that you mentioned slavery, genocide and infanticide, since the bible contains endorsements of all three.

Leviticus 25:44-46

1 Samuel 15:1-3

Psalms 137:8-9

[RT83]

...and how exactly do you explain the fact that the percentage of atheists in the prison population is lower than the percentage of atheists in the general population? How could this possibly be true if morals came from religion?

[TheRealBladeRunner]

Atheists take religion very seriously, why do you think they argue against it all the time? D'Souza is totally off the mark.

D'Souza comes off as someone who doesn't understand the atheist movement: They know alot about religion, as demonstrated in their books.

[lostnalone]

Dennet is spiritually tone deaf. Dennet's view darkens the human spirit's longing for wisdom and happiness. I see only the walmart path to personal fulfillment in his depressing philosophy. I do not want to exist in a world that does not appreciate the mystery of existence and where humans cannot transcend their ego...love is beyond physics.

Copulate-populate-consume and die... This is the implication of atheism.

[marco054]

Copulate-frighten your kids with nonsense-populate-waste your life with nonsense-consume-bore everybody else with nonsense-die...This is the implication of religion.

I can do humorous on-liner as well see ;)

[Wintermute01001]

Typical rightwing tactics. Empty accusations of "elitism" and "bigotry." Accusing atheists of "stepping outside their fields" and then doing the same later(Harris was a PHILOSOPHY major, BTW). Appeal to emotion w/o a single real answer to Dennet's main points. Dinesh just poo-poo's his opponent's credentials (bad for a debate) and whines about how mean he is.

[Wintermute01001]

BTW, just what the hell is D'Souza's field (besides right wing thinktanks)? What degrees does he have? He talks about so many different things that, no matter what, he's definitely stepping outside his field.

[Wintermute01001]

PS: Dennet, a philosopher, is perfectly qualified to comment on religion.

[ETworldjone]

you seem to imply that those without degrees cant say anything. wat about dawkins? he is biologist and not a theologian or philosopher.for you the best guy for commenting on religion is alistair mcgrath....former atheist, bilogist and theologian! go and look wat he has to say

[Wintermute01001]

No, Dinesh is the one implying that. I am simply calling him out on both his mistakes and his hypocrisy.

[ETworldjone]

your statement is contradictory and not true. read your own previous comment and then say who is implying that.

[Wintermute01001]

Watch the video and say who's implying what.

[felipemsmiguel]

Brilliant rebuttal of the atheist stupidity and arrogance!!!!

[marco054]

"I agree with the spirit of his proposal, I just don't want him to be the guy doing it."

Oke, that makes this speech a very small point of disagreement put into a lot of words.

[ETworldjone]

i never thought dennett was as stupid as dawkins' and hitchens. what was that? a comedy act or what? what kind of intellectualism is there in dennets speech...stupid! i thought he was different!!

[lostnalone]

yep...philosophy sounds like a useful career for him

[mrjackson2007]

Watch the full thing D'Souza arguments finally came down to believing and faith rather than science and reason.

[ETworldjone]

so as dennett!

[rickschneck]

Oh no...NOW Santa's a atheist!

[dallased25]

D'Souza took it a little too personally cause Dennett had a good point. Religions have come and gone, who knows what the next incarnation will be. Oh and 2/3rds of the world is a gross overstatement of Christians, try 1/3 by recent statistics worldwide. Not to mention that it hasn't been that way for 2000 years.

[LouGojira]

"Oh and 2/3rds of the world is a gross overstatement of Christians, try 1/3 by recent statistics worldwide."

I think D'Souza was talking about the number of theists in the world, and not necessarily Christians exclusively.

[dallased25]

Even so, I would hardly lump all theists in the same category as if they all believe in the same god and as if numbers of people somehow prove his point. The majority at one point were convince the earth was flat...yet they were all wrong.

[LouGojira]

True, and you're right; Dennett has a point about religions coming and going. At the same time I can see where D'Souza is coming from in that he doesn't want to see the world's various religions taught with a tongue-in-cheek approach. They both thought such a course would be a good idea though.

[LouGojira]

"Such a course" meaning the religion course that Dennett originally proposed. Sorry if that was unclear...I hate these character limitations.