Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza, debate at CU-Boulder (Part 3 of 13)

[Zdrazy]

An example would be trying to balance a plate on a stick. If a pre-existing force, such as gravity, is a factor then you'll have to do fine tuning to make the plate stay still. However, if there're no natural laws and I'm all powerful, I could easily make the plate stand without the need to balance it against pre-existing natural forces.

[Zdrazy]

I've always thought that the 'fine-tuning' argument, in fact, contradicted the theistic perspective. An all-powerful being could make a universe or life exist according to whatever laws it wanted. The idea that a god had to fine tune the universe suggests that there are pre-existing laws or forces around which the universe must be tuned. This idea is contrary to that of an all-powerful god that exists before anything else.

[D33veeoss]

You're assuming that a "god" of some sort is making the pizza himself.

I wonder if it's like making a wish.

I doubt "god" even made the designs for this planet much less has to micromanage it.

Solves the question anyway.

[Zdrazy]

Yeah, but I like to argue my points in a way that actually makes some form of sense.

[Zdrazy]

Similarly, it makes sense that all life that exists in the universe now would not exist if the natural laws were different. All presently existing life has come into being in accordance with the natural laws, so it stands to reason that this life would not exist if those fundamental laws were changed or different.

[Zdrazy]

There's nothing strange about the fact that our minds correspond to the surrounding natural order. Firstly, our survival as a species is entirely dependant on our understand of the world around us and our interaction with it. We have come into existance in accordance with the same natural laws that govern the universe, thus it's hardly surprising that we are 'tuned' to them, rather than everything coming into existance haphazardly by varied laws.

[EwePeopleRsheeple]

Conversely, if an Atheist WERE 2 bash a gay man just for being gay, THAT would be irrational, and illogical, and this Atheist would most likely B a sociopath, because an Atheist doesnt believe in a God that hates gays as much as the Xtian God does, therefore having no reason to hate or bash gays.; unlike the Xtians.

[EwePeopleRsheeple]

This is part two of my post

Dinesh mentions gay bashing as an immoral act, & implies that gay bashers are sociopaths.

Not true, there were plenty of gay bashers especially in the OT that believed they KNEW they were performing a moral act on behalf of God.

The same applies to certain fundie Xtians today

[EwePeopleRsheeple]

sorry, for context, start with part two of my post, shit I hate the word limitation!

[TainoRebelde]

I have a question for you-

Some environmentalists in Europe and America are claiming that having more than 2 children is immoral and damaging to humanity. They want penalties to be placed upon families that have more than 2 children... Do you believe this to be "family bashing?" And if not, how would you say that their requests will be beneficial for humanity?

[EwePeopleRsheeple]

What a ridiculous non sequitur, but if insist on a response, people are so fucking stupid that we should ALL stop having children...

[TainoRebelde]

Ah, a "non-sequitur" because it does not follow your stupid fatalistic non-rationalistic bias...

If your mother followed your philosophy, you would not exist. Do us a favor, eh? Since we could use a few less human beings on earth, why don't you jump off a cliff, Mr. non-sequitur.

Point being- (and I don't expect you to be able to rationalize) that neither (as you say) "that we should ALL STOP HAVING CHILDREN" nor homosexuality is conducive to the long term sustainment of the human race- moron.

[PaulCynic]

The problem with your question is that it implies that this idea is an atheistic one; as if atheists somehow think of children differently than non-athiests do. Hitchens has a wife and kids... so what's your point?

Also taking point with your statement below on homosexuals being detrimental to population size. Nope, wrong, dumb. Several of my gay friends are now in their 30's and have children of their own. The ability and desire to have children runs deeper than who you fall in love with.

[emailgarbage20]

Hitchens says that "one of my very few pleasures is crowing over the misfortunes of other people." He goes on to say that he'd be religious if he thought it were true that he could perceive the sufferings of the damned in the afterlife. How is this an argument for atheism?

[deBeuk]

"How is this an argument for atheism? "

He didn't present it as an argument for atheism.

[adknerr]

He's also joking about the crowing.

Dinesh has a couple relatively funny comments as well throughout his debates that are not arguments for religion being correct/right/better which shouldn't be held that strongly either.

[Myndir]

Moving on: he conflates "uniformity" with "lawfulness" in the generic sense. Scientific method is not based on nor holds any conception of a universe with teleological laws, like a legal system.

"Mirrored in our own minds"? Um, no. Either he's referring to theories of epistemology that have long since been discredited or he's suggesting that we have a complete conception of a universe. If the latter was the case, we'd be able to conceive of sub-atomic structures after we looked at objects.

[Myndir]

32 seconds in and D'Souza has already made two ridiculous statements-

1. Science depends on faith-based assumptions. This is a classic equivocation of "faith" and "belief" that you find many Christian apologists making.

2. Christian theologians came up with the idea of a rational universe. I guess the Greek philosophers were Christian theologians; that makes them even more awesome. It's pretty hard to be a theologian about a god you haven't heard of and a man who hasn't been born.

[luerwulf]

D'Souza has trotted out every fallacious premise in his so called arsenal and none of them are any more valid than they were the last time around.

He's delusional by virtue of these unexamined premises.

[luerwulf]

"The universe as far as we know does not possess a brain . . and yet it is presumed to be rational" - D'Souza

No. It's not. The presumption is that we use what we call reason (rationality - ratio) in our endeavor to RATIONALIZE our observations within the universe.

That's evidently too subtle a distinction for D'Souza to apprehend.

[tielec01]

Hitchen's is endearingly arrogant, kind of in a way that makes you laugh :)

D'Souza is annoyingly arrogant apparently we can thank Christianity for everything good that ever happened, but let's preface that statement with a condescending pat on the head to us atheists.

He gave up the right to be self-righteous the day he became a christian.

[rahulagrawal1487]

a cheetah has very little choice but to run after the antelope? asinine

[DeusMerdaeEst]

Ah, the fine-tuning argument. Even though something can not exist the moment you change certain parameters, how the fuck is that any evidence for the existence of a deity? And when is something not fine-tuned?

[luerwulf]

"Ah, the fine-tuning argument."-

Just exactly how fine-tuned are things when 99%+ of all species that ever existed are now extinct?

Now THAT'S fine-tuning for ya - by the big man himself!

[DeusMerdaeEst]

I wonder what the godjunkies will come up with when they find traces of life on Mars. They'll probably say that their invisible superdictator put it there to test their faith. Creationist logic usually doesn't go much further than that.

[luerwulf]

"Creationist logic usually doesn't go much further than that."-

I wouldn't be surprised if they reverted to 'God has a plan that we can't understand' because, invariably, they like not understanding much of anything anyway. I mean, some lower primates have learned to use cudgels to clobber each other in battle but it's still not possible for them to learn much quantum physics.

[Fordi]

@2:40

ARGH!

The scientific method developed first in PRE-CHRISTIAN Greece.  Idiot.

[Fordi]

The assumption "The Universe is Rational"  is not attribution, but equivocation. That is to say, the qualities of the universe define rationality.

This is like the trancendental argument for God. It makes the jump that since logical absolutes are not physical, they must be conceptual, and thus indicate the presence of a universal thinker, e.g., God.

Logical absolutes are not conceptual OR physical. They are transcendental. They are our explanation of the consistency of the universe.

[chalky23]

This man is a rambling fool.

[ODDMANtheone]

I always wondered why people do not make the following argument: while some morals and social standards may have in fact came out of a Judeo-Christian philosophy, that philosophy, namely of a 'god', is man made anyways. So it is redundant to tell people that God gave us morals and ethical truths...it was, in fact, men who made up gods who gave us a moral compass. This is far from addmitting that god exists.

[Gungfuwarrior]

Moreover the "science" these scientist came up with came from EGYPT, not dumb ass christianity. Plato, Pythagoras sat in front of the pyramids, not churches. We owe more to Egypt than any other culture, should we still worship Horus? Rome has contributed more, should we still worship Zeus? Galileo was a hermetic alchemist more than scientist, the same thing christianity has deemed lucifarianism & satanism, yet THEY contributed to science..BULLSHIT!

[adstanra]

Dinesh needs to stop mixing definitions. The universe is not rational. The universe is not a mind. But it is quite logical that our minds would evolve to be equipt to see order in the universe.

[Athaeus]

And that's not to mention quantum mechanics, which is anything BUT what we would percieve as "rational" and "law abiding". It's still science though, due to mathematical evidence.

I get the feeling D'Souza is full of ignorance and deceit.

[Myndir]

The universe is "rational" in that it is knowable by reason, but being knowable by reason isn't the same as possessing the mental property of "rationality", which is the normal use of the word.

[adstanra]

Myndir..well said.

[bcmalloy]

good point, I've always found astounding the idea as a (natural) product of the universe the universe is in fact conscious of it's self because we are and probably other "things" are also.

let me add that idea in no way supports any religious idea of any god devised by humans, or the supernatural, I am not suggesting atoms are aware of anything or are hooked in some mystical bullshit "energy"

[boiiinng]

I cannot believe Dinesh just confused the rational and laws of man with those of the universe. He's smarter than that.

[prebenfisk]

Well it looks like he is _not_ smarter than that huh?

[Fordi]

Heh.  I facepalmed.