Part 8 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett

http://www.tothesource.org 6yrs of free weekly emails.

tothesource has broadcasted over 300 weekly emails featuring informed opinion on current cultural issues. The articles address a variety of topics and the related moral and ethical issues they raise. Past tothesource articles are found on our archives page at http://www.tothesource.org/archives.php

Subscribe to tothesource free weekly emails at http://www.tothesource.org/subscribe.htm

Dinesh D'Souza, Christian and best-selling author, will face off against Tufts professor, author, and atheist Daniel Dennett in a debate on the existence of god. The resolution for the debate will be as follows: "God is a manmade invention." Daniel Dennett will be arguing the affirmative, and Dinesh D'Souza the negative.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Dinesh
• D'Souza
• Daniel
• Dennett
• debate
• Christianity
• Atheism
• God

[athaskins]

Daniel Denntee needs to ask, are there are "consequences" for breaking the laws of physic's. If so, then laws exist, if it's impossible to break a law of physic's then laws still exist. If laws exist, then, an intelligence created them. If laws do not exist, then the universe could not come into existence, since non existence cannot by itself create existence. D'Souza explained how a God can exist outside of time earlier in the debate. Thus showing that God, exists outside of known creation.

[slurslee]

Wow, it's almost tragic how badly Dinesh understands Dennett and what is mean by multiple universes. Dan is right that D'Souza doesn't do justice in his own comprehension to the ideas he is trying to refute. (Dan wasn't talking about the "parallel universe" concept, but that our bounded Universe is simply one of many independent universes that could potentially exist within a larger sphere of "physical laws.")

[thinkertank1]

Santa.... is that you?

[KanchoKomancho]

There are some religions without an „intelligent creator“or personal God, like Buddhism for example. It only uses a concept of omnipresent divine energy / „holy spirit“of a sort / Brahman / a field / a force, without (perhaps deliberately) going into discussion about (in)existence of personal God.

[lonehunter65]

@BigLundi You admitted it! Finally, this is what we come to. After time and time of you defending that you could define a moral construct that neither appeal to a higher standard nor reduces morality to subjectivism, you finally give in.

First, you tried to appeal to a higher standard (the consensus of the world), and you correctly realized that this does not work. I applaud you for that. You then chose subjectivism. Glad we could sort this out. It was fun.

[lonehunter65]

@BigLundi First, please no personal attacks. I have restrained myself, you can restrain yourself (p.s. calling me a moron and then misspelling the word 'vicious' after I had already typed it, doesn't do you any favors)

Second, your just proceeding in adding new levels of subjectivity to morality. Now morality is determined by each individual person's desires? So again, you have the problem that Hitler was motivated by his desires, making him moral.

[BigLundi]

@lonehunter65 Morality is subjective, and that's an unavoidable fact. Moral relativism, however, says that "If a culture says it's right, you can't say they're wrong." Your morals, by the by, are just as subjective as mine.

The part of my morals that's subjective is my definition, but beyond that, I can OBJECTIVELY measure what is right and what is wrong.

I think it's hilarious that you tire of my circular arguments(which I hav yet to give one) when you're the circular one.

[lonehunter65]

@BigLundi How do you define relativism? Because you seem to be giving a textbook definition of it. MY moral construct allows me to rape a woman, but YOURS does not. If morality were not relative and subjective, our moral construct would be one and the same. You are obviously promoting relativism.

I'm drawing tired of your circular arguments, and will probably stop replying soon. If you would like to have a real discussion about it then please message me!

[BigLundi]

@lonehunter65 No, you imbecile. I said OUR morality come from OUR desires and values.

MY morality comes form MY desires, not everyone else's, though many people's desires, for the most part, appear to mirror mine.

You don't even know what circular reasoning is if you think what you just said is a 'viscious circle'.

Oh, and if morals being a 'viscious circle' makes them wrong, or bad, then since I demonstrated yours is a tautology, that makes yours bad too.

[lonehunter65]

@BigLundi No, you specifically appealed to a higher authority on your own. You said morality comes from our desires. You said our desires are determined by the consensus of the world. Now in cases where the world was wrong, you refer back to our desires. You see how that is a vicious circle?

I understand that it is VERY difficult to come up with a moral construct that does not appeal to a higher standard, simply because it is not possible without reducing morality to relativism.