Is Christianity Useful? Dinesh/Shermer Debate P-14 of 14

Catholic theologan Dinesh D'souza and fundamental-turned-atheist Michael Shermer debate the usefulness of Christianity

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Catholic
• Christianity
• theology
• atheism
• theism
• religion
• God
• debate
• Jesus
• D'souza
• resurrection
• Philosophy
• apologetics

[daverbecks]

I always hear some atheists say that the so-and-so creationist or religious debater makes some good points in a debate. So far I have never heard a simple good point for creationism. None. It all should be put into simpler terms - Religion is foolish, atheism is wise.

[TimeEffect]

Are you talking about creationist arguments or religious arguments? Because you said that you never heard a good argument for creationism then went on to say that religion is foolish when in reality, religion and creationism are not always intertwined. Creationism isn't meant to be confused with "Christianity", nor is it to be confused with "religion".

But I understand what you are trying to say.

[daverbecks]

You are correcting an insignificant detail in the point I am trying to make. Both religious faith and creationist belief are put forth without any supporting evidence. In this seance they can be viewed from the same prospective.

[TimeEffect]

I understand your point-- and I understand your belief and reasoning that both religion and creationism are one in the same. However, they are in fact two different positions, though they still hold to a unified theme. I am not disagreeing with your opinion since it is your opinion, but it would be wrong to group them both together entirely.

[TimeEffect]

Of course it's just a small point, so it's nothing really to fret about.

[nothingUnrealExists]

So the point is that we should believe in God even though is isn't real because it makes us feel good. That is fantastically STUPID. Reality is what it is, and you can and should find joy withing that reality, not live in hiding from what might frighten you about it. We are capable of being more than cowering beasts, which it what groundless faith in iron age mythology makes us.

[Sn3kz]

While Shermer might be "non confrontational", I don't think that that's necessarily a bad debating quality. In fact, I think Shermer allows his opponents to dig their own graves by letting them use all of their "best" arguments.

[unclexbob]

it would be hard to imagine creationism without some form of religion....or at least a vague "spirituality", (supernatural, by default).....when you really boil it down, there is no "religion" that doesn't have supernatural claims.

A fine point, depending what you want to act as the axiom.

[unclexbob]

even though I find Shermer's debate style annoying in how non confrontational he can be, I still greatly enjoy them because he does not seem to do this out of some generousity to the opposition, but more so is simply picking his battles carefully.

Although I could never reproduce his method if I were put in those shoes, I admire it.

[waltermh111]

He said the church admitted it would reinterpret religious doctrine if Galileo was proven right.

What does that say about holy scripture when it means nothing because its so easy to reinterpet to fit the times.

Shermer made a small point about it, easy to miss, which is that the social zeitgeist continues to move forward and religion tries to keep up with it, religion does little to move it forward and is known often to hold it back.

[waltermh111]

i will go further and say that Shermer was sadly weak when it came to refuting denish.

Many of them were fairly easy to dispute, but Shermer does seem to go easy often.

At least his homosexuality issue was a good point, a simple one too.

Denish made one mistake from my point of view that I want to point out since youtube doesnt make much room for full responses.

[waltermh111]

i agree with you and dawkins does too