Part 7 - 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

[shuffenhauser]

@dwheel39 Still, naturalism says nothing at all about what one should do.

[shuffenhauser]

@dwheel39 No, thats incorrect. I don't believe in a deity and I certainly don't think I'm a deity. So, we can throw that idea out.

[dwheel39]

@shuffenhauser RE:Species that are better adapted for survival will live to pass their genes on, thats all we're talking about."

Okay, i don't have any problem with that.

[shuffenhauser]

@dwheel39 The latter view that you speak of is a misrepresentation of evolution. I suggest you actually understand what the theory says before talking about it. But even if we took your misrepresentation at face value, you still can't get from your misrepresentation of evolution to any ideology, good or bad. Show me how you can get from, evolution is true, therefor political tyranny, where's the gap to connect those dots.

[shuffenhauser]

@dwheel39 I'm using the phrase deciding, not as if nature decides anything, but in nature the fit tend to survive(btw survival of the fittest is not an accurate representation of natural selection, but I'll go along with it anyways). Species that are better adapted for survival will live to pass their genes on, thats all we're talking about.

[dwheel39]

@shuffenhauser without God, man makes himself out to be his own god or worships nature or man-made things in it's place. It all comes down to worldviews.

[dwheel39]

@shuffenhauser RE:Stalins dogma was a perverse political idealogy and had nothing to do with naturalism."

Naturalism is a worldview which carries with it, a view of man. We all have a view of ourselves. We are created in the image of God, we are One with the universe, we ARE god, we are from aliens, or we are the accidental byproduct of random mutations and are nothing more than a speck of dust sitting on a larger speck of dust. It's this latter view of man that leads to the political tyranny.

[dwheel39]

@shuffenhauser RE:None of what stalin did or proposed had anything to do with the theory of natural selection"

I said Naturalism, not natural selection.

[dwheel39]

@shuffenhauser RE:Nature decides who or what is fit to survive."

How is that statement even logical when we are talking about blind, mindless, purposeless processes? Who or what is "deciding"?

It's very revealing that even the most militant atheists such as Dawkins cannot help but personify nature as if there is some purpose driving a species to survive and reproduce. Why do you think this is? Explain.

[shuffenhauser]

@dwheel39 No, one can't argue that. Survival of the fittest has to do with nature, not when one imposses what they deem to be fit, thats called artificial selection, not NATURAL selection. Nature decides who or what is fit to survive. We are animals, but I don't see the relevence in that. Stalin was incorrectly applying what he may of thought was darwinian, But If he truly wanted to apply natural selection he should have left everything alone and let nature dictate what happens.