Dinesh D'Souza v. Dan Barker Debate

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

The other parts should be easy to find, just look for them on You Tube.

Anonymous said...

D'Souza consistently and consistently fails to make a much needed distinction: separating Christianity's doctrines about the world from its moral teachings.

Do I have to accept it all? Do I have to believe that Mary was a virgin or that Christ rose from the dead in 3 days to believe that all people are equal?

sconnor said...

D'Souza and his debate tactics are equally obnoxious.

D'Souza said, "On the other hand if Dan were to walk into my house and subdue me with blows, grab my wife and rape her -- we would all be universally outraged."

Never mind this is a lame analogy, trying to prove that god bestowed some kind of magical morality in us, as if primitive humans never engaged in such behavior, but it's also a repugnant debate tactic, that he used several times.

Being that D'Souza is well acquainted with Ad hominem attacks he shouldn't find my evaluation sordid.

Dinesh, you are a dick.

--S.

Anonymous said...

Wow. I wonder how his wife feels about him talking that way. And to think, as if people living in non-Christian cultures wouldn't be just as outraged if someone were to come into someone's house and rape someone's wife.

1. This happened during the rape of nanking by the Japanese, and plenty of unaffected Chinese, Koreans and Japanese (who were not Christian) were outraged.

2. Where was the outrage in Nazi Germany over the Holocaust? 95% of people in Nazi Germany were Christian, 50% of the SS was Catholic, Hitler was baptized Catholic and yet was not excommunicated. The citizens of Germany knew what was going on, yet there lacked a "universal" outrage.

Bugger_Butt said...

Dinesh, you are a dick.

Another lame comment from the witless wonder. It's too bad that D'Souza's point went right over your head (though, not at all surprising). I'd imagine that D'Souza would point out in reply to you that many current people engage in such behaviors and it's not at all rash or improper to think that such horrendous acts are objectively wrong.

sconnor said...

Ah, yes, Butt, the intellectual giant, who is too chicken-shit to divulge his beliefs, chiming in, again.

Nothing went over my head and evidently, you did not watch the debate. D'Souza's was making a comparison between the morality of the animal kingdom with the morality of humans. Only his comparison crumbles under the scrutiny of biblical and historical study, where there was no moral outrage, when Lot offered up his daughters to be raped by the hordes, nor as Lamar, pointed out, was there a universal moral outrage at the time of the Holocaust. D'Souza point was, we were, magically bestowed, by god, a morality, unlike the animal kingdom where animals can viciously overtake other animals and spawn with the mate. Sure the animals didn't have a universal moral outrage, just like for centuries, homo sapiens didn't have a universal moral outrage about the evil institution of slavery or the divine right of kings, to bed any woman, he so pleased. Osensively, god must have bestowed morality in a slipshod way -- if at all.

Furthermore, that was not the main point of my post. The main thrust of my post was the obscene way Dinish conveyed his lame argument by injecting Dan Barker's name into the analogy as the brutal rapist. This is a contemptible debate practice, which Dinesh the dick D'Souza should be ashamed of.

Care to crawl out from under your rock, where you cower, and maybe reveal your beliefs? Or are you going to continue to just jump in and out of post, claiming we are not smart enough for the super genius Butt?

--S.

Baconsbud said...

Don't you just love how people such as bugger butt will jump in and make comments. I haven't watched all the debate yet but can say that Dan Barker appears way more sure of himself. Did anyone notice how D'Souza seem to always be searching for words that would make him seem more knowledgeable.
Of the debate I have watched so far in my opinion D'Souza showed how his belief isn't based on anything more then fear of violence and how he was raised. If the people who came to that part of India he is from had come with just the bibles and not the threat of death would the people have converted? How many of the so called converted only did so because of that threat?
I just don't understand how people can deny that the only reason religion exist is because it is force fed to people from the time of their birth. Myself I am glad I was able to break away from it at an early age.
I might not be on topic as I should be but sometimes I just need to ask questions and prefer this way to sending people I don't know emails with those questions.

Steven Carr said...

Here is William Lane Craig explaining why it is a moral duty to commit sin if this alleged god orders you to do so Rape is not wrong if God tells you to di it

'Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder.

The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.'

So if there are absolute moral values, there cannot be a Christian god, as this god can order you to do wicked deeds.

Bugger_Butt said...

Nothing went over my head and evidently, you did not watch the debate.

Apparently, it went so far over your head that you don't even know that it went over your head.

D'Souza's was making a comparison between the morality of the animal kingdom with the morality of humans.

Boy, you really are a dullard. And why would D'Souza being making such a distinction? Could it be because his point was that morality is objective and that unlike the animals, we have laws and rules that we are bound to, morally speaking and that perhaps this points to a universal moral condition?

Only his comparison crumbles under the scrutiny of biblical and historical study, where there was no moral outrage, when Lot offered up his daughters to be raped by the hordes, nor as Lamar, pointed out, was there a universal moral outrage at the time of the Holocaust.

So you were there? There was plenty of outrage at the Holocaust. There wasn't, like there is today, mass media coverage day in and day out of what was going on.

D'Souza point was, we were, magically bestowed, by god, a morality, unlike the animal kingdom where animals can viciously overtake other animals and spawn with the mate. Sure the animals didn't have a universal moral outrage, just like for centuries, homo sapiens didn't have a universal moral outrage about the evil institution of slavery or the divine right of kings, to bed any woman, he so pleased. Osensively, god must have bestowed morality in a slipshod way -- if at all.

Contrary to your claims, almost all societies and cultures have operated under a core morality. The few that chose not to have not lasted. This points to an order of ethical rights and wrongs.

Furthermore, that was not the main point of my post. The main thrust of my post was the obscene way Dinish conveyed his lame argument by injecting Dan Barker's name into the analogy as the brutal rapist. This is a contemptible debate practice, which Dinesh the dick D'Souza should be ashamed of.

It was obvious (to most people that don't have a axe to grind) that D'Souza was speaking in a hypothetical to make a point.

And why should D'Souza be ashamed? You think ethical judgments are subjective don't you?


Care to crawl out from under your rock, where you cower, and maybe reveal your beliefs? Or are you going to continue to just jump in and out of post, claiming we are not smart enough for the super genius Butt?

No. I just require that if I am going to open my beliefs for examination, that those who they are opened up to have an IQ higher than 40. So far, you don't fit that criteria.

You are just an internet weenie who calls others dicks and you seem to think that your opinion matters. It doesn't and so you may have the last word because quite frankly I am far above you and I don't like wallowing down in the muck with you.

Evan said...

Things I learned from Dinesh D'Souza in this debate:

1. There is no reason to believe in God that can be derived from rational thought.

2. Dinesh D'Souza is an agnostic.

3. Fundamentalists are ignorant.

Thanks Dinesh.

Evan said...

Contrary to your claims, almost all societies and cultures have operated under a core morality. The few that chose not to have not lasted. This points to an order of ethical rights and wrongs.

Close but no cigar.

Actually, it suggests that people behave morally out of self-interest. Societies increase the reproductive potential of their members, so functioning societies need to have morality. However there is wide variation in the sets of morals that societies have.

NAL said...

Dan Barker took Dinesh D'Souza to the woodshed for an old fashioned whoopin'. Barker knows a lot more about the Bible too. The question from the audience, about the six million Jews going to hell, left Dinesh groping for a answer. The two minute response allotment is a good format, forces the debaters to keep their answers concise.

sconnor said...

Butt,

Butt, conceitedly, says, You are just an internet weenie who calls others dicks and you seem to think that your opinion matters.

To that I say, You are just an internet weenie who calls others witless wonders and dullards and you seem to think that your opinion matters.

The gigantic egghead, Butt, bloviates, It doesn't and so you may have the last word because quite frankly I am far above you and I don't like wallowing down in the muck with you.

And yet you feel compelled to chime in with the lowly idiots, gloating you are a brainy juggernaut, giving you a false sense of superiority, when all you are really doing is projecting delusions of grandeur with no substance. Hear how the great Butt belows, "I AM FAAAAAR ABOVVVVVVE YOUUUUUUU!"
-- What an asshole.

Again, it begs the question, why chime in at all, if I or others, have nothing to offer the egomaniacal super brain?

Super genius Butt says, Boy, you really are a dullard. And why would D'Souza being making such a distinction? Could it be because his point was that morality is objective and that unlike the animals, we have laws and rules that we are bound to, morally speaking and that perhaps this points to a universal moral condition?

Nope. The point D'Souza was making was much simpler and immature, than that. D'Souza suggests, we are not outraged if an ape attacks another male ape taking the male apes mate for himself, to forcibly have sex with her, but we are morally outraged if the scenario were humans doing it.

His analogy fails on two levels, First, he is locked into the context of the present, where it is morally wrong to rape a woman. We know from ancient history, that women were not regarded as human but as property -- rape and other atrocities toward women were not morally relevant. The bible is laced with immorality toward women, including the Lot example, that Butt, conveniently, did not address. Second, D'Souza's analogy fails, because it is a shallow and a myopic example, that does not address the broad spectrum of morality, including, as one example, the immoral and vile institution of slavery -- where was the moral outrage and laws and rules we are, supposedly, bound to for the first 18 centuries? Slavery, BTW, another example, which Butt conveniently, could not address. D'Souza's ultimate premise is god -- a transcendent force -- magically bestowed morality to humans and not the animals, to that I ask where was god when it was morally permissible to beat, kill, torture, slaves; where was god when it was morally permissible to do anything to women because they were nothing but chattel? How come god didn't bestow a sense of a universal moral condition at this time?

Butt, the omnicient, super-genius of the universe, said, It was obvious (to most people that don't have a axe to grind) that D'Souza was speaking in a hypothetical to make a point.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't a hypothetical. I'm arguing it was a hypothetical, where D'Souza shamelessly, uses Dan Barker's name as "the brutal rapist", in the analogy, when the hypothetical did not need to resort to such tactics -- D'Souza could have just as easily made the brutal rapist an anonymous character but chose to do so otherwise -- it's a sophomoric and egregious trick that should not be tolerated. D'Souza also used Dan's name in another analogy as a vile puppy killer -- again D'Souza is a dick, plain and simple.

If anyone is interested in D'Souza's rambling ape analogy, you can find it here --
Part 15 - Dinesh D'Souza/ Dan Barker Debate


--S.

Shygetz said...

So you were there? There was plenty of outrage at the Holocaust. There wasn't, like there is today, mass media coverage day in and day out of what was going on.

Someone seems to not know what the word "universal" means. There was NOT universal moral outrage at the Holocaust at the time. In fact, there is not universal moral outrage at the Holocaust now. The outrage now is considerably more widespread than it was then, and even more then than there would have been 300 years ago (which, I think, is to our credit as a species), but it is FAR from universal.

Contrary to your claims, almost all societies and cultures have operated under a core morality. The few that chose not to have not lasted. This points to an order of ethical rights and wrongs.

Actually, all societies and cultures have had a shared moral core of some kind...otherwise, we would not be able to recognize them as a cohesive culture. And contrary to your claims of a "universal" morality, almost all societies and cultures have operated under a core morality that was different from one another. Which seems to indicate that core morality is correlated with social cohesion, but that this morality is not even close to invariant, and ranges widely from culture to culture.

And why should D'Souza be ashamed? You think ethical judgments are subjective don't you?

I love how people like this think "subjective" equals "meaningless", yet the same people won't eat shit no matter how much you sterilize it because they have the subjective impression that it tastes bad. I think D'Souza should be ashamed of many of his arguments, and my subjective opinion has great worth to me. If you share it (or if I am able to convince you) it will have worth to you. If you disagree, it will be worthless. If I have sufficient societal power, I can enforce my subjective opinion as a rule, and call the general societal consensus a "moral".

The fact that I recognize that my morals are subjective does not make them less valuable, and the fact that I recognize that morals are enforced by social cooperation does not make this enforcement less effective.

Look, I'll make you the same challenge that I've made everyone else who argues for a "universal objective morality". Tell me the practical difference between a subjective morality and an objective morality that we can only make disagreeing subjective measurements of. Unless you can show evidence of a moral object that can be independently measured to an objective value, there is no difference between your subjective impression of an (imagined) objective morality, and a plain subjective morality. They are both based solely on your opinion; why should I grant your subjective measurement of the (imagined) objective morality any more credance than I grant Tom's, or Steve's, or Abdullah's?

You are just an internet weenie who calls others dicks and you seem to think that your opinion matters. It doesn't and so you may have the last word because quite frankly I am far above you and I don't like wallowing down in the muck with you.

Irony is a dish best served unintentionally.

Rachel said...

Shygetz (and any other takers),

In the past, I have hesitated to use the moral argument for the existence of (a) God because frankly I felt that atheists had decent answers to it, and/or that I didn't know its exact claims well enough to present it.

I'm not necessarily arguing from the moral argument here, although I would like to sharpen my understanding of it. It seems to me that you are misunderstanding the moral argument (and it may also be that some Christians are misrepresenting it). The claim is not that every culture everywhere at all times have shared any specific moral values, e.g. slavery is wrong, equality of women, etc. Rather, the claim is that every culture everywhere at all times have had some kind of morality. IOW, the moral argument is not that everyone agrees on what exactly a person should do, the claim is that everyone thinks a person "should" do something. Different cultures at different times may disagree on what that something is, but that everyone has a "should" instinct in them is the crux of the moral argument (I believe). So the issue is not absolute morality (the same specific things are viewed as right or wrong by everyone everywhere at all times), but objective morality (everyone everywhere at all times thinks there are specific things that are right or wrong, even though those things may not be the same across the board).

You said,

Tell me the practical difference between a subjective morality and an objective morality that we can only make disagreeing subjective measurements of. Unless you can show evidence of a moral object that can be independently measured to an objective value, there is no difference between your subjective impression of an (imagined) objective morality, and a plain subjective morality. They are both based solely on your opinion; why should I grant your subjective measurement of the (imagined) objective morality any more credance than I grant Tom's, or Steve's, or Abdullah's?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Can you clarify?

sconnor said...

We have morality, therefore Zeus exists.

We have morality, therefore Allah exists.

We have morality, therefore Yahweh exists.

We have morality, therefore the one and only true, triune Christian God exists.

All bad arguments.

--S.

Shygetz said...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Can you clarify?

Let's say there is an object (call it a foo). The only property of a foo is that every person who observes a foo will observe something completely different than every other person, so that no significant group of people will agree at all. Some will experience a chair, some will experience a dragon, some will experience a shower, some will experience nothing at all, etc. Moreover, some people who experience the foo at one time and then experience the foo later will have different experiences each time...in other words, a man might experience the foo as a lawn mower, but then a month later experience the foo as a light breeze.

Now, define for me the difference between "objective foo" and "subjective foo" is.

I'll give you the crib notes...there is no difference. Objective knowledge is only obtained through repeated consistent experiences by different observers. We can only talk about an objective tree because when you look at a tree and when I look at a tree, we see pretty much the exact same thing. But, if you saw a tree and I saw a hammer and John didn't see any thing at all, we could not say that there was an objective tree.

Now, replace "foo" with morality. You look at morality and see one thing. I look at morality and see something else. Steve sees something else, and Juan something else, and Muhammad something else still, and Xiang something else still. So how could you define the objective morality? Or, how could you differentiate between an objective morality that no one can agree upon due to different subjective experiences of the same object, or a purely subjective morality that has no objective basis.

You can't. There is no discernable difference.

So the issue is not absolute morality (the same specific things are viewed as right or wrong by everyone everywhere at all times), but objective morality (everyone everywhere at all times thinks there are specific things that are right or wrong, even though those things may not be the same across the board).

Nihilists exist, and do not believe in morality of any kind, which renders your argument faulty.

Rachel said...

Sconnor,

First, I didn't say that the moral argument necessarily leads to any particular God. Note that my post said "(a) God".

Second, some explanation as to why the moral argument is "bad" would be helpful.

Shygetz,

Thanks for clarifying, that's kind of what I thought you were saying. The problem is that you're still mischaracterizing the moral argument. The objective part is that everyone thinks there exists a "should". It doesn't mean that everyone's "should" is the same, but it does mean that everyone has one.

I don't see how nihilists create any problem for the moral argument. I've never met one, so I don't have personal experience. But I'm willing to bet that if someone kidnapped, raped, and killed a nihilist's child for no reason, that nihilist would at some point feel that such a thing "should" not have happened, and/or that the perpetrator "should" be punished. Even if the nihilist somehow managed to push away such thoughts, there still would have been that initial sense that this "should" not have happened.

DingoDave said...

Rachel wrote:
-"The objective part is that everyone thinks there exists a "should". It doesn't mean that everyone's "should" is the same, but it does mean that everyone has one."

The terrorists who flew the planes into the World Trade Centre did it because they thought that they should. They did it because they thought that their god would have wanted them to do it, thereby murdering thousands of innocent people. (but who weren't innocent in the eyes of the terrorists, because they were members of a 'decadent' western society)
Would you call THEM moral?

The Catholic Inquisitors burned people at the stake, because they thought that they should. They believed that they were helping to prevent the spread of heresy, thereby saving others from damnation.
Would you call THEM moral?

If not, then what's your point?

Rachel said...

Dave,

It is not that people are necessarily correct merely because they think they "should" do something. My point is that the fact that everyone at all times inherently thinks there exists a "should" necessitates the existence of (a) God. Random chance mutations cannot account for this inherent sense of "should".

solerso said...

Rachel...what do "random chance mutations" have to do with morality??? Random chance mutation is a model for change that occurs over time, in cells-oraganisms, to explain drift. AHHHH re-reading your posts i think ive answered my own question!!