Which of Dinesh D'Souza's Arguments Won Him Our Debate?
Okay, we have beat to death the horse of who won our debate which can be seen here. And I already expressed what I learned from debating him, while Ken Pulliam offered some insightful observations on it. So here is the next question: Which arguments of D'Souza's do you think were so good that won him the debate? Forget for a moment that I didn't answer everything he regurgitated up. What did he say that was a good argument for his faith?
71 comments:
There was such a heavy emphasis in the debate on Christian delusion because of your own lead ins. Since D'Souza's winning flavor is of the ad hominem variety, his ability to turn the common sense notion of what people group is most likely delusional amounted to his strongest rhetorical point, I think. Most of your arguments are summarized by appeal to consistent application of what could be called common sense. So I would say your lack of ability to reframe his "Tom-deniers" analogy/argument is probably what most cost you the debate. If you can agree with this assessment and are looking for ways to avoid that scenario in the future, I suggest something along the lines of my opening statement in the student debate at Skepticon 2, that I gave in Springfield, MO last November. I spear-headed that problem from the get-go, cuz it is rhetorically problematic from an atheists perspective.
Ben
This is the only question that matters.
All the Christians coming on here high-fiving each other need to provide solid evidence as to which arguments won D'souza the debate. I'd also suggest that they indicate how his argument aligns with their worldview. What theological truth was D'souza endorsing that is consistent with the nature of their personal relationship to Jesus.
It will be interesting to see the responses from smug Christians. My estimation is that there won't be many compelling answers by Christians to this question which will expose their "faith" for what it is, emotion-driven "group-think" that endorses a control-belief to minimize their fear of living.
Good question John.
Cool logo War on Error. Did you design it yourself?
To be fair, this is what Chuck O'Conner first asked in another post here at DC.
Dinesh dismissed my opening statement by saying it was irrelevant. Most of it was not irrelevant, but if it was then I was merely responding to the case Dinesh made in his book. My argument in much of my opening statement was that HIS BOOK WAS IRRELEVANT, so if my opening statement was irrelevant then he's admitted his case is irrelevant.
I wish I had thought of saying that then. Shit.
No need to cite me John. It was your ass up there and I'm just watching your back because I respect you. The little petty theists who want to ride the coat-tails of Ann Coulter's ex-boyfriend should let us know what intellectual basis they have for their faith. They're the ones who get their panties in a bunch when we atheists claim their faith unreasonable but then jump on here to declare you a loser without offering a reasoned response. It does make me happy that I no longer have to identify with them anymore.
Chuck,
"Cool logo War on Error. Did you design it yourself?"
Thanks. And yes.
Ben
The arguments which won D'Souza the debate were mostly your very own (Although Denish was very articulate, clear, winsome and logical). With all respect John, you appeared unprepared; or maybe you did prepare but were so nervous you weren't able to express yourself clearly. Or perhaps you should leave debating to people who can clearly express themselves. I watched the whole debate and I am sorry to say, most of the time you spoke in circles. Your February 27 post is a clear example of this. Please explain what you mean when you say the following:
"My argument in much of my opening statement was that HIS BOOK WAS IRRELEVANT, so if my opening statement was irrelevant then he's admitted his case is irrelevant." What? Think it through John:
1. Your opening statement is that D'Souza's book is mostly irrelevant.
2. He says that your opening statement is irrelevant (he actually said it was "argumentative diarrhea)".
3. You CONCLUDE that D'Souza admits that his case is irrelevant?
The math does not add up. Statements such as the one I quoted is why you lost the debate. In the future try to think clearly and to express yourself with clarity, otherwise you will run the risk of digging your own grave, as you did with the D'Souza debate.
D'Souza's arguments only won because they either went unchallenged or were poorly challenged.
He won because he was slick, confident and prepared, and his opponent didn't appear to be any of these things. He also made his arguments very clear.
John, I have a lot of respect for you, and I think you're a very gifted thinker and writer. But live debating of this nature is a different arena. To be brutally honest, I didn't think you came across as rational at all in the debate. You made lots of assertions, but not many arguments.
D'Souza won because he looked like the rational one. He spelled out his arguments and no one challenged him. There were so many lousy arguments in there, and I was practically shouting at my monitor urging you to challenge him on some of the ridiculous things he said.
So to answer your question, D'Souza won by default. It's irrelevant that his arguments were crap, because the time for analysis and refutation was in the debate itself.
(BTW, not saying you shouldn't be debating. If I were in your position, I would just set my sights a bit lower and get some more experience in debate. Dinesh is clearly very experienced, and probably most of his responses are just variations on prepared responses he has rehearsed dozens of times. That's probably the kind of experience you need.)
Chuck says this, "The little petty theists who want to ride the coat-tails of Ann Coulter's ex-boyfriend should let us know what intellectual basis they have for their faith."
If intellect were the primary and sole factor in saving one from cruelty, then you would be lost forever, but as it is, there is grace even for you because divine salvation is founded upon the spiritual.
I haven't yet gone back to listen or watch the debate after being there in person, but I don't think that it was his arguments that won the debate. His misdirection and slick presentation covered up a lack of depth in his arguments. He was sort of like a magician. He wasn't doing real magic, but he presented it in a way that gave the appearance of real magic or "winning arguments" in this case.
A Christian friend of mine said that there were a lot of rabbit trails followed in the debate. It's good that he could see that many of the questions weren't being directly answered. Dinesh wasn't able to fool all of the Christians. It's too bad that he was able to steer the debate that way, though.
suniseclipsed, that's exactly what I think. Even if I didn't do well none of his arguments were any good at all. Again, the subject here is "What did he say that was a good argument for his faith?" Stay on topic folks. Focus.
Although, no one can win a debate by default. No matter what the topic was, and even if I never made one single argument against the proposition, if the other side never made one good argument on his side he cannot win on substance. In that case, and I'm not declaring it to be the case, at best we would score it a no win situation or a draw on substance. I would say this even if it wasn't me on the other side.
Please stop whining about the debate. Win or lose, just move on already. Your readers are tired of hearing about it.
And Eric, I'm tired of your one note song. Debates are educational. That's what this post is about. What can we learn from it? What about the arguments? If you don't like it fine. Not everything I do is for you, just like not everything you do is for me, and that should go without saying.
None of his arguments are good, period. But the sad thing is because it has always been the case, and you know it going in, but they're not countered properly.
In all due respect John, let me offer a piece of advice if I may.
Debates are not about truths, it's about the appearance of truth. This Dinesh guy knows it, Craig knows it, the politicians know this the first day they roam the earth. So if you think you can just present the facts and "let the facts speak for itself", or try to hold a high standard of integrity so as not to pick on and amplify your opponents follies, or simply wave them off because they're not worth responding, you'll never be a sure winner.
Sorry about pointing out this hard fact about debates, this is one of the ground rules and so it's not for everybody, certainly not for people who has high integrity. Until you understand this John, you can't be a good debater.
Another alternative is something I've said before, do interviews instead of debates. The instant exchange gives you a lot more opportunity to counter your opponents within the attention span of the audience, and you have a much better chance letting the truth be known and coming out as the winner.
Hmmm John. Seems like there are a lot od D'souzas on here. Nobody seems to be able to answer the question but they sure offer a lot of rhetoric to avoid it. Have you heard an argument? I haven't.
Chuck and John,
As a brainwashed delusional Christian everyone except for maybe one or two has been answering your question. Let this brainwashed, delusional person spell it out for you. No one thinks D'souzas had any good arguments. Therefore, none of his arguments won the debate. John you lost because you were not prepared and you did not express your self clearly. As a delusional brainwashed Christian who watched the debate I would have to agree with their point that you were unprepared. This brainwashed person feels very sorry for you. Ofcourse, I felt that I could have argued for atheism better than you did. Also the next time you debate you need to do a lot of more studding; especially in the sciences. Remember never underestimate your opponent. I think that was one of your flaws, you have too much faith in your own beliefs. Of course this is just a brainwashed delusional person’s opinion. Lastly you do need to let this debate go and move on. Remember when life hands you a lemon make lemonade.
Harold
Thanks Harold for your honesty regarding D'souzas arguments. I don't think the question concerned your critique of John's debate style.
John.
I have been following this blog for a little while now, and we obviously dont know eachother, but i think your sweating this D'Souza debate too much!
Im not trying to step out of line here, but i watched the debate, and i've seen D'Souza debate Dan Barker, and i really dont think he had anything on you!!!!!!!!!!
I found D'Souza to be a little arrogant and talks to his opposition like they are children.....like he is so much more intelligent then they are.
Not to mention the fact that he spoke over you three or four times when you were trying to make a point.
You addressed some very good and reasonable arguments which he talked around and avoided really answering the issues.
I think alot of people on here feel pretty much the same way, and its not that we are being stubborn, or trying to save face, you just did not lose the debate as far as evidence and common sense!
Goodness John!
You are such an addict! Go away for awhile and let some other people make some posts on this blog that actually contain some substance that we haven't heard yet!
Take the break you said you were going to (Remember that?)! Get a job that actually makes money! You said you were going to take a much needed break, and then start doing exactly what you were doing before! Put down the "blogpipe!"
And, you're running this debate with D'Souza into the ground! Let it go dude!
Man, it's true; you are a whiner. You're just proving Dinesh's point.
Yo
John was reposting a question I asked. By your response can I take it you don't think D'souza had sufficient arguments to acquit his side?
Still no arguments.
Could it be that christians sense of superiority is not based on reasoned argument after all?
I mean, they all came on here proclaiming victory but, fail to share with us what D'Souza argument proved that the Christian god exists.
What argument was it theists?
Don't tell me your sense of righteousness is based on appeals to emotion? I mean that would be about as meaningless as a worship set wouldn't it?
Still waiting for the arguments.
LOL.
John, it looks like all the Christians who wanted to claim you lost don't know exactly why they believe that. Could it be their ability to reason towards belief is not as strong as they would claim?
Chuck, don't get too ahead of yourself. Here's why I think John lost the debate. His presentation was seriously lacking. Throughout the debate he was unclear, inarticulate, directionless, and very unstructured in how he tried to get his points across when he did make them. His rhetorical ability came out as soft, whereas D'Souza's came out as very strong. Dinesh sounded confident whereas John comparably did not. Additionally, John immediately made most of the audience against him when he called us Christians "brainwashed". Here's a tip John for future debates: Even if you think all of us Christians are brainwashed, you might want to refrain from expressing it anyways. That's like the worst PR move you can make in a debate. You're trying to win Christians over to your side, not make them needlessly feel like they are equivalent to the Jihadists brainwashed by the Islamic radicals. Once again, even if you actually think that, it's not the place for you to bring up some potentially offensive language in a debate. To fail to grasp this point is to be completely socially inept.
As for arguments, neither side seemed to make any real substantive points but any points made were made better by Dinesh, since he again, articulated them much more strongly than did Loftus.
So you think D'-ouza won due to style and a general defensiveness towards John's claims Christians are brainwashed? There was no rational reason for your conclusion at all which in my experience is usually the source of Christians certitude, narcissistic defensiveness and an easily manipulated psychology swayed by rhetorical presentation. Still waiting for the specific argument that answered the question of the debate as "Yes, he exists". Not liking John's presentation doesn't do it.
I sort of drifted in and out of sleep watching the youTube, as I often do during sermons and lectures. I was impressed by the stylistic differences between the two debaters. But as a substantive measure of how D'Souza won the debate, it seems to me because he was able to mischaracterize and dismiss Loftus' arguments.
Specifically, John would argue, we are all atheists, with regard to every religion but our own. Denesh calls that the "cancelling out" theory. And John let him get away with it.
Second, on matters of the sufficiency of rational empirical naturalistic modelling of our world, Denesh begins by saying that's inadequate to answer the questions that really matter. He ends by saying that any dispute concerning claims made which defy reason, experience, and sensory evaluation, must necessary defy the same -- be "faith based."
In the end, it is all about the illusion of history. I keep coming back to Richard Burton's lecture in Room 101 -- I've only seen the movie, never read the book. (1984) -- thing are not so because we witness them to be so, but because we consent to agree they are so. Unless we don't consent. 8 plus 7 equals 3.
Chuck, yes there was a rational reason to my conclusion. There's more to a debate than just arguments. Presentation does matter and I shouldn't have to explain that obvious point which you seem unable to understand. That being the case, I already said arguments were lacking on BOTH sides (notice I didn't just say they were weak on Loftus' side only). I do happen to believe that some of the arguments Dinesh brought up are convincing at the core (ie. the cosmological argument, resurrection argument) but since Dinesh didn't really develop his arguments to any real real degree of sophistication I wasn't really impressed. Moreover, I came into this debate already believing in the soundness of the cosmological argument, resurrection argument, but if all that is required to win a debate is to simply put out fundamentally good arguments that you agree with then the side that you agree with automatically wins the debate every time. This makes judging a debate impossible since atheists and theists would automatically side with their own position.
And I'm not answering the question of which arguments won Dinesh the debate. I'm answering the question of what made Dinesh win the debate, period (or what made John lose). It's a distraction to focus solely on the arguments as John wants to do. Rather, it should be focused on how he presented himself since that is where atheists and theists seem mostly united in thinking that John did not perform so well.
I think I've sufficiently explained myself. Your cheap attempt to write off my points as if I'm somehow easily psychologically swayed by rhetoric is weak, considering I JUST GOT DONE SAYING before that the arguments lacked on both sides. If you think I come to my beliefs based on presentation then your sorely mistaken. Far from it. As Loftus has correctly stated, arguments are really won in books, not at debate events.
ChristianJR4,
You said, "And I'm not answering the question of which arguments won Dinesh the debate. I'm answering the question of what made Dinesh win the debate, period (or what made John lose). It's a distraction to focus solely on the arguments as John wants to do."
Why is it a distraction? Presentation means little when one claims truth.
What arguments did D'Souza make that won him the debate?
If you want to say it was a draw because neither had arguments that were compelling than fine but, it is not a distraction to demand a group of people claiming absolute truth (e.g. Christians) provide evidence to their truth claims a member of their group argued successfully in a debate.
I don't see why you feel it impertinent to ask.
If I were to say John won you'd be responsible to ask why.
"But as a substantive measure of how D'Souza won the debate, it seems to me because he was able to mischaracterize and dismiss Loftus' arguments."
So you are saying D'Souza won because he lied and bore false witness against his neighbor? How can that be consistent with a Christian ethic?
I really don't know why this is so difficult. Presentation means a lot when it comes to DEBATE (ie. the art of debate), and this was a debate. Since neither side made sweeping arguments that carried they're side the only thing left to assess was presentation. On this aspect D'Souza hands down bested Loftus. Do you understand now? If not, then please consider the role of high school or college level debates. They are 80% presentation and 20% argument.
So to once again answer the question of who won: the answer is D'Souza. It wasn't a draw. Debates are never assessed solely by who has better arguments. As already explained, if that was the case then all atheists would side with their side and all theists with theirs. By those standards it would be virtually impossible for a theist to say that the other side won the debate without converting, which is absurd. Clearly both theists and atheists can give the victory to the opposing side without thereby committing themselves to their arguments.
I think the question is clear. I want to know the arguments that Christians cite to celebrate D'Souza's victory. I don't care to be lectured on high school rules of debate but want to know the clear defense of God's truth evidenced by Dinesh which has caused celebration by theists on this board. Why is it so hard for you to answer the question?
Additionally Christian,
When you say D'Souza "won" I take it that you think he settled the question at hand, proof of the reality of the Christian God. Yet, you don't provide an argument to this assertion, instead you make the claim to it by appealing to D'Souza's "presentation". Why do you expect me to trust Christians when they say their faith is based on evidence and reason yet, when there is a public defense of their faith they quickly claim victory based on unsubstantiated presentation? It seems dishonest to me.
"I want to know the arguments that Christians cite to celebrate D'Souza's victory"
I think the point is that we aren't necessarily citing arguments that won him the debate. We are citing performance, just as many atheists (in fact most) are citing performance. If you were at all tuned into the reality of how debates operate you would be aware of this point. Therefore, probably most Christians aren't really celebrating over the superior arguments that Dinesh brought up (although some might), they are celebrating over the clear rhetorical victory over John.
I have already answered the question 4 times now. Try advancing yourself now instead repeating the same thing over and over and over again about how no one has answered you. Most of us aren't claiming Dinesh won on arguments. We are claiming, like virtually all atheists, that John lost on presentation.
But let me guess, you'll still come back and repeat the same thing asking for the arguments.
Thanks Christian,
So let me see if I understand this, you celebrate the reality of God's truth in the public square based on rhetoric and performance but, demand that we respect your "faith" when you say it is based on evidence?
That about it?
"I take it that you think he settled the question at hand, proof of the reality of the Christian God"
No, no, no and no. I said both sides did not demonstrate themselves on the argumentative level. That is, neither side had the upper hand simply on the basis of arguments. I'm not judging the debate solely on arguments as you are stuck on doing. I'm judging on how most people judge debates. A mixture of intelligible arguments with presentation. On the argumentative level I actually side with the atheists in thinking that Dinesh D'Souza didn't make any good arguments (or at least the arguments that had potential weren't really developed to any impressive level). It's only in their assessment on who performed better is where I side with them.
"So let me see if I understand this, you celebrate the reality of God's truth in the public square based on rhetoric and performance but, demand that we respect your "faith" when you say it is based on evidence?"
That would be the case only if good arguments were advanced on our side, which I have repeatedly said were not in this debate. Try reading much?
As for evidence, yes I do think there is evidence and reason for our faith, but that is secondary to the question of this thread.
Christian,
"It's only in their assessment on who performed better is where I side with them."
That isn't the topid of this post.
Why do you feel to add that? Nobody asked that.
Christian,
You said, "That would be the case only if good arguments were advanced on our side, which I have repeatedly said were not in this debate. Try reading much?"
Yet you continually claimed in response to the direct question, "Which of Dinesh D'Souza's argument won him our debate?", that D'Souza won.
Which is both a non-answer to the question and a declaration of victory.
So, you now amend your declaration of victory but still provide an answer that isn't germane to the post and, while doing it, insult my reading abilities.
LOL.
Chuck, I think ChristianJR4's point is that the question is unnecessary. Who's claiming D'Souza's arguments were any good?
Of John's readers (to whom the question is addressed) I got the impression they thought D'Souza won the debate by default, but not because his arguments were any good. Even really crap arguments will win a debate if they're not countered with better arguments. Asking which of D'Souza's arguments won the debate kind of misses the point.
So I'm not really sure why the question's been asked.
Dave,
You said, "So I'm not really sure why the question's been asked."
Well, I am told by Christians that they benefit from the "in-dwelling" of the Holy Spirit and, if so, want to know why they believe one of theirs clearly earned victory in defending the truth of their god.
If they felt that the debate revealed what you said it revealed then I would expect the good counsel of the Holy Spirit to guide them to that truth.
They didn't. They declared victory which of course means a decisive answer in the question being debated.
I wonder about either the efficacy or the reality of the exclusive Christian counselor known as The Holy Spirit.
Does that make sense?
Actually in my opening statement I said the arguments in Dinesh's book(s) were irrelevant to the probability of his faith. Since Christians will not say he did any better in the debate than he did in his book his arguments all fail. And since the proposition does not force me defend anything other than a negative, i.e., that the Christian God does not exist, what are we to make of this?
Say I lost all you want to based on style, but look again at what I did argue for and you'll see I did have some arguments in it that he never addressed.
Christian, care to take a stab then at answering my arguments?
"That isn't the topid of this post."
It is the topic. John seems to confuse, like you, Dinesh winning the debate with people claiming he had better arguments. In any case I answered the question of this thread directly by saying that neither won on arguments.
"Why do you feel to add that? Nobody asked that"
It's the topic, for one, and two, you keep going around here and annoyingly harping on how Christians won't give the arguments that made Dinesh won when it's hardly about that. I'm trying to support what Loftus and many atheists have said all along, that being that debates are rarely about arguments and more to do with performance. In other words I'm WITH the atheists on this one. You, however, are like on the other side of the coin, stuck on "win = truth". Ironic, I must say since usually it's the theists who say that in my experience.
"Yet you continually claimed in response to the direct question, "Which of Dinesh D'Souza's argument won him our debate?", that D'Souza won."
"Which is both a non-answer to the question and a declaration of victory."
I went out of my way to explain what I meant by D'Souza winning the debate. There is no contradiction since I clearly qualified my remarks by both directly answering the thread question and clarifying the confusion that emanates from it.
"So, you now amend your declaration of victory but still provide an answer that isn't germane to the post and, while doing it, insult my reading abilities."
There was no amending. Everything I've stated so far as already been stated in the original post I made here. As for your reading abilities, perhaps I went overboard with that comment, but you do seem to gloss over the points I made as if I never made them in the first place.
Well, Chuck, I think if you were arguing with someone who was advancing that triumphalistic line about the debate, you would have a point. But ChristianJR4 is only saying the same thing as most of the atheists have said. I don't see him reveling in victory or claiming D'Souza's arguments as proof of God - quite the opposite, in fact. You seem to be rather unfairly hectoring him as if he represents all these other Christians. Save your rage for the next two-bit fundy who comes along really hailing D'Souza as the answer to atheism!
John,
I think Christian and the Christians here have confirmed for me that religion is really just a control belief based on an appeal to emotion (rooted in rhetoric and presentation). It makes perfect sense to me that they would celebrate Dinesh "victory" (while claiming he didn't have any good arguments). It is the same thing I used to do every week in church after a good worship set or stirring altar call.
The sad thing is that it took repeated questioning for them to come clean and admit that D'Souza had no argument to answer the question yet, can't see how that behavior contradicts their theology of the Holy Spirit.
I am so glad I don't need to twist myself into the kind of intellectual puzzles I see people like Christian doing.
They don't really take to the biblical professions of, "let your yes be a yes," or, "give a reason for your faith."
They do like a good show though, don't they?
Dave you said,
"Save your rage for the next two-bit fundy who comes along really hailing D'Souza as the answer to atheism!"
How do you know I am angry? Did the Holy Spirit tell you?
I'm not angry and I don't think it's hectoring to be persistent in wanting your question answered.
No answer was given by Christian, you or others who were claiming Dinesh won.
Did you forget what the debate question was? If not, then how can you be proud of a fellow Christian who looks to prove the living reality of your creator simply by flinging rhetoric and presentation?
I'd expect the person of the Holy Spirit to be pretty upset with Dinesh if D'Souza did what you say he did yet, that person (who lives inside you) has kept quiet on this board for weeks.
Either the Holy Spirit doesn't care about honest arguments in defense of his reality or, he doesn't exist or, maybe you guys just aren't one of the elect?
Christian you said,
"John seems to confuse, like you, Dinesh winning the debate with people claiming he had better arguments."
I am not confused with your premise. I am confused that Christians and the person of the Holy Spirit would allow for dissembling (e.g. Presentation and Rhetoric) on such an important question to the Christian God's reality.
If you believe Dinesh did what you say he did then I'd expect both you and the person of god that lives inside of you to be infuriated with Dinesh.
Neither you nor the Holy Spirit seemed all that upset.
Also, why didn't the Holy Spirit give D'Souza a fail-safe answer to that question? Doesn't God want to reconcile all of his children to Him? Wouldn't the debate topic and the attention it garnered offer a great opportunity to reconcile some souls to Christ?
Why did the Holy Spirit just rest on performance when he cold have provided a timeless argument?
Chuck, I'm not a theist, I don't care about being one of the elect, and I make no claims to being indwelt by or having revelation from any spirit, holy or otherwise. I'm not "proud" of D'Souza, and he is not my "fellow Christian."
Can you explain how this is a possibly a rational conversation when with no evidence whatsoever you make ALL of the above assumptions in your response to me?
My "rage" comment was tongue-in-cheek. I meant basically that you should stop arguing with people who have made none of the claims you suppose.
Dave you said,
"My 'rage' comment was tongue-in-cheek. I meant basically that you should stop arguing with people who have made none of the claims you suppose."
Are you familiar with Christian theology, specifically the exceptional insight provided by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit for the Christian God's elect?
If this theology is true it boggles my mind why Christians would applaud Dinesh's performance and claim victory.
I also wonder why god didn't provide Dinesh a fail-safe answer to the question debated.
I mean, the Christians commenting here have only said Dinesh won either by rhetoric or, dishonestly casting John's quesions. Both seem inconsistent with the truth they claim in-dwells them.
Do you understand Dave?
Oh and Dave,
As long as you are going to keep your profile anonymous I will remain skeptical to your assertion that you are not a theist.
Thanks.
Chuck, my name is David L Rattigan, and I'm a former fundamentalist and former theist.
My Blogger profile is disabled because it is a mish-mash of about a dozen unrelated blogs (mostly inactive), and I don't think Blogger has a way to customize it. Ordinarily, I'd just manually enter my name and url, but that option is disabled on John's blog. But feel free to check out my blog. Here is just one post relevant to the question of whether I'm a theist.
Going back to this Holy Spirit thing, if CJR4 were claiming that D'Souza's performance in the debate validated theism (ie Debate win = God exists), then I'd agree with you. I don't see CJR4 as saying that. He's saying (along with lots of atheists) that D'Souza's arguments were lousy, but he won the debate on his performance. I don't see where he says that makes D'Souza's claims true.
Dave you said,
"He's saying (along with lots of atheists) that D'Souza's arguments were lousy, but he won the debate on his performance."
Which of course calls into question why the inner witness did not admonish Dinesh and why theists would even dare identify with him.
I of course don't think there is such a thing as a holy spirit or a Triune god and my point is that the willigness to accept Dinesh's victory on such an important question as Christ's reality based on superficiality indicates they don't either.
Profile updated and made public just for you, Chuck. ;)
Dave,
Interesting blog but, as you say, you are a Christian and thus have a vested interest in protecting the superstitions of Christianity. You even go further than that by comparing religion to art or nature. Do Mozart lovers use his music as an unquestioned premise to force public policy relative to due process? Does a scenic photographer use the reality of the Sun as an immutable premise to block necessary medical technology like embryonic stem-cell research? I see you are a Canadian citizen (congrats on the gold in hockey) so you might not feel the same type of tension I do when religion in the public square is presented as benign. I see it far more malevolent than classical music or pastoral horizons. If you choose to enjoy religion fine but just realize that your defense of it enables others to use the same beliefs that you see as aesthetic comfot as cultural weapons.
I'm a Christian of sorts, I guess, but rarely use that label.
I have no vested interest in protecting superstitions. I explicitly disavow superstition, in fact, and I am outspoken in supporting the arguments against theism. As for enabling others to force their religion on others, I have been writing publicly for five years against that very thing.
Dave,
These are your words from your blog, "I'm a Christian. I've been a confirmed Anglican since 2003. I'm a regular churchgoer and continue to be involved in all kinds of areas of parish life."
So which is it?
Chuck, your a perfect example of a fundamentalist atheist. Instead of seeing the agreement and compromise I made toward atheists here, you instead still continue in your pointless rant against me.
Did I ever say I was celebrating Dinesh' victory? Did I? No, I didn't. In fact I found myself tuning out when I heard his recent radio interview on the debate that John posted. He was claiming that his victory was due to arguments as if he proved Christianity was rational which is what I've been arguing against here all along. The victory was due to superior presentation and I think most people, if they think about it, would recognize that.
"If you believe Dinesh did what you say he did then I'd expect both you and the person of god that lives inside of you to be infuriated with Dinesh.
Neither you nor the Holy Spirit seemed all that upset."
You're incredible. After all the statements I made about Dinesh not winning on arguments, his arguments not being substantial, or impressive, and being weak, your going to seriously go down that track? I honestly don't know I could have made it MORE OBVIOUS that I wasn't happy with Dinesh, certainly not "celebrating" as you said. And how would you know what the Holy Spirit is thinking anyway? Finally, it's a debate man. Your acting as if Dinesh murdered someone and expecting me to like run around calling for his head. While I'm not happy with how he addressed the arguments, I'm not going to hold this bitter anger at him either (which isn't Christian like anyway).
"The sad thing is that it took repeated questioning for them to come clean and admit that D'Souza had no argument"
Once again, you're incredible. I admitted in my first post here that he had no good arguments. I said that even before you went about questioning me pointless trivial things. Now you know why I questioned you on your reading/comprehension ability. You again gloss over points made and in other places just make up a bunch of things about what I'm doing (ie. celebrating D'Souza's victory, or falsely conjuring up this delusional "questioning" of me in order to finally admit D'Souza had no argument).
"I think Christian and the "Christians here have confirmed for me that religion is really just a control belief based on an appeal to emotion"
And there we have it. That is almost a perfect description of yourself. You're so caught up emotionally in your own beliefs that you will even go after and nitpick with people who side toward your position in this regard, all because I'm a Christian presumably. Dave is right! You need to save your energy for the fundamentalist Christian who comes by here. Then again, given that you are a fundamentalist yourself, it's hardly likely you'll do that.
Ironically, I wrote those words at the time I ceased being a regular churchgoer.
I am an Anglican. That's just a fact, as I was confirmed in 2003.
As for being a Christian, I really don't know. (Not even sure I much care.) You can make up your own mind. In the same blog article, I explicitly affirm the arguments for atheism - so if I am a Christian in any sense of the word, one thing I am not is a theist.
Christian,
The fundamentalist Christian is not the one I worry about. It is the moderate Christian like you who keep alive the appeals to authority within the Christian superstition and thereby enable political forces to oppose due process (gay marriage) and useful science (embryonic stem cell research). I'm sorry you feel the way you do but, your insults towards me don't negate the fact that you claim a revealed truth that failed to honestly assess Dinesh's performance.
Yes you said, ". . . neither side seemed to make any real substantive points . . ." but you followed that up with this endorsement of D'Souza, " . . .any points made were made better by Dinesh, since he again, articulated them much more strongly than did Loftus."
How does one exactly articulate a point you concede as a non-point and, how does one in-dwelt with the Holy Spirit (as all Christians claim to be) argue the efficacy of this non-strategy?
Okay, Okay. There is agreement that Dinesh's arguments were not good ones. I think Chuck made his point. And Dinesh did win on delivery, if that's much to brag about.
Oh and yes, I am a "fundamental atheist". I take that to mean you believe that I fundamentally reject the notion of all gods. A fundamental Christian has a different meaning altogether. It has something to do with Biblical Inerrancy.
Moving on.
Thanks John.
Be well.
Loftus said:
"Okay, Okay. There is agreement that Dinesh's arguments were not good ones. I think Chuck made his point. And Dinesh did win on delivery, if that's much to brag about."
Chuck made that point? To be honest, in the last 2 hours I feel like I was the only one making that point OVER AND OVER again, but whatever.
Chuck said:
"Oh and yes, I am a "fundamental atheist". I take that to mean you believe that I fundamentally reject the notion of all gods"
No. I take that to mean that you are so dogmatic in your beliefs that you refuse to compromise at all costs intellectually with other views, even if they have good arguments. That's how I see you. My point about Dinesh not winning the argument is a perfect example of that. Instead of taking that honest compromise (which you know it is one) and accepting it, you instead rant on about how I'm persuaded by rhetoric and how I'm celebrating D'Souza's victory etc. In other words, you used it as a ground to launch further unnecessary attacks on me. That's what fundamentalists do. They take compromises of the other position and either use it against them or else you it to build up their own position.
Anyways, there is one thing I should clear up.
You said:
"Yes you said, ". . . neither side seemed to make any real substantive points . . ." but you followed that up with this endorsement of D'Souza, " . . .any points made were made better by Dinesh, since he again, articulated them much more strongly than did Loftus.""
I meant that in the rhetorical fashion. That is, since Dinesh was better at articulating his arguments (despite the fact that he didn't have hardly any to begin with), they came across as stronger. That is, they had the effect of appearing stronger, but not that I think they actually were. I'll apologize here since I can see how one might of been legitimately confused by my language.
Christian you said,
"I'll apologize here since I can see how one might of been legitimately confused by my language."
I hope this doesn't mean you no longer see me as a "fundamental Atheist". Because I kind of like that distinction and consider it an honor.
There is no compromise to be made with religion in America today. We just lived through a presidency where the Commander in Chief thought it good foreign policy to invade a sovreign country due to the guidance of a "higher father". We are living within a time in history where religious belief is over-reaching and its hubris is dangerous.
Look man, I was once an Evangelical Christian and my wife still attends an Evangelical Church. If I am not going to compromise with the woman I love on these issues, I'm not going to compromise with you. She has respect for my opinion and sees that my opposition to the superstition of the Holy Spirit has merit.
"I hope this doesn't mean you no longer see me as a "fundamental Atheist". Because I kind of like that distinction and consider it an honor."
If your wife is an evangelical Christian then it's extremely difficult to see how you could be a fundamentalist atheist. Let me take another shot at the definition. People tend to have different understandings of these terms. When I think of fundamentalism, specifically North American fundamentalism, but not strictly Biblical inerrancy or Islamic extremism (which usually leads to violence) I see it as a dogmatic unwavering position which is not amenable to reason and argument. It's like young Earth creationists. No matter how good the evidence for an old Earth and evolution is, they still won't believe. In addition, such people are often very verbally aggressive against other positions, so much so that if you try to have a rational conversation with them, all they'll be interested in is "defeating" you and tearing you down. They're not interested in having an honest discussion about important ideas and therefore will concede nothing, since such a concession in their minds means an admission of weakness in their beliefs. I characterize those traits as fundamentalism, which I don't think any searcher after truth would want to have. In my mind it very much has to do with the attitudes people take in approaching such beliefs.
In opposition to that mentality, are things like being open to new ideas, recognizing ones own limitations in knowledge, and having the courage to admit the merits of an opposing argument or point of view when it truly has some, however difficult it may be to do so. That's intellectual humility, in striking contrast to the unwavering beliefs of fundamentalists.
Notice carefully that I'm not equating fundamentalism to being passionate about ones beliefs. You can be passionate about a view and still be open to differing ideas. It's again about the attitude one takes in approaching these important ideas and discussions.
Hopefully, you're not THAT kind of fundamentalist, and to be honest I don't think anyone would truly want to be. But some people are, even if they don't recognize it.
When it comes to religious claims I would have to tentatively say that I am that kind of fundamentalist.
My wife and I got into it last night over the efficacy of prayer.
I had to apologize for my passion.
I think the world would be a safer and better place if people's need to validate their supernaturalism (e.g. Religion, theology) would just go away.
I don't think it will but, I also don't think an appeal to supernaturalism (e.g. theology or religion) is informative in the way empiricism (e.g YEC vs. carbon dating) is.
This is due to the fact that supernatural claims are extraordinary and demand extraordinary evidence which supernaturalists never supply.
One can share their experience with what they perceive as transcendent but when they start making authority claims based on personally revealed invisible worlds, I cry "bunk!"
And my wife thinks I'm charming and funny so that might insulate her from my "fundamentalism"
Well I think it's unfortunate if you're that kind of fundamentalist. You should be open to the possibility that if evidence some how proves the supernatural, you would consider it.
I find it bizarre that people can be so extreme in one position (ie. Christianity) only to leave it for another extreme position (ie. Fundamentalist atheism).
As for the world being a better place without religion, I don't think so. The evils and pitfalls of humankind, when taken in total (and not just considering major religious evils like September 11) probably have more to do with human nature than it does with religion.
Christian
Calvinist Christianity drove me to the brink of suicide.
Science, particularly medical science, saved my ass.
Show me your supernatural evidence and I will reconsider my position.
Do you have the evidence to share because I don't deal in hypotheticals any more? If not you can take your strawmen and go home.
"Calvinist Christianity drove me to the brink of suicide."
So adopt a another version of Christianity. I don't agree with Cavlinism either but that doesn't mean I throw out everything they hold to.
"Science, particularly medical science, saved my ass."
And if they hadn't saved your ass then what? Obviously medical science must be untrue then. What's your point? Unless this medical science was inherently atheistic I fail to see how it's relevant to the truth of theism.
"Show me your supernatural evidence and I will reconsider my position."
I doubt that! But in any case it doesn't work that way. You don't win by default and here I'm sure Loftus would agree with me. You have to provide arguments that theism is untrue in order to conclude it's not true. It's not enough to just conclude theism is false simply on an absence of evidence that you require.
"Do you have the evidence to share because I don't deal in hypotheticals any more? If not you can take your strawmen and go home."
Yes I do, particularly the cosmological argument, teleological argument, the argument from reason, also the moral argument. There's my evidence for starters. What's wrong with those?
Now do you have evidence to share for your position? If not, then you should be consistent and take your own strawman and go home (hopefully you don't talk to your wife that way).
Christian,
"So adopt a another version of Christianity. I don't agree with Cavlinism either but that doesn't mean I throw out everything they hold to."
First, why?
Second, reason with me how Romans (the centerpiece of Christian theology) DOESN'T support Calvinist Christianity.
Calvinist Christianity seems the most plausible theology if a Christian wishes to remain internally logical and, it also seems both cruel and evil.
So, I choose no god but, maintain my inherent ethics and morality.
Having an imaginary "relationship" with a character in a book does not seem mature or sane.
Christian you said,
"Yes I do, particularly the cosmological argument, teleological argument, the argument from reason, also the moral argument. There's my evidence for starters. What's wrong with those?
Well, none of those would be defined as "evidence" as in a data set to be independently analyzed.
You also asked, "Now do you have evidence to share for your position?"
Yes, The Book of Romans and the History of Christianity in both Europe and the American South during the 1850's, specifically the biblical justification Southern slave-holders used to oppose abolition.
Next.
Wow John,
The genetic fallacy? Really?
Terrible first move and down hill from there.
Wow Tim, you don't understand what the genetic fallacy is and you never posted an argument of D'Souza's. LOL. If you are going to try and shame someone then you should get your facts straight and stay on point.
Post a Comment