Dinesh D'Sousa is the man to beat *reconstruction*

AdamTM
AdamTM's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Dinesh D'Sousa is the man to beat *reconstruction*

Paul RobinsonPaul Robinson's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-11-07

I have seen some of the televised debates captured on Youtube, including the one with Hutchens vs. D'Sousa, and while some of you may disagree, Dinesh D'Sousa is a worthy competitor and an outstanding mind as far as debating the issues of belief. And I do believe that he is probably one of, if not the best, of, what I guess is the term "Christian Apologetics" although I know that's not the right term.

And frankly, he's the one your side has to be able to out-argue. He's damned good at what he does.

Now, maybe the debates are simply being done as intellectual exercises and no one is really trying to offer convincing arguments against the other side. But if the intent is to try and make a point and perhaps show where his side has errors, then I think more work needs to be done.

I have watched at least two debates I've seen on YouTube, one involving Hutchens and the other with I think was some professor at Yale. And I do believe that D'Sousa is one of the few people who does have the capability to seriously argue against atheism in a way that is going to be more likely to make the argument against it. He's very good, but what surprises me is the number of times the people debating him do not clearly call him on some of his misstatements, or why they're afraid to follow the arguments in such a way as to deny him a standing to argue against some of the points on the side which opposes the idea of God.

I mean, I saw some places where there were points that the people arguing could have made, that they either didn't make the point or failed to make the attempt to do so. Now, granted that in some cases the people making at least one of these debates could not see the other because it occurred after theirs, people debating this man should be reading what he's written, as well as watching any of the debates he has made to know what his general style is and what his usual M.O. is with respect to how he answers questions or frames the debate.

If anyone here has connections with any of the seriously important people in the Atheist community, or who might be debating him in the future, I'd like you to pass my suggestions on to them. Because I think that honest dialog is important and ensuring that the issues be raised properly is the only way to make sure that these types of debates come down fairly and without allowing him to get away with leaving questions unanswered. Which I note that sometimes he's been asked questions in which he doesn't completely answer them or gives an answer that isn't the same as the question that was asked.

One of D'Sousa's favorite debating tricks is to use a mixed metaphor, in which he asks someone to consider something that does exist, and then ask if we can understand the attributes of it at a future time, e.g. if you've been dating a woman for several years, can you know what it's going to be like if you marry her?

Obviously you can't. However - this is what should have been pointed out - you're not being asked to marry someone you have never seen, have never heard and don't know anything about (and won't have sex with, either!) Which is the general characteristics which are applicable to God.

Another thing that comes up is the misconduct, including killing and such that occured with such leaders as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and some of the others (Pol Pot?), and allowing it to be claimed that they were atheist in nature. Well, the point is, I don't know whether I'm just smarter than these people who were debating were, (or maybe I'm completely wrong and I don't get it), but I don't understand why they allowed these people to be classed as atheist or at best claimed they were only quasi-religious in nature. They weren't. They either claimed that they themselves were God, or claimed the state was, in some way claiming it or themselves as being of a supernatural state which was of a higher power than the ordinary person. Whether that was the leader himself, or the State, or that they worshipped a "Super Man" an Ideal Man. In short, a form of worship and thus they were not quasi-religions, they were actual religions.

In the book I am writing, I have the following item: When Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met with Joseph Stalin - one of those so-called ‘people' whom we can put on our ‘double-plus ungood list' - at the Yalta Conference, where they decided how to divide up the world after the war, someone asked Stalin how he knew that he was destined to become ruler of the Soviet Union. He said that God came to him in a vision and told him that it was to be so. FDR turned to him and said, "Now wait a minute, Joe, I never said any such thing." I think that it's pretty hard to expect someone who believes he was divinely inspired to be ruler, and ended up having over 20 million people murdered in mass collective farming schemes<sup>[1]</sup>, to believe that he was a bad man who deserves to be punished.

The crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all of them were based on an allegiance to and a demand of worship to a supernatural power above ordinary persons, and that makes their actions religious action, not atheistic action. These are all actions based on allegiance to a higher power and therefore to a religion, not to actions based on the absence of a religion.

Let's not forget North Korea, the official head of state is a ghost, the late father of the current head of the Communist Party (and de-facto head of the country) . If swearing loyalty to a dead person isn't a religion I do not know what else qualifies.

Which brings me to what I believe is another error that both D'Sousa on the theist side and the people on the atheist side both are making. This is one that, because both sides are making it, is a subtle and innocent error. They are both claiming that religions (and Dinesh speaks of atheism) need to accept responsibility for the crimes committed in their name. Which would be true if we were holding religions and atheism to the standard of Original Sin, a Christian concept. I am not responsible for the crimes committed by those who colonized the west and murdered the American Indians, or slaughtered them in the Trail of Tears. Germans born after World War II are not personally responsible for the Holocaust. Japanese born after World War II are not responsible for the Rape of Nanking.

I am not responsible for the bombing of Iraq (I have no control over the government) or the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (I did not exist at the time). It may be arguable that I may have to accept responsibility in the sense of being a citizen of the country that did this and where I personally have not repudiated the actions of the government that has done these things. But I am not personally responsible for the actions of my country.

The general Muslim community are not individually responsible for the actions of September 11, 2001. Nor is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Nor was the Government of Iraq. The only way you can assign responsibility is either that they acted under the authority or with the support of these organizations, or you use some form of the Christian concept of Original Sin in which one person's crimes can be assigned to their relatives, descendants, or neighbors.

The Government of Libya as an organization, as well as the men who planted the bombs and Mr. Gaddafi are personally responsible for the bombing causing the airplane crash in Lockerbie, Scotland; the general population of Libya is not.

It may be reasonable to argue the Catholic Church as an organization is responsible for the actions committed on behalf of its management (the Inquisition, Torquemada, Galileo's house arrest, etc.); it is definitely unreasonable to claim Catholics in general are responsible for actions that occurred before they were born. It may be arguable that people who remain as part of an organization that acts in ways they disagree with are equally culpable for those acts if they fail to repudiate them, but I think that's still a stretch.

By claiming to assign blame to a group for actions of individuals is, in effect, allowing to use the Christian concept of Original Sin to corrupt one's thinking. Especially if we are assigning to people who were not alive at that time, or had no connection to or control over the events, guilt or blame for these actions. And I believe that it is not a good idea.

Another one is he points to the religious communities championing the causes of equality of people and specifically to the abolition of slavery as Christian values. It should be pointed out that to the extent these values came from Christian communities, they came in direct contravention to the word of God which condoned and supported slavery. Thus if these were values from Christian communities, they were in spite of Christianity, not in compliance to it. (And I'm sure people here are better at scripture than I am and will know the specific sections where the bible explicitly condones, supports and champions the operation of slavery.)

There are possibly other issues I may think of later on, but I do believe that these are a good place to start.

Because D'Sousa is such a great debater, he is the one that your side has to beat because, it's like living in New York; if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. If you can take him down and defeat his arguments, he's the best there is on arguing their side and anyone else will be child's play by comparison.

Paul Robinson - http://paul-robinson.us (My Blog)

General Manager, Viridian Development Corporation

Sterling, VA

[1] From the preface: An editorial "An Overdue Memorial" in the June 23, 2007 Wall Street Journal says that "The middle estimate of Stalin's victims is 40 million."
‹ History of the New Testament? Atheism vs. Agnosticism ›
Bookmark/Search this post with:
delicious | digg | reddit | magnoliacom | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo

"Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Submitted by Paul Robinson on December 19, 2007 - 4:13pm. login or register to post comments

Later, AdamTM
- I'm the guy that gets called when the other guy is not around-
- I didnt feel the love! ...Wait...was that something? ...no, no its gone -
TWATWAFFLE FOREVER


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 The whole point of evil

 The whole point of evil atheist leaders is moot.  The point atheists are trying to make is people kill in the name of religion.  They kill because God told them that they're the chosen ones, or that the others are damned (e.i. jews vs muslims, crusaders vs muslims, etc.).  Even if Stalin, Hitler and every other atheistic portrayed leader was a true 100% atheist, they didn't kill in the name of atheism, whatever that even means, they killed because of political/economical and religious reasons, even if they weren't believers themselves.  This is such a painfully obvious point as to be ridiculous.  I'm not sure why it's not being used as a counter argument to that idiocy more often.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Maybe D'Sousa is just the

Maybe D'Sousa is just the best dress they can put on their pig(theism). Anyone that has studied the issue can quickly see that all his arguments fall under the same old tired arguments: ontological argument, the god of gaps, that morality exists, pascal's wager, etc... All of which are throughly repudiated by logical reasoning. So explain to us why you give him any credit other than style points.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Theists with IQ's annoy gnu atheists.

Mr D'Sousa isnt just a good speaker.

Christopher Hitchens wouldnt debate him if he was an idiot. 

 

"the difficulties of the anti-theists begin when they try to engage with anyone who does not agree with them, when their reaction is often a frustrated rage that the rest of us are so stupid. But what if that is not the problem? Their refusal to accept that others might be as intelligent as they, yet disagree, leads them into many snares.
"The Rage Against God" - Peter Hitchens

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Mr D'Sousa

Lion IRC wrote:

Mr D'Sousa isnt just a good speaker.

Christopher Hitchens wouldnt debate him if he was an idiot. 

 

"the difficulties of the anti-theists begin when they try to engage with anyone who does not agree with them, when their reaction is often a frustrated rage that the rest of us are so stupid. But what if that is not the problem? Their refusal to accept that others might be as intelligent as they, yet disagree, leads them into many snares.
"The Rage Against God" - Peter Hitchens

 

 

Hitchens debates theists because the lie that you need an invisible friend to live life needs to be combated. Just like humanity needed to know that the sun did not rotate around the earth.

Wrapping an empty box up in pretty paper and a pretty bow doesn't make the argument good. Hitchens is merely exposing the box as empty.

And invoking Peter Hitchens does not negate anything.

Thoughts require a material process, thus making all deity claims absurd. You can call that diety Allah, Vishnu or Plarkitymook, and it still amounts to a non material magical super brain.

D'Sousa is simply one believer among billions with all sorts of pet god/s. Big whoopty doo.

There never was a Thor, the sun was never a god. Volcanos were never gods, and your pet deity is just as made up in human history as any other. You WANT a super hero and refuse to consider that your super hero claim is merely wishful thinking.

Try understanding WHY you reject all other claims besides your own. The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more pet deity than you do. Understand that and you will understand why we reject yours as well.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh please. D'Sousa is as

Oh please. D'Sousa is as stupid as Comfort. I'd wipe the floor with him.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Oh please.

Vastet wrote:
Oh please. D'Sousa is as stupid as Comfort. I'd wipe the floor with him.

But if they were not ornate in their packaging they couldn't sell to the credulous who buy what they sell. Someone can be really really good at selling crap, just ask the Chinese. It does take smarts to sell. It certainly doesn't take introspection, but whatever you sell, if you want to sell it, you have to be smart at marketing. It doesn't mean that what you are selling is good, it just means you are good at marketing.

I agree that his arguments are bad. But if he sucked at selling his crap he wouldn't be selling his books. If the music industry can sell Britney Spears religion can certainly sell Jesus.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Pfft. Most of his victories

Pfft. Most of his victories were on tv against scientists who'd never encountered theist logic before. Any theist would have done as well.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Oh please.

Vastet wrote:
Oh please. D'Sousa is as stupid as Comfort. I'd wipe the floor with him.

I totally agree.

I believe that I would wipe the floor with him as well.

I tell you what I would like to see. D'Sousa vs Bob Spence.  D'Sousa would REALLY look stupid after that one.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
The only difference between you and I...? YOU WISH.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

Mr D'Sousa isnt just a good speaker.

Christopher Hitchens wouldnt debate him if he was an idiot. 

 

"the difficulties of the anti-theists begin when they try to engage with anyone who does not agree with them, when their reaction is often a frustrated rage that the rest of us are so stupid. But what if that is not the problem? Their refusal to accept that others might be as intelligent as they, yet disagree, leads them into many snares.
"The Rage Against God" - Peter Hitchens

 

 

Hitchens debates theists because the lie that you need an invisible friend to live life needs to be combated. Just like humanity needed to know that the sun did not rotate around the earth.

Wrapping an empty box up in pretty paper and a pretty bow doesn't make the argument good. Hitchens is merely exposing the box as empty.

And invoking Peter Hitchens does not negate anything.

Thoughts require a material process, thus making all deity claims absurd. You can call that diety Allah, Vishnu or Plarkitymook, and it still amounts to a non material magical super brain.

D'Sousa is simply one believer among billions with all sorts of pet god/s. Big whoopty doo.

There never was a Thor, the sun was never a god. Volcanos were never gods, and your pet deity is just as made up in human history as any other. You WANT a super hero and refuse to consider that your super hero claim is merely wishful thinking.

Try understanding WHY you reject all other claims besides your own. The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more pet deity than you do. Understand that and you will understand why we reject yours as well.

What on earth makes you think my attitude to the claims of other (non-Christian) theists is exactly the same as yours?

I am not an atheist or disbeliever in respect to the Being muslims refer to as Allah and the One Whom Jews refer to as

אֲדֹנָי 

I know Who they are talking about.

 

When pantheists and deists and polytheists make reference to divinity, they are making QUALITATIVE claims. Funny that atheists expect theists to debunk other theists. In order for atheism to be 100% true, you need to debunk EVERY form of theism Brian37, not just point out the bleeding obvious that billions of theists dont all have an identical idea of divinity. In order for atheism to be falsified, only one single theist needs to be partially right about their imperfect perception of God.

 

 

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:When

Lion IRC wrote:

When pantheists and deists and polytheists make reference to divinity, they are making QUALITATIVE claims. Funny that atheists expect theists to debunk other theists. In order for atheism to be 100% true, you need to debunk EVERY form of theism Brian37, not just point out the bleeding obvious that billions of theists dont all have an identical idea of divinity. In order for atheism to be falsified, only one single theist needs to be partially right about their imperfect perception of God. 

Actually I'll make this simpler still, in order for naturalism to be falsified, ONLY one tiny shred of supernatural evidence is required.  Once you have have accomplished that, atheism/relativism/empiricism will all fall like a domino.  

It really is that simple... wait... it is that simple... I mean, there isn't ONE TINY SHRED of supernatural evidence for ANYTHING... kind of makes you think doesn't it?

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote: Brian37

Lion IRC wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

Mr D'Sousa isnt just a good speaker.

Christopher Hitchens wouldnt debate him if he was an idiot. 

 

"the difficulties of the anti-theists begin when they try to engage with anyone who does not agree with them, when their reaction is often a frustrated rage that the rest of us are so stupid. But what if that is not the problem? Their refusal to accept that others might be as intelligent as they, yet disagree, leads them into many snares.
"The Rage Against God" - Peter Hitchens

 

 

Hitchens debates theists because the lie that you need an invisible friend to live life needs to be combated. Just like humanity needed to know that the sun did not rotate around the earth.

Wrapping an empty box up in pretty paper and a pretty bow doesn't make the argument good. Hitchens is merely exposing the box as empty.

And invoking Peter Hitchens does not negate anything.

Thoughts require a material process, thus making all deity claims absurd. You can call that diety Allah, Vishnu or Plarkitymook, and it still amounts to a non material magical super brain.

D'Sousa is simply one believer among billions with all sorts of pet god/s. Big whoopty doo.

There never was a Thor, the sun was never a god. Volcanos were never gods, and your pet deity is just as made up in human history as any other. You WANT a super hero and refuse to consider that your super hero claim is merely wishful thinking.

Try understanding WHY you reject all other claims besides your own. The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more pet deity than you do. Understand that and you will understand why we reject yours as well.

What on earth makes you think my attitude to the claims of other (non-Christian) theists is exactly the same as yours?

I am not an atheist or disbeliever in respect to the Being muslims refer to as Allah and the One Whom Jews refer to as

אֲדֹנָי 

I know Who they are talking about.

 

When pantheists and deists and polytheists make reference to divinity, they are making QUALITATIVE claims. Funny that atheists expect theists to debunk other theists. In order for atheism to be 100% true, you need to debunk EVERY form of theism Brian37, not just point out the bleeding obvious that billions of theists dont all have an identical idea of divinity. In order for atheism to be falsified, only one single theist needs to be partially right about their imperfect perception of God.

 

 

 

Hello McFly! No one is claiming you worship the same god as pantheists or polythiests. BUT you are in the same boat because all that crap requires to swallow a naked assertion and then dream up ways to defend that crap.

You assume that believers of non Abraham woo don't believe or are not capable of believing as passionately as you believe in your god. The outsider is always the one who got it wrong,

WHAT no claimant of any deity, yours or any in human history, past or present, monotheist or polytheist, is evidence of their pet deities.

You have ZIP ZILCH ZERO evidence for your deity, Hindus, Muslims and the ancient Greeks and the and ancient Egyptians, along with pantheists today, ALL IN THE SAME BOAT. No independently testable, repeatable, falsifiable, evidence. A history of making claims doesn't make something true. A history of popularity does not make something true. Wanting something to be true does not make something true.

There was no virgin birth and human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. So if you believe that crap, you might as well believe Mr Happy downstairs produces ice cream. If you swallow invisible friends with multiple arms or one with no location or material, you might as well claim you can fart a Lamborghini out of your ass.

You have NOTHING. You have nothing but a work of fiction you desperately wish was true because that crutch is so emotionally appealing to you you don't want to let go of it. It is all in your head, just like it is with Hindus and pantheists. All in your head, nothing more. You are not special because of the pet deity you claim. And your pet deity claim is not special either.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FOR THE LAST TIME! PLEASE GO

FOR THE LAST TIME! PLEASE GO LOOK UP BENTRAND RUSSELL'S TEAPOT

You still lack the understanding of burden of proof. It is NOT my job to do your homework. I reject those those gods and yours as well because I have done my homework.

Things are not true by default just because someone has the ability to string letters together.

"Snarfwigdits are real" Now tell me why that statement is not true. By your standard it should be true by default because you cant prove snarfwidgets are not real.

The reality is that even outside the issue of religion, YOU reject lots of things without "disproving" them because there are simply some things so absurd they cannot be taken seriously.  Otherwise it would be up to you to disprove "Snarfwidgits'.

If Allah was true simply because someone said "Allah is real", then tell me why you are not a Muslim.

All DEITY claims in polytheism and monotheism are absurd because they are claims about "entities" that think that do not have the biological structure of humans. No matter who is claiming them they are merely the reflection of the infant's desire to have a parent protect them. It is merely projecting human qualities on the world around them. YOU are no different just because of the pet claim you have.

I cannot take your pet deity seriously anymore than I can take Vishnu seriously. Thoughts require a material process. No form of woo explains the natural evolution that has lead to the evolution of humans and their cognition. No deity past or present is needed to explain anything. Not yours not any. You think you have something real, but the only thing that is real about it is that it is really made up and you really fell for it. Don't blame me for your own gullibility.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37