Comments on: Part 1 – Dinesh D’Souza Debates Peter Singer

By: rolyan3

rolyan3 — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:28 +0000

Two minutes and …
Two minutes and thirty seconds in, Dinesh has opted for attacking Singer personally. Before making any points regarding the subject whatsoever.

By: TrophyBass12

TrophyBass12 — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:27 +0000

He is objectively …
He is objectively stating Singer’s beliefs. If this is an attack, what does that say of Singer’s beliefs?

I’m not saying that his beliefs on morality (abortion, for example) are incorrect. I’m simply saying that you are accidentally revealing your feelings that his beliefs are cruel.

By: rolyan3

rolyan3 — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:26 +0000

I phrased my …
I phrased my statement poorly, or at least failed to clarify. I’m only disturbed by the fact that Dinesh is bringing some of Singer’s other views into the conversation, views that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, brought into the discussion without context, and used primarily to set the audience against singer. It doesn’t matter to me what Singer thinks on those issues during a debate of God’s existence, and the fact that Dinesh used a large portion of his opener stating them is wrong.

By: TrophyBass12

TrophyBass12 — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:26 +0000

I would agree with …
I would agree with D’Souza in his belief that Singer has simply followed the natural implications of atheism. In fact, I don’t think Singer has followed them enough. Singer still believes in morality; how can we have objective morals if there is nothing beyond the material world? Otherwise our assumption that morality exists is based on the premise that since we feel it, it must exist, when in reality, evolution would be purely responsible for our consciences.

By: drumrnva

drumrnva — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:25 +0000

“Compassion is a …
“Compassion is a value that came into the world because of Christianity.” ?? Whoa, nellie. I smell B.S.

By: TrophyBass12

TrophyBass12 — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:25 +0000

Agreed. Though I …
Agreed. Though I suppose that it is relevant in the sense that Singer’s views are based on the argument that God does not exist. But whether or not the moral implications of the nonexistence of God are scary or not has no effect on whether or not there is a god.

By: Dchellberg

Dchellberg — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:24 +0000

You forgot distort …
You forgot distort and lie.

By: ashutoshmikku

ashutoshmikku — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:23 +0000

Is this guy nuts? …
Is this guy nuts? Even a person with average intelligence can see that what he is saying is complete fabrication.

By: F1REbomb

F1REbomb — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:23 +0000

Not a believer at …
Not a believer at all. But Singer supports Bestrality, eugenics, and comapring Kentucky Fried Chicken to the Holocaust. The man is a lunatic.

By: mollkatles

mollkatles — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:22 +0000

@TrophyBass12 – how …
@TrophyBass12 – how do materialists explain the animation of life, by what material means do you or I reason, remember, worry about the future, love or hate?