Part 14 – Dinesh D’Souza/ Dan Barker Debate
http://www.tothesource.org 6yrs of free weekly emails.
tothesource has broadcasted over 300 weekly emails featuring informed opinion on current cultural issues. The articles address a variety of topics and the related moral and ethical issues they raise. Past tothesource articles are found on our archives page at http://www.tothesource.org/archives.php
Subscribe to tothesource free weekly emails at http://www.tothesource.org/subscribe.htm
Barker Debates Dinesh D’Souza, Christian and best-selling author, debates Dan Barker
Duration : 0:5:13
[youtube ngpbUfykl7I]
the moderators are …
the moderators are gay and can go die
Why are there so …
Why are there so many idiots at Harvard?
complete fail by …
complete fail by religion.. wow… believes in talking snakes.. cmon i expect better than that from speakers at harvard
Ya know, Dinesh …
Ya know, Dinesh wins this round. As he said at the very close of this segment “Skepticism all the way around.” He’s absolutely right about Dawkins, Dennett and the like smuggling in their prejudices under the banner of science. In truth they know no more than anyone else does – and go so far as to attack religious “authority” – while at the same time, as Dinesh pointed out, assuming the same canonic posture of being the sole disseminator of truth. It certainly beckons caution.
The difference …
The difference between “Evil” and “evil” is because “Evil”, in religious folks’ minds represents an absence of absolute morality handed down by god. “Lowercase evil” is Barker’s term to describe evil as a concept which is not handed down by anything absolute but instead the result of material interactions in the world and in the mind.
Christians often anthropomorphise “evil” into “Evil” and literally personify it with Satan. That is the difference. evil as concept vs Evil as absolutely God-given
What exactly is the …
What exactly is the difference between someone who is “evil” and someone who is “Evil”? Makes absolutely no sense AT ALL!
Lowercase morality? …
Lowercase morality? What an IDIOT!!
And whats this ” …
And whats this “LOWER CASE” Barker keeps refering to on morals lol.
lower case morals?? Good grief…
When Barker talks …
When Barker talks about this “motive to do no harm” it screams of a sixties “make love not war” mind numbing bullhockey LOL.
lol at Dinesh’s …
lol at Dinesh’s smear campaign
(con’t)
…
(con’t)
makes the believer’s argument a moot, unrealistic, unreliable, and dishonest one.
izbo, you make a …
izbo, you make a good point. Afterall, since fundies’ and the vast majority of believers’ core belief is in a “supernatural” concept they believe to be a deity and since such a thing can never be tested by any natural process nor can the alleged consequent actions of such a thing be reproduced nor verified in any way, shape, or form, then reason and logic must assert that there can be no evidence (scientific or otherwise) for the actual existence of that concept and
in order for that …
in order for that not to have been the case D’Sousa would have had to of had an argument.
Hands down, Dan …
Hands down, Dan Barker’s arguments are far, far, far more persuasive and well reasoned than D’Sousa’s.
Can anyone inform …
Can anyone inform me of precisely where D’Souza acquired his education and to what is the nature and status of his degree(s)?
Barker claimed that …
Barker claimed that Dinesh was misrepresenting atheists when he said that they claimed to have certain knowledge. He says atheists merely lack a belief in God. However, earlier in the debate he called this negative atheism, and referred to himself as a positive atheist. He explained this to mean that he possessed certain knowledge that not only is Christianity not true, but it cannot be true. So what kind of atheist is he, then?
Dan Barker is …
Dan Barker is always direct and to the point in his responses. Dinesh never directly answers. He feels the need to qualify and reshape the argument against him, and then uses very evasive methods to contest his invented strawman. Or he just babbles for a while and then acts like he’s given some enlightening nugget of genius to the audience.
D’Souza refuses to …
D’Souza refuses to provide direct responses to simple questions. He is exposed.
One can tell that …
One can tell that D’Souza is not used to debating in front of a “hostile” crowd.
No, I was saying …
No, I was saying that the idea of superior race is a value judgment that biology doesn’t make.
Paraphrase of what …
Paraphrase of what you are implying: Evolution does not believe in better races and species over time. Evolution is a mutation to weaker and less viable life forms.
Is that what you are saying?
Why don’t you say what you said again and then I’ll address it?
So? What does that …
So? What does that have to do with his alleged beliefs about evolution since biology has no beliefs in “superior” races to begin with? And why don’t you address what I said?
Hitler believed the …
Hitler believed the caucasian was the superior race through evolution and stated outloud that the Jap was the superior evolution of asian, but don’t think he would have remained warmed up to them as if he had suceeded in gaining control of Russia then he would not have trusted Japan to not attack him and thus would have attacked them as well.
He’s in th 99.997 …
He’s in th 99.997 percentile of intelligence. But since he doesn’t believe in the invisible baby killer, you resort to calling him a ” retard”. What a little prick!
Hitler believed in …
Hitler believed in evolution. Did you not know that Hitler was looking for the superior race through evolution?
No he believed in EUGENICS which isn’t “evolution”. He also believed that animals and humans were created by god into unalterable “kinds” that couldn’t change over time. Which is what Ken hamm believes as well!