Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
Two titans of the religious spectrum famed Atheist Christopher Hitchens and esteemed Catholic apologetic Dinesh D'Souza clash in public debate at the University of Notre Dame.
Is anyone else sick of D'Souza?
I sure am tired and tired of D'Souza! He's not a titan... he's like an annoying mosquito! And it's not only the annoyance factor, his mind seems about as big as one as well. Don't know why Hitchens bother.
That was suppose to be "sick and tired" of course...
It's a shame D'Souza isn't an atheist, he's an eloquent speaker; but he's got a quick tongue like a lawyer.
I hear you. I love me some Hitchens, but loathe D'Souza with such a passion that I can't stomach watching him.
That was my first thought, too. D'Souza's arguments are so tired, lame and tedious that he's unwatchable. And no, he's no titan.
As far as D'Souza who I barely know about his existence remind much of neo-muslim sheikhs where they think as religion and science are one. I noticed these people when they are cornered with hard Q they start to fumble with a rather lenghty meaningless speech drifting away from answering.
DD is more like a titmouse than a titan. It is embarrassing to watch him!
Shit! How did I not know about this? I totally could have gone!
I get really annoyed with d'souza shouting at me after about 3 seconds of it. He just dosent undestand anything
Yes, and his arrogance is as big as his understanding is lacking!
No. He is a buffoon.
Man alive, how many debates have D'souza and Hitchens had?!And he hasn't yet realised that there aren't any gods.
"Atheist regimes".... D'Souza! Please get the hell out of here and don't come back again! It was explanied to you MANY times that you are a stupid ignorant idiot! You should already know that these were "Mustache" regimes! Asshole! X-D
Ah, he just pulled out the hitler argument, yes D'souza is pathetic.
No way I will go through the torture of listening to D'souza
After listening to D'Souza for 10 minutes, I had to skip through.All his arguments about evolution were based on misconceptions, inept beginner misconceptions, such as that the first living being was magically a cell. There are many ideas on how the first cells came about (based on real world observations) and they are all much more likely than the existence of god. GRR
Surely you're joking, Mr ShowABCShow. Repeating the same old tired clichés does not make one an "eloquent speaker". An obtuse obscurantist is what he is.
Fuck N' A <span>D'Souza is such a doucher. What's with all his incredibly stupid analogies. Yea slam this douche hitchens. :) As soon as </span><span>D'Souza mentioned hitler and such, instant right wing nut job status. The nerve man, the nerve. It's amazing hitchens even bothered with this dude. </span>
I'm pretty much done with these debates unless someone like Hitchens is speaking.
<p><span><span>“Never one to be daunted by attempting the impossible, Dinesh D’Souza here shows again the argumentative skills that make him such a formidable opponent."</span></span></p><p><span><span>Christopher Hitchens, author of </span></span></p><p><span><span>God Is Not Great and </span></span></p><p><span><span>The Portable Atheist</span></span></p><p><span><span> </span></span></p><p><span><span>???</span></span></p><p><span><span> </span></span></p><p><span><span>Money makes the world go around...Go around..Go around...</span></span></p><p><span><span>This is their way of earning money... They've debated several times already. They know each other's arguments and, they go and book yet another debate and then, another one. They are BOTH not to be bothered by each other points of view. </span></span></p><p><span><span>"" Hey, guys…Just finish your talking, sign the receive slip and shove the fat cheque in your wallet. Done for today… ""</span></span></p><p><span><span><span> </span>Another day, another 1,2,3,5 (?) thousand dollars.</span></span></p><p><span><span> </span></span></p><p><span><span>One of them though, must be - either: Satanically dishonest or, plainly stupid on the subject of religion and that man is ( not a slightest doubt in my mind) - D'Souza !</span></span></p><p><span><span>And, yet…Hitchens is accepting these rules of engagement because of the money (I guess?)</span></span></p><p><span><span>Prof. Dawkins refused to debate those kinds of deluded, religious theologians ( Dr. W.L. Craig or, D'Souza) preferring to debate the bishops rather and cardinals or, simply interview the others on a 'Q&A' basis.</span></span></p><p><span><span>It's a very frustrating to even listen to this debate when Hitchens presents something bluntly logical and then, Dinesh comes after and say things like if he just dropped off the moon, lying and twisting on almost every issue he elaborates about.</span></span></p><p><span><span>But… What a thundering voice he emits! He should play he role of Yahweh in some flicks >:o </span></span></p><p><span><span>On the second thought: He can do that. God is on his side and god gives him the strength to say those things in there. </span></span></p><p><span><span>Hitchens is so lonely</span></span></p>
you cant use logic or fact to argue with someone who believes in talking snakes and flying jews.
...and you forget...even if all science was wrong...because it turns out to be wrong...doesnt mean you can make anything up to fill the gap- you can say 'ahhh well ist probably an interdimensional cat who makes life on earth'. silly faith people
Let me save you the 50 minutes of D'Souza. Everyone of his arguments end up in: we don´t know everyting yet, therefor I'm right.
D'Souza loses. He comes across desperate.
Pathetic and desperate is right on the mark, his whole opening is an argument from Expelled. (the movie)
I was just so suprised that Hitchens didn't call up D'Souza even once that he was just making arguments from ignornce - we don't know yet so God 'dunnit. I was screaming this at my computer as I watched D'Souza come out with his countless piss poor anecdotes.Also, I think Hitchens handled the Hitler argument quite badly, even if Hitler had said outright he was Atheist, it's irrelevant: it's whether his Atheism motivated his actions or not, that is the issue.
Maybe we should wait for Dr. Craig to destroy Hitchens again. You Hitchens slappys amuse me.Can't wait for the Dawkins V Craig debate. Oh wait, Dawkins won't do it. He wouldn't want his book sales to take a dip after being exposed by Dr. Craig. Craig is no "deluded" Theologian. He has however made a living debating and refuting the best atheism has to offer.
I love these people who think Craig and Dsouza are some kind of apologist heavy weights. They hide the hollow arguments with eloquent presentation.To those people who think Craig beating Hitchen's means something, all you are doing is projecting your own weakness for arguments from authority. Hitchen's getting his ass kicked doesn't mean Craig's arguments are valid, they're not. Every argument Craig has tried to use has been destroyed by someone. If Hitchen's didn't do a good enough job with Craig, shame on Hitchen's, but Craig is still retarded.
<span>If Craig is "retarded", that doesn't say much about the long line of atheists he has beaten in debate, most of whom have PHD's. </span><span> Is it so hard to give credit where it's due? Such an angry bunch.</span>
No it doesn't say much about them, they should have turned up more prepared for the standard arguments Craig uses. I don't care who wins debates! It means nothing! I really can't believe someone would demonstrate a weakness for arguments from authority in a reply to a comment talking about weaknesses to arguments from authority. All of Craig's arguments have been debunked. If someone at a debate doesn't properly deal with Craig's arguments, that doesn't make the arguments valid. It shows the loser of the debate should have prepared more. He could win every debate he ever does and it still would have no effect on whether his arguments are valid. And what does he deserve credit for? He's the most sensible sounding moron?
Oh, I see. When Hitchens or another atheist wins a debate over a Christian it's because Christianity is irrational...blah blah blah. But when Hitch or some other atheist loses a debate to Dr. Craig, it's no big deal and doesn't prove anything.They just weren't prepared.Uh-huhDr Craig uses logic and reason to defeat his atheist opponents who are supposed to be all about logic and reason. If you don't come prepared to a debate with Dr. Craig, you have no excuse for getting trounced. Dr. Craig uses basically the same set of arguments in all his debates. How can you not be prepared?The problem for you atheists is that Dr. Craig makes a case for Christianity that is rational and reasonable and you simply can't deal with it. You keep digging in your heels proclaiming that Christianity is irrational even when you are shown that it's not.
Cut the crap. You know damn well I'm not suggesting that kind of double standard. If Hitchens, or anyone theist or atheist, uses an argument in a debate which appears to beat the other guy but then someone else shows that argument is crap, it doesn't matter who came out on top in the debate. If an argument doesnt stand up to closer inspection, it fails, and whether or not it's countered properly in a debate is meaningless. Unless you care more about point scoring in a public forum than about the validity of what's been said.You're right, Craig does use the same set of arguments and that set has been debunked. Simple as that. Just look for the counters to his arguments."Craig makes a case for christianity that is rational and reasonable and you simply can't deal with it."No, thats just it, people can deal with it, his arguments have been dealt with. That has been my point all along, his success in debates doesn't mean anything if his arguments don't stand up when examined.
<span>"his arguments don't stand up when examined."</span>Actually, they stand up very well. That's why he can use them over and over and still win debates. Gee, there must be something to those arguments.I don't care how hard core of an atheist you are, you can't tell me that Dr. Craig's arguments are not logical and reasonable. To say they are is ignorant and smacks of being completely closed minded. You may not agree with his arguments, but you cannot deny their logic or validity. He beats atheists in debates. That's a fact. He is a well respected author and academic. Those are facts. Yet, you are going to sit here and call him "retarded". Uh-huh. I don't think all the atheists he has beat in debates think he is "retarded". I know Dawkins doesn't think so. I know Hitchens doesn't thik so. But you do. Uh-huh.I don't care who you name...Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris....etc. Their arguments have been "dealt with" as well. So, according to your argument, any success they may have in debates with Christians is meaningless.So many atheists are way more closed minded than many Christian fundies I know.This is why I rarely engage in discussions with atheists anymore. So many are determined to play the predictable role of angry atheist "most sensible sounding moron?" "Craig is still retarded" Then you are permanently glued to the tired argument that Christianity (properly understood) is irrational.<span></span><span> </span>
Haha, you're a proper little craig fanboy aren't you.At the risk of sounding even more closed minded, can you send me links to some sound refutations of atheist arguments? Because I've not come across any yet.
<span>"you're a proper little craig fanboy aren't you."</span>"fanboy" ?Umm. How old are you? I appeciate the work Dr. Craig does. I have respect for his academic credentials and his accomplishments as an author and debater. Being a student of philosophy and theology myself, I enjoy reading his work and listening to his debates.I am Catholic but I still can appreciate the work Dr. Craig has done in many areas of Philosophy and Theology.<span>"can you send me links to some sound refutations of atheist arguments? Because I've not come across any yet."</span>Have you looked anywhere other than atheist sites? Seriously, Dr Craig is just one of many Christian apologists who has written material refuting atheist arguments. Just go to amazon.com or start visiting solid Christian sites. There are countless resources from great Catholic/ Christian thinkers of the ancient past to modern day scholars. One of my fav Catholic Philosophers is Dr. Peter Kreeft.You act as if atheism has unrefuteable arguments which is an absurd idea.Since Dr Craig has been the topic here, why not check out his websitehttp://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServerOr for video clipshttp://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.channel&ContributorID=31703864
I'm a forensic biology student, I'm about to take my final exams then I'm going to do a MSc studying neurodegeneration. After i raise the money anyway.I've already listened to the some of the podcasts on his site but they are not refutations. I've watched some 2 hours of those video and so far he's made one solid refutation of something dawkins said. So if dawkins' uses that point in a debate, and appears to win on that point, it doesnt matter because he's wrong. Fair enough? The same goes for craig. That whole bit about god being a disembodied "mind" was embarrassing, frankly retarded, and shows he doesn't have any understanding of neuroscience. Given some other stuff he said science in general. You know, its funny that someone as open minded as you never wanted to look at the refutations that I am convinced by. While the closed minded angry atheist spends a Sunday morning sifting through video to find some he hasn't seen before to listening to arguments trying to prove god. Reply if you want but I'm done with this. BTW philosophy is just about the most practically useless degree you can do. Good luck with that ;)
The guys like D'Souza NEVER lose. EVER.Ask him ? :)
Dinesh D'Souza is a much better speaker. He speaks clearly, right articulation and intonation. That said, Dinesh does make an awful amount of logical crashes.
<span><span>The website and videos were just a suggestion. Even I haven't listen to many of the podcasts on Dr Craig's site.T here is so much material out there. I've heard a lot of atheist so-called refutations and frankly, I'm not impressed. Don't confuse angry diatribes, bad philosophy, or the stretching of science to answer questions that science isn't equipped to answer,with refutation. </span> <span>Dawkins is no big deal. His arguments are shredded to pieces time and time again. Once he steps outside of his expertise of Biology into the realms of Philosophy or Theology, he is merely a layman. The so called "new atheists" are more about style than substance. Hitchens for example shows me nothing more than hollow rhetoric. When faced up against an equal opponent like Dr. Craig, his usual bag of rhetorical tricks is useless and he is exposed. </span> <span>That whole bit about god being a disembodied "mind" was embarrassing, frankly retarded, and shows he doesn't have any understanding of neuroscience."</span> I have no idea the context of what he said but maybe the problem here is that he is making a philosophical point to which you don't have any understanding of. It's easy to sick back and ridicule when you have no idea or understanding of where he is coming from. <span><span>"BTW philosophy is just about the most practically useless degree you can do."</span> That's a bit arrogant. Philosophy asks questions that atheists have a hard time answering. That's why you are so ignorant as to call a world class philosopher "retarded". I've seen it before. No biggie. You have no idea what you don't know. Me thinks you suffer from the false idea that science alone has all the answers. BTW. I am working on my second degree (Philosophy, Theology). I have a degree in science and work in healthcare. Plenty of Biology, Chemistry, Physiology..ect. You figure it out. Unlike scores of atheists I have engaged in discussion, I don't act like my degree in science gives me all the answers or gives me a reason to act arrogant. Actually, I think my studies in Philosophy and Theology are the perfect compliment to my already established education. I'll go even further and say that my current studies are much more important in the truest sense of usefulness. </span> Interesting that the first discussion we had in my very first Philosophy class was why study Philosophy when many in the world considers it "useless". Aristotle had a pretty good answer. </span>