Interesting that you thought Singer did better than Hitchens & Dennet. I watched the debate on Youtube a few days ago, and a lot of comments expressed the opinion that Dennet did better than Singer. But I haven't seen the other debates, so I can't compare. I did think that Singer did a good job, being respectful of D'Souza and his lack of cogent arguments.

Another thing that annoyed me was how much D'Souza focused on Singer's personal views - e.g. killing babies up to 28 days old. He spent his whole opening argument talking about the "dangerous consequences" of atheism. I was glad that Singer nipped it in the bud and said "We're here to debate the existence of god."

This was probably my favorite part of the debate. When atheists do good things, it's the result of immersion in a Christian society. When they do bad things, it's because we're evil and we worship Satan and eat babies. Singer called him on it too. Dinesh got served!

I actually hate this debate tactic. It's sort of like a reverse appeal to authority. Like instead of "Newton was a brilliant physicist... and he was Christian. Therefore, Christianity is right," it's "Well Hitler authorized the killing of millions of Jews... and he was atheist. Therefore, atheism is evil and wrong."

There have been good theists and bad theists, and good atheists and bad atheists. None of that has any bearing on which ideology is right. I wish we could ban the practice of using famous figures to support arguments, and just focus on the actual claims made by religion. Of course, if we did that, Dinesh would have nothing left to say...

As speakers and debaters, I really like both Singer and D'Souza.  The thing is, they both push some pretty scary ideas--not only in my opinion, but in the opinions of many.

From what I can tell, Singer is considered to be pretty "out there" and on the fringe of modern ethical thought, at least by the standard of mainstream philosophical thought.  It's true that many people are turned off by his hardline stance on animal rights, but it goes deeper than that.  He questions the value of human life to such an extent that, right or wrong, it makes lots of people uncomfortable. 

As far as D'Souza goes, he's not as much of an extremist as Singer overall, but he does have some pretty troubling views on women's rights and the history of Christianity. 

But yeah.  Singer busted D'Souza pretty early with the whole Buddhism thing. 

Singer makes good points. Personally, Ithink they're a tad idealistic.

This isn't a fair and square universe. Not everyone is born looking like a million bucks, not everyone is born under the best of fiscal of societal circumstances, not everyone is born with the best of health. Attempting to 'fix' that, I think, is doomed to failure - because it's not really a fault. It's just a mechanism.

I know. I'm just not sure that defining suffering as a 'problem' is a correct perspective. Can we remove suffering from the universe and still expect it to function? I'd argue not (not in a universe where survival is dependant on consumption, anyway, and where resources are finite). It's a mechanism.

...And now I'm going to stop talking, before I get clocked with a bug-zapper.

Absolutely - what would we be attempting to "fix" there, anyway, the recombination of DNA? Yeah. Biology is fascinating and everything, but even introducing species almost always goes wrong. If we can't get that right ...

Here's D'Souza's take on the debate. I love the subtlety of the title...

Atheism and Child Murder

Peter Singer is a calm, lucid and able debater, and our debate at Biola University in Los Angeles on April 25 was lively and hard-fought. Not for nothing is Singer considered a world-class philosopher and advocate. You can watch the debate here.

Singer praised me for not simply making assertions of faith or hurling Bible passages at him but rather for using reason and argument to make my case . And I complimented Singer for stepping, so to speak, into the lion's den. (Biola actually stands for Bible Institute of Los Angeles.) Unlike the pusillanimous Richard Dawkins, who doesn't dare to debate me even at his home campus of Oxford, Singer was brave to come to a Christian campus to dispute the resolution "God: Yes or No." The audience of 3,000 was mostly though not exclusively Christian.

So perhaps atheism has found an able advocate. But unbelievers may want to think twice before lining up behind Singer, who argues in favor of infanticide, euthanasia and (this is not a joke) animal rights! One of Singer's interesting proposals concerns what may be called "fourth trimester" abortions, i.e. the right to kill one's offspring even after birth!

Here are some choice Singer quotations on the subject which I get from his books Rethinking Life and Death and Writings on an Ethical Life.

On how mothers should be permitted to kill their offspring until the age of 28 days: "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others."

On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat: "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation."

On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans: "The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."

On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

In my opening statement I showed the profound connection between Singer's Darwinian atheism and his advocacy of infanticide and euthanasia. Remarkably Singer responded by saying he didn't come to debate his bioethical views! Rather, he wanted the debate to focus exclusively on the question of whether God exists or not. I didn't want this to be a debate in which Singer and I ended up talking on completely different subjects, so I engaged him on his chosen ground.

Even so, I was disappointed that Singer wouldn't stand up for the opinions that have made him famous, or infamous. Our topic resolution was broad enough to permit a discussion both of the existence of God and also of the social implications of the theist and the atheist positions. I view Singer's work as exploring the consequences of living in a truly secular society, devoid not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality.

So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life, Singer explicitly says we have to get rid of this outdated concept. He contends that God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to the other animals. In the animal kingdom, after all, parents sometimes kill and even devour their offpsring. Singer argues that the West can learn from the other cultures like the Kalahari where children are routinely killed when they are unwanted, even when they are several years old.

Some of Singer's critics call him a Nazi and compare his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating the unwanted, the unfit and the disabled. But as I note in the debate, Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.

Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?

Peter Singer is not a biologist.  He's a philosopher.  I agree that he's a better debater than Hitchens or Dennett.  I actually think he's more intelligent, more genuine and a far better scholar.  That's just my opinion, though.