My correspondance with Dinesh D'Souza, have any of you ever debated with him previously?
Offline So, I stumbled across this douchebags blog last night, after reading some quotes from him regarding atheist and the VTech shootings. As I read through his more recent posts, I was appauled at the lack of any 'real' intelligence and the sheer hatred of atheists that shadowed his writings. So, I felt compelled to comment, something along the lines of him being too much of a dumbshit to understand the scientific method and how amazing claims require amazing scientific proof.
And to my surprise, when I got home from work today, there was an email reply from D'Souza himself waiting for me.
"How can there be "hard scientific data" for a being that exists outside of space and time?
best, DD" To which I responded; "Why believe in something that exists outside of space and time? Because someone told me to? Because I was born into a part of the world that is largely Christian? If something exists outside of space and time then how can you claim to know it exists? There is no possible way to detect something that is outside of space/time. Have you ever read Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World"? If not, familiarize yourself with the 'fire breathing dragon' fallacy.(http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm)
Why would you believe something that cannot be tested or verified to the satisfaction of science?
Without the scientific method and critical thinking, I would be susceptible to any and every pseudo-scientific claim that was presented to me. If I believed everything that I was told or read without examining it sceptically, I would not only believe in your god, but every god who was ever said to exist, as well a host of other pseudo-scientific claims; ie bigfoot, ghosts, ESP, aliens, vampires(all things which have been 'well documented' but have no real scientific support).
Why do you feel that your claim should not be held up to the same level of scrutiny that the above examples are held to? I can find an incredible amount of 'historical texts' that claim the existence of vampires, but reading it doesn't make it so.
Are you not, yourself, skeptical about all of the other thousands of gods that have been said to exist? And if so, why did you choose this one?
-Meagan" \u003cbr\>-Meagan\u003c/span\>",1] ); //-->
Basically, I was curious as to whether or not any of you have ever engaged this guy in any kind of debate, and whether or not it's worth my time to reply to him.
- Login to post comments
I have not, but then I am a newbie. I did want to tell you that I think your response was very well worded! Good job! It will be interesting to see if he responds back.
well done...never be afraid to throw yourself into a debate, it's the best way to perfect arguments and learn what to apply on the proper person.
No Gods, Know Peace.
I have heard of this guy. I doubt he'll be able to tackle your points with capable points of his own. You pretty much have him PWN*d, based on what I know. And based on the well worded argument.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Update!
I recieved a reply from D'souza in regards to my previous email.
But, it seems like a cop out to me.
"But you already do believe in something that exists outside of space and time and is in fact not subject to the scientific law of cause and effect: free will. Read Kant on this. best, DD"http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
Try giving him this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
LoL, I would have liked for him to send this to me. I don't believe in free will as it's classically defined. What an assumption!
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]
Do you have any suggestions for how I should reply to this?
Or any reading on Kant's freewill that I should be looking at?
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Yes, that answer is BS. The concept of Free Will is definitely subject to space and time. Our will, in fact anything that our brain does, is based in how the brain functions. Our will is a decision-making machine that uses certain algorithms and associative proccesses to respond to certain stimuli with an action.
If our will, free or not, were not subject to cause and effect, then it would not be will. In fact, I would say that our will is the process we have that epitomizes our experience with cause and effect. The cause (stimuli) has an effect on us that causes us to act in a certain way. This is the most intimate experience we have with cause and effect.
Further, if our will were outside of space and time, then how can our brain, which is in space and time, interact with it. This is the classic interaction problem of dualism, Kant's philosophy was very important and influential to the history of philosophy, but his views on the will are largely irrelevant today.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
That's great Shaun, thanks so much for the good ideas.
That's what I like about this board. There's so many different atheists who know so many different things that there's bound to be one of us who can come up with an answer! :D
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
"My correspondance with Dinesh D'Souza, have any of you ever debated with him previously?"
Please don't take this as an affront, but I wouldn't waste my time with that idiot. Distort D'newsa is in the same league as oreilly(sp? Meh, don't care).
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Please don't just assume that something does exist outside of space and time, and then assert this assumed 'entity' as an example, instead, please explain how something can exist outside of space and time. As for freewill, the concept of libertarian freewill died long ago. It's incoherent. The only workable models of free will are soft determinism/compatabalism. Besides, what can we say, morally, of a 'will' without any cause at all? How can an act caused by 'nothing' be moral or immoral?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Well said. Even Kant conceded that the "noumenal realm' (He claimed that we lived in the phenomenal world, but that 'decisions' took place outside of our world, in the free noumenal realm) that he postulated as being 'beyond space and time' would be incomprehensible to humans....
Anyway, Kant's attempt to solve the deterministic/freewill dilemma failed spectacularly, no scientist takes his words on this matter sersiously today.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
here's a nice little essay on determinism and free will:
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Ethics/determinismandfreewill.htm
from the essay (the part on Kant):
Immanuel Kant's Resolution of Determinism and Freewill
Kant tried to resolve the debate between determinism and freewill by distinguishing between phenomenal humanity (who are determined by the sum of causes and events in their life) and noumenal humanity (who are actually free). Thus determinism is merely an illusion within the phenomenal realm. In reality, we are actually free beings. Yet because Kant understood the phenomenal realm as being bound by space and time this implies that real choice can only be made outside space and time. This also gives rise to the problem of whether an 'act' can be 'performed' outside space and time as these are terms that only have meaning within the context of space and time. Furthermore, the fact that Kant claimed we could never experience the noumenal realm (it lay beyond human cognition), and merely posited its existence, resolves nothing in reality but only in theory.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
In addition to todangst's post: it seems that the debater is trying to inflict a kind of "if you use one of his quotes, you must believe in all that man had to say" (attitude which is commonly found when talking about evolution). What was that called, guilt by association ?
But use that against him: Does HE believe in a free will outside of space and time? Implications should be obvious.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
D'Souza is a Douche-Bag, therefore God exists
LOL!
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Rofl. That was great.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Maragon,
Your responses to D'Souza were very intelligent. I would have just called him an "Asshat" and called it good.
Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Thanks!
I did respond to his free will drivel, but that was 4 days ago...I'm going to suppose he gave up.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/