Oh, D'Souza.....

[festive1]

I think D'Souza is a killer debater.

Here he is in action. It's almost painful to watch. ...no, not really.

I thought of this clip too when I read AKD's post... D'Souza doesn't seem to have the ability to think on his feet or roll with the punches.

[Ryantology]

I think D'Souza is a killer debater. I think the "New Atheists" should respect him - he problematizes their position every time.

The only problem inherent in debating a tautological fraud like D'Souza is that it is impossible to convince a person of anything when the foundations of their entire position are beliefs which he assumes are absolute and undeniable truth.

A Christian who is true to his tenets is convinced that the Bible is the inerrant word of God because the Bible says so. The idea that it could in any way be flawed or unreliable is always completely dismissed, which effectively closes off all avenues of rational approach. You can never hope to change the mind of someone convinced of such profound idiocy. All you can do is demonstrate that idiocy to a wide audience so that it doesn't infect otherwise healthy minds.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I've never followed his political stuff. I just watched him debate Hitchens and Dennett, I thought he played those debates well.

[Rev. Rye]

He was engaged to another woman while still married?

I wonder how he would use apologetics to justify his breaking of the adultery commandment.

Well, to be fair, he was undergoing a legal separation at the time.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

The only problem inherent in debating a tautological fraud like D'Souza is that it is impossible to convince a person of anything when the foundations of their entire position are beliefs which he assumes are absolute and undeniable truth.

A Christian who is true to his tenets is convinced that the Bible is the inerrant word of God because the Bible says so. The idea that it could in any way be flawed or unreliable is always completely dismissed, which effectively closes off all avenues of rational approach. You can never hope to change the mind of someone convinced of such profound idiocy. All you can do is demonstrate that idiocy to a wide audience so that it doesn't infect otherwise healthy minds.

Why does he assume the Bible is a valuable book worth following? Do you think there are no good reasons to do so, that only an "idiot" would do so?

I think to be this adamant in your position, you're really going to have to provide a lot to help us out with answers to the mysteries of life. More inconclusive "debunking" of various theistic arguments isn't really enough. If you can't provide a serious answer that describes the origin and basis of life and reality, how can you call someone else an "idiot" for taking a different position on the issue than you? Don't you hear yourself sounding like an atheist fanatic or fundamentalist? How about a little humility?

I don't follow the Bible, by the way, much less do I want to be responsible for trying to defend it. Still, I respect that there may be valuable ideals worth following in the Bible, and I wouldn't quarrel with someone who wants to follow it. Especially, as in your case, where I don't see have you have a stronger, more convincing, world-view to offer instead.

[festive1]

I've never followed his political stuff. I just watched him debate Hitchens and Dennett, I thought he played those debates well.

Disagree... Here's a clip... Hitchens kills.
http://youtu.be/84mbxeptkCc

[Gilgamesh]

Do you think there are no good reasons to do so, that only an "idiot" would do so?

Yes.

Anyway, that wasn't Ryan's argument. He's arguing that it's impossible to reason someone out of a position in which they didn't reason themselves into.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I agree that Hitchens kills in that clip. I think D'Souza has a nearly impossible position to defend there. I watched a different debate of the two of them...

[festive1]

I agree that Hitchens kills in that clip. I think D'Souza has a nearly impossible position to defend there. I watched a different debate of the two of them...

Then by all means, please post it. I don't think I've seen a debate where Hitchens hasn't held his own.

[Ben Davis]

I just watched him debate Hitchens and Dennett, I thought he played those debates well.

Those were amongst the debates that I've seen, too. We must have very different views of what constitutes a good debater.

Why does he assume the Bible is a valuable book worth following? Do you think there are no good reasons to do so, that only an "idiot" would do so?

I know there are reasons to do so. The vast majority of them cause demonstrable harm.

I think to be this adamant in your position, you're really going to have to provide a lot to help us out with answers to the mysteries of life. More inconclusive "debunking" of various theistic arguments isn't really enough. If you can't provide a serious answer that describes the origin and basis of life and reality, how can you call someone else an "idiot" for taking a different position on the issue than you? Don't you hear yourself sounding like an atheist fanatic or fundamentalist? How about a little humility?

Do you realise how fallacious 'God of the gaps' arguments are? And do you understand how condescending it is to berate someone for not having all the answers? If someone proposes illogical, unreasonable, unverifiable, factually incorrect, unevidenced and/or self-contradictory answers, for the sake of having a made-up answer when having none would be better, the right thing to do is to call that person an 'idiot' or other appropriate term. To call that 'fundamentalism' is to abuse that term or completely misunderstand how that term should be applied.

Also it is not humble to allow idiots to spread misinformation, it's arguably a crime against humanity.

I respect that there may be valuable ideals worth following in the Bible

Only the minority. And all of those can be achieved by secular means; no religion necessary.

I don't see have you have a stronger, more convincing, world-view to offer instead.

If you don't see the benefits of a reasonable, evidence-based world-view, I'm sad to say that you fall foul of the accusation previously levelled at D'Souza.