Barker/D'Souza debate

Could be an entertaining evening. Dan Barker is a good speaker but Dinesh D'Souza is an oily worm.

They have debated before - there's one of their encounters available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1arsUJI00Ko
D'Souza uses a typically Catholic style of debate when encountering atheists - i.e. the Catholic church was responsible for the enlightenment, the inquisition was a storm in a teacup, Hitler was an atheist - as was basically any Christian that did bad things and, most importantly, atheism = 20th century state communism. I get the feeling that its gone out as a memo from the Vatican that Catholic apologists should use this line of debate as I've heard exactly the same things from other Catholics such as Christine Odone and the Irish Jesuits spokesman.

All Dinesh need do to win is to present evidence that god exists and influences people toward goodness. Anything else is rubbish.

If he presents such evidence, I'll be all ears.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

I hope the Powers That Be over at The Brights watch the debate. They've been working for years on a definitive statement about atheist morality, and have come up with sod-all so far.

In the interim, it seems that even the saner theists now accept that people don't need god to tell 'em that killing people is wrong.

D'Crappa is one loathsome cretin in my estimation, and I never miss an opportunity to smear this religious retard with all the venom he deserves. I probably could not attend one of his debates as I would constantly hurl invectives at him to show us his imaginary god right there on the stage. His so-callled prowess in debate does not impress or faze me. I hope Dan Barker would somehow sense the questions I would throw at this slime and more than hold his own and reduce the moron to fits of anguish. Then he can cry and run to Coulter for solace. Two morons in the religious gutter.

Dan Barker is really knowledgeable on his subject, but he's so polite he gets run over.

Actually I hope D'Souza the Loud pulls out Hitler, Josephus and the Archo Volume, among other 'points'. Barker will slice him to bits.

Forget theology, what does D'Souza know about being good?

"Hi. I don't believe in God and I'm a nice guy. Been a nice person for decades despite the absence of a deity in my life. I guess one can be good without God. QED. Sorry to have ended the debate so quickly, Dinesh. Better luck next time."

If only it were that simple. It should be, but the traditional rebuttal against people like me is that we were raised in a religious faith and a subtle residuum of that training remains. (Or, as one radio evangelist put it, lapsed believers are "coasting on the fumes of their empty gas tanks." That's right: God is gas.) If you point out that there are good people who were actually raised without God in their lives, with atheist parents, the religionists begin to babble about the godliness embedded in our culture, so you get your moral precepts second-hand (like cigarette smoke; there we go with the God fumes again).

It boils down to the argument that morality is religion and religion is morality. How dare we try to split them! But sorry: we did, and we will.

Next Monday (Jan. 26), D'Souza is debating Christopher Hitchens in Boulder, CO. Some friends and I will be driving up from Denver to watch it. It will be fun seeing Hitchens demolish him.

I do hope this will be recorded for those of us unable to attend (an account of living several thousand miles away).

Didn't that guy invent the marching D'Tuba?

RE: "Hitler was an atheist"

Not atheist, not gay, not vegetarian.
Hitler was Catholic actually.

I'm looking forward to seeing you at both the Calgary and Edmonton events, and your coming interview on Q Transmissions too

Edmonton/Calgary? Are you going through Calgary to Edmonton, or are you visiting Calgary, or have you figured out some way to spread your waveform over the three-hour drive between the two cities that will last until we observe you? :)

Any Calgary portion would be pretty exciting ;)

...forgot one: not self-hating Jew.
Catholic.

Can`t bring myself to listen to D`Souza`s squeeky voice and constant screaming.

Also he uses the same arguments again and again, even if they`ve been destroyed in countless debates (with Hitchens, Dawkins,...) before. Such an unpleasent and dishonest character.

Hitchens once said that D`Souza is a good debater and could well debate for the atheist side. This leads me to supect, that D`Souza is only in for the money and doesn`t really believe what he is telling the gullible christian audience.

May the FSM hound him in his dreams.

@11

"Forget theology, what does D'Souza know about being good?"

I hope he doesn't forget theology since it is critically important in distinguishing the definitions of goodness.

Of course there is natural goodness without God. Acts of natural goodness are beneficial to neighbors and to the culture. However, God is needed if they are to be done for spiritual benefit. In other words, naturally good acts done without divine consideration, are spiritually sterile. To attach those acts to the Divine will and transform them to spiritual benefit, the intentionality of God is imperative

It will be fun seeing Hitchens demolish him.

Hardly, they've done it before, it's just a shouting match you could hear between any two drunks around closing time at the neighborhood saloon.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just prefer Monster Truck Rallys to shouting matches, way more fun.

I've only heard one Godsucker vs Atheist debate worth listening to in my lifetime which was Hedges vs Harris, and the christian actually won that one IMHO.

Hitchens is more fun as a ranting monologist in my opinion, he doesn't debate, he's a talk-over-you-ist.

The Galloway vs Hitchens debate on the Iraq war is worth listening to if you like British drunken insult hurling bloodfests. That's a good one.

Have a little faith noodles. If D'Souza is stupid enough to bring up Hitler, Barker will be all over him.

D'Souza's only winning traits are volume and lung capacity. Watch some of his debates on YouTube. :o)

"Hitchens once said that D`Souza is a good debater and could well debate for the atheist side"

I've heard this from folks other than Hitchens, too, and it still puzzles me. Unless you define "debate" as cable-news-style "shout the same nonsense over and over again," D'Souza doesn't impress me.

By the way, it seems to me that one useful tactic in dealing with this "atheists have no morality" argument is to exploit the fact that even slimeballs like D'Souza are usually only willing to smear atheists, and not non-Christian theists (at least not in public).

So if you ask D'Souza if he thinks Jews can be moral, he'll almost certainly agree. Now he's stuck defending all the "morality" of the Old Testament (genocide, rape, killing children for making fun of baldness -- well, maybe that one's ok), without the usual excuses about Jesus changing the old laws.

@11

"Forget theology, what does D'Souza know about being good?"

I hope he doesn't forget theology since it is critically important in distinguishing the definitions of goodness.

Of course there is natural goodness without God. Acts of natural goodness are beneficial to neighbors and to the culture. However, God is needed if they are to be done for spiritual benefit. In other words, naturally good acts done without divine consideration, are spiritually sterile. To attach those acts to the Divine will and transform them to spiritual benefit, the intentionality of God is imperative

So please explain how this demonstrates that Mr D'Souza knows about being "good." I mean, I find it hard to believe that a person who writes things like "Dawkins is evil because he hasn't said anything about the Virginia Tech Murders" is good on either a natural or spiritual level.

Or, perhaps you could explain how your suggestions that we stop opposing the efforts of Creationists and their political allies to destroy the United States' educational system and scientific institutions in order to create a theocratic dictatorship constitute either "natural good" or "spiritual good," then?

I hope he doesn't forget theology since it is critically important in distinguishing the definitions of goodness.

Of course there is natural goodness without God. Acts of natural goodness are beneficial to neighbors and to the culture. However, God is needed if they are to be done for spiritual benefit. In other words, naturally good acts done without divine consideration, are spiritually sterile.

In other words, "Of course you can be good without God. That's why we need to redefine the word 'good' and attach it to some wholly imaginary construct that exists only in our religion."

If only it were that simple. It should be, but the traditional rebuttal against people like me is that we were raised in a religious faith and a subtle residuum of that training remains. (Or, as one radio evangelist put it, lapsed believers are "coasting on the fumes of their empty gas tanks." That's right: God is gas.) If you point out that there are good people who were actually raised without God in their lives, with atheist parents, the religionists begin to babble about the godliness embedded in our culture, so you get your moral precepts second-hand (like cigarette smoke; there we go with the God fumes again).

Then you bring up people like Matthew Murray and the more recent Colorado shooter, and I'm sure they'll just as readily attribute their bad behaviour to their godly upbringing being poisoned by secular influences. When atheists are good, it's because of residual vestiges of theism. When zealots are bad, it's because there was some crack in the armor of their theism.

Silver Fox at 17

You have got to be shitting me. Please define "spiritual," "Divine will," and most especially "the intentionality of God." Impressive sounding terms that, none the less, do not prevent your argument from being devoid of any useful information.

Daft Greg, watch this and decide if you want to put yourself through it.

The debate I want to see is D'Souza v. Sam Harris. If Harris brings his A game, he's just sublime.

Of course there is natural goodness without God. Acts of natural goodness are beneficial to neighbors and to the culture. However, God is needed if they are to be done for spiritual benefit. In other words, naturally good acts done without divine consideration, are spiritually sterile. To attach those acts to the Divine will and transform them to spiritual benefit, the intentionality of God is imperative

Or, perhaps you can explain how doing things like, say, committing vandalism, murder, rape or torture against people with whom you disagree with, then claiming that the aforementioned crimes were done specifically to please God in some way is spiritually beneficial?

Of course there is natural goodness without God. Acts of natural goodness are beneficial to neighbors and to the culture. However, God is needed if they are to be done for spiritual benefit. In other words, naturally good acts done without divine consideration, are spiritually sterile. To attach those acts to the Divine will and transform them to spiritual benefit, the intentionality of God is imperative

Spiritually sterile? That presupposes that there is such a thing as a spirit. As an atheist, I don't accept any part of the supernatural, so spiritually sterile is just a meaningless noise. One might claim that eating a BBQ pork rib is also spiritually sterile, no matter how good it tastes.

You agree that acts of goodness benefit the recipient and society as a whole. Both the recipient and society are real, tangible objects. Their existence can be shown. God and spirituality are intangible and their existence is merely based on hopes and wishful thinking.

Silverfox, 17.

Ok, so we agree that one doesn't need god to do good things. That's a start.

Now, what is a spiritual benefit? Who benefits, and in what way is the benefit spiritual?

I agree with the post who said Hitch is not a true debater. He does not debate. As a matter of fact, Dinesh it not a debater either. He simply memorizes a few jokes and talking points and regardless of what otherside says.

BTW, I don't think Richard Dawkins has ever debated Dinesh D'souza (or whatever hell is his name). Dinesh is an ignoramus with no respect for science, logic or critical thinking. Debating him is no different than debating a creationist.

Now, what is a spiritual benefit? Who benefits, and in what way is the benefit spiritual?

"spiritual benefit" = "benefits derived from drinking two glasses of vintage Merlot after dinner"

When theists ask "can we be good without God," they need to keep their arguments separate.

1.) We need God to explain where all humans got the same understanding of good and evil, and right and wrong.
2.) We need God to figure out which group of humans have the right understanding of good and evil, and right and wrong.
3.) We need God to motivate us to follow what is good and right, and avoid what is evil and wrong.

Those are very different arguments, but so many debates will mix them together. #1 and #2 are in conflict, and #3 is irrelevant to the question of whether God exists or not.

To Ritchie @ 14
Go to the CFI Calgary website for details on Calgary/Edmonton events with PZ

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/calgary

Silver Fox @ 17

There is everything without a god. Fixed that good for you.

I already used references to this debate as an excuse to link to Kropotkin's "Anarchist Morality" on the "Radio Reminder" thread, but I'm going to do so again:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/AM/anarchist_mo…

(Last time, this week at least - I promise. It's pretty good, though!)

Silver Fox #17 wrote:

In other words, naturally good acts done without divine consideration, are spiritually sterile. To attach those acts to the Divine will and transform them to spiritual benefit, the intentionality of God is imperative

The big problem is that naturally evil acts done with divine consideration are transformed into spiritually good acts. Religion can create a larger "factual framework" in which actions that are wrong to secular eyes, turn into actions which are right to God -- and those with the Eyes of Faith.

What the fuck is spiritual benefit? I wished the faith-heads at least could try to define these loose terms that they use.

Every body feels good when they perform a good deed but we are to believe if the person believes is magical fairies the deeds will do something magical in him. Now, that sounds ridiculous but I am willing to believe that if they can show some evidence for it.

Silver Fox. Opened mouth. Inserted foot. Must like the taste. Yesterday you felt like you were wasting your time here. You may be. Think about what your goals are here. Do you want to join the community like I did, or do you want to get us to leave room for god in our thinking. If the former, keep posting, if the latter, time to go.

For what it's worth, I've written on the issue of "Morality and the New Atheism" here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2203,Morality-and-the-new-atheism,Onl….

One might, of course, ask how primates could evolve, how primate societies could exist, without most members "being good" and certain acts being considered "evil."

That is to say, "being good" is simply an inevitable aspect of human society existing.

This does not rule god out by itself, of course, but it demonstrates that we only need to understand the origin of primate societies (evolution is the short answer) to say why human primates tend to "be good." Only if god could be shown to be a cause of our existence would he even become a candidate for causing "goodness," and as we all know, nothing indicates that god had anything to do with our existence (evil is a problem for god proponents, after all).

Bringing up the theistic presumption that god is necessary for "goodness" for "debate" is ridiculous, then. It's done because no evidence for god's existence has been found, so shoehorning theistic a priori beliefs into the premises becomes necessary for any theistic "argument" to prevail.

But then it's a dishonest "debate" from the beginning.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Atticus_of_Amber @ 25

I'm with you on Sam Harris as a debater and whom I like personally. He is calm and collected and has all his facts in preparation. He won't get flustered by that D'Crappa, and if he just a little more forceful he can put that moron down with the bare facts of reason. D"Crappa and Deep Crap Chopper; two moronic slime just ripe for rational evisceration, stuffed with crackers and thrown to the swine who don't give a crap what crap is offered for eats.

Think about the topic -- "Can we be good without God?" That's much easier that showing being an atheist implies a good person.

So basically all that's needed is one anecdote that shows it's possible. Just point out that Scandinavia is secular and has some of the lowest crime rates on earth (especially when compared to the highly religious USA). Case closed.

Has anyone seen a debate where this was done? I'm very curious to see the Christian response to that region of the world and it's complete lack of needing God to be prosperous and peaceful.

I don't see how people can claim Hitchens isn't a good debater. He's fantastic. You must have seen one instance where he wasn't on his game (usually when he's been drinking, I admit) and generalized that. He may not be "nice," but he certainly can debate. How much formal debate experience do you all have?

That question for the topic,"Can we be good without god?" is just bullshit when you really think about it. Can we be good without the easter bunny? There is no easter bunny just as there is no god, so the question is just ridiculous. Dan Barker should have protested to this stupid question and asked for a change to a more loaded and direct one, such as, "Can you prove that your imaginary god does not exist"? Now that's something that D'Crappa will not be able to debate on unless we insist that his imaginary god is present there with him. Damn, that question should have been a flag waver when Dan agreed to the debate. So D'Crappa will have the upper hand as the question is loaded in his favor from the start and Dan will more than likely weakly proffer irrelevant garbage and never interject that this god should first be proved to exist. I don't think Dan will shine on this debate, and once again the credit will go to that religious cretin for holding his own. This debate will be rendered moot by such an assinine question.

Perhaps it would be amusing for Silver Pox and Facilis to share a cell. They could discuss spiritual benefits and logic until jezus raptures them out.

"Just point out that Scandinavia is secular and has some of the lowest crime rates on earth"
I live in Sweden and its certainly the case that the argument that you need to be religious to be good is very rarely used here - as it tends to get laughed out of the building.
What I wonder about, however, is the implication of the 'atheism will lead to immorality' argument.
It's not uncommon to hear a US Christian of the fundamentalist type to claim that without a belief in God he'd be off raping and baby-eating and what-not, with the firm implication that this is something of an inevitability.
Now IF religious types firmly believed that then explain why do they fail to act upon this claim?
If we know a parent is a paedophile, for instance, we treat their children as being at high risk and actively remove them from that risk. The same thing with a parent who is obviously suicidal and delusional. If the religious firmly believe the children of atheists are in such danger then why do they not try to protect them? Shouldn't it be a priority to remove atheists children away from danger and into the safety of a fundamentalist family?
Now I guess there are probably a few religious nutters that DO advocate this (although personally I haven't heard of any) but considering that probably over half of the US population thinks along these lines exactly why isn't it a real issue? - in the same way that secular society makes an issue of protecting children from religious or cultural dangers such as enforced child marriage or female genital mutilation.

I am concerned. D'Souza is a clever debater (he's wrong on the facts, of course, but he's strategically smart); he certainly went into the Hitchens encounter with the right strategy, for instance.

And Barker is... an earnest public speaker. A great public face for atheism. But he's a *terrible* debater. He was absolutely destroyed by Paul Manata, who made idiotic presuppositionalist arguments that Barker simply ignored.

I'd rather it were Eddie Tabash.

When exactly is the Edmonton event? I may be able to make it if I'm lucky.

I saw these two debate here in Cambridge. Dishy Dizzy was, as usual, a dishonest cretin. I'd have hoped Barker would know better than to lend him any more credibility.

Holbach wrote:

D'Crappa is one loathsome cretin in my estimation, and I never miss an opportunity to smear this religious retard with all the venom he deserves.

But he'll probably never know what you think.

If you want to debate someone yourself start watching Battlestar Galactica and find a discussion forum like this.

Silverfox @17, your statement "God is needed if they are to be done for spiritual benefit." is the height of stupidity.

Spiritual benefits are defined by belief in god. What you are effectively saying is that you need god because you need god. Do you read what you type?

I've got tickets to the Hitch/D'ouchebag debate in Boulder as well. I suspect it will be a little like watching FOX News live. I'm considering making a D'ouchebag bingo board, or time how long it takes him to bring up the Greatest Crimes of the 20th Century argument.

I'll echo what has already been mentioned a few times in this thread: I would like to see a Harris/D'Souza debate.

@21

"explain how your suggestions that we stop opposing the efforts of Creationists and their political allies to destroy the United States' educational system and scientific institutions in order to create a theocratic dictatorship"

There is no explanation to that kind of hyperbole. It proposes a gross exaggeration of what is realistically possible.

Just because it doesn't seem quite possible, doesn't mean they wouldn't try, or that we shouldn't throw roadblocks up to that aim, at every chance we get.

@23
Please define "spiritual," "Divine will," and most especially "the intentionality of God."

God intends some purpose to creation. That which promotes that intention comports with the Divine will. Since this construction is transcendent of the material it is spiritual.

Silver Fox @ 52

You mean your belief in a god proposes a gross exaggeration of what is unrealistically impossible. There, fixed it for you again.

@ #27

Couldn't dissagree more. I am eating BBQ Pork Ribs right now and they are a fucking revelation. Completely spiritual.

I notice that the Centre For Inquiry Calgary has PZ in Calgary on the 25th of January & Edmonton on the 26th.

Have they got the date wrong or did PZ mistype something in the post above?

Silver Fox @ 54

You write as if you are dealing with lapsed members of the 700 Club instead of rational people who consider you insane and so eager to prove it. Your unsound mind is trancendent of it's genetic material and has transmogrified into a nightmare worthy of The Twilight Zone. Let's see your god come down here and kick the crap out of me, which I am sure your bonkers brain can certainly materialize. I'll wait right for your imaginary god. If your imaginary god told you to commit suicide, would you demand proof? I laugh with contempt and scorn, and if your imaginary god existed I would offer the same consideration. Come on, get that god of yours down here right now. What, can't do it?

Sastra wrote:

... naturally evil acts done with divine consideration are transformed into spiritually good acts. Religion can create a larger "factual framework" in which actions that are wrong to secular eyes, turn into actions which are right to God -- and those with the Eyes of Faith.

For example, future toddler chopper Vox Day.

@27

"God and spirituality are intangible and their existence is merely based on hopes and wishful thinking."

If by intangible you mean they transcend natural and material, Yes. If by hopes and wishful thinking you mean subjective experiences in the interiority of persons who accept and cooperate with the gift of faith and are aware of the evidence of transcendency. Yes.

Silver Fox wrote:

If by hopes and wishful thinking you mean subjective experiences in the interiority of persons who accept and cooperate with the gift of faith and are aware of the evidence of transcendency. Yes.

It's one thing to fool yourself with badly interpreted subjective experiences, it's quite another to murder the English language in order to dodge a question.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2009/01/introducing-derren-brown.html

@35
"Actions that are wrong to secular eyes, turn into actions which are right to God -- and those with the Eyes of Faith."

Don't forget the other half: Actions that are right to secular eyes, turn in to actions which are wrong with God - and those with the eyes of faith.

And if there is no god, no spiritual realm ?

Leaving that aside for a moment:
People are good or evil on their own, without regard to religious beliefs, if any. Of Religion, it can be a tool for controlling people. And any tool can be used to destroy as well as create.

Sissy sells Mary Kay. hahahahahaha

@35
"Actions that are wrong to secular eyes, turn into actions which are right to God -- and those with the Eyes of Faith."

Don't forget the other half: Actions that are right to secular eyes, turn in to actions which are wrong with God - and those with the eyes of faith.

Can you give some examples of this?

What about the swordpoint conversion of the Incan Emperor Atahualpa to Catholicism just as Francisco Pizarro was burning him alive at the stake?

Don't forget the other half: Actions that are right to secular eyes, turn in to actions which are wrong with God - and those with the eyes of faith.

He’s gotcha their, guys. Putting people above crackers and blasphemy and anointy nointy is indeed wrong with the god of those with the eyes of faith.

Yup, it works both ways.

Oh god, debate with Dinesh D'Souza is practically pointless. I mean, he's clearly an intelligent chap, but his whole inarguable position is that, if you and him agree on any issue at all (like "rape is wrong"), it's because you happen to be a closet "cultural christian", and if you disagree on any issue (like "abortion is acceptable" or "genetic engineering might be a useful medical tool"), it's because you're wrong and that's a result of godlessness.

If by hopes and wishful thinking you mean subjective experiences in the interiority of persons who accept and cooperate with the gift of faith and are aware of the evidence of transcendency.

Wait, what?

Evidence of the transcendent? Can you possibly explain what this evidence is, and how we can possibly be certain that it is indeed evidence of the transcendent?

@39
Bringing up the theistic presumption that god is necessary for "goodness" for "debate" is ridiculous."

Yes, because there is no empirical argument to support that presumption.

God is not necessary for goodness; natural goodness abounds. But unattached to the intentionality of the Divine will, it simply lacks spiritual efficacy. However, as an indicator of the conduct of that person's like, it may be a marker to his salvation.

Owlmirror wrote:

Evidence of the transcendent? Can you possibly explain what this evidence is, and how we can possibly be certain that it is indeed evidence of the transcendent?

He said "subjective experiences in the interiority of persons who accept and cooperate with the gift of faith" so, no he obviously can't.

You might want to find Derren Brown if you want to experience it:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2009/01/introducing-derren-brown.html

Silver Fox #62 wrote:

Don't forget the other half: Actions that are right to secular eyes, turn in to actions which are wrong with God - and those with the eyes of faith.

Sure. Almost any action can be flipped, and translated either way. For example, from a secular point of view, there is nothing wrong with, say, constitutional democracy. However, if one's religion frames a righteous government as one instituted by God -- who has established kings to rule over subjects -- then what is reasonable from the point of view of those considering such matters rationally, is now unreasonable. It is measured against the fact that the Authority finds self-rule an abomination, and man meant to be lead by King-Priests.

A morality anchored on God can go anywhere. While you can certainly get in arguments over ethics even when you're both standing on secular ground, there are certain rules and restrictions both sides have to follow. Reality trumps theory. We can judge by consequences in this world.

But religion can't be tested, nor can "spiritual consequences." If both sides are claiming the support of God, neither side can demonstrate who is right about God. That's faith. Which means there is no common ground to arbitrate on. Anything goes.

Nothing is more subjective and arbitrary than a moral system built on the Will of God. If it makes sense, it will make sense to a reasonable atheist -- and the God part is unnecessary, a sort of "so there" tacked on to a reasonable argument.

It's those religious systems which deliberately don't make sense in the world, which lead all over. And there's no requirement that religions make sense in the world. They're above the world. That's dangerous.

Silver Fox, back to godbotting which almost got you plonked earlier. Time to call it a night, and ask yourself can you post here without talking about your fictitious deity. Otherwise, I will go and paint your dungeon cell light gray in preparation.

This is what information I have been able to scour from the interwebs:

WHO:

Dan Barker and Dinesh D'Souza will debate "Can We Be Good Without God?"

WHEN

Jan 29th - TIME?!?

WHERE:

Willey Hall rooms 175 & 125 (1,100 seats)
225 19th Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55455

map: http://www1.umn.edu/twincities/maps/WilleyH/index.html

WHY:

Because Dinesh is a slippery little weasel and I'm sick of hearing him say "...well that is why they don't let biologists out of the lab...".

I'm bringing whip cream pies to throw at him. (I kid!)

sources:
http://cashumn.org/index.php?option=com_events&task=view_detail&agid=72…
http://sites.google.com/a/umncru.com/umn-cru/Events/debate
http://www.ffrf.org/events/

Silver Fox

Since you will not respond to my comments to your derangement, perhaps you can get your imaginary god to talk to me. You should be ranting your insanities to inmates of a lunatic asylum; at least they have no comprehension of your imaginary god anymore than you do.

God is not necessary for goodness; natural goodness abounds. But unattached to the intentionality of the Divine will, it simply lacks spiritual efficacy. However, as an indicator of the conduct of that person's like, it may be a marker to his salvation.

Fucking hell theists can talk a lot of wank!

@50
"Spiritual benefits are defined by belief in god"
Essentially, Yes.

"Do you read what you type?"

Yes

God is not necessary for goodness; natural goodness abounds.

But if all it leads to is harmony among people, goodwill, a better society, a better life for one's self. . . well, then what's the point, right?

I mean, it’s all so temporary. Heaven and eternal salvation is infinite and forever and ever and then some! And if you close your eyes real tight and hunker down and concentrate really hard on it then it must be true, especially when you do it in a group!. Gimmee that Old Time Religion . . . .

You’re just dicken around, aren’t you?

SteveL -> Thank you! I remember looking at his The Insanity Begins and just saw Edmonton - January 30, and strongly considered dragging the family all the way up there (not involuntarily - my wife thinks, "hmmm, Skatje might make a good middle name for a daughter...").

The U of C is much, much closer :)

In other news, we have a CFI chapter?? When did that happen??

Excuse me whilst I go have a quiet nerdgasm :)

Silver Fox wrote:

"Do you read what you type?"Yes

Does Ray Comfort make sense to you?
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/

@53
"Just because it doesn't seem quite possible"

Not quite possible?? A theocratic dictatorship?

Give me a break!!

If by hopes and wishful thinking you mean subjective experiences in the interiority of persons who accept and cooperate with the gift of faith and are aware of the evidence of transcendency. Yes.

If by interiority you mean "pertaining to a spiritual nature" then this statement begs the question. Faith is based on wishful thinking and the "evidence of transcendency" is pure hope. You want a god, you hope for a god, therefore god exists is not a good argument for the existence of god. I want $2.5 million, I hope for $2.5 million, yet the money isn't in my bank account.

I went out to Borders books tonight to hear Dan Barker talk, but I showed up too late and he was already gone. On my way out I picked up a copy of his latest book Godless [1] and it looks like a good read.

Here is an mp3 download of an earlier debate between Barker and D'Snooza (click here)

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Evangelical-Preacher-Americas-Atheists/dp…

A morality anchored on God can go anywhere.

Including, I might note, to human sacrifice.

It occurs to me that those killed by monotheists for heresy or apostasy or paganism or the wrong version of monotheism are exactly as dead as those captured prisoners whose hearts were torn out for Huitzilopochtli. And by and large, for the same psychological reason: they thought God wanted it.

God is not necessary for goodness; natural goodness abounds. But unattached to the intentionality of the Divine will, it simply lacks spiritual efficacy. However, as an indicator of the conduct of that person's like, it may be a marker to his salvation.

I'll attempt to translate: 'Something is - except when it isn't. But there's no way of telling which is 'is' and which is 'isn't'. And even when 'is' is and 'isn't' isn't, it mightn't make a difference anyway.'

That's what I love about Christianity. It's so thorough, so definite!

SF is still at it. Where did I leave the dungeon paint?

@53
"Just because it doesn't seem quite possible"

Not quite possible?? A theocratic dictatorship?

Give me a break!!

So then please explain why institutions like the Discovery Institute, have been active in encouraging the ruin of educational standards through the teaching of Intelligent Design and Creationism, as well as introducing inappropriate doubt about evolution and science, and are intimately associated with and heavily funded by Christian Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists?

Tell us why we shouldn't bother even though such institutions like the Discovery Institute have made statements like "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" or "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"?

Silver Fox

Your god wants you to respond to my comments on your derangement. If you don't, it will strike you dead. How do you know I am making this up? Ask your god for advice and see if it can make you strong enough to withstand my unremitting sarcasm and contempt. No guts, eh? I have to rely on you as your imaginary god will not reply. As Bugs put it so aptly, what a maroon.

The necessity for salvation is something I really don't understand about Christian theism. I can best reconcile it as a metaphor for the human condition, but even then the focus on redemption and salvation is quite concerning. If there is an objective standard for being good, why not just focus on being good rather than atonement? Needing to be forgiven for all indiscretions and transgressions is infantile, and needing to be forgiven for transgressions made by distant ancestors is just absurd. If there is any salvation, then surely it's based on actions and not faith. Surely that one would be best served by being good for goodness sake rather than being good for hope of reward. The servitude present in the three great monotheisms is an affront to the human endeavour.

SilverFox:

Could you please explain how spiritual benefit is in any way distinguishable from imaginary benefit?

I should add to the above:

Other than through an appeal to an imaginary scenario?

Silver Fox

This is your god speaking to you now. I want you to reply to Holbach's comments so that I don't look foolish and taken for granted that I do not exist. This is the only way we can confront these ardent atheists with proof of my existence and your loyality to make me relevant. I demand you to respond, for if you do not, I will have to come down and beat my divine guts into your skull. No creation of mine is going to make me look foolish with threats of non-existence and eternal ridicule.
So do this now before Holbach eviscerates me along with you. I'll be here for your support. Trust me.

I thought this issue had been settled long ago in Plato's Euthyphro. Either there is no morality, just the whim of the gods, or there are higher moral principles to which we mere mortals can appeal directly. There have been few knockdown arguments in the history of philosophy, but I think Plato got it right this time.

Of course one might argue for non-cognitivism or extreme relativism, and thus deny both sides of Plato's disjunction. But this would be risky for the theist. He would have to seek to preserve his god as the font of goodness in the very wastelands he says the atheist inhabits.

Oddly enough the best argument that atheists can be meaningfuly moral is derived from authors most of us would not call athiests.

Posted by: SDR | January 18, 2009 6:47 PM

I don't see how people can claim Hitchens isn't a good debater. He's fantastic.

He's not really a debater though. He delivers his talking points in a very fiery and explosive way, but sometimes he does not engage his opponent directly; unless, he/she steps on one of his talking points.

I still love to listen to him though.

Deja frickin' vu.

I saw this traveling sideshow at Harvard. I don't know what Barker is doing with that clown D'Souza. The latter's debate style is completely dishonest, repeating falsehoods he's been corrected on hundreds of times. Barker is smart and competent, but he refused when I saw him to call D'Souza on his bullshit. I have no idea why he agreed to another debate with the guy.

I have no idea why he agreed to another debate with the guy.

Money?

I saw this traveling sideshow at Harvard. I don't know what Barker is doing with that clown D'Souza. The latter's debate style is completely dishonest, repeating falsehoods he's been corrected on hundreds of times. Barker is smart and competent, but he refused when I saw him to call D'Souza on his bullshit. I have no idea why he agreed to another debate with the guy.

Maybe he's hoping that some of the audience might realise that, of the two of them, the one who is being polite and who isn't telling obvious lies is, in fact, not the one claiming to be a Christian. And those people might just open their eyes a little.

Plus, if it's filmed, it gives other people evidence of D'Souza blatantly lying and re-using discredited arguments to use against him in the future.

Eric @ 82, that link went to some page called tripod which was a dead end, but I trimmed it down and pasted it into my player and it worked

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/dsouza-barker-debate.mp3

silver fox spectacularly FAILING:

"explain how your suggestions that we stop opposing the efforts of Creationists and their political allies to destroy the United States' educational system and scientific institutions in order to create a theocratic dictatorship"

There is no explanation to that kind of hyperbole. It proposes a gross exaggeration of what is realistically possible.

It is no secret the fundie Death Cults want to destroy the USA and head on back to the dark ages. They say so often. Those are the liberal ones. The others just want god to show up and destroy the earth and kill 6.7 billion people.

As to how feasible it is, the xian fundies had a lot of influence over the US government for the last 8 years. They own the Theothuglican party, own the president, and controlled congress for most of that time.

The result is well known. Piles of dead bodies here and there in a pointless, endless war. Two of which were my friends killed in Iraq. A destroyed economy and financial system with a world wide recession that many people are frantically trying to keep from ending up as a World Depression.

I suppose the fundie Nihilists look upon the dead people and dead economies and struggling families as a good start. A recent poll says that 60% of US households are hurting economically. So much to destroy, so little time. Because xianity is a religion of peace, love, and tolerance and jesus loves you. So remember to say grace when you are sitting on a pile of rubble skinning a rat for dinner.

The best proof that religion has nothing to do with morality. There is no evidence that xians are more moral than anyone else. There is massive amounts of evidence that many xians are Just flat out evil. As JC said, "By their words and actions, ye shall know them." We're all sick of Bush and his gang.

Okay, the dates are confusing the crap out of me. The CFI poster and the Voices of Reason Lecture page says January 25th for P.Z. at the University of Calgary, but P.Z.'s post seems to indicate that he is not going to come out here until the following weekend.

What is the real date?

We need to plan babysitting and the like around this, seriously!

Anyhow, I just threw up a blog post about the visit. In the course of it, I proceeded to do some research into what sort of creationism/public school issues we have up here.

Well, we have no issues per se in the Calgary School Board (*throat clear* at least not on that issue), but in surrounding areas, there are some pretty atrocious things going on. The issues in this article still apply. The 'Christian Program' at the Mitford Middle School out in Cochrane has a statement of faith, and it is a literalist one, starting:

The Bible is the inspired, only infallible, authoritative, inerrant Word of God

On top of this, creationism is being taught... but it is unclear as to what it is being taught beside. One might imagine it being taught alongside evolution, but Alberta curriculum does not have that until the Biology 20 course, optional, usually in grade 11. This school is grades 5-8. Is evolution even being mentioned? If so, truthfully?

Disgusting.

@74
"perhaps you can get your imaginary god to talk to me."

Talk to you?? Well, that would be a neat magical trick. What kind of an anthropomorphic god would you like to talk to? Your request is silly because I'm reasonably sure God does not have vocal cords.

Your request is silly because I'm reasonably sure God does not have vocal cords.

So the burning bush used sign language to talk to Moses?

If you think Hitch can't debate, go dig up his debate with Galloway. It's a delight and will change your mind.

@81

"You want a god, you hope for a god, therefore god exists is not a good argument for the existence of god. I want $2.5 million, I hope for $2.5 million, yet the money isn't in my bank account.

You have the Grace of God to believe. You accept that Grace and exercise your faith. In doing so you engage an act of the Intellect under direction of t he Will. you are in communion with the revelation of God. This is an interior construction which is experienced personally as an accent to God. It presents as personal evidence of the presence of God.

If you do not accept the Grace of Faith, then this has no experiential value to you at all and leaves you with no course but to say "Its all imaginary; its all delusional".

It has nothing to do with wanting money in your bank account.

Silver Fox wrote:

Well, that would be a neat magical trick.

Your god is so ineffectual he can't even find a way to communicate directly with humans? Well, no wonder he stays hidden. If he's as you seem to think we'd probably break him by accident.

@86
"please explain why institutions like the Discovery Institute, have been active in encouraging the ruin of educational standards"

Probably 99% of the people in this country has never heard of the Discovery Institute. They don't know what it does or where it is or who belongs to it. Does that sound like they are on the brink of setting up a theocratic dictatorship?

My Mum had a bumper sticker on her car that said "the more I believe in *fairies, the more I see them." Now while I would like to consider this an excellent piece of scepticism, the seriousness of the comment displays the tautological nature of what Silver Fox is trying to say about the grace of God. If those who already believe in God are seeing God, then how is that any more valid than those who see fairies, or ghosts, or a Hindu demigod, or any other supernatural occurrence?What should be an alarming to the fallacious nature of a proposition is paraded as a source of truth, in effect by believing that God's hand is in nature you see God's hand in nature which goes back to being proof of God's hand in nature. All deliciously circular, all useless beyond self+affirmation of previously-held beliefs. People see what they want to see, basing evidence off that self-affirming gesture is absurd to the extreme.*may have been angels

Holbach @87
"what a maroon."

What's a maroon?

What's a maroon?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=maroon

Talk to you?? Well, that would be a neat magical trick. What kind of an anthropomorphic god would you like to talk to? Your request is silly because I'm reasonably sure God does not have vocal cords.

Why would lack of any vocal apparatus be an obstacle for this god? Is your god less than omnipotent; less than all-capable? Because it seems to me here you are suggesting that there is a very simple thing I can do that your god is incapable of: talking. Me > Your god.

Dave @89

"Could you please explain how spiritual benefit is in any way distinguishable from imaginary benefit?"

Spiritual benefit obtain through good works aimed at comporting to the Divine will. Imaginary benefits is what you get when you invest your money with Bernie Madoff.

Posted by: Silver Fox Author Profile Page | January 19, 2009

Holbach @87
"what a maroon."

What's a maroon?

Hello, Elmer Fudd! No wonder SF is so perpetually befuddled.

Probably 99% of the people in this country has never heard of the Discovery Institute. They don't know what it does or where it is or who belongs to it. Does that sound like they are on the brink of setting up a theocratic dictatorship?

Why is it necessary that people need to hear about something in order for that something to impact their livelihood? The answer is that it isn't. Your whole paragraph is a non-sequitur.

Kel@101

"So the burning bush used sign language to talk to Moses?

And don't forget the burning bush took its finger and wrote on stone.

Do you really believe that old Israelite story?

Heh, Silver Fox of the ineffable beliefs. :)

And don't forget the burning bush took its finger and wrote on stone.

Do you really believe that old Israelite story?

Why are you asking an atheist that? Of course I don't believe it. The story of Exodus is about as plausible as the story of Lazarus.

Kel @106

" basing evidence off that self-affirming gesture is absurd to the extreme."

It is revelatory evidence only to the believer through his/her interior experience. What is truly absurd to the extreme is for a disbeliever to conclude what the believer experiences.

Silver Fox,

What is truly absurd to the extreme is for a disbeliever anyone to conclude that what the believer experiences is genuine.

Fixed it for you. No, that's okay - you're welcome.

It is revelatory evidence only to the believer through his/her interior experience. What is truly absurd to the extreme is for a disbeliever to conclude what the believer experiences.

The point is that what a believer experiences is nothing more than tautological and such is not anything more than a personal affirmation on reality.It may be that they are experiencing God, or Brahman, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, I cannot say one way or the other. But to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and then claim to have felt his noodly appendage is not any more proof of the FSM than a believer claiming to have felt Jesus touching them inside. It's not to say whether it really happened or not, it's to say that the tautological and self-fulfilling nature of the claim is obvious to anyone not having that experiencing it. A person having a spiritual experience in Thailand will not see God, rather they will see the eternal karmic wheel and feel at one with nature. In our society we attribute this experience to God because we are a society where God is the default supernatural explanation.

Marcus Ranum

If you think Hitch can't debate, go dig up his debate with Galloway. It's a delight and will change your mind.

I alluded to those debates in an above post, as fine Bread and Circus, or more like television wrestling, actually.

Hitchens certainly proved to me that he could lie more convincingly than the more slouching hyenas from that particular litter box. But Anglos have no shortage of pedantic imperialist twits, sipping brandy in the Map Room after a long day of shooting drugged quails in a canvas bag— bemoaning the burdens of Empire, and the sad but inarguable efficacy of savage oppression as a tool for encouraging a richer and more humble appreciation of the virtues of Civilized Society.

One almost expected Hitch to drop the farce, pull on a pair of jodhpurs and start pumping out ripping, Kiplingesque monologues on how best to bring Christ (and running water) to the fuzzies and wogs, at the point of a bayonet.

Blustering oneself into to a puffing pink crescendo of sweat and noise does not really define a quality debate. In fact, between Galloway and Hitchens, one needed a score card and a list of every logical fallacy in case they omitted one in their occasional stumblings outside their roaring litanies of insults and adhominem.

There wasn't enough information in their astounding hour long performance to boot up a TIMEX, and the novelty wore off long before the shouting.

If I wanted to see desperate pugilism between a couple of old scarred up palookas, I'd go to a hockey game, but with my luck, a debate would break out.

.

Spiritual benefit obtain through good works aimed at comporting to the Divine will.

I say without reference to an imaginary scenario, and you go ahead and invoke the imaginary idea of Divine Will.

You also didn't explain how we can tell the difference between the two.

It is revelatory evidence only to the believer through his/her interior experience.

Are you trying to make my case for me?

What is truly absurd to the extreme is for a disbeliever to conclude what the believer experiences.

Oh really? Is it so absurd for you to conclude that the vagrant ranting on the street corner isn't really the King of Spain, of that the CIA isn't really reading his thoughts?

Silver Fox has to be one of the worst religion saturated and demented brains to appear on this blog. I predict that hw will eventually be committed as insane or don sackcloth and stand outside the Deranged Institute muttering "What's a maroon?"

Silver Fox #113

"So the burning bush used sign language to talk to Moses?"
And don't forget the burning bush took its finger and wrote on stone.
Do you really believe that old Israelite story?

You seem to be implying that anyone with a basic level of critical faculty could easily see that the burning bush story is untrue. I agree with you there. And yet you've been talking sincerely about spirits, divine will and so on. How do you decide which of the Bible's supernatural stories are true and which are false?

God strikes again... in his own house no less.

7 dead from Brazil church roof fall
Several hundred worshippers were attending Sunday evening services at the evangelical church when the structure's concrete roof fell in on them. Firefighter Mauricio Donatel told CNN that seven people had been killed and another 95 hurt by early Monday.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/brazil.churchcollapse/…

Atheists need to start combating religion's claim to monopoly of the moral highground. We need to promote our good deeds (and, more importantly, our desire to carry our good deeds) and the fact that we don't need the promise of heaven or the threat of eternal damnation to do good. In fact, by promoting charitable works carried out in the name of atheism we can reinforce the argument that superstitious beliefs are irrational (it's hard to believe there is an argument on that score).

mayhempix @ 124

And the religious deranged still cannot figure it out. This is not a form of insanity when faced with blatant reality?

Kel wrote:

If those who already believe in God are seeing God, then how is that any more valid than those who see fairies, or ghosts, or a Hindu demigod, or any other supernatural occurrence?

Don't limit it to the supernatural. Read up on N-rays:
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

Apparently silverfox can not comprehend English. He/she/it has been called out by a dozen people here and still thinks he/she/it has any credibility left.

I guess the ignorant, uneducatable lives in blissful irrationality.

wow @117

"What is truly absurd to the extreme is for a disbeliever anyone to conclude that what the believer experiences is genuine."

The believer doesn't have to "conclude"; he knows it.
Absurd? For the disbeliever to conclude that what the believer experiences is not genuine.

Absurd? For the disbeliever to conclude that what the believer experiences is not genuine.

Silver Fox,

maybe we should have a little stroll through the psych ward at my local Hospital some time,it might help you understand that you are talking garbage.

Silver Fox, time to play the show physical evidence for your god or shut up game. You are already familiar with it. Keep in mind, only liars and bullshitters can put up or shut up. Now, can you show physical evidence for your delusional deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers? Or is it time to go away?

In the third sentence of Post 131, that should be can't, not can.

SilverFox

Paul (possibly) wrote that he had 'proved' his Jesus from the Old Testament.

John seemed to write that Jesus was at the creation myth of Genesis.

Whoever wrote the supposed words of the supposed Jesus character claimed Jesus said "As in the days of Noah..."

We know for a fact that the tale of the incredible boat built to the specifications given to Noah by a god which you now claim cannot speak is a myth. So, for the Jesus character to state that the end times will be like the nonexistent time of Noah must mean that the end times are also a myth.

Cool.

Additionally, you seem to be under the delusion that Jesus is God. Jesus seemed to have the ability to speak in your holy books. Now Jesus lost his vocal cords?

Whatever god you claim as your Divine is certainly not the God that is claimed as the Divine of the hebrew and christian texts.

PS My son (CU student- biochemistry & MCDB) and I will be attending the Jan 26th D'Souza-Hitchens debate. I would prefer to see Barker-D'Souza or Harris-D'Souza but Hitchens will be good for some good ol' trash talking to the lying D'Souza.

I am truly tired of the "morality" bullshit. None of my atheist friends engages in anti-social behavior (well-pot smoking), but every x'er I know is an abusive liar, cheat, thief or a combination thereof. This is an anecdotal, science-free observation, no need to correct my hyperbole or generalizations, thanks for your concern.

The believer doesn't have to "conclude"; he knows it.
Absurd? For the disbeliever to conclude that what the believer experiences is not genuine.

So, my Great Aunt Suzie really is Marie Antoinette? Fuck! Guess I, and the doctors prescribing her meds, owe her a big 'ol apology!

Or else you're just a serious dumbass reality denier.

I'm thinking it's the latter.

It seems that the insane adage is so apt to Silver Fox and his deranged ilk: "With a god anything is possible." If anything is possible, then why should there be impossibilities such as a god? Silver Fox, I have to admit that you are among the most intransigent religious morons that I have had the pleasure to engage. You are not to be pitied for you are aware of your condition, and you are definitely not to be suffered lightly as your religious mental state will be your eventual collapse into insasnity. Your head is so thickened by religion that not even abject ridicule and contempt will penetrate to jar it into a semblance of possible thought to reason. So when you die, your god dies with you, without a thought or memory, and without a prayer. The worms are indifferent to what nonsense your flesh has absorbed; when they shit your remains out there will be no trace of your god.

Holbach #126
"And the religious deranged still cannot figure it out. This is not a form of insanity when faced with blatant reality?"

I'm sure there will be all sorts of various rationalizations by different groups: the promiscuity in Brazil, not the right kind of Christians, God has a different plan for the dead and injured,etc.

I would be curious to see how the superstitious holier than thou Silver Fox denies the reality that there was no god protecting or punishing them.

The story of Exodus is about as plausible as the story of Lazarus.

Actually, I think the story of Lazarus is slightly more plausible whose rough details may have happened, in that it's easier to fake a death-and-resurrection than to fake an epic catastrophe in Egypt that left no record whatsoever, and fake several hundred thousand people wandering through the desert and yet not leaving a trace.

I recall a three-way debate between Hitchens, D'Souza and Dennis Prager.

Hitch started out in good form, Dinesh was his usual obfuscating, cheerfully-wrong self. Hitchens was visibly shocked at the amount of applause D'Souza got with his utterly ridiculous points and spent much of the even barely engaged.

I have to say, though, that on the scale of Douchebags, Prager is still Emperor Palpatine and Dinesh a mere Darth Maul.

Talk to you?? Well, that would be a neat magical trick. What kind of an anthropomorphic god would you like to talk to? Your request is silly because I'm reasonably sure God does not have vocal cords.

It certainly looks like you're opting for the "infinitely powerless" way out of the Epicurean problem of evil. You're positing a God who cannot actually do anything, except, perhaps, maybe, let people who want to feel a certain way feel that way at certain times...

I could have sworn I recently read that being suggested by some theologian somewhere. Who have you been reading, perchance?

There are really debates about this?

Talk about an insane waste of time and energy...

The nastiest people I've ever known were "devout christians" I wouldn't waste piss on if they were on fire. I always assume nice people are NOT christians, and I'm shocked when they turn out to claim that epithet.

Silver Fox (#116):

It is revelatory evidence only to the believer through his/her interior experience.

and #129:

The believer doesn't have to "conclude"; he knows it.

Except this isn't evidence, and this isn't knowledge, in any meaningful sense of those terms. Evidence is, by its very nature, public - in order to be able to make evidential inferences reliably, one must be able to appeal to public criteria for determining whether you have observed the inferential process correctly. "Private" or "interior" evidence is no kind of evidence at all, in the same way as a "private" language is no language at all.

Now, if you want to say that the believer can know the truth of "spiritual" claims directly, without having to infer them on any evidential basis, then that's a different matter (but in that case you should stop talking about "evidence" in this context, since the term would then be clearly inapplicable). After all, it does seem that there are some beliefs that can count as knowledge without appeal to any public, evidential criteria (e.g., "I am in pain"), whereby merely having the belief is itself adequate justification for its being true.

But these are beliefs about one's own subjective states, which make no claims about reality beyond those subjective states. In contrast, beliefs about God or some kind of "spiritual reality" are completely different - they are beliefs about putative external, objective states of affairs. As such, for such beliefs to count as knowledge, they need justification independently of the subjective experience itself, and that requires being able to appeal to public standards of justification.

If you really want to believe things as a matter of faith, then you have every right to do so. But please stop trying to give this a spurious intellectual respectability through your oxymoronic misuse of the terms "evidence" and "knowledge".

Wonder if D'Souza will drag out his line "I feel like a mosquito at a nudist colony, where do I start?" in opening his rebuttal to Barker. Barker, or anyone who debates D'Souza, should beat him to the punch by saying "I know my opponent will probably say that he feels like a mosquito at a nudist colony. But remember what a mosquito is, just a little prick."

And as for the question "Can we be good without God?", the answer should be, "Not only is it possible to be good without God, it's easy!"

The Calgary/Edmonton events are on the 25th and 26th respectively. This is confirmed and the post simply contains an error.

I got to meet Dan Barker yesterday at the Minnesota Atheists meeting. He had a great talk, and I was able to speak with him and get my copy of his book, "Godless," autographed. Nice guy.

I saw the D'Souza vs Dennett debate and I've watched a few other D'Souza debates on line.

These events are not actually debates. They're marketing strategies. They're designed to draw attention to someone's book and/or availability for speaking engagements.

Quite frustrating to watch, actually.

If I were in charge, I'd insist that both parties define what is meant by "good" and by "with God." I'd also insist that neither party offer any claims that cannot be corroborated or falsified.

Don't limit it to the supernatural. Read up on N-rays:

Indeed, the projection of bias is always there.

Actually, I think the story of Lazarus is slightly more plausible whose rough details may have happened, in that it's easier to fake a death-and-resurrection than to fake an epic catastrophe in Egypt that left no record whatsoever, and fake several hundred thousand people wandering through the desert and yet not leaving a trace.

Well in terms of someone being raised from the dead, it's about as plausible as God speaking through a burning bush to Moses. But I get your point.

Funny,
At the University of Guelph, the campus crusade for christ group changed their name to "campus for christ" because apparently there was something they didn't like about the word "crusade".

Only God is Good so we cant be "Good" even with God, but we can do good things.the Bible verse with God likes smashing children against stones was misquoted.It really says "The children of Babylon he will smash against stones". If people dont believe in God in the new testament there punishment was to be all killed even the children. Especially Babylon which was corrupt in extreme forms of pagan worship,sacrificing there children to their"gods"/idols,and participating in debauchery ,orgies,adultery,and the like. It was better that there children die than be forced into worshiping false "gods" who aso had demonic rituals.

Only God is Good so we cant be "Good" even with God, but we can do good things.the Bible verse with God likes smashing children against stones was misquoted.It really says "The children of Babylon he will smash against stones". If people dont believe in God in the new testament there punishment was to be all killed even the children. Especially Babylon which was corrupt in extreme forms of pagan worship,sacrificing there children to their"gods"/idols,and participating in debauchery ,orgies,adultery,and the like. It was better that there children die than be forced into worshiping false "gods" who also had demonic rituals.

Tony (Prophet) Byland #149 wrote:

It was better that there children die than be forced into worshiping false "gods" who aso had demonic rituals.

You can be 'good' with or without God -- but belief in God does seem to foster the justification of some truly awful things.

Tell me -- if you weren't 100% positive that God had ordered the destruction of infidel children -- would you still consider it justified?

Which leads to the follow up: should you -- or anyone -- ever be that positive about God?

Tony, you are murderous scum.

Tony appears to be guinea shy of a pound.