Eughhh, D'souza again? I originally enjoyed his book "Whats so great about Christianity?" but after watching some of his debates I've lost a lot of respect for him, specially after reading some of his articles like:(http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/12/21/how-atheists-celebrate-christmas/)and(http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/04/18/where-is-atheism-when-bad-things-happen/)
He appeals to antiquity, authority, population, and faith. His go to argument is always that in the absence of evidence, he decides to be faithful and selects the Christian set of ideas - and he also claims this is equivalent to the non-believer's position.How many times must it be said - non-belief IS NOT a belief, nor does it require any faith whatsoever to have (especially since it isn't having anything - unless you count intellectual consistency and honesty).D-souza debates really well, but he commits logical fallacies to win admiration from those who already agree with him.I don't care if a million great scientists believed in a god - this does not provide any reasonable ground that a god exists.Also, I don't care if every single Christian is a good person - this also does not provide any reasonable ground that a god exists.Oh man, deez guys...
LOL, raffling off an ipod touch
I don't think Hitchens had enough time to jot down and then address every inconsistency throughout D'Souza's arguments. In fact, I was a little let down with both sides' arguments. I would like to hear something beyond the "God is good because we're alive" argument, and maybe because of time constraints, Hitchens leaned towards the "I'm rational. If god is real, he's a horrible monster" argument. I want someone to explain that we can think rationally because evolution gave us a cortex. Probably not because some Omnipotent bully decided that he liked us more (or possibly less) than cheetahs.
Post a Comment