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:
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.
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.
Welcome to the OUSS's blog! Please make as many posts as you like and be sure to check in daily as we will be updating as regularly as possible. We look forward to interacting with you all!
We have weekly meetings/discussions open to the public:
Tuesdays 6-7 PM Bentley, Room 210
Cheers,
The OUSS Crew
What is the OU Skeptic Society?
We are an organization comprised of members of the communities in the Athens, OH area as well as the Ohio University student body.
We are dedicated to promoting positive, scientific skepticism in all areas of life. Our goals are:
1.) To Inform the students and surrounding populous of the importance of skeptical thought in today’s world
2.) Promote higher understanding of science
3.) Hold informative meetings which pertain to local and national news as well as issues that our members find interesting.
4.) Provide a vessel for skeptical discourse.
5.) Challenge quackery, pseudoscience con-artists and anything of the sort in Athens or the surrounding area.
4 comments:
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