61. You know, Dennett pretty much creamed him. Unlike his debate with Hitchens - where while I disagree wth Mr. D'Souza he did hold his own - this time he got crushed...in large measure because D'Souza spent the entire time YELLING at the audience, almost as though if he believed the louder he yelled the more points he would win. Combined with the disjointed nature of some of his points and his lousy metaphors (the universe is like an novel? WTF?) he just seemed like a raging bible thumper at points. Dennett on the other hand was cool and collected and while not a great debater by any stretch, certainly out classed D'Souza on this night.

I don't agree with much of what D'Souza says,but he is usually a good debater and interesting too watch. This was just...so shrill there were dogs all over the county begging for him to stop.

Al at 1:08PM on Dec 3rd 2007

62. Leah - 'miraculous' healings are interesting but don't add up as proof of god(s). First off, just because something is unexplained doesn't mean that it's unexplainable. D'Souza in the debate talked about how there are all these religions out there, and claimed that atheists, picking 'none of the above', were being irrational. But consider - before the late 1700's, and Benjamin Franklin's experiments with electricity, when someone asked, "What is lightning? What causes it?" what would the proper answer be? Thor? Seth? Zeus? The Thunderbirds? Susanowo? Tlaloc? Enlil? Indra? Yahweh? We now know that the answer (at the very least, the proximate answer) really is 'none of the above'. But even in 1600, the proper answer was, "We don't know. Maybe one day we will."

Secondly, unlikely things do happen - indeed, it would be strange if unlikely things didn't happen. As they say, "A million-to-one shot happens eight times a day in New York City." To determine if it's not just chance, you have to do controlled tests, ideally double-blind. Under those conditions, prayer and such just doesn't have a measurable, reproducible effect.

And, finally, if an omnipotent God were behind spontaneous remissions and rabies cures, it's very odd that only some classes of cures - namely, ones that we already know can happen 'naturally' - actually come up. No one's ever documented a case of someone miraculously regrowing a limb, for example.

Ray Ingles at 1:10PM on Dec 3rd 2007

63. i agree with mc hammer and fl chick when it comes to man made gods that people mold to their liking and condemn people to eternal damnation for whatever reason. i am an agnostic and while i do feel that there is something larger than me out there i can't pretend to know what it is. maybe it's "god," maybe it's just an awe of life itself and a sense of connectedness to everything living, maybe "god" is life, hell i dunno. but the thing is this, i'm okay with not knowing. and if someone else's personal truth is different than mine i'm not going to say that whatever it is that is larger than me is going to punish them for thinking differently.

Richelle at 1:17PM on Dec 3rd 2007

64. ATHEIST

If you read a good translation of the Book of Genesis....

it says...

In the beginning...

There was a vast ocean. The pneuma *spirit of breath) of the elohim was hovering ABOVE the vast ocean.

Then, the elohim said "Let there be light," and there was light.

Then the elohim moved part of the ocean to one side, so that the dry land could appear.

Then, there was a night.... and one the next day... and so on...

and later on, there were trees bearing fruit on the surface of the earth...

and then there was another night, and on the NEXT day, the SUN, the moon and the STARS were MADE.

So, in the FIRST creation myth in the book of Genesis, there were trees growing on earth BEFORE any stars existed.

We KNOW that is wrong.... because the elements in the core of our earth were formed inside stars, by the process of nuclear fusion...

We KNOW, for a fact, that the Creation Myth in Genesis was NOT written by anyone with actual knowledge of how the universe began.

That's why Atheists make the statements they do.

Because we KNOW.

If dinesh would find out the FACTS, he wouldn't say the things he does. Because they are WRONG

William Hays at 1:26PM on Dec 3rd 2007

65. (Dang it, the videos don't work anymore)

To prffsrx: you said "All human misconceptions about God are based on: an attempt to approach Him on ones own terms, conform Him into a being filled with human vices. ... The god that atheists have invented in their own minds does not exist and is a mere reflection of their own evil heart."

A good point - a person's perception of God will always be in some way based on their human perception of Him. To truely understand God would be like understanding eternity. Our mortal limited selves cannot understand such a thing we have not experienced. Therefore, our image of God will be somehow morphed through our perception.

But "being filled with human vices" or "a reflection of their own evil heart"? That's some strong language, and one-sided. It is not something I've have come to gather from atheists. Closest thing I have seen is some who, going through a horrific personal tragedy, end their trust (and belief) in God mostly on the assumption that an All-Powerful Benevolent God would have not let this happen to them. In truth, most, and just about all whom I've come across, atheist tend to believe simply that an omnipresent being such as God does seem logical or possible.

Again with the personal experiences with God, perhaps atheist just haven't had the right experiences to help them believe. Growing up in a family with atheists parents? But hey, maybe we base our faith on our parents as well. Makes one think.

Maybe it's not my place to correct you, but I don't like bias, even if it's technically "on my side." And that's what you did, presented biasly. You should work on that. "Atheist don't exist"? I'm sure that anyone reading your post, who is in fact atheist, didn't think of you defending God, which should be the main point, but just defending yourself and your own beliefs, and spewing out your own thoughts. If you would rather an atheist believe in God, why not tell them of your love for Him, the advantages you have from this instead of try to insult them? You may get some better results.

God bless!
SarahET

SarahET at 1:28PM on Dec 3rd 2007

66. Question:
Since some of us here are actually more agnostic than atheist, what does DD say about agnostics? Does he call them dangerous idiots too?

Mokele-Mbembe at 1:29PM on Dec 3rd 2007

67. AGNOSTIC

William, Brittney and all; Speaking of Genesis, I've always been curious about the transition from Genesis Chapter 2 verse 3 to verse 4. As an agnostic, I've always felt this was the single most compelling peice of evidence against a literal interuptation of the bible. Seems like two different scrolls from two different stories got stuck together...

William, since you know the hebrew, I'm curious what your take is on it.

Ryan Anderson at 1:33PM on Dec 3rd 2007

68. 60. William, according to my bible the line you quote in Hebrew is line 2 of my text, in either case the first quote was completely in correct, according to you and me. What you are referring to in the beginning might be line 3 which just says, "let there be light" but

it doesn't say that the stars came after the heavens,
______________

Actually, it does. Verse 1:16
__________________


it just says "Let there be light" which may support the theory of how stars were created... (end)
_______________

I get the impression that you've never read this before.

You certainly don't know what it SAYS.

Seven days of Creation.

Get out a pencil and some paper, and write down what was created on each day. You need to get to the point where you can do it from memory, like me.

Trees bearing fruit after their own kind.... on the surface of the earth.

Then, a night. Then, on the next day....

elohim made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.

Then, without any period or break, it says "the stars also..."

Without any question, Genesis says that our sun and the other stars were made... on the day AFTER there were trees growing on earth.

It ALSO says... that the earth itself existed BEFORE the Acts of Creation began on the First Day.

I know you don't understand this, but it's pretty simple.

The act of "let there be light" took place on Day One, and the sun and stars were made LATER.

It's in the text. It really is. Like most christians, you don't know what you're talking about.

William Hays at 1:33PM on Dec 3rd 2007

69. he would probably say that we are non-commital idiots

Richelle at 1:35PM on Dec 3rd 2007

70. Brittany - can you specifically identify a "pro-darwin" argument that Gould or Orr "dismissed"? Neither one of them had any problem with evolution happening by Darwinian lines. At most, what they disagreed on - and this is a direct quote of Orr - is "whether selection is very important in biological evolution (as everyone, including Gould and Lewontin, believe) or is almost exclusively important (as Dennett believes)." Dennett argued that Orr had misinterpreted even that.

To use your own analogy, this is a bit like two Christian theologians arguing about the relative importance of faith and works; neither one is questioning the Resurrection. I can understand your misapprehension, as there are a lot of people deliberately misrepresenting debates about the various mechanisms of evolution as if they were questioning the fact of evolution. But I suggest a bit of reading in the field will correct this mistaken impression.

Ray Ingles at 1:37PM on Dec 3rd 2007

71. @65
"In truth, most, and just about all whom I've come across, atheist tend to believe simply that an omnipresent being such as God does seem logical or possible." SarahET
-------------------------
Wha??? Was that a typo? Not only should it be does NOT seem logical or possible, but your statement is wrong even if it were 'does not'.

Atheists do not believe in any type of deity ('being', or whatever. We are non-believers, not unbelievers. I personally refute the existence of a 'god'.

Maybe you were thinking of agnostics? (atheist light)??

Linda at 1:37PM on Dec 3rd 2007

72. ATHEIST

Two Creation Myths in Genesis.

Ray,

There are some scholarly opinions about where the two Creation myths came from. Do a Google search and you can find hundreds of excellent analysis.

In the first Creation myth, the earth started as an ocean, and then the water was moved aside to let the dry land appear.

in the second myth, the earth started as dry land, and the water came up from underneath. Like being in a desert and digging a well.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

LINK: The structure of the first Creation myth is high poetry in the best Hebrew style. Even in translation, without looking at the original Hebrew, a modern reader can see significant differences in the narrative voice. The narrative voice in Genesis 1-2:3 is solemn, dignified, precise, and organized. He wastes no words. He is a poet of great skill. He focuses on God as transcendent. The narrative voice in Genesis 2:4 is also skillful, but in a different way. He focuses much more on down-to-earth details and appeals to vivid and concrete imagery. In anthropomorphic terms, he describes God doing a "hands-on" creation like a potter shaping clay.

Genesis 2:4-3:23 is a non-poetic text. It is written in prose rather than in poetic lines--no meter. It does not use anaphora and parallelism the same way as that first section. To indicate the non-poetic nature of the text here, most NIV translations break the text into paragraphs. In terms of literary devices, the primary schemes and tropes are puns providing Hebrew folk etymologies. For instance, the narrative voice tells us that humanity (the Hebrew word adam) is called adam because God made him from adamah (ground or dust).

Day Three: God separates the "waters below" from dry land. The "waters above" are still left in place somewhere above the firmament. On the same day, God commands the land to produce vegetation including both seed-bearing trees and plants (though the sun is not yet created for photosynthesis). Another evening and another morning passes.
Day Four: The sun, the moon, and the stars are created. Another evening and another morning pass.

William Hays at 1:43PM on Dec 3rd 2007

73. William, I am reading right out of the bible before I respond. It is in my hand! What you refer to in your previous post about the stars coming after is not what it says! What version are you quoting from?

Brittany at 1:44PM on Dec 3rd 2007

74. I'm sure that anyone reading your post, who is in fact atheist, didn't think of you defending God, which should be the main point, but just defending yourself and your own beliefs, and spewing out your own thoughts.

The "defense" of god is one of the things we rail against. Onward christian soldiers going as to war, with the cross of jesus going on before....
People will kill in defense of god, or what they attribute to god. Strap bombs on themselves, snipe doctors in parking lots, protest at funerals.

We really don't have a problem with religion in and of itself, but what people will do and say to enforce (or force) their views on others. If you believe life starts with one cell, fine. Don't get abortions. When you start forcing those tenets on others, that's where the problems start.

Ken at 1:44PM on Dec 3rd 2007

75. Dinesh, you clearly won this debate. Most of the you tube-commenters and blog-viewers are just commending Dennett for articulating an atheist point of view; which was delivered by a respectable, obviously intelligent, academic.

If you were ask to define what it means to “win” a debate you clearly were the victor here. You were debating in front of a largely atheist audience, put on my an atheist club, against a well-known atheist apologetic. The students came not to consider all beliefs but most likely expected Mr Dennett to make a fool of you which clearly wasn’t the case. These students and 15 yr old youtubers have never heard a well-argued articulate viewpoint from a Christian perspective. Mr Dennett’s presentation was probably just saved from his weekly lectures. Most everyone there has probably heard what he has said before. But you really engaged the students minds and challenged them on their beliefs which only receive affirmation and acceptance at the modern day university.

You will never have an “enlightened” atheist congratulate a person of faith for winning a debate over beliefs so don’t expect many honest answers from your polls and comments. If you consider the grand scheme of things you have offered a straightforward thought-provoking perspective to many of these young people who have never heard one before.

Despite your criticism, which is mostly from those who ONLY listened to Dennett’s point of view, you’ve succeeded in bringing a new outlook on modern-day faith and life’s unanswered questions.

Bob P. at 1:47PM on Dec 3rd 2007