Dinesh D'Souza debates Hitchens on religion

[SigniferOne]

In another thread a person said:

it took me about 5 years, to slowly accept what I was, a freethinker. I was a very devout Catholic and Christian for most of my life. As I grew up, the hold and the fear of hell slipped from my shoulders. Now, if you're really an atheist, there is nothing to fear from god or hell - it's inconsequential, those are just old superstitions and fairy tales. It took me a while to realize that. And you should know that the probability of the Christian god existing is the same as the gods of yore. Now, you're not afraid of Zeus smiting you for not believing in him now, do you?

You have two choices, suppress your inner freethinker and believe in God, and all that, or forget about religion and just be who you are.

The excellent debate debate on religion can be found here:

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?P...=&PlayMedia=No

It shows that someone could be a freethinker and believe in God.
In fact that's what men in the Renaissance did, being religious and yet great freethinkers.

[Burnum]

You can't debate alcoholics, they're irrational.

[SigniferOne]

Hitchens made some very good arguments, as did D'Souza. The ultimate point that all religious people were blumbering idiots was clearly disproved when D'Souza came out all swinging.

[Sleeper]

You can't debate alcoholics, they're irrational.

You debate me.


Belief in God is easily separated from intellect. My faith is seeped in intellect, but faith need not be.

[Tankbuster]

Depends on the definition of God you have in your head.

If you believe in a jealous, easily offended God, then I don't think you'll be a free-thinker that easily.

And while I understand how you can believe in God, AND be a great scientist/intellectual, I have the impression that it remains a bit of an obstacle.

[Zenith Darksea]

It's a ridiculous notion, that you must choose between free-thinking and religion. I'm a free-thinker, and that led me to Eastern Orthodox Christianity (whereas if I had not been a free-thinker I would probably have followed the rest of my family and friends at school into being atheist). It's a concept that is easily disproved when you consider all the incredibly intelligent free-thinkers who have also been religious (e.g. C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, St Gregory Palamas, St John of Damascus, etc. etc.).

[Roman Knight]

It's a ridiculous notion, that you must choose between free-thinking and religion. I'm a free-thinker, and that led me to Eastern Orthodox Christianity (whereas if I had not been a free-thinker I would probably have followed the rest of my family and friends at school into being atheist). It's a concept that is easily disproved when you consider all the incredibly intelligent free-thinkers who have also been religious (e.g. C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, St Gregory Palamas, St John of Damascus, etc. etc.).

Sorry, just had to break it to you that C.S. Lewis was an Atheist

[Dayman]

Sorry, just had to break it to you that C.S. Lewis was an Atheist

Was is the key point there.

You have two choices, suppress your inner freethinker and believe in God, and all that, or forget about religion and just be who you are.

I believe you misunderstood that , because that was tailored to that user, not towards everyone. It's that person I was talking about felt he was an atheist, but was afraid of not being a Christian.

[Chaigidel]

C.S. Lewis, A Former Atheist


Now Faith...is the art of holding on to things your reason 'has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith. - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[Roman Knight]

C.S. Lewis, A Former Atheist


Now Faith...is the art of holding on to things your reason 'has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith. - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Thank you for disproving me

But at least at the point at which he wrote Narnia he was not religious, as he was very much against it being likened to Christianity.

I'll try not to continue this though as it is detracting from the main debate

[SigniferOne]

I believe you misunderstood that , because that was tailored to that user, not towards everyone. It's that person I was talking about felt he was an atheist, but was afraid of not being a Christian.

What's interesting about the debate is you can have the atheistic 'I question everything' attitude and still turn out to be Christian as D'Souza has.

[Dayman]

What's interesting about the debate is you can have the atheistic 'I question everything' attitude and still be Christian as D'Souza is.

I have yet to watch the video, I'll comment on it once I do. I do find that very hard to believe (or, when I was Christian, it was "I question everything except the dogmatic elements of Christianity").

[SigniferOne]

Most of the threads in this forum could be answered by watching highly intelligent D'Souza-Hitchens debate:

Is agnosticism good or bad,
Is the universe mechanical,
what is the nature of Christianity,
etc.

I find it surprising that most people would rather debate it with their own limited vocabulary than watch two important luminaries on the matter.

[Zenith Darksea]

I find it surprising that most people would rather debate it with their own limited vocabulary than watch two important luminaries on the matter.

Really? That surprises you? It doesn't surprise me. People prefer to have their own say and voice their own opinions without having to listen to what anybody else has to say.

[SigniferOne]

Really? That surprises you? It doesn't surprise me. People prefer to have their own say and voice their own opinions without having to listen to what anybody else has to say.

That may be so, but their own opinions and arguments will be far weaker than what the best minds can offer on the matter. An intelligent person doesn't push his own arguments, no matter how weak, but tries to learn from the best minds and raise himself into the more intelligent and educated sphere of society. That video is one such example. Whether a person continues to imagine that his small and petty arguments are the real irrefutable point, is up to him. Most arguments in this sub-forum are quite small, and have been answered all a thousand times before. The debate is a chance to educate oneself on the matter, from both sides of the debate.

[Sleeper]

That may be so, but their own opinions and arguments will be far weaker than what the best minds can offer on the matter.

No.

An intelligent person doesn't push his own arguments, no matter how weak, but tries to learn from the best minds and raise himself into the more intelligent and educated sphere of society.

Rarely true and glad for it. Thinking for oneself is far more important than stealing every argument from someone.

Most arguments in this sub-forum are quite small, and have been answered all a thousand times before. The debate is a chance to educate oneself on the matter, from both sides of the debate.

Yes. As is most communication if you are intelligent.

[SigniferOne]

Rarely true and glad for it. Thinking for oneself is far more important than stealing every argument from someone.

What I'm saying is, say you have some objection to religion. Most likely it's a very simple-minded objection and very intelligent people have already answered it a thousand years ago (literally).

How do you find out if your argument was answered? Listen to very smart people debating. What side are you for, religion or atheism? I guarantee you will be stumped when you watch this debate.

[Zenith Darksea]

It's an interesting point. When I was at the monastery of Ormylia in Greece last year, I was being shown around by a Greek friend of mine. He was very well known by the nuns at Ormylia, and it turned out that he'd sent them some Greek translations of the Narnia novels. Even though they were Greek Orthodox nuns, they kept going on and on about how much they enjoyed the books and how rich the Christian symbolism was in them. I think that says quite a lot!

[Denny Crane!]

I just got the time to listen to the debate. As I have often thought Hitchens should stick to writing books, I didn't think either of them are very good debators. It was full of populist rhetoric on either side and I daresay if I dredged the forums I could come up with a more high quality debate from here.

[Dayman]

I feel similarly, Hitchens is a great writer, and, it's kinda fun when he turns on his sarcasm (for the heathens like me ), but he doesn't win friends to the secular cause by being a royal prick. He's too sarcastic for his own good, when he speaks.