Part 6 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett

It is true that it is a moot issue even among Christians. Why do you say just coz I say it, does not make it true? If they ban it because of religious reasons, then you can thank your democracy for that, another thing that was established because of religious reasons.

"The same for homosexuality. The fact is that many many people try to suppress and even outlaw it."

huh? Where is it outlawed? Afghanistan?

It seems fair. But not in a debate. How then would we counter against 'double talk' ? You could may as well just say that you didnt mean whatever you actually really meant. Nevertheless, I will try to be more discerning of what you actually mean. I do request that you desist from calling me a 'liar'.

It seems fair. But not in a debate. How then would we counter against 'double talk' ? You could may as well just say that you didnt mean whatever you actually really meant. Nevertheless, I will try to be more discerning of what you actually mean. I do request that you desist from calling me a 'liar'.

please read the actual comment where I misquoted you. I dont think you are getting my point. Included in the actual comment was my definition of the word. I defined the word as pleasure from pain, and not 'sexual gratification from the infliction of pain on someone else'. My definition of it was correct, in the sense that thats what you actually meant the word to mean.

In case you didnt understand that because of bad phrasing. I think if your girlfriend never remembers to set her alarm, then you would think shes moronic because she perpetually does a moronic action. Christians dont do (as you claim)'moronic' things and then dont do them after. They do it perpetually.

That could be argued both ways. I certainly dont think you believe your girlfriend is 'perpetually' moronic. But with regards to the not setting of the alarm, I could argue that you thought she was 'Moronic' at the time. What if she never remembers to set her alarm? Considering that Christians 'perpetually' do 'moronic' things in the name of God, makes it very reasonable to believe that they are 'perpetually' moronic so long as they keep doing the 'moronic' thing. So your analogy is a false one.

"I honestly dont know what you are talking about" - You said, that If I give Nobel as an example, you can give USAID, then I can give another and so on and so forth we go. To which Im saying, No, because USAID is not an answer to Nobel. Thats what I was talking about. Like I said, good deeds, we can both agree that they are equal. But 'saintly-like' selflessness, I dont agree they are equal. And the Nobel Peace Prize is the closest thing we have that recognizes 'Saintly-like' selflessness.

"You simply do not have the data to make a claim that theists more often do good things than non theists." - See, thats not what I said. Again I will reiterate. As to 'doing good things' they most probably are equal. But as to the 'saintly' things. Which Like I said is an immensely deeper form of 'selflessness' I think theists are more inclined to commit themselves to such. And I have stated reasons, given examples all of which you simply claim as "unaccpetable".

ok then. Sorry for calling you dense.

Let me put it another way. Here is a fair request. If its not fair tell me why.

I have never and will never let anyone put words into my mouth i didnt say. I dont care if the words are a little like what i did say, its just not going to happen.

So if you are going to quote me in future or say that i said something, have the descency to use the words I actually did use.

Is that fair? If not, why not.

I refer you back to this comment here. Find the full list if you cant see which one im talking about. Are you at least going to show the decency to apologise for this? I mean if i went around throwing insulting words like "dense" and then it turned out the mistake was all mine, i would have the moral decency to say sorry.

Im not assuming it debunks anything. I am assuming that it doesnt support the claim that you are using it to try and make. You simply do not have the data to make a claim that theists more often do good things than non theists. Picking one award ceremony that supports your view is not a way to support such claims.

I honestly dont know what you are talking about anymore. Who cares that one is an award and one is an organisation. The fact is i can CLAIM that the high proportion of theists or non theists in one proves something. The fact is however it doesnt.

Any claim that theists more often to good deeds than non theists is just a lie. Its data you dont have and a claim you cant make.

Bull. In fact if someone can look at your religious teachings and recognise that some are good and some are bad then they are being VERY rational. IF they followed it blindly and accepted every single part of it as true no matter what THEN id call them irrational.

So no I am implying nothing here. You have decided to suggest I am but this is false and dishonest on your part.

Bull again. My girlfriend recently missed a train because she decided not to set an alarm. I thought that was a moronic thing to do. Does that mean I am implying she is moronic? No its not. Thats just your dishonest twist on things.

By saying someone does moronic things I am NOT in ANY way suggesting that person is inherantly moronic. This is solely in your head.

Its the pleasure in someone ELSES pain. So the difference is immense. It completely changes the meaning of what I said. And since you so often misquote me and put words in my mouth I cannot stand by and let you make changes to what I said l ike that as youll only likely try and quote me later on.

Had you not frequently misquoted me I might have left this kind of dishonesty go and ignore it. But it seems I have to be careful with you as you often twist things.

If I say Nobel, You saying USAID does nothing to debunk Nobel. They are different. Nobel is an award, a very recognized and distinguished one at that. USAID is a humanitarian organization. You could use USAID to prove your point, but you know as well as I do that it would be useless as I can debunk it very easily. But as to my 'Nobel' you should try to debunk it, instead of just claiming out of thin air that its 'not acceptable'. Your Nobel = usaid = (whatever) logic does not follow.

The quote I posted here shows you even say that theists bet on 'Moronic' things in the name of God.- Which logically can be construed to mean that your implying theists are morons. See u may not have implied it directly, but you certainly implied it indirectly. The only quote that will satisfy you is if I was able to quote you saying exactly "Theists are irrational" which I cant do, since you didnt say anything like that. But your statements have implied that indirectly, So No im not a liar.

see I misquoted you allright But the 'misquote' was defined as being exactly synonymous with the word you meant. In fact I simultaneously defined the word alongside the attack in one comment box. In which I defined sado masochism as "pleasure from pain". So the difference may very well be in my 'spelling' of the word, so it is not immense.

An email I have yet to answer. Be that as it may. You are merely playing with words. You say my religion is an 'ala carte religion' and yet you say you dont call the people who follow this 'ala carte' religion irrational. I never said you explicitly said the words "theists are irrational" But it sure is something you have indirectly stated many times during this debate. To say otherwise is nothing but a play and twisting of words on your part.

Your assuming Your USAID is an example that debunks Nobels. Its not. USAID is a Humanitarian Organization. Nobel Peace Prize is an award given to people who do exemplary acts of selflessness. - which is what we were discussing. Like I said, we both already agreed that non-believers as well as believers are capable of acts of selflessness. But I was stressing on the level of selflessness og Teresa and Delasalle which are much deeper. Which is why I mentioned the Nobel Peace Prize.

fact is you say nobel i say USAID. You say another 1 and ill say another 1, on and on. This is not a schoolyard where we are trying to get 1 up on each other by playing "who can name the most"

All we are proving is that we are on equal terms. THATS what you wont admit. NEITHER of us can make the honest claim that one group is generally more self sacrificial than the other. If 1 of us did that we would be liars

We have to assume equality, even then we arent sure, its just not data we have

What is unfair is you saying that you could cite other organisations if i cite USAID. Yet you cite the nobels and i cite another organisation and you dont take that as a point

How is it you can negate MY citations with citations of your own but I cant negate YOURS with a citation of MY own? Its you being illogical and unfair

Ive replied stating that the examples you gave me were nothing to do with me calling anyone irrational. They were comments I made about god and certain aspects of religious beleif.

Not once did i make ANY general comment on what I beleive all theists to be like. And I CERTAINLY did not make the very SPECIFIC accusation of calling them all irrational. You gave no such quote here, you gave no such quote in your email. There is no such quote. You made it entirely up in YOUR head. This is lies.

No what happened is that i made a point about someone gaining gratification, for themselves, by inflicting things on themselves. You then changed this to a word that clearly refers to people gaining gratification from inflicting things on OTHER people.

The difference is immense, yet you continue to squirm rather than just apolosise for mis quoting me again.