Dennett begins by pointing out that religious people have killed innocent people in the past. Dinesh rightly lays the smack down on Dennett by pointing out that atheists have killed more than any religious radical could ever hope to kill.
Daniel Dennett then argues that insofar as Stalin created a cult of worship around himself, that Stalin then was no atheist and instead believed in a God named Stalin.
-
- Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
- Student: But my Scottish uncle Donald McGillavry doesn’t like haggis!
- Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
The debate is here. Frankly, I thought both Dennett and D’Souza were less than impressive. Dennett seemed to be pointless and D’Souza, while having points, did not bother to present them in a compelling manner.
These debates seem to be increasingly unimportant. Is anyone convinced by either side to ’switch teams’?
Have you seen any ‘impressive’ debates as of late? I’m typically left wanting…
I don’t much enjoy the debate format. Written formats – books, articles – seem to be much more in depth and much more thought out. Half the time, with these debates, I wonder if the participant afterwards regretted making some ill-advised point.