I created a YouTube video back in February titled Ramblings and Responses. It's my first video, and I don't know much about making videos, so the quality and editing sucks, but hey, at least I tried. In this video I discuss a list of topics John Loftus provided here in preparation for his debate with the ultimate used car salesman of Christian apologetics, Dinesh D'Souza. Yesterday I received the following comment on my video (on YouTube) from someone named Kolbe19:
Soo..how do you think John Loftus did in the debate? Did your head hang low like many other atheists have said who attended the debate? I can see why you want to leave Hitler out of the discussion. "If God does not exist, everything is permissible" . So is that your position that objective morality does not exist? Good luck proving that. I think deep down we all know objective morality does exist. Your objections to fine tuning were a non sequiter. (sic)
The next few blog entries will focus on each of the topics Kolbe19 mentioned: Hitler, morality, and the Fine-Tuning Argument. For now, I'd like to comment (again) on the debate between Loftus and D'Souza:
John Loftus versus Dinesh D'Souza: This debate occurred on February 9, 2010. Many say Dinesh won that debate. I say that anyone who tries to declare a winner in any debate misses the point entirely, and should stop being stupid.
Did my "head hang low"? Certainly not, and I'll tell you why: First of all, I don't take sides. This is important. I don't have an axe to grind or a party line to toe. I wasn't "rooting for my guy." I only want to know the truth. Secondly, I don't think John Loftus performed as poorly as some people said he did. Yes, Dinesh appeared more comfortable, his rhetoric was much smoother, and he's obviously a more experienced debater than John, but so what? A truth seeker doesn't care about how smooth a person talks, but about what that person is trying to communicate.
I commend John for having the courage to participate in this debate, especially against Dinesh - a modern-day Sophist - a slick talker who can work a crowd. Of course, Dinesh needs to be slick, because his rhetoric has to compensate for what he lacks in reason. I think John's ability to communicate orally in the context of a formal debate will improve with experience. But, again, what matters - the only thing that matters - is truth, not how smooth or funny or witty a debater is.
Dead-Logic.com
