POSTED BY on 10:54 PM under , ,
I don't have much to tell you other than if you don't know who Princeton Chaired Professor Peter Singer is, you're not missing much.

Part I:



Watch the rest
here.



Audio FilesVBR MP3Ogg Vorbis64Kbps MP3
Singer-Dsouza25 MB29 MB51 MB

Commentary from an unrelated (and untrustworthy?) source:
A debate between well known Christian Apologists Dinesh D'souza and atheist Peter singer on a wide range of topics touching on God's existence problem of evil and suffering etc.

I must say i was very disappointed by dinesh's performance on this debate.Peter singer's arguments were nothing new.The classical arguments against God's existence.mainly focusing on the problem of evil.
Dinesh seemed not to have a proper grasp on the counter arguments of the problem of evil,and he did miserably in defending his position on the matter.

Dinesh did not even use the free will defense by alvin plantinga to properly argue against the problem of evil.Even at one time saying that he did not know why there is evil and suffering.

Peter singer in my own view,was ok.In fact he's a very "mild" atheist. But dinesh did not capitalize on the opportunity.Instead he opened his speech on a totally unrelated topic about the problems of atheism,the injustices of former atheists,and the dangers of eliminating religion from society.I agree with some of his points,but that was not the topic of discussion.The topic was on God's existence and he should have started off with arguments in support of this position first.

When the question time from the audience reached,D'souza answered well,but at times strayed off the topic of the questions asked.He sometimes had very long answers to the questions.

Peter singer,well,there is really nothing much i can say about him,he wasn't exceptional,he was not the crowd's favorite.Compared to very loud Christopher Hitchens,the vial spitting Richard dawkins and other prominent atheists,Peter singer was rather dull.

In conclusion,Peter Singer was more on point than Dinesh.Peter failed to account for the source of moraliy in an atheistic worldview.Dinesh failed to substatially mount good arguments for God's existence.
3 comments so far:
    kitsune9t June 30, 2009 at 7:34 AM , said...

    have you even watched this debate, or have you decided that you're 'not missing much'? typical christian cherry picking.
    The reason that dinesh didn't use the free will defence was because it had been pre-emptively negated in singers opening statement. Only christians still accept that defence as valid, i'm afraid.

     
    Catholic Audio June 30, 2009 at 7:17 PM , said...

    Tell ya' what, kitsune9t, drop me an e-mail and I'll tell you (1) why utilitarinism is a logically invalid system, (2) preference utilitarianism is even worse, (3) theism is the only sound basis for objective morality, (4) theism is the only reasonable position when viewed logically, and (5) Christian theism has several good, logical reasons for believing it while atheism has none.

    My e-mail is in the top left of every page. I don't cherry pick when it comes to logical reasoning. You think you've know better? Well shoot me an e-mail and stride bravely into a lamb's den.

    God Bless,
    Ryan

     
    kitsune9t July 1, 2009 at 7:44 AM , said...

    you know, if you'd restrained yourself to the flaws in utilitarianism we might have had a discussion, but is there really any point in two people commited to their respective views starting another pointless debate over theism vs atheism?
    just keep your sky daddy and his weird fetishes and be welcome.
    may your death bed not contradict your delusions.

     

Copyright Sonitus Sanctus | Using the GreenTech Theme | Bloggerized by Falcon Hive.com