Also Check out Robert Wrights interview/debate with Daniel Dennett :
http://www.videosift.com/video/Daniel-Dennet-discusses-atheism-runs-70-min

heh. personally, i'm not looking to "go poop on" anyone.
my suggestion, that i pm'ed to fedquip this morning, was that since D'Souza makes such poor arguments, throughout this debate? and in other clips and citations i've scanned, since reading this post?

i've got a feeling that, were his audience simply taught to recognize some tools of the bullshit trade, Mr. D'Souza would find his following, less & less devoted.

critical thinking skills tend to do that.

I SAID, COULD HE STOP... oh. uhh.
i left a brief reply, there.

In reply to this comment by fissionchips:
I feel dumber for having listened to D'Souza. Deafer too; could he stop yelling for five seconds?

>> ^fissionchips:
I feel dumber for having listened to D'Souza. Deafer too; could he stop yelling for five seconds?

heh. was the first thing i noticed.
keep watchin'. gets better.
i'm playlisting them all now, and updating this embed.

D'Souza spends the entire debate shouting, quickly, while gesticulating, switching hands on the mike, shifting his weight, constantly in motion.
and i don't think most of you need me to explain why. dannyboy sure doesn't, nor does he bother to point it out.

this is Dennett giving somber testimony, and D'Souza trying to sell a used car.

thought this would be a good place to start looking at the above-mentioned, very controversial, Dinesh D'Souza.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Daniel-Dennett-debates-Dinesh-DSouza

dynamic. delicious. delovely.

If a friend would choose Jesus over you, they shouldn't be your friend anymore.

I am not from the US, so I have never really been in an environment, which is so heavy with religious belief (I'm from Denmark), but I think the sheer absurdity of religion in all its forms scares me.

I would have loved to have the same opinion as Steven Weinberg and just "not really care" about religion, because it's irrelevant to everything - except its historical and cultural impact. But lately it has become apparent that the biggest religions have gotten sharper edges (Christianity and Islam), and I think it is time for reasonable people to say, "enough is enough!" I really, really don't want creationism even mantioned in a proper school, I really don't want people to think and actually believe that they can speak to a God or angels or whatnot.

I do share the concern that Daniel Dennett has: "what could replace religion", given that there are many cooks that NEED religion to not break the law. All the people that argue "you wouldn't be moral if it wasn't for the bible" are those cooks. If we somehow stripped religion away from them, then, and I use the expression advisedly, all hell would break loose.

If you, like me, look at religion as a form of virus; and not a biological one, you silly person, an "idea-virus", a virtual virus, if you will; then the weaker versions - all the moderates - like a common cold, are not dangerous. However fanaticism, like, say, Ebola, is highly toxic to us. Atheism is decidedly NOT a religion no matter how much the religious want it to be. It is precisely non-religion. Atheism's primary "tool" is knowledge (science), where Theism's "tool" is faith. If you think you are inherently superior because you have faith, you are deluded. If you say it to my face, I'm going to respond.

This is how religion spreads: you want to spread the word of jesus (or whichever deity) and no one protests. This word (or idea) spreads to all those incapable to know what's true and false, primarily children. If someone keeps their religion in their own home, and prays silently (like Jesus actually told you to do - score 1 for the bible) the virus wouldn't spread and silently die out. But when evangelicals and other fanatics spread their toxic dribble it must fall on those who can call them on their shenanigans to protest and say, "Enough is enough!"

Dennett proposed a way to avoid this peacefully: teach all religions equally. I dare say that it would be impossible, but teaching even a number of world religions would immunize people towards the blind faith that most religions require and slowly expunge the idea of a religion completely.

TO CATHOLICPRIEST
Excellent post.

Julian Jaynes proposed in his controversial 1977 book 'The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' that in pre-Homeric times (before the historian Homer) people did not have the highly developed minds that we take for granted today.

What we call the 'ego' today was for these ancient people what they called a 'god'.

When danger threatened suddenly the god's voice was heard in the individual's mind. This function of the mind has since evolved and become integrated into what Jung called the 'ego'.

Science has nothing to say about the origin of consciousness, aside from Daniel Dennett's reductionist ideas which I don't accept. Religion on the other hand SHOULD have something to say about origin of spirit/consciousness but it has become so sidetracked over the millenia with social control that it has completely lost its way.

Religion in the ancient, shamanic, spiritual, natural sense would be very welcome in the world right now, and would be welcomed by every individual on this planet.

Religion gets a bad rap because it has tended over the last 3-4000 years toward social control, no matter which of the religions you choose to look at. This is why the seperation of church and state is VITAL.

If any one of us were to go back in time and go into Jesus's church, we would be going in there to LEARN, to learn about ourselves, our minds, our consciousness, our spiritual centre. When we 'graduated' we would not need to go back, and we would be informed and learned enough to teach others.

Science teaches. Religion controls.

For more on Daniel Dennett visit
http://www.reitstoen.com/dennett.php

here is the full interview:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486&q=daniel+dennett&hl=en