If you believe that humans wrote the moral laws of man, then you believe in the moral laws of man. If you believe that the ten commandments were written by man, then they are the laws of man. Why would a omniscient God write down laws on a stone and not command them to the people by his own tongue.
If you come upon a fallen tree in the woods, you may ask "what happened to this tree"? Your friend might say, "must have been a dragon". You say "I don't think it was a dragon". He responds "neither one of us knows for sure, so it could be a dragon". The obvious fact is that your friend has created an entity that would meet all requirements to solve the mystery. That doesn't make it probable. It's best to conclude that the cause is unknown, but a combination of known forces/occurrences.
The main position of the theists is simply: "we don't know for certain whether or not a god exists. Nobody has been on the other side of that 'curtain'. Therefore it is logical to conclude that a god exists". D'Souza actually does a very subtle Pascal's wager when he ends with "so we should choose what's good for us". He say's it quick, but it's Pascal's wager all dolled up and disguised. The theists keep trying to say the atheists are certain there is no god; that is not the case.
I try to listen to these full debates instead of the "hitchslap" style gotcha videos because I want to hear both sides fully articulate their arguments. I want to keep an open mind and some of what the Theists have to say genuinely gives me pause. But D'Souza made my head spin. He is exactly the kind of caricature that you would use in a cartoon mocking the religious. I would warrant a guess that many religious people, maybe even some on the panel, would rather he wasn't representing them.
@TheRebelOfTyrus dinesh is a fraud...he wrote a book about how obama is governing america from a tribal point of a view because of his dad's influence...complete idiot...
Not only do the theists here make the "arrogant" atheists seem more thoughtful than ever (and I thought Hitchens was supposed to be pretentious) but they argue - so loudly once again - these false equivalencies; claiming that something is surely NOT due to a lack of evidence is not the same as claiming something most certainly IS based on the same missing evidence.
You have to hand it to the religious...they sure know how to do public speaking. It's one reason they can continue to hoodwink generation after generation of the gullible. The first four minutes...the stupid hurts so bad.
1:29:21 - And they should be applauded for trying to get rid of it.
1:29:40 - No, terrorism doesn't soley originate from religion--but it is sure used and associated closely with it.
He clearly doesn't give a shit that religious countries like Saudi Arabia has Sharia Law. Guess what happens to the women in such a place if they show too much of their hair or if they talk in the presence of men? Shit, they aren't even socially accepted to drive vehicles! The king is still working on womens rights.
@farubino Me too! Thanks for the reference... I'm going to watch the whole debate anyway (again!), but a quick Hitchslap infusion before bedtime will do for now.
His objections with dark matter and multiple dimensions etc. are also redundant. Rational thinkers even admit that they are just theories and not truth. This is the key difference between Atheists and Theists...we don't claim absolute knowledge unless it has been justified with appropriate evidence.
I was hoping D'Souza was going somewhere with his "Atheists are just as ignorant with regards to an after life" argument, but the conclusion was so predictable and stupid. Theists cannot grasp the idea that he who makes a claim of truth without evidence, is the one who has the burden of proof. Disregarding such claims as validity is something we Atheists have the right to do.
This will be the last debate I ever watch that has D"Souza in it. I'm done with him. I'd rather drink drano than listen to him. I can take any theist in the world but him. Amazed that he gets invited to these debates.
There's no evidence for life on other planets,but science says it's extremely probable, in regards to the existence of god there is no scientific whatsoever,just like there is no evidence for a genie in the center of the earth, or a china tea pot orbiting the sun. god is an extraordinary claim: that a divine, all knowing, all powerful perfect being granted free will to a race occupying an an extremely insignificant microscopic speck of the universe, that's the most outrageous hypothesis of all.
@sahis three words "look at history" before you talk about God. Thats one of the number one things religious culture studies. God can't be scientifically proven to be real (well duh or it wouldnt mean to be God) nor can the very beginnings of existence. You could say, "well the galaxy was created becuase of a spontanious combustions blah blah". Well how did that happen? You could say something agian. Well how did that happen? You can't prove it. But you want to understand religion read history.
@Jm201027 You are confusing a galaxy with the Universe. The BB was not a combustion. If you are going to talk calculus you first should be able to add and subtract.
the black guy near the end was such a moron.."god made the molecules
and robots"..and we need "god for faith and science for clothes and stuff" how petty and materialistic a worldview predicated on OBJECTS this shows a lack of intelligence thus making him a follower of the "god of molecules and robots!"
Harris just kills the other side and they won't even address what he says because they have no reply. They stayed the hell away from the miracle analogy in modern times.
dinesh is such an idiot.the argument is always "well YOU dont know EITHER". yeah but your religion has claimed various things for 2000yrs and have never been right about anything and cant even tell right from wrong. on what side of the fence does that fall?
Two fucking retards that are clearly dangerous and out of touch with reality. These two jabberwockies are doing nothing short of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when they make such statements to the gullible and ignorant.
"When u hear someone talking to God what do you do? You edge closer to that person or edge yourself away?" This guy just said they don't say that "there is no God". Hypocrites gotta love em. I base myself on facts, If I don't see the reason in believing in it or find it be false, I leave it. This guy doesn't even want to look at both facts and instead looks at his own just like D' Souza had done. If your going to argue you argue the past and present, future is theory.
@Jm201027 The point was that you'll think that man is delusional and therefore you'd edge yourself away from a delusional person. That kind of argument is called thought experiment and it works.
@Frutoses thats also called judging a book by its cover and its byast. You don't knudge urself away, its best to understand what he is doing, don't accept it or believe it right away. Just try to figure out his side so that you can set your own views and see how that person reacts. Therefore debates begin to occur. TA DA!
@Jm201027 I don't know I understood you right but are you saying that thinking someone is out of their mind because they think they're talking to god is judging a book by it's cover? Well that's hoe 99% of the people would react to a delusional person. The point Daniel Dennett is trying to make is that people don't usually believe in some delusional person who says he talks to god yet they believe 2000 years ago someone was the incarnation of God himself.
@Frutoses Part 2 and the second thing that you might be missing is that in religious sence. If your "talking to God" its also called meditating or praying. You forgot didn't you?
@Jm201027 Part 2: Besides, your "don't judge a book by its cover" is an Ockham's Razor and could go either way. Why would anyone judge Jesus as being the son of God because he said so? Remember! Don't judge that book by its cover. He could be a charlatan.
@Frutoses haha he didnt "say so"... You need to read up on that a bit more. Ever religion has a story but, which one is truthful? I dont know.. But I see the facts that Jesus was there and the "miracles" transcribed through roman history and Jewish all explain his works. Some think of him as the son of God and some think of him more so as a messenger. But putting the "don't judge a book by its cover" certianly doesnt work in this conversation. Try something else.
I'm astonished how ignorant D'Souza is... almost everything he is saying is just plain wrong. His rationality doesn't fail, but his knowledge do... There is waaaaay more evidens for life on other planets, than evidens of a god (which is still noexistent). How can he look himself in the mirror and still use a frase like "Absense of evidens is evidens of absense". What he is saying is simply meaningless. There's a huge amount evidens that there's a potential for life other places in the universe.
Dinesh D'Souza's ntire argument is no more edcuated than the common arguments I hear Matt debunk every other week on the Atheist Experience from philosophical laymen. Seriously, he can't do ANY better than "Well you don't know either! Science changes all the time!"
try to listen with an open mind, but d'souza is really only for machochists. his total lack of logic parading as some insightful statement is just too painful to bear.
Okay, I try my ABSOULUTE hardest to be as open-minded as humanlly possible,but at about 1:10:25 I just couldn't believe the extreme STUPIDITY coming out of that man's mouth. I mean,the rest of his and his side's arguments were not terrible, but at that point, I would have slapped him. I do not believe in god, but I try to be open-minded.. it's just you can't have a double standard on ignorance.
The main difference between science and religion to me, is that science is WILLING TO CHANGE!
@Deniel Dennet, for instance we replaced religion by secularism as you said secularism will lead us to a happy life, OK? Now tell me what about STRUGGLE FOR EXISTANCE ? It's a scientific theory by Darwin. What about human behavior? How would science help human behavior to live peacefully?
@MegaWisdom786 "How would science help human behavior to live peacefully?"....CHOICE....by giving the people of this world enough actual, testable knowledge about this physical world to make a good, EDUCATED......choice. Religion doesn't offer choice. It says believe or we ignore you....or kill you if we have the chance. It's not that I, as an Atheist, wants your beliefs erased...just your lack of comprehension of reality and how your beliefs....can harm me...when I don't even know who you are.
EDUCATION just educates one but human nature can never ever be changed. I challenge you that humans after becomming non-believers and secular/liberals even won't live peacefully. Don't you think a country would lead the other. Competition for status or lexurious life is the root cause of all evils. And religion discourages such competitions.
@MegaWisdom786 Are religions not in competition? Tell that to the Israelis and Palestinians, tell that to the Irish. Tell the pope he shouldn't be living a luxurious lifestyle. I see what you're saying in another way, we have enough problems with violence, greed and tribalism, if we didn't have primitive superstitions to justify them we would be able to examine human nature more rationally and turn to each other with more compassion.
LOOOOOOOOOLz, why then mutations stopped at evolution of human beings and it did not mutate human beings into an other specie more advance then humans? Ridiculous!!
D'Souza mischaracterizes the atheist position by imputing a motto of, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." He says atheists claim that, as we have no evidence of aliens, we believe there are none. Even if this were true of atheists, wouldn't the theists' position in the same scenario then be that given no evidence, we can infer the nature of aliens, that is, how they travel, where they go, what their intentions are, etc. Because, you know, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
So, according to D'Souza, we shouldn't judge Christianity by its earlier proponents, we should judge it by the modern ones, and that doing otherwise is a double standard. I think not--Christians are the ones asserting the importance of the Biblical texts. It's unabashed cherrypicking--where we presently find the Bible to be correct, "That's why religion is important!" Where not, "You can't judge us by what those crazy old people said!" I hope someone calls him on this in the rebuttals...
Taleb - religion helps us make decisions wether or not do drink the water on the floor. Really? I would say that comes from science, experience, and the probability that it is dirty, not religion.
I am ashamed to be Lebanese now because of Mr. Taleb... He made ridiculous points... "We live longer in spite of the family doctor" omfg what a nutjob... one of MANY dumb points...
its ironic how morons like Dinesh D'Souza hear about some fancy science terms and use that in religion's defense..exactly how these new age pseudo-science ideas work. what's funny is how confident and conceited he sounds. his arguments are are way below the quality of Hitchens Sam or Dan or even any of his panelists
@test123ok The only thing ironic is the attempt to discredit Dinesh's arguments with a barrage of your own illogical ones. Rules of logic exist to establish grounds for reasoning the validity of a claim. Simply calling Dinesh a "moron" (ad-hominem fallicy) or lableling modern scientific evidence as "pseudo-science" (connotation-fallicy) are illogical arguments with no grounds. But, Dinesh's claim that Atheists and Beleivers are both making truth claims, yet both are ignorant, is a valid claim.
D'Souza is a religious fanatic, who is obviously blinded by faith... Sure ther is dark matter, but I really doubt that a "god" who concerns about silly things (the abrahamic deity), is the creator of the universe... And, even though I'm an atheist, I don't have a problem at all with Robert Wright, he seems to be an easy-going guy.
@nayanmalig There are still plenty of areas on the planet where people can live off the land without having to rely on currency. Hell, I could do it myself in certain regions (I.E. deciduous forests in the northern part of the North American continent.) Of course I'd prefer not to, but saying people can't live without money is simply incorrect.
@RadgarEleding well, do it & show the others how to. it'll solve almost all the problems humans undergo. also there's should also be no internet or any other form of communication with the outside world. because you got to pay for it with money & you cannot have money. so only smoke signals.
@RadgarEleding you're right in the idea that humans do have that capability, but is this pragmatic? no money means no education, no businesses, everyone is essentially a farmer. look at Pol Pot when he tried to force an entire country to become farmers - it's not possible in this society anymore, and to think so is just living in fairyland. so is it possible to live without money? theoretically yes, but practically no. i bet ud want an educated doctor to use advanced technology to cure ppl.money
@cantforgetthis Like I said in a later reply, it's obviously possible to live without money but it's preferable to live with it. It is even practically possible, just not practically possible to keep our same standard of living without money.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I like how you manage to blame god for man's mistakes,
also, I will be open minded with you at all times,
the Christian gospel, is about precisely that, Salvation, warning, guidance, restructuring old ideas who where misunderstood, sacrifices are not needed, repentance is available, tolerance and enlightenment.
if you repent there's no freedom taken from you, but by examining your actions you inquire into them.
Has anybody ever tried to answer Hitchens' question; 'name a charitable act that a religious person can do that can't be done by an atheist' yet? Cause I believe that could make a lot of atheists uncomfortable. As it stands right now I'm pretty fucking comfortable
@yoingtin That's supposed to make theists feel uncomfortable, as there is no charitable act a religious person can do that can't be done by a non-religious person.
@kurtskywalker Yes. If an atheist was shown a charitable act that could only be done by a religious person the atheist would then feel uncomfortable. My point was that such an act has not been presented, hence why I'm not uncomfortable.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
"Give me one reason why the police officer woudl not take the money unless there was a God."
Quite simple. He sees what occurs when evil men start to control society. He knows what it means as a threat to his family. He has intellectual reasons not to do it.
Sadly the audience doesn't speak english, so all the funny parts go right over their heads......
ScientificExploits 1 day ago
Black guy showed extreme arrogance when referring to Sweden
Fancymanofthedeep 2 days ago
First guy's an utter retard. That's all I can say.
Hitchiest 5 days ago 3
Thanks @farubino if only we could hear Hitchens shouting.
DrAltais 5 days ago
1:02:19
The guy in the background reacts exactly like I did to that idiotic statement.
TheSittingArchitect 1 week ago 4
Witness the man hitting himself in the face with a book at 1:02:20 in response to the nonsense being spewed by Boteach.
hardlyreality 1 week ago 3
IQ orgy
MrProtuber 2 weeks ago
What the FUCK is this guy Nassim Talhe talking about? Were his arguments even remotely coherent or is it just me?
oO0E 2 weeks ago 2
@oO0E Nothing and no
justinwoneil 1 week ago
Dinesh's arguments are honestly asinine.
oO0E 2 weeks ago 5
..what stunning points made by the folks at the end of the debate..!
bronzmash 2 weeks ago
Dennett ..like a BOSS..!
bronzmash 2 weeks ago
If you believe that humans wrote the moral laws of man, then you believe in the moral laws of man. If you believe that the ten commandments were written by man, then they are the laws of man. Why would a omniscient God write down laws on a stone and not command them to the people by his own tongue.
bensum9111 2 weeks ago
That Boteach is just maddening. God, Jews are stupid!
kj01a 2 weeks ago
Just skip over Boteach. He's a moron.
brajamtho757 2 weeks ago 3
Scientist - My findings are pointless when taken out of context.
Theist - Scientist claims "findings are pointless"
Breezer1391 2 weeks ago 3
If you come upon a fallen tree in the woods, you may ask "what happened to this tree"? Your friend might say, "must have been a dragon". You say "I don't think it was a dragon". He responds "neither one of us knows for sure, so it could be a dragon". The obvious fact is that your friend has created an entity that would meet all requirements to solve the mystery. That doesn't make it probable. It's best to conclude that the cause is unknown, but a combination of known forces/occurrences.
trekgeek1 3 weeks ago
The main position of the theists is simply: "we don't know for certain whether or not a god exists. Nobody has been on the other side of that 'curtain'. Therefore it is logical to conclude that a god exists". D'Souza actually does a very subtle Pascal's wager when he ends with "so we should choose what's good for us". He say's it quick, but it's Pascal's wager all dolled up and disguised. The theists keep trying to say the atheists are certain there is no god; that is not the case.
trekgeek1 3 weeks ago
Forty-two.
kolklown 3 weeks ago
I try to listen to these full debates instead of the "hitchslap" style gotcha videos because I want to hear both sides fully articulate their arguments. I want to keep an open mind and some of what the Theists have to say genuinely gives me pause. But D'Souza made my head spin. He is exactly the kind of caricature that you would use in a cartoon mocking the religious. I would warrant a guess that many religious people, maybe even some on the panel, would rather he wasn't representing them.
BabbleBucket 3 weeks ago 3
Dinesh D'Souza = worse than Bill O'Riley
TheRebelOfTyrus 3 weeks ago
@TheRebelOfTyrus dinesh is a fraud...he wrote a book about how obama is governing america from a tribal point of a view because of his dad's influence...complete idiot...
oceans19711 3 weeks ago
Not only do the theists here make the "arrogant" atheists seem more thoughtful than ever (and I thought Hitchens was supposed to be pretentious) but they argue - so loudly once again - these false equivalencies; claiming that something is surely NOT due to a lack of evidence is not the same as claiming something most certainly IS based on the same missing evidence.
DamnedXtians 3 weeks ago
Dinesh D'Souza on believers and atheists forming opinions about the afterlife:
"The Atheist and the believer are in exactly the same position"
DamnedXtians 3 weeks ago
No. Saying "I see nothing, therefore there's likely nothing" is not comparable to "I see nothing therefore there's surely a flying circus".
I'm surprised (not really, actually) these superstitious goofs can't find anyone more eloquent and persuasive.
Though I suppose it's an awful big untruth they're trying to peddle.
DamnedXtians 3 weeks ago
Taleb is similarly full of shit. If he believes the crap he's spouting, then he should live in a tree somewhere.
MarkRosengarten 3 weeks ago
@MarkRosengarten I couldn't agree with your assessments more. D'Souza is a lying douchebag, Taleb is a self-important, arrogant and confused.
AtheistAntitheist 3 weeks ago
D'Souza's closing argument is just one continuous lie. Man, this guy is good...he lies with unabashed comfort.
MarkRosengarten 3 weeks ago
Meet Dinesh D'Souza...master of the straw man argument. He sets up false premises to knock them down.
MarkRosengarten 3 weeks ago
You have to hand it to the religious...they sure know how to do public speaking. It's one reason they can continue to hoodwink generation after generation of the gullible. The first four minutes...the stupid hurts so bad.
MarkRosengarten 3 weeks ago
D'nesh made it clear in the first 2 minutes that he's a fucking moron.
"Do you know believe that Elvis is still alive? No? Well how do you know? Have you seen that he isn't alive?"
Clearly, by his logic, people who believe that Elvis is still alive are more informed than those who don't. Like I said, fucking moron.
c6gunner 3 weeks ago
"religion is judged by its oldest proponents"
Yeah, otherwise they'd be called "cults" and couldn't be judged as religions.
And about France: going to the Doctor meant you had a serious injury... idiot, there were no popes healing amputeas.
I'm glad he said that religion was more like art than a science, because religion definately acts like it's the ultimate fashion statement.
letsomethingshine 1 month ago
who is the indian guru hes talking about at 1:07:40
DZ252 1 month ago
@DZ252 He is Satya Sai Baba. He died recently. He is from Andhra pradesh, Ind
ariffcts 1 month ago
@ariffcts Thank you I couldn't even get a Did You Mean on google his name is ridiculous
DZ252 1 month ago
@DZ252 try Sathya Sai Baba in google. He is a fraud and a charlatan :)
ariffcts 1 month ago
44:31 "lololol he said climax"
DZ252 1 month ago
1:29:21 - And they should be applauded for trying to get rid of it.
1:29:40 - No, terrorism doesn't soley originate from religion--but it is sure used and associated closely with it.
He clearly doesn't give a shit that religious countries like Saudi Arabia has Sharia Law. Guess what happens to the women in such a place if they show too much of their hair or if they talk in the presence of men? Shit, they aren't even socially accepted to drive vehicles! The king is still working on womens rights.
Mimi2591 1 month ago
1:27:52 - Anyone else see that chick with the earplugs? Totally listening to Lady Gaga over the debate.
Mimi2591 1 month ago
This video is really quiet. Is it just me?
Mimi2591 1 month ago
Comment removed
neprejebljivCOVJEK 1 month ago
44:32 "haha, climax"
kozmy21 1 month ago
WOW Hitchens went H.A.M!!!! I was not expecting that. the other side made such weak arguments it was hurting my head lol
colombiacrack88 1 month ago
Comment removed
bigdaddyquey 1 month ago
bare minimum volume.. cool.. if i get a pop up ill shit my pants
dopeasfuckk 1 month ago 22
@dopeasfuckk Ah, the hazards of being a late night a[theist] video addict! :) Cheers!
AlanCanon2222 2 weeks ago 2
@dopeasfuckk I lauged my ass off at your comment!
esands88 1 week ago
errr why no sound?
remmshaft 1 month ago
Hitchens<3
dukelinius 1 month ago
At the 1:13:00 spot now and cracking up at the religious guys getting emotionally worked out with all their old canards that never work.
MatheusLegenda 1 month ago 3
turn up the volume, damn.
GODLESS24 1 month ago
I love how you can see Harris trying not to burst out laughing when Hitchens is yelling at Boteach =P
Travestie616 1 month ago
I have to admit I was hoping to hear Hitchens (peace be upon him) bellowing at the rabbi
TheTesseract2 1 month ago 2
@farubino Thank God! I thought I'd have to listen to all his inane ramblings to find it :-D
Supremerob20 1 month ago
Love the headbanging at 1:02:22.
halneufmille 1 month ago 2
1:01:00 if you're looking for the bit by Boteach / Hitchens referenced by Dennett in the Washington Post
farubino 1 month ago 36
@farubino thank you
TheShaitanjr 1 month ago
@farubino Me too! Thanks for the reference... I'm going to watch the whole debate anyway (again!), but a quick Hitchslap infusion before bedtime will do for now.
Long live The Hitch.
And there is no god.
flithern 1 month ago
@farubino thank you!
cwmiddle 1 month ago
@farubino Thank you sir
Zimnyification 1 month ago
@farubino I love the part Dennett referenced. I also love the fanboy smile on Harris's face. Hitch was a hero of his and it shows.
BeforeWorldGoesBoom 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ahaha I love the fellow in the back beating his head in frustration during Boteach's rebuttal 1.2.17
Diogeneswasright 1 month ago
Comment removed
Diogeneswasright 1 month ago
3:32 - 3:40 - in the words of the great Analrapist Tobias Funke: "douche chill"
TheBigFunky4 1 month ago
Also, Hitchens tackled his first argument with Science. Very rare he uses it as a basis....he fucking nailed it. What a mind he was. RIP!
MadcapMacabre 1 month ago
Made some stupid grammatical errors there, but you get the point I hope. Haha.
MadcapMacabre 1 month ago
His objections with dark matter and multiple dimensions etc. are also redundant. Rational thinkers even admit that they are just theories and not truth. This is the key difference between Atheists and Theists...we don't claim absolute knowledge unless it has been justified with appropriate evidence.
MadcapMacabre 1 month ago
I was hoping D'Souza was going somewhere with his "Atheists are just as ignorant with regards to an after life" argument, but the conclusion was so predictable and stupid. Theists cannot grasp the idea that he who makes a claim of truth without evidence, is the one who has the burden of proof. Disregarding such claims as validity is something we Atheists have the right to do.
MadcapMacabre 1 month ago
hitch slammed it out of the park! I love that he corrected Dinesh about atheism and the burden of proof.
pandorachild 1 month ago
This will be the last debate I ever watch that has D"Souza in it. I'm done with him. I'd rather drink drano than listen to him. I can take any theist in the world but him. Amazed that he gets invited to these debates.
AquariaDesign 1 month ago
hitchens just bosses this as per
jezzaw101 1 month ago
stop calling me your friend boteach....i don't like you
jezzaw101 1 month ago
1:47:49 - Swedish guy sums it up best, by far...
pcdonahue 1 month ago 3
There's no evidence for life on other planets,but science says it's extremely probable, in regards to the existence of god there is no scientific whatsoever,just like there is no evidence for a genie in the center of the earth, or a china tea pot orbiting the sun. god is an extraordinary claim: that a divine, all knowing, all powerful perfect being granted free will to a race occupying an an extremely insignificant microscopic speck of the universe, that's the most outrageous hypothesis of all.
sahis34 1 month ago
@sahis three words "look at history" before you talk about God. Thats one of the number one things religious culture studies. God can't be scientifically proven to be real (well duh or it wouldnt mean to be God) nor can the very beginnings of existence. You could say, "well the galaxy was created becuase of a spontanious combustions blah blah". Well how did that happen? You could say something agian. Well how did that happen? You can't prove it. But you want to understand religion read history.
Jm201027 1 month ago
@Jm201027 You are confusing a galaxy with the Universe. The BB was not a combustion. If you are going to talk calculus you first should be able to add and subtract.
AquariaDesign 1 month ago
@AquariaDesign And your confusing the facts of reality with theory.
Jm201027 1 month ago
the black guy near the end was such a moron.."god made the molecules
and robots"..and we need "god for faith and science for clothes and stuff" how petty and materialistic a worldview predicated on OBJECTS this shows a lack of intelligence thus making him a follower of the "god of molecules and robots!"
cbone6754 1 month ago
Harris just kills the other side and they won't even address what he says because they have no reply. They stayed the hell away from the miracle analogy in modern times.
christopheclugston 1 month ago
1:18:09
cbone6754 1 month ago
what's that first guy's name?
Muzikman127 1 month ago
This is epic.
jjobie 1 month ago
dinesh is such an idiot.the argument is always "well YOU dont know EITHER". yeah but your religion has claimed various things for 2000yrs and have never been right about anything and cant even tell right from wrong. on what side of the fence does that fall?
frilansspion 1 month ago
Shmuley Boteach is the biggest idiot I have ever seen. Such intellectual dishonesty.
MuchContractForYou 1 month ago
I find that the Hitchslap usually comes after 2 glasses of Johnny Walker (Black).
Frutoses 1 month ago
D'Souza: "Science has given us nothing"
Taleb: "Science doesn't help us live longer"
Two fucking retards that are clearly dangerous and out of touch with reality. These two jabberwockies are doing nothing short of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when they make such statements to the gullible and ignorant.
rohanwotan2 1 month ago
"When u hear someone talking to God what do you do? You edge closer to that person or edge yourself away?" This guy just said they don't say that "there is no God". Hypocrites gotta love em. I base myself on facts, If I don't see the reason in believing in it or find it be false, I leave it. This guy doesn't even want to look at both facts and instead looks at his own just like D' Souza had done. If your going to argue you argue the past and present, future is theory.
Jm201027 1 month ago
@Jm201027 The point was that you'll think that man is delusional and therefore you'd edge yourself away from a delusional person. That kind of argument is called thought experiment and it works.
Frutoses 1 month ago
@Frutoses thats also called judging a book by its cover and its byast. You don't knudge urself away, its best to understand what he is doing, don't accept it or believe it right away. Just try to figure out his side so that you can set your own views and see how that person reacts. Therefore debates begin to occur. TA DA!
Jm201027 1 month ago
@Jm201027 I don't know I understood you right but are you saying that thinking someone is out of their mind because they think they're talking to god is judging a book by it's cover? Well that's hoe 99% of the people would react to a delusional person. The point Daniel Dennett is trying to make is that people don't usually believe in some delusional person who says he talks to god yet they believe 2000 years ago someone was the incarnation of God himself.
Frutoses 1 month ago
@Frutoses Part 2 and the second thing that you might be missing is that in religious sence. If your "talking to God" its also called meditating or praying. You forgot didn't you?
Jm201027 1 month ago
@Jm201027 Don't feel bad but are you a kid? In that case, you win.
Frutoses 1 month ago
@Frutoses I see you want the argument to end as much as I do right now so... handshake?
Jm201027 1 month ago
@Jm201027 Part 2: Besides, your "don't judge a book by its cover" is an Ockham's Razor and could go either way. Why would anyone judge Jesus as being the son of God because he said so? Remember! Don't judge that book by its cover. He could be a charlatan.
Frutoses 1 month ago
@Frutoses haha he didnt "say so"... You need to read up on that a bit more. Ever religion has a story but, which one is truthful? I dont know.. But I see the facts that Jesus was there and the "miracles" transcribed through roman history and Jewish all explain his works. Some think of him as the son of God and some think of him more so as a messenger. But putting the "don't judge a book by its cover" certianly doesnt work in this conversation. Try something else.
Jm201027 1 month ago
I'm astonished how ignorant D'Souza is... almost everything he is saying is just plain wrong. His rationality doesn't fail, but his knowledge do... There is waaaaay more evidens for life on other planets, than evidens of a god (which is still noexistent). How can he look himself in the mirror and still use a frase like "Absense of evidens is evidens of absense". What he is saying is simply meaningless. There's a huge amount evidens that there's a potential for life other places in the universe.
daneimp 1 month ago in playlist Atheism debates 3
Taleb just didn't know what the fuck he was doing..
Dillingerman1 1 month ago
WARNING: NOTHING TO OUTPUT BFRAME DECODER LAG. Will anyone get it?
Dillingerman1 1 month ago
Deniel Dennet is amazing
MrFaisoly 1 month ago in playlist Atheism debates
Hitchens....best as always.
sid842002 1 month ago
It's funny to watch the rabbi splutter after getting hitchslapped.
pyrocubed 1 month ago
Atheism won hands down!!
CMVMic 1 month ago
I love hitchens. He laith the smack down on they asses!
TheLordSod 1 month ago
Dinesh D'souza debates like we did in high-school. Loudness, pomposity and a firm conviction in our claptrap produced the desired effect.
SheStillRuns 2 months ago 11
@SheStillRuns I thought the same about the Rabbi...
bluehoneycomb 1 month ago
Dinesh D'Souza's ntire argument is no more edcuated than the common arguments I hear Matt debunk every other week on the Atheist Experience from philosophical laymen. Seriously, he can't do ANY better than "Well you don't know either! Science changes all the time!"
BigLundi 2 months ago
try to listen with an open mind, but d'souza is really only for machochists. his total lack of logic parading as some insightful statement is just too painful to bear.
JamesIsViolet 2 months ago
44:29 that girl cracks up when he says 'climax' :)
valjew 2 months ago
It would have been nice if there was sound. Pffft...
mljungberg10 2 months ago
Okay, I try my ABSOULUTE hardest to be as open-minded as humanlly possible,but at about 1:10:25 I just couldn't believe the extreme STUPIDITY coming out of that man's mouth. I mean,the rest of his and his side's arguments were not terrible, but at that point, I would have slapped him. I do not believe in god, but I try to be open-minded.. it's just you can't have a double standard on ignorance.
The main difference between science and religion to me, is that science is WILLING TO CHANGE!
ITzNischay 2 months ago
worst moderator ever, if he's going to be so strict with the time constraints why does he give unnecessary long introductions?
truthslap 2 months ago 2
lol 1:04:17-1:04:46 1 to the 242nd power is 1
DBSpenser 2 months ago 3
How would science help human behavior tolet humans peacefully? Science can't change human behavior if it is succeeded to change believers to atheism.
MegaWisdom786 2 months ago
@Deniel Dennet, for instance we replaced religion by secularism as you said secularism will lead us to a happy life, OK? Now tell me what about STRUGGLE FOR EXISTANCE ? It's a scientific theory by Darwin. What about human behavior? How would science help human behavior to live peacefully?
MegaWisdom786 2 months ago
@MegaWisdom786 For answers to all these questions, I would point you to The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. It answers these wonderfully.
DBSpenser 2 months ago
@MegaWisdom786 "How would science help human behavior to live peacefully?"....CHOICE....by giving the people of this world enough actual, testable knowledge about this physical world to make a good, EDUCATED......choice. Religion doesn't offer choice. It says believe or we ignore you....or kill you if we have the chance. It's not that I, as an Atheist, wants your beliefs erased...just your lack of comprehension of reality and how your beliefs....can harm me...when I don't even know who you are.
Mikedogg13666 2 months ago
@Mikedogg13666
EDUCATION just educates one but human nature can never ever be changed. I challenge you that humans after becomming non-believers and secular/liberals even won't live peacefully. Don't you think a country would lead the other. Competition for status or lexurious life is the root cause of all evils. And religion discourages such competitions.
MegaWisdom786 2 months ago
@MegaWisdom786 Are religions not in competition? Tell that to the Israelis and Palestinians, tell that to the Irish. Tell the pope he shouldn't be living a luxurious lifestyle. I see what you're saying in another way, we have enough problems with violence, greed and tribalism, if we didn't have primitive superstitions to justify them we would be able to examine human nature more rationally and turn to each other with more compassion.
rationalsalvation 2 months ago
LOOOOOOOOOLz, why then mutations stopped at evolution of human beings and it did not mutate human beings into an other specie more advance then humans? Ridiculous!!
MegaWisdom786 2 months ago
@MegaWisdom786 Oh, and we will evolve. Just give it some time.
DBSpenser 2 months ago
@MegaWisdom786 Mutations have not stopped in human beings
sexyloser 2 months ago
D'Souza mischaracterizes the atheist position by imputing a motto of, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." He says atheists claim that, as we have no evidence of aliens, we believe there are none. Even if this were true of atheists, wouldn't the theists' position in the same scenario then be that given no evidence, we can infer the nature of aliens, that is, how they travel, where they go, what their intentions are, etc. Because, you know, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
jee5678 2 months ago
So, according to D'Souza, we shouldn't judge Christianity by its earlier proponents, we should judge it by the modern ones, and that doing otherwise is a double standard. I think not--Christians are the ones asserting the importance of the Biblical texts. It's unabashed cherrypicking--where we presently find the Bible to be correct, "That's why religion is important!" Where not, "You can't judge us by what those crazy old people said!" I hope someone calls him on this in the rebuttals...
jee5678 2 months ago
There is a brief flash of some text in some parts like 1:18:10.
Mykiss20 2 months ago
Comment removed
CameSawConquered47 2 months ago
Am I the only yelling at my computer screen when the theists make total bullshit claims?
CameSawConquered47 2 months ago 3
bahaha, the joke at the beginning - not one person laughed...
articfox10 2 months ago 26
Boteach is a fanatic
JackFucington 2 months ago
I came up with the engenious idea to use headphone's to listen. Thanks science!
JackFucington 2 months ago
Wish I could hear this.........
JackFucington 2 months ago
Taleb - religion helps us make decisions wether or not do drink the water on the floor. Really? I would say that comes from science, experience, and the probability that it is dirty, not religion.
Rogersmith026 2 months ago
dinesh is such a knob. the only person who loves god who i cannot understand. young religion believers never prosper
Mumraa27 2 months ago
Boteach is really annoying.
aimonaali 2 months ago
I am ashamed to be Lebanese now because of Mr. Taleb... He made ridiculous points... "We live longer in spite of the family doctor" omfg what a nutjob... one of MANY dumb points...
Keenan4life 2 months ago
What's the point of having a debate infront of an audience that don't understand the fuckin' language?
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
Comment removed
tulipsontheorgan 2 months ago
its ironic how morons like Dinesh D'Souza hear about some fancy science terms and use that in religion's defense..exactly how these new age pseudo-science ideas work. what's funny is how confident and conceited he sounds. his arguments are are way below the quality of Hitchens Sam or Dan or even any of his panelists
test123ok 3 months ago 27
@test123ok The only thing ironic is the attempt to discredit Dinesh's arguments with a barrage of your own illogical ones. Rules of logic exist to establish grounds for reasoning the validity of a claim. Simply calling Dinesh a "moron" (ad-hominem fallicy) or lableling modern scientific evidence as "pseudo-science" (connotation-fallicy) are illogical arguments with no grounds. But, Dinesh's claim that Atheists and Beleivers are both making truth claims, yet both are ignorant, is a valid claim.
notw73 2 months ago
D'Souza is a religious fanatic, who is obviously blinded by faith... Sure ther is dark matter, but I really doubt that a "god" who concerns about silly things (the abrahamic deity), is the creator of the universe... And, even though I'm an atheist, I don't have a problem at all with Robert Wright, he seems to be an easy-going guy.
deathmetal931 3 months ago
lol... ummm did Robert Wright really contribute much to this debate?
ReasonableCertainty 3 months ago
can people live without money? NO!
can people live without belief in a single God? YES !
nayanmalig 3 months ago
@nayanmalig Um... Actually, people can live without money.
RadgarEleding 3 months ago
@RadgarEleding Who, how & where ?
nayanmalig 3 months ago
@nayanmalig There are still plenty of areas on the planet where people can live off the land without having to rely on currency. Hell, I could do it myself in certain regions (I.E. deciduous forests in the northern part of the North American continent.) Of course I'd prefer not to, but saying people can't live without money is simply incorrect.
RadgarEleding 3 months ago
@RadgarEleding well, do it & show the others how to. it'll solve almost all the problems humans undergo. also there's should also be no internet or any other form of communication with the outside world. because you got to pay for it with money & you cannot have money. so only smoke signals.
nayanmalig 3 months ago
@nayanmalig You're obviously not even putting thought into your responses.
RadgarEleding 3 months ago
@RadgarEleding That's not even a response.
nayanmalig 3 months ago
@RadgarEleding you're right in the idea that humans do have that capability, but is this pragmatic? no money means no education, no businesses, everyone is essentially a farmer. look at Pol Pot when he tried to force an entire country to become farmers - it's not possible in this society anymore, and to think so is just living in fairyland. so is it possible to live without money? theoretically yes, but practically no. i bet ud want an educated doctor to use advanced technology to cure ppl.money
cantforgetthis 3 months ago
@cantforgetthis Like I said in a later reply, it's obviously possible to live without money but it's preferable to live with it. It is even practically possible, just not practically possible to keep our same standard of living without money.
RadgarEleding 3 months ago
why does god need so much money $ & pedophiles to promote himself?
nayanmalig 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Convincing guy if you don't have Google.
Zaywex 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
its true though black people that are 100% black are not as smart fact
FIGHTFANNERD3 3 months ago
i agree on a lot of Robert Wright points but he sounds like an atheist
FIGHTFANNERD3 3 months ago
D'Souza is an idiot
FIGHTFANNERD3 3 months ago
the god of abrahamic religions are not real
FIGHTFANNERD3 3 months ago
theres no life after death fact
FIGHTFANNERD3 3 months ago
I like how you manage to blame god for man's mistakes,
also, I will be open minded with you at all times,
the Christian gospel, is about precisely that, Salvation, warning, guidance, restructuring old ideas who where misunderstood, sacrifices are not needed, repentance is available, tolerance and enlightenment.
if you repent there's no freedom taken from you, but by examining your actions you inquire into them.
there's no Satan.
WolfEyesatNight 3 months ago
Has anybody ever tried to answer Hitchens' question; 'name a charitable act that a religious person can do that can't be done by an atheist' yet? Cause I believe that could make a lot of atheists uncomfortable. As it stands right now I'm pretty fucking comfortable
yoingtin 3 months ago
@yoingtin That's supposed to make theists feel uncomfortable, as there is no charitable act a religious person can do that can't be done by a non-religious person.
kurtskywalker 3 months ago
@kurtskywalker yeah.....I know.....
yoingtin 3 months ago
@yoingtin You said it would make atheists feel uncomfortable :p
kurtskywalker 3 months ago
@kurtskywalker Yeah, if someone were to come up with an answer to his question. As it stands right now there is no answer any theist could provide.
yoingtin 3 months ago
@kurtskywalker Yes. If an atheist was shown a charitable act that could only be done by a religious person the atheist would then feel uncomfortable. My point was that such an act has not been presented, hence why I'm not uncomfortable.
yoingtin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
"Give me one reason why the police officer woudl not take the money unless there was a God."
Quite simple. He sees what occurs when evil men start to control society. He knows what it means as a threat to his family. He has intellectual reasons not to do it.
Rundvelt 3 months ago
"Religion requires not much more faith then science." Boteach.
Clearly this man is a fool or intellectually dishonest. Religion has never been demonstrated, Scientific facts have.
Rundvelt 3 months ago
The debates over, religion died generations ago, only idiots haven't caught on yet
Xanatosnemos0 3 months ago
I love how this is held in a superbowl stadium
GeneralJakass 3 months ago
ROFL.
D'Souza: "Don't have a clue. Don't have a clue. Don't have a clue."
jinnnny1 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens is a babbling,fumbling,blabbering over-rated that talk nothing of meaning
jinnnny1 3 months ago
@jinnnny1 Do you not understand the English language? What is he "babbling" about? lol.
TheDmo22222 3 months ago
The audience looks so bored.
jinnnny1 3 months ago
I hope Boteach falls in his quote mine like a Chilean.
Jestlow 3 months ago
Hitchens is the Muhammad Ali of verbal boxing.
SteveDutchy 3 months ago 2
~44:35, cute girl laughs at the word "climax?"
robitussin217 3 months ago 2