If you give Dinesh the little finger, he will take the whole hand!
Here he is being questioned if he accepts macro-evolution, and he says "Weeeell,, I don't really have a problem with it, but they take it too far.... blablabla.."
In other debates he is asked "is it really true you don't accept evolution?" - Then his answere is "I accepts macro evolution, but they take micro evolution too far...blabla.."
He would get rid of the idea as a whole if he could..
I just can't get over how Dinesh referred to Dachsunds and St. Bernards as different species. At first I thought it was a slip up, but I think he's just right in saying he's not a biologist.
Dinesh just proved that religion is the opiate of the masses. Religion gives us cosmic justice as compensation for an unfair reality just like how opiates dull the pain without treating the injury. Also its ironic that he accuses Peter of foolishly speculating God's will while he supports the bible of all things.
i find it interesting that many of you make the claim that we must prove everything but im sorry guys thats not how the world works. How about you answer some of our questions but without the disrespect and with some valid arguments would be appreciated
All the people who have made comments against d'souza are simply ignoring ANY good point he makes because he's arguing for the existence of a creator. His well is poisoned and no matter WHAT valid point he has, these guys will simply overlook it in hopes of finding some flaw, with which they can nail him to his cross. Sure he may say some off-center things, but that doesn't mean that ALL of his points are stupid. Get OFF your judgemental high horses and stop buying-in to the popular choice.
@amazinero the point is he's building up from a "creator" point of view... science requires EVIDENCE! if electricity was discovered 10.000 years ago, it would have represented the same phenomena it represents today. you can't start from an imaginary point of view, with NO PROVE whatsoever, and attempt to explain the world in those terms. the fact is, you do not have to lay answers in the supernatural when it comes to human behavior like souza is doing...
What a disgracefully misleading answer he gives to the question "Are you a macro evolutionist?" At first he almost shits his pants but then realises he knows a cheap point he can make. He's actually a liar.
If D'Souza is the best the believers can do, I give religion in western civilizations about 2 generations to die out completely as we educate ourselves further.
@msteele79 Well you're pretty unintelligent if you think so because Voltair said the same thing :) He boasted that in twenty years Christianity will be no more. My single hand shall destroy the edifice it took the twelve apostles to rear. Some time later his house was used buy the Geneva Bible Society to print Bibles.......So it seems Atheists are pitting themselves against a foe infinitely more powerful and wonderful then themselves. Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart there is no God"
Well considering that we know 10x as much due to science compared to voltaire's time (if not more), the two aren't much the same, but nice try, the condescension of your attitude and your fool quote go a long way towards the validity of your argument, and you need all the validity you can get.
Atheists aren't pitting themselves against any foe unless you mean willful ignorance. Seeing as no infinitely powerful foe can be shown to exist anywhere except in deluded minds.
LOL @ the ant argument. Human beings don't send tablets down into ant colonies explaining why we created them to suffer. We don't ordain priests among the ants to justify atrocities against other animals, or imposing moral constraints on them, out of our "jealous" need for their worship. If our relationship to God were some kind of analog to our relationship with lower species, then God wouldn't even be discussed by us.
If god gives life and makes it challenging (honest assertion) then why would this god then order others to kill the malekites or sodomites? And yes, this is OT, but does this then imply that god can change his/her/its mind? This does not sound like omnipotence. To respond to the first questioner. I don't arrive at the beginning assuming I'm right. However, lets assume god exists: you have all your work ahead: You must now show that this god cares what you eat, who you sleep with, worship, etc.
@quailhill - For mental comfort. It was our first attempt at science and our worst. It was a way to explain what we didn't know about the world around us. It then evolved as a method of control. Etc.
@aquatix So "atheists" created this lie so that they could control other "atheists" What is it about "atheists" that make them want to control people?
@quailhill - No, I urge you to read carefully. The use of control was discovered after the creation of the story. It was not created for control; It was created to understand the world around them. It was not until the 'ism' came that the story was abused. And I can't speak for all atheists, only for myself. I do not seek control but do support with my very being fact based education and freedom of speech.
@aquatix Either way "atheists" created the lie of a God existing and then later "atheists" used it to control other "atheists". Science was created by men who believed this "lie". Sir Francis Bacon formulated the scientific method.
hmmm, I think that D'Souza has just said at 2:15 that I and everyone else has won some kind of lottery ticket of life. So does that mean that it is all chance after all? Duh!!! Nitwit needs to make up his mind.
according to d'Souza if God gave you lifethen He can do anything with it, because it's His gift! he raised a similar point in a debate with Hitchens who owned so badly by saying that only an abject person sprawling at the feet of his god can say that :)))
d'Souza = nasty worm having no idea what HUMAN solidarity is; which btw is so typical of Christian apologists (W.Craig is the worst-- he thinks genocides are OK if they are commanded by Yahweh!)
God's existence is in itself against justice. He is said to have all the power - we have none before him. He knows everything about us - we know nothing about him. He can see us - even in toilet - we cannot see him. He can burn us in his hell for eternity - we can't ask him why. Is there any justice in his existence? Dinesh, are you sure you are an honest person?
@Shabneshinidareu no, he's a hypocrite like so many other apologists-- that's all he's got left. otherwise he'll have to admit that he's one big failure and he has wasted his whole life on folly..
yes dinesh we do have a legitimate complaint, i guess its different if you havent had to suffer from down syndrome. either god is not benevolent and is evil or he doesnt exist. take your pick dinesh.
@bonfirejovi Disagree. As Mr. D'Souza pointed out, people have free will and we live in a lawful universe (earthquakes, floods, etc...). I think these are the causes of human on human suffering and natural disaster casued human suffering respectively.
@Japmax1 so he isn't benevolent then? child dying... who cares the drought happened naturally. he intervened once (jesus), why can he not intervene again. also why didnt he make the laws of nature so things like this wouldnt happen to children.
@bonfirejovi Because of free will humans are able to live out their lives as each sees fit. Free will is thus required by God's justice, otherwise, man would not be given or denied good for actions over which he had no control. That you wish God never allowed any children to die is noble, but unrealistic, in this world. You’re referring to Heaven.
@bonfirejovi Natural disasters well continue to occur because we live in a universe governed by immutable physical laws. That God does not intervene (or block every tidal wave, stop every earthquake) continuously is a decision which I don’t believe makes him bad. However, when he does intervene, it is a miracle. He would literally have to perform these miracles continuously in order to stop all undeserved death.
@bonfirejovi Please explain specifically what you think God should have done to protect all children from harm. And why only children? Why not handicap? Why not all females?
@Japmax1 why not females? why not everyone? after all he is all knowing and all powerful. if i were god i would start by having no diseases or disabilities for humans.
@bonfirejovi Would anybody ever die in bonfire-land? It sounds to me like you want life insurance from God, and I don't think thats how he operates. I believe in God, however, I don't believe that I am anymore protected from harm than anybody else.
@bonfirejovi As for why God didn’t make the physical laws in way in which no children would die in vain….. How specifically could that be? Would children have force fields? When would the force fields cease? Twelve or thirteen? I’m sorry if I sound condescending, but I don’t understand how God could have protected children from the laws of nature.
isn't he all powerful and all knowing? no down syndrome would be a start. no its ok you dont sound condescending, you sound ridiculous. god made the laws of nature and he could easily have made them different.
@bonfirejovi Has anything that I have written in regards to suffering made sense to you? You haven't ackknowledged one point. I've spent a lot of time thinking/researching about it and wonder if you think that everything that I've written is "ridiculous."
@Japmax1 i know what you are saying... that god created a world where basically it was survival of the fittest and we have to make our own way. however even if you accept that is benevolent (i dont), some children are born with disabilities that put them at a handy cap, some children arent naturally as smart as others, some are weak. saying god didnt create a fair playing field is an understatement.
I find many of the people here cannot conduct an intellectual exercise, valid points are raised by both sides, and unilateral animosity to Dsouza seems to show either the issues hitting home, or ones mind not being able to bend around the issues raised.
@xChewyOatmealx Agreed. As I've commented before, many say that it is the religious that are closed minded, I think that all of the shallow :Dinesh=Douche" commenters, and the like, are very closed minded. They already know all the answers.
"Well I'm not a biologist" hahaha NO SHIT CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!! You didn't have to tell us! "Perhaps dogs and wolves share a common ancestor?" lol oooo and maybe germs cause disease? That's DEEP! All dogs are descended from wolves, Dinesh. Wow, that made my night.
I liked Singer's response of the baby with a cocaine addicted mother. But I would have described a beaten, raped, starved 6 year old girl kept in a closet 23 hours a day--and indoctrinated to believe that her parents "love her" because they created her and now feed her what meager food she does get.
D'Souza could be the defense attorney for her parents with his argument about god's children not deserving anything.
wow.... that first question is the exact opposite of reality. Religion makes the claim and any evidence that comes about is assimilated in into the religion without changing its original conclusion. Science looks at the evidence and then forms a conclusion. upon which that conclusion can always change.
Dinesh is repeatly embarrassing himself, he is clearly outmatch by Singer in every ways and wit. The point I'm trying to make is... Look... It seem to me... What I'm trying to get at is... Quote mine excessive Constant using of strawman... Misleading... Evasing argument and counter argument... Liar... Misquote or quote some prominent atheist out of context I'm sure there's alot more that I miss. Wow. Does this guy have any other tricks i don't know about?
@mike2915 “Dinesh always sounds like he's trying to come across as more intelligent than he really is.” Lol I know. It looks like he’s trying to talk like Sam Harris, because he always get’s really enthusiastic just like Harris when he’s making his “points,” and he always tries to talk all articulate and smooth just like Harris. The only difference; he’s none of those.
There is no evidence, it's just Dinesh being a tool. How can anyone follow his rhetorical bullshit, he's such a an artist w/ words, but can't make any real sense of his own bogus claims. Does intellectual honesty mean anything to him? What a dickhead!
AHHHHHHHH i want to jump through the computer and strangle d'souza. Life is a gift from god regardless, so according to him, if we're a 4 year old child dying of cancer, we should STFU and be grateful that compassionate god gave us any life at all. Also, what if the kid isn't Christian? hmmm.......where is he/she going when she dies?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think judging by all the defensive comments on how "pompous", "loud", "seemingly intellectual" D'Souza is, the message is "Peter Singer was destroyed in this debate". And Dawkins, Hitchens etc. are not loud, pompous?
Funny, Dinesh comes off as an intellectual but for anyone who ever looks deeply into his arguments and even his own knowledge of his own christianity and history, you quickly see he's full of nothing but hot air.
What are his qualifications to be talking about these subjects anyway? Is it true that he just completed a BA in English and nothing more? Perhaps not even with good grades?
He certainly doesn't seem to have studied ANY formal logic.
The argument of the "life gift" of god by Dinesh is completly stupid, he is trying to justify suffering in a very miserable way. Singer respond very well on that.
You simply say D'Souza's argument is stupid without giving any reason why. First off I know Dinesh D'Souza went to Dartmouth so by no means would I ever accuse him of being "stupid". In fact I'd say accusing him of being such is in fact...stupid. Nor would I say Singer is "stupid" as I'm confident he is a very well educated person as well. D'Souza made a good argument about the "gift of life" and you simply dimsiss it because your already have your opinion and will not change it.
First, i was saying that is argument was stupid not D'Souza's himself and i must clarify that i was i litile bit angry (that' why i used the word stupid) went i heard that (his argument). I would now say that his point was weak after that Singer refute it. So my reason would be the point that Singer made. Singer point out that the "gift of life" disempowered humain in their actions. I just can see any rationnal reason to beleve in that cosmic justice concept.
As long as you don't try to argue D'Souza is "stupid" I'm sure his IQ could kick all our asses. And Singer makes his share of "Stupid" comments. His main argument being all about suffering yet D'Souza calls him out on it...his main argument is against the nature of God, not whether he exists or not. And as you speak much better English than I do French...I tip my hat to you sir. As a speaker of clumsy German I know how hard foreign languages are. You're English is damn good BTW.
I think the point Singer is making is that the Christian concept of God is that he is good and benevolent (among other things), therefore disproving that he is good and benevolent also disproves his existence. After all they seem to be debating the existence of God in terms of Christianity rather than Hinduism, Sikhism, or any other religion.
without having the time to articulate this: dinesh d´souza is a certified buffoon. the idea, for example, that suffering doesn´t matter in the grand scheme of things because even the victims of unbearable suffering were given the "gift of life" is either, literally, nonsense or a really bad joke. does anybody buy this sort of crap?
so, if i understood dinesh properly, although we cannot prove that there is such a thing as "cosmic justice", because it's nice to believe that there is, theism has the moral highground, and atheism is ethically bankrupt.
dsouza is not here to test is skills of "arguing", he is here to debate about the existence of god, for which he is not really doing a good job......most of the points he argues about are wrong and made up....
Wow, D'Souza's argument against suffer can basically be summed up as "Shut up, you were given a life which is more than you deserve to stop your complaining."
Some have claimed to have discovered fossilized human footprints among the dinosaur prints, though scientists have since concluded that weathering and erosion caused some animal prints to appear human.
So no, there is still no conclusive evidence that humans were around at the time of the dinosaurs.
Further, there were fake foot prints added in, which the creator later admitted were fake. You should really try to confirm the things that you're claiming a bit better.
"For you to speculate on the intentions of God, is like an ant trying to speculate on why humans build cities, any answer is bound to be ridiculous" and your absolutely right Dinesh. Thats the reason why atheists will consent that god is a possibility, but we also find it ridiculous that you can know anything about god and what he wants us to do. So for all intents and purposes you should live your life as if there is no god because you can't truly know what god wants assuming he exists.
dinesh...not a strong arguer at all. but good on him to try to roll with the punches. his difficulties are that he strawmanizes the other side too much, and thus stumbles when things crop up beyond he has attempted to anticipate. he is also much more wedded to his conclusions. he needs to reexamine his foundations for necessity.
unfortunately, the stock answers he provides probably sell so well he has little incentive to do so, aside from serious debates.
D`souza says that since we have the gift of life all is well, but that worldview would take away all morality as all is permittable if all suffering is fine since we have been blessed with the gift of life before we got killed or hurt really bad. He could then say it is against gods will to kill, but how does he know that, since there are so many religions and interpretations of them and so who knows which is the correct one and if maybe God hasn´t yet revealed himself to the world at all!
because they are not. they are in the same family. the canidae family is divided into Canini tribe (true dogs) and Vulpini tribe (foxes, wolves, and jackles).
way to own yourself. thanks for proving what your depth of thought is on this topic and probably any other.
the dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is normally considered to be a domesticated subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). both are still generally placed in the Canini tribe. there are arguments about this among experts, but no new consensus as you suggest.
yes, and tribe is not species. dinesh was correct in his use of this as an analogy to his point. the tribe rank is two above a species.
it would have just been better to say "dinesh is such a retard" as the poster above than to act as if you had some superior intellectual criticism of dinesh's point.
thanks for pointing out the obvious. it does make you seem confused, though. in case it escaped you, my point was that it is generally accepted that dogs (as in domesticated dogs) and wolves (like gray wolves) are both members of Canini tribe, contrary to the taxonomy you asserted. and they are generally accepted to be members of the same species, also contrary to the taxonomy you asserted. i don't know what you're saying yes to. i was disagreeing with you completely.
they are NOT generally accepted to be in the same species. Tribe does not equal species. That would be like saying Humans and Chimpanzee's are in the same tribe and are generally accepted to be in the same species.
I was saying "yes" to what you offered as valid counter claim about the position of dogs and wolves in either common or different tribes. No zoologist would say definitively that wolves and dogs are in the same species. I'll let you just keep on posting to convince yourself your original comment was poignant and not obtuse.
yes, dogs and wolves are currently generally accepted to be in the same species (domestics dogs are widely accepted to have been derived from the gray wolf). as members of the same species, they must be in the same tribe (don't know why you're still hung up on the definitions of tribe and species -- again you seem confused). as it happens, humans and chimpanzees are also part of the same tribe (Hominini), but they're not in the same species. so, your simile is way off base.
D'Souza has a terrible agent...putting him up against Singer should be career suicide. I suppose it's a good thing he writes books for illiterate non-thinkers.
Yeah, we know how coward atheists would love for him to disappear. The strong arm sentiment is common from dumb bitter atheists who can't handle getting their faces owned.
Getting their faces owned? Did you hear a word Dasleeza said? He wholly misrepresents Singer, proving only that he is a huckster or an illiterate retard. When he disappears, will you go with him? Or just kill yourself so you can hold hands with your Jewish zombie already.
You only hear what your kool-aid filter allows you to. I bet you have a red kool-aid mustache from ear to ear. Droolers like you are only a passing annoyance. You can't squelch ideas or truth, you little coward. You're a coward tyrant in disguise, nothing more.
Wait a minute, you're the believer dipshit. And to call sleeza's interpretation anything other than dubious shows only your complete lack of critical thinking. Do you know what a tyrant is numbnuts?
--Demagogue worshiping fool, I bet you hate homosexuals and blacks, as well as educated people.
What's a "sleeza"? Are you a homeless guy that found a computer? Are you implying that you're educated, assclown? LOL...
You're nothing but another useless, bitter, libtard who believes in something more fantastic than anything imaginable to date which requires more kool-aid blind faith than all religions combined. Dime-a-dozen... next...
A tyrant is someone who wants absolute authority, no room for other views or ideas but their own, which is exactly what bitter, angry, militant, atheist coward losers like yourself are.
Watch the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", if you can handle it, pussy.
Yes let's questions a scientific theory with a superstition.
"A tyrant is someone who wants absolute authority, no room for other views or ideas but their own" because Christianity leaves room for what? Islam? You fucking spineless, ignorant, and solipsistic douche bag.
Question a scientific theory with superstition? False premise, coward, nice try. Currently, cowards like you don't allow other ideas or theories.
The point seems to escape you, but I expected no less coming from a cross-eyed, libtard, drooler. I'll bet your eyes are so crossed they are completely white right now. Don't forget to tell your nurse to wash your bib after reading this, I'm sure your excitement will cause a deluge of drool.
Which premise you mental midget? There are two unspoken premises that lead to my conclusion, which is valid. The soundness of one of the premises may be up for debate, but you need to articulate as to which one is unsound.
If you think that an intelligent designer is a theory...then you only deserve contempt and ridicule.
The thing is, you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
You are uneducated and ignorant. You know nothing about evolution, so quit chiming in as if anybody cares.
The premise that "scientific theory" is the end of knowledge and cannot be questioned and that a theory of intelligent design is not allowed, you imbecile.
It is inept, small minded, cowards like you who prevent true progress. Do everybody a favor and stick to building Legos in your room.
Just because you have expanded your vocabulary does not mean you are qualified as a thinker, which you clearly are not. Leave the thinking to those who are capable without emotional confines, you inbred.
Intelligent design is not a theory mainly, although there is a torrent of other reasons, because it doesn't hold up to ANY criticism.
Why do you care anyway? Do you really think Jesus needs your caustic, unlettered, and unexamined opinion? NO, Fuck Jesus and fuck you. Fuck Jesus, Fuck Allah, fuck the god of Abraham...pussy.
Evolutionary theory is held together by vast assumptions, plagued by many problems and sewn together like Frankenstein. The unbridled zeal of religious Darwinist fanatics like you are only matched by Islamic terrorists from what I see.
I'm sorry that you have downs syndrome and tourette's at the same exact time. I feel bad now for making you my bitch.
Run along now, you kool-aid drunk parrot. Go find some more talking points to repeat. *Squak... Polly want a cracker?*
Like I said, you have no idea as to what you're talking about. You equivocate anything that is different from Christianity to something that is equally absurd as Christianity. Congratulations, you're dumb. In fact, creationism is stolen from evolution...gradual change in species...as Darwinism does not point to an ultimate beginning, creationism just makes one up.
--Evolution is not monkeys birthing humans or humans created by lightning and goo,It is gradual change in specieswhich is obvious
YOu do realize that evolution provides the idea that all creatures came from the same original base idea, which would infer a concrete source? And Darwinism points to a way that modern living came about gradually, but offers NOTHING about a beginning. Thats what we call Spontaneous Generation. Now while Observer75 is not really showing the love of Christ, lol. I really think you should research Christianity bud. It makes sense
Oh and Im black and Im a Christian. I hate blacks tho. Im also antisemitic and I kill in the name of God. I also am not educated and it is a complete fluke that Im typing this since I cant read. Almost as much of a complete fluke as the universe is and as life is when elements randomly assemble themselves and somehow form a living organism even though that is obviously impossible
"I'm not a biologist." Then shut up.
OliverZimbelman 3 weeks ago
1:30-2:50 Unbelievably illogical non-argument flourished with smug hubris. Borders on a comic routine. Marx brothers play a debate.
Hypatiarhetoric 1 month ago
@Hypatiarhetoric Marx brother, I should specify. What did Singer think when his reprieve came at the end of this farce, I wonder.
Hypatiarhetoric 1 month ago
If you give Dinesh the little finger, he will take the whole hand!
Here he is being questioned if he accepts macro-evolution, and he says "Weeeell,, I don't really have a problem with it, but they take it too far.... blablabla.."
In other debates he is asked "is it really true you don't accept evolution?" - Then his answere is "I accepts macro evolution, but they take micro evolution too far...blabla.."
He would get rid of the idea as a whole if he could..
fjoo 2 months ago
It always amazes me that brilliant men can miss something as clear as God.
Nwidmann 2 months ago
@Nwidmann It amazes me that otherwise rational people should say that God is some sort of self evident axiom.
BigLundi 1 month ago
It's painful watching this why am I watching this :(
TheGerogero 2 months ago
Dinesh = Delusion.
MrSDSTRIKEBREAKER 4 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer
How on earth can people applaud Dinesh after making a disgustingly dishonest point? People are such funny little creatures...
whauffend 4 months ago
0:30 question = nonsensical. What fucking debate did this guy watch?
AtheistPowerlifter 5 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer 6
@AtheistPowerlifter lol, my thoughts exactly.
livingdeadgrl18 1 day ago
What a strange question @ 6:30. Perfect response from Singer!
scarface82us 6 months ago
@scarface82us thank you for leaving your comment vague. that way i could anticipate the part you are referring to, but you didn't ruin it for me(:
livingdeadgrl18 1 day ago
I just can't get over how Dinesh referred to Dachsunds and St. Bernards as different species. At first I thought it was a slip up, but I think he's just right in saying he's not a biologist.
etchkid 6 months ago
Dinesh just proved that religion is the opiate of the masses. Religion gives us cosmic justice as compensation for an unfair reality just like how opiates dull the pain without treating the injury. Also its ironic that he accuses Peter of foolishly speculating God's will while he supports the bible of all things.
Never3rd 7 months ago
metaphysical Darwinism?
adehmark 8 months ago
Wow Dinesh is a macro evolutionist!! wow he certainly looks unevolved in a macro way :)
yzia2009 8 months ago
Wow. Dinesh is such an aaasssssshole.
littleflags 8 months ago
i find it interesting that many of you make the claim that we must prove everything but im sorry guys thats not how the world works. How about you answer some of our questions but without the disrespect and with some valid arguments would be appreciated
sandoval1171 9 months ago
so, according to souzzy, religion DOES NOT push assumptions into valid science, while "some people" does? ROFL
ComputerScience54 9 months ago
All the people who have made comments against d'souza are simply ignoring ANY good point he makes because he's arguing for the existence of a creator. His well is poisoned and no matter WHAT valid point he has, these guys will simply overlook it in hopes of finding some flaw, with which they can nail him to his cross. Sure he may say some off-center things, but that doesn't mean that ALL of his points are stupid. Get OFF your judgemental high horses and stop buying-in to the popular choice.
amazinero 10 months ago
@amazinero the point is he's building up from a "creator" point of view... science requires EVIDENCE! if electricity was discovered 10.000 years ago, it would have represented the same phenomena it represents today. you can't start from an imaginary point of view, with NO PROVE whatsoever, and attempt to explain the world in those terms. the fact is, you do not have to lay answers in the supernatural when it comes to human behavior like souza is doing...
ComputerScience54 9 months ago
D'Souza, You need to improve your debating skill by aiming to use fewer words.
mpking1374 10 months ago
What a disgracefully misleading answer he gives to the question "Are you a macro evolutionist?" At first he almost shits his pants but then realises he knows a cheap point he can make. He's actually a liar.
LowleyUK 1 year ago
Dinesh is disingenuous, bordering on dishonest, in his arguments.
kadene2 1 year ago
When D'Souza starts an answer with "Look,..." You can expect it's already a flawed argument.
MattHunX 1 year ago
If D'Souza is the best the believers can do, I give religion in western civilizations about 2 generations to die out completely as we educate ourselves further.
msteele79 1 year ago 2
@msteele79 Well you're pretty unintelligent if you think so because Voltair said the same thing :) He boasted that in twenty years Christianity will be no more. My single hand shall destroy the edifice it took the twelve apostles to rear. Some time later his house was used buy the Geneva Bible Society to print Bibles.......So it seems Atheists are pitting themselves against a foe infinitely more powerful and wonderful then themselves. Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart there is no God"
sandoval1171 1 year ago
@sandoval1171
Well considering that we know 10x as much due to science compared to voltaire's time (if not more), the two aren't much the same, but nice try, the condescension of your attitude and your fool quote go a long way towards the validity of your argument, and you need all the validity you can get.
Atheists aren't pitting themselves against any foe unless you mean willful ignorance. Seeing as no infinitely powerful foe can be shown to exist anywhere except in deluded minds.
msteele79 1 year ago
@sandoval1171 yeah, it's written in a book, then it must be true... show me the experimental results and then we'll talk...
ComputerScience54 9 months ago
@msteele79 nooo, they also have Ray Comfort and William Craig as tactical reserve XD
ComputerScience54 9 months ago
3:10 was so FUCKING GOLD.
SirPwn4lot 1 year ago
@callofduty497 I believe he was using it as a comparison.
esiosan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Teehee. Dogs are all the same species.
Existentialisht 1 year ago
Comment removed
nothingnesswithouten 1 year ago
Fuck off Dinesh. Idiot. god soaked. Fuck I hate stupid christians.
InverStone 1 year ago
with his "gift of life" crazy arg D'souza comes across as a worm-like serve crawling at the feet of his Master, willing to defend him no matter what
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
LOL @ the ant argument. Human beings don't send tablets down into ant colonies explaining why we created them to suffer. We don't ordain priests among the ants to justify atrocities against other animals, or imposing moral constraints on them, out of our "jealous" need for their worship. If our relationship to God were some kind of analog to our relationship with lower species, then God wouldn't even be discussed by us.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
lol d'souza ALWAYS ums and ah's and shrugs and tilts his glasses whenever he's struggling and impatient look for it in his other videos.
Hilarious.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
All the suffering in the world sucks! There is also alot of awesomeness though!
redlinegw 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redlinegw Let me guess...you live in America.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
I love how when Singer is confronted with smuggling atheist agendas into science he comes back with yet another atheistic assumption. Classic!
caveatemp 1 year ago 2
3:00 So much ownage. You win, Singer.
Trynottoblink 1 year ago
Guess who i'm imitating: "look..."
diekerze 1 year ago
If god gives life and makes it challenging (honest assertion) then why would this god then order others to kill the malekites or sodomites? And yes, this is OT, but does this then imply that god can change his/her/its mind? This does not sound like omnipotence. To respond to the first questioner. I don't arrive at the beginning assuming I'm right. However, lets assume god exists: you have all your work ahead: You must now show that this god cares what you eat, who you sleep with, worship, etc.
aquatix 1 year ago
@aquatix Let's assume God doesn't exist. Why did atheists invent God in the first place?
quailhill 1 year ago
@quailhill - For mental comfort. It was our first attempt at science and our worst. It was a way to explain what we didn't know about the world around us. It then evolved as a method of control. Etc.
aquatix 1 year ago
@aquatix So "atheists" created this lie so that they could control other "atheists" What is it about "atheists" that make them want to control people?
quailhill 1 year ago
@quailhill - No, I urge you to read carefully. The use of control was discovered after the creation of the story. It was not created for control; It was created to understand the world around them. It was not until the 'ism' came that the story was abused. And I can't speak for all atheists, only for myself. I do not seek control but do support with my very being fact based education and freedom of speech.
aquatix 1 year ago
@aquatix Either way "atheists" created the lie of a God existing and then later "atheists" used it to control other "atheists". Science was created by men who believed this "lie". Sir Francis Bacon formulated the scientific method.
quailhill 1 year ago
@quailhill - So, what is your objective? I'm not following where you are going with any of this...
aquatix 1 year ago
hmmm, I think that D'Souza has just said at 2:15 that I and everyone else has won some kind of lottery ticket of life. So does that mean that it is all chance after all? Duh!!! Nitwit needs to make up his mind.
Skenzed 1 year ago
according to d'Souza if God gave you lifethen He can do anything with it, because it's His gift! he raised a similar point in a debate with Hitchens who owned so badly by saying that only an abject person sprawling at the feet of his god can say that :)))
d'Souza = nasty worm having no idea what HUMAN solidarity is; which btw is so typical of Christian apologists (W.Craig is the worst-- he thinks genocides are OK if they are commanded by Yahweh!)
HerrVonManstein 1 year ago
God's existence is in itself against justice. He is said to have all the power - we have none before him. He knows everything about us - we know nothing about him. He can see us - even in toilet - we cannot see him. He can burn us in his hell for eternity - we can't ask him why. Is there any justice in his existence? Dinesh, are you sure you are an honest person?
Shabneshinidareu 1 year ago
@Shabneshinidareu no, he's a hypocrite like so many other apologists-- that's all he's got left. otherwise he'll have to admit that he's one big failure and he has wasted his whole life on folly..
HerrVonManstein 1 year ago
yes dinesh we do have a legitimate complaint, i guess its different if you havent had to suffer from down syndrome. either god is not benevolent and is evil or he doesnt exist. take your pick dinesh.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi I do not think it is quite that simple, if it was there would be no debate.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 no it is that simple, christians just want to pretend that it isn't.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Disagree. As Mr. D'Souza pointed out, people have free will and we live in a lawful universe (earthquakes, floods, etc...). I think these are the causes of human on human suffering and natural disaster casued human suffering respectively.
Japmax1 1 year ago
@Japmax1 so he isn't benevolent then? child dying... who cares the drought happened naturally. he intervened once (jesus), why can he not intervene again. also why didnt he make the laws of nature so things like this wouldnt happen to children.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Because of free will humans are able to live out their lives as each sees fit. Free will is thus required by God's justice, otherwise, man would not be given or denied good for actions over which he had no control. That you wish God never allowed any children to die is noble, but unrealistic, in this world. You’re referring to Heaven.
Japmax1 1 year ago
@Japmax1 free will? so do i have the free will to not accept god and still go to heaven?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Good luck.
Japmax1 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Natural disasters well continue to occur because we live in a universe governed by immutable physical laws. That God does not intervene (or block every tidal wave, stop every earthquake) continuously is a decision which I don’t believe makes him bad. However, when he does intervene, it is a miracle. He would literally have to perform these miracles continuously in order to stop all undeserved death.
Japmax1 1 year ago
@Japmax1 your defining gods limitations. i thought he had no limitations?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Please explain specifically what you think God should have done to protect all children from harm. And why only children? Why not handicap? Why not all females?
Japmax1 1 year ago
@Japmax1 why not females? why not everyone? after all he is all knowing and all powerful. if i were god i would start by having no diseases or disabilities for humans.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Would anybody ever die in bonfire-land? It sounds to me like you want life insurance from God, and I don't think thats how he operates. I believe in God, however, I don't believe that I am anymore protected from harm than anybody else.
Japmax1 1 year ago
@Japmax1 ya people in bonfire-land would die of old age and wouldnt have to go through a full life suffering with down syndrome.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Sounds like a nice place. I wish you the best.
Japmax1 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi As for why God didn’t make the physical laws in way in which no children would die in vain….. How specifically could that be? Would children have force fields? When would the force fields cease? Twelve or thirteen? I’m sorry if I sound condescending, but I don’t understand how God could have protected children from the laws of nature.
Japmax1 1 year ago
@Japmax1 "How specifically could that be?"
isn't he all powerful and all knowing? no down syndrome would be a start. no its ok you dont sound condescending, you sound ridiculous. god made the laws of nature and he could easily have made them different.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Ouch. Why do all discussions online devolve so quickly to name calling?
Japmax1 1 year ago
@Japmax1 what name calling?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Has anything that I have written in regards to suffering made sense to you? You haven't ackknowledged one point. I've spent a lot of time thinking/researching about it and wonder if you think that everything that I've written is "ridiculous."
Japmax1 1 year ago
@Japmax1 i know what you are saying... that god created a world where basically it was survival of the fittest and we have to make our own way. however even if you accept that is benevolent (i dont), some children are born with disabilities that put them at a handy cap, some children arent naturally as smart as others, some are weak. saying god didnt create a fair playing field is an understatement.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
I find many of the people here cannot conduct an intellectual exercise, valid points are raised by both sides, and unilateral animosity to Dsouza seems to show either the issues hitting home, or ones mind not being able to bend around the issues raised.
xChewyOatmealx 1 year ago
@xChewyOatmealx I thought I was the only one noticing this. Good thumbs up.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@xChewyOatmealx Agreed. As I've commented before, many say that it is the religious that are closed minded, I think that all of the shallow :Dinesh=Douche" commenters, and the like, are very closed minded. They already know all the answers.
Japmax1 1 year ago
"Well I'm not a biologist" hahaha NO SHIT CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!! You didn't have to tell us! "Perhaps dogs and wolves share a common ancestor?" lol oooo and maybe germs cause disease? That's DEEP! All dogs are descended from wolves, Dinesh. Wow, that made my night.
dopejoel 1 year ago
Dinesh = Douche
czar59023 1 year ago
I liked Singer's response of the baby with a cocaine addicted mother. But I would have described a beaten, raped, starved 6 year old girl kept in a closet 23 hours a day--and indoctrinated to believe that her parents "love her" because they created her and now feed her what meager food she does get.
D'Souza could be the defense attorney for her parents with his argument about god's children not deserving anything.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago 3
wow.... that first question is the exact opposite of reality. Religion makes the claim and any evidence that comes about is assimilated in into the religion without changing its original conclusion. Science looks at the evidence and then forms a conclusion. upon which that conclusion can always change.
Animeabe 2 years ago 3
D'Souza needs to stop talking sometimes. Just take the chance to pass when you're asked to reply!
neohero9 2 years ago
boinkys 2 years ago 2
Dinesh always sounds like he's trying to come across as more intelligent than he really is.
mike2915 2 years ago 11
@mike2915 “Dinesh always sounds like he's trying to come across as more intelligent than he really is.” Lol I know. It looks like he’s trying to talk like Sam Harris, because he always get’s really enthusiastic just like Harris when he’s making his “points,” and he always tries to talk all articulate and smooth just like Harris. The only difference; he’s none of those.
MarvelsofaLifetime 9 months ago
it is literally crazy how uninformed that man is.
hipser 2 years ago
Cosmic justice what the fuck is the evidence for this?
RAMSEY1987 2 years ago
There is no evidence, it's just Dinesh being a tool. How can anyone follow his rhetorical bullshit, he's such a an artist w/ words, but can't make any real sense of his own bogus claims. Does intellectual honesty mean anything to him? What a dickhead!
dwolfcoach 2 years ago 3
Wow, lots of information there failsuck.
RorySPQR 2 years ago
Wow! The guy I agree with slaughtered the guy I disagree with!
failsuck 2 years ago 7
rofl
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
AHHHHHHHH i want to jump through the computer and strangle d'souza. Life is a gift from god regardless, so according to him, if we're a 4 year old child dying of cancer, we should STFU and be grateful that compassionate god gave us any life at all. Also, what if the kid isn't Christian? hmmm.......where is he/she going when she dies?
BillKiernan 2 years ago
That first guy pisses me off -.-'
TheJollyJoker414 2 years ago
LOL wow, the guy in the beginning has it absolutely backwards. Go figure. I wonder where he got that idea.
These churches are retarding intelligence. Preaching the absolute opposite of the truth, in other words, LYING.
niginit 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think judging by all the defensive comments on how "pompous", "loud", "seemingly intellectual" D'Souza is, the message is "Peter Singer was destroyed in this debate". And Dawkins, Hitchens etc. are not loud, pompous?
happysappy21 2 years ago
Funny, Dinesh comes off as an intellectual but for anyone who ever looks deeply into his arguments and even his own knowledge of his own christianity and history, you quickly see he's full of nothing but hot air.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago 3
Like Hitchens commented about the preacher that passed away... If you gave him an enima he'd fit into a matchbox...
Di66en6ion 2 years ago
Dinesh comes across very badly here. His gift of life argument is completely shite
kksf1979 2 years ago 26
@kksf1979
All of his "arguments" are.
What are his qualifications to be talking about these subjects anyway? Is it true that he just completed a BA in English and nothing more? Perhaps not even with good grades?
He certainly doesn't seem to have studied ANY formal logic.
moyga 2 years ago
@kksf1979 Who cares if the arguments is bad they will look at it not cry that is was wrong like you.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza = compulsive lier
Peter Singer = Interlectual genious
koldtoft 2 years ago 21
Peter Singer is razor sharp. I doubt if anyone in the audience got his analogy of not complaining about a mother who had cocaine during pregnancy,.
abstractUser 2 years ago 8
i know, i love how Dinesh gets huge applause just for acting pompous and loud.
seanw25 2 years ago 7
I take it you are including Singer's supporters too then
happysappy21 2 years ago
you spelled genius wrong genius
although Singer is cool...
MassiveJungle 2 years ago
@koldtoft "Interlectual genious"
johhnyturbo 1 year ago
Peter Singer -
The fellow displays analytical capacity of a moron.
His baseless arguments are as titillating as tits on a bull frog.
rahulmisra2000 1 year ago
you are a horrific speller
eugdog106 1 year ago
yeah, interlectual maybe, intelectual NOT A CHANCE. Sorry, but you're ignorant.
metal87power 1 year ago
The argument of the "life gift" of god by Dinesh is completly stupid, he is trying to justify suffering in a very miserable way. Singer respond very well on that.
jeace99 2 years ago 2
You simply say D'Souza's argument is stupid without giving any reason why. First off I know Dinesh D'Souza went to Dartmouth so by no means would I ever accuse him of being "stupid". In fact I'd say accusing him of being such is in fact...stupid. Nor would I say Singer is "stupid" as I'm confident he is a very well educated person as well. D'Souza made a good argument about the "gift of life" and you simply dimsiss it because your already have your opinion and will not change it.
Archerfenris 2 years ago
First, i was saying that is argument was stupid not D'Souza's himself and i must clarify that i was i litile bit angry (that' why i used the word stupid) went i heard that (his argument). I would now say that his point was weak after that Singer refute it. So my reason would be the point that Singer made. Singer point out that the "gift of life" disempowered humain in their actions. I just can see any rationnal reason to beleve in that cosmic justice concept.
P.S My language = French
jeace99 2 years ago
As long as you don't try to argue D'Souza is "stupid" I'm sure his IQ could kick all our asses. And Singer makes his share of "Stupid" comments. His main argument being all about suffering yet D'Souza calls him out on it...his main argument is against the nature of God, not whether he exists or not. And as you speak much better English than I do French...I tip my hat to you sir. As a speaker of clumsy German I know how hard foreign languages are. You're English is damn good BTW.
Archerfenris 2 years ago
I think the point Singer is making is that the Christian concept of God is that he is good and benevolent (among other things), therefore disproving that he is good and benevolent also disproves his existence. After all they seem to be debating the existence of God in terms of Christianity rather than Hinduism, Sikhism, or any other religion.
VENEREALfunzone 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
roflmao113 2 years ago
Comment removed
roflmao113 2 years ago
without having the time to articulate this: dinesh d´souza is a certified buffoon. the idea, for example, that suffering doesn´t matter in the grand scheme of things because even the victims of unbearable suffering were given the "gift of life" is either, literally, nonsense or a really bad joke. does anybody buy this sort of crap?
berlinmatt 2 years ago 5
"cosmic justice"?
so, if i understood dinesh properly, although we cannot prove that there is such a thing as "cosmic justice", because it's nice to believe that there is, theism has the moral highground, and atheism is ethically bankrupt.
wishful thinking?
franzpolak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
D'souza can really argue. Hats off!
princessdiana71 2 years ago
i'm not really sure that you watched the video...
gunnarnizzler 2 years ago 3
dsouza is not here to test is skills of "arguing", he is here to debate about the existence of god, for which he is not really doing a good job......most of the points he argues about are wrong and made up....
fredkhambatta 2 years ago 2
Sure, but he can't answer questions!
smeezh 2 years ago
Wow, D'Souza's argument against suffer can basically be summed up as "Shut up, you were given a life which is more than you deserve to stop your complaining."
Luineancaion 2 years ago 6
So stop your complaining, woops.
Luineancaion 2 years ago
I know, lol.
confluential 2 years ago
Singer said we dont find humans and dinosaurs in the same strata of rock...but we do lol
kyleharper16 2 years ago
you went to a Creation museum, didn't you.
indeficit2 2 years ago
i've been to one briefly when i was like 10 lol...but then i went to the river which is like two hours from where i live..lol
kyleharper16 2 years ago
Please provide your sources please because finding homo sapiens in the some strata as dinosaurs would be one of the most incredible finds in history.
Luineancaion 2 years ago
search glen rose texas bro
kyleharper16 2 years ago
Some have claimed to have discovered fossilized human footprints among the dinosaur prints, though scientists have since concluded that weathering and erosion caused some animal prints to appear human.
So no, there is still no conclusive evidence that humans were around at the time of the dinosaurs.
Luineancaion 2 years ago
Further, there were fake foot prints added in, which the creator later admitted were fake. You should really try to confirm the things that you're claiming a bit better.
Luineancaion 2 years ago
"For you to speculate on the intentions of God, is like an ant trying to speculate on why humans build cities, any answer is bound to be ridiculous" and your absolutely right Dinesh. Thats the reason why atheists will consent that god is a possibility, but we also find it ridiculous that you can know anything about god and what he wants us to do. So for all intents and purposes you should live your life as if there is no god because you can't truly know what god wants assuming he exists.
ICameFromApes 2 years ago
Ahhh...ever hear of The Bible dude?
bombsaway78 2 years ago
Show me one of Dinesh's straw men. Even Singer hasn't said anything like "that's not what I said/meant"... which would indicate a straw man.
On the other hand, Dinesh's arguments about the assumptions that Singer makes throughout the debate, go unanswered.
jmterwil 2 years ago
dinesh...not a strong arguer at all. but good on him to try to roll with the punches. his difficulties are that he strawmanizes the other side too much, and thus stumbles when things crop up beyond he has attempted to anticipate. he is also much more wedded to his conclusions. he needs to reexamine his foundations for necessity.
unfortunately, the stock answers he provides probably sell so well he has little incentive to do so, aside from serious debates.
sh4679 2 years ago
D`souza says that since we have the gift of life all is well, but that worldview would take away all morality as all is permittable if all suffering is fine since we have been blessed with the gift of life before we got killed or hurt really bad. He could then say it is against gods will to kill, but how does he know that, since there are so many religions and interpretations of them and so who knows which is the correct one and if maybe God hasn´t yet revealed himself to the world at all!
Zarathustrasbrother 2 years ago
god, why doesn't dinesh know that dogs and wolves are the same species?
wubbadubdub 3 years ago
Dinesh is such a retard.
bahramf 3 years ago
because they are not. they are in the same family. the canidae family is divided into Canini tribe (true dogs) and Vulpini tribe (foxes, wolves, and jackles).
way to own yourself. thanks for proving what your depth of thought is on this topic and probably any other.
mgundy 3 years ago
the dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is normally considered to be a domesticated subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). both are still generally placed in the Canini tribe. there are arguments about this among experts, but no new consensus as you suggest.
wubbadubdub 3 years ago
yes, and tribe is not species. dinesh was correct in his use of this as an analogy to his point. the tribe rank is two above a species.
it would have just been better to say "dinesh is such a retard" as the poster above than to act as if you had some superior intellectual criticism of dinesh's point.
mgundy 2 years ago
thanks for pointing out the obvious. it does make you seem confused, though. in case it escaped you, my point was that it is generally accepted that dogs (as in domesticated dogs) and wolves (like gray wolves) are both members of Canini tribe, contrary to the taxonomy you asserted. and they are generally accepted to be members of the same species, also contrary to the taxonomy you asserted. i don't know what you're saying yes to. i was disagreeing with you completely.
wubbadubdub 2 years ago
they are NOT generally accepted to be in the same species. Tribe does not equal species. That would be like saying Humans and Chimpanzee's are in the same tribe and are generally accepted to be in the same species.
mgundy 2 years ago
I was saying "yes" to what you offered as valid counter claim about the position of dogs and wolves in either common or different tribes. No zoologist would say definitively that wolves and dogs are in the same species. I'll let you just keep on posting to convince yourself your original comment was poignant and not obtuse.
mgundy 2 years ago
yes, dogs and wolves are currently generally accepted to be in the same species (domestics dogs are widely accepted to have been derived from the gray wolf). as members of the same species, they must be in the same tribe (don't know why you're still hung up on the definitions of tribe and species -- again you seem confused). as it happens, humans and chimpanzees are also part of the same tribe (Hominini), but they're not in the same species. so, your simile is way off base.
wubbadubdub 2 years ago
that bald dude looks and sounds like a skinhead Dennis Prager
wubbadubdub 3 years ago
how come D'Souza never answers the askers question
jpc08109 3 years ago 2
it would appear he is more intent on slandering singer than arguing against his points.
wojycheck 3 years ago 2
D'Souza has a terrible agent...putting him up against Singer should be career suicide. I suppose it's a good thing he writes books for illiterate non-thinkers.
tireiron 3 years ago
Yeah, we know how coward atheists would love for him to disappear. The strong arm sentiment is common from dumb bitter atheists who can't handle getting their faces owned.
observer75 3 years ago
Getting their faces owned? Did you hear a word Dasleeza said? He wholly misrepresents Singer, proving only that he is a huckster or an illiterate retard. When he disappears, will you go with him? Or just kill yourself so you can hold hands with your Jewish zombie already.
tireiron 3 years ago
You only hear what your kool-aid filter allows you to. I bet you have a red kool-aid mustache from ear to ear. Droolers like you are only a passing annoyance. You can't squelch ideas or truth, you little coward. You're a coward tyrant in disguise, nothing more.
observer75 3 years ago
Wait a minute, you're the believer dipshit. And to call sleeza's interpretation anything other than dubious shows only your complete lack of critical thinking. Do you know what a tyrant is numbnuts?
--Demagogue worshiping fool, I bet you hate homosexuals and blacks, as well as educated people.
tireiron 3 years ago
What's a "sleeza"? Are you a homeless guy that found a computer? Are you implying that you're educated, assclown? LOL...
You're nothing but another useless, bitter, libtard who believes in something more fantastic than anything imaginable to date which requires more kool-aid blind faith than all religions combined. Dime-a-dozen... next...
observer75 3 years ago
A tyrant is someone who wants absolute authority, no room for other views or ideas but their own, which is exactly what bitter, angry, militant, atheist coward losers like yourself are.
Watch the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", if you can handle it, pussy.
observer75 3 years ago
Yes let's questions a scientific theory with a superstition.
"A tyrant is someone who wants absolute authority, no room for other views or ideas but their own" because Christianity leaves room for what? Islam? You fucking spineless, ignorant, and solipsistic douche bag.
tireiron 3 years ago
Question a scientific theory with superstition? False premise, coward, nice try. Currently, cowards like you don't allow other ideas or theories.
The point seems to escape you, but I expected no less coming from a cross-eyed, libtard, drooler. I'll bet your eyes are so crossed they are completely white right now. Don't forget to tell your nurse to wash your bib after reading this, I'm sure your excitement will cause a deluge of drool.
observer75 3 years ago
Which premise you mental midget? There are two unspoken premises that lead to my conclusion, which is valid. The soundness of one of the premises may be up for debate, but you need to articulate as to which one is unsound.
If you think that an intelligent designer is a theory...then you only deserve contempt and ridicule.
The thing is, you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
You are uneducated and ignorant. You know nothing about evolution, so quit chiming in as if anybody cares.
tireiron 3 years ago
The premise that "scientific theory" is the end of knowledge and cannot be questioned and that a theory of intelligent design is not allowed, you imbecile.
It is inept, small minded, cowards like you who prevent true progress. Do everybody a favor and stick to building Legos in your room.
Just because you have expanded your vocabulary does not mean you are qualified as a thinker, which you clearly are not. Leave the thinking to those who are capable without emotional confines, you inbred.
observer75 3 years ago
Theory is the pinnacle of scientific thought.
Intelligent design is not a theory mainly, although there is a torrent of other reasons, because it doesn't hold up to ANY criticism.
Why do you care anyway? Do you really think Jesus needs your caustic, unlettered, and unexamined opinion? NO, Fuck Jesus and fuck you. Fuck Jesus, Fuck Allah, fuck the god of Abraham...pussy.
tireiron 3 years ago
Evolutionary theory is held together by vast assumptions, plagued by many problems and sewn together like Frankenstein. The unbridled zeal of religious Darwinist fanatics like you are only matched by Islamic terrorists from what I see.
I'm sorry that you have downs syndrome and tourette's at the same exact time. I feel bad now for making you my bitch.
Run along now, you kool-aid drunk parrot. Go find some more talking points to repeat. *Squak... Polly want a cracker?*
observer75 3 years ago
Like I said, you have no idea as to what you're talking about. You equivocate anything that is different from Christianity to something that is equally absurd as Christianity. Congratulations, you're dumb. In fact, creationism is stolen from evolution...gradual change in species...as Darwinism does not point to an ultimate beginning, creationism just makes one up.
--Evolution is not monkeys birthing humans or humans created by lightning and goo,It is gradual change in specieswhich is obvious
tireiron 3 years ago
YOu do realize that evolution provides the idea that all creatures came from the same original base idea, which would infer a concrete source? And Darwinism points to a way that modern living came about gradually, but offers NOTHING about a beginning. Thats what we call Spontaneous Generation. Now while Observer75 is not really showing the love of Christ, lol. I really think you should research Christianity bud. It makes sense
bmdmaal 3 years ago
Oh and Im black and Im a Christian. I hate blacks tho. Im also antisemitic and I kill in the name of God. I also am not educated and it is a complete fluke that Im typing this since I cant read. Almost as much of a complete fluke as the universe is and as life is when elements randomly assemble themselves and somehow form a living organism even though that is obviously impossible
bmdmaal 3 years ago
I haven't read a word you said, but as an i