We must never forget what Christianity was like when it was strong. It has had to give up so much authority, so much power, so much territory -- in medieval ages, the Church governed your life and should you even think against their doctrines, systems from hideous torture to barbaric executions were put in place to keep you in line. Only through bravery and morality and free enquiry has Christianity been tethered and returned to its hypocritical teachings of non-violence and peace on earth.
But the lower casts missed something when they observed that "No amount of merit" would advance them in life. For the Christian God thinks too that there is no amount of merit/good that a person may do to redeem themselves. And that in fact we are all worthless and dirty and worthy of only burning in hell forever except for the pity from a God who did not choose to prevent it in the first place. Religion isn't about good/merit it's about emotional manipulation and control.
Mr. D'Souza, just because your people were seeking an alternative from the corrupt system they resided in, doesn't make the system they converted to any more righteous.
Wow. So this guys justification for his people fleeing to the christians was because they were nice? Didn't he just say about 10 seconds earlier that they were bearing swords? Hmm? Think about it.
Dan claim that the level of confidence for the resurrection of Jesus is so low that it can be ignored. This is such an absurd claim that I would have to wonder if Dan ever studied the evidence.
If Atheist claim they their ancestors crawled out of the primordial soup, so be it. How short sighted to think every thing just happened by chance. Crazy!
someone explain to Mr. D'Souza that no one is BORN religious, they are only TAUGHT to be religious. ("...I was born christian...") No you weren't, dude.
Neither man was a Christian by birth or by experience.Every man is powerless to believe. The brain is a dying physical tool used intellectually, therefore powerless, not dependable. All knowledge is powerless in a dying brain God is a gift.Faith like all who believe comes from words assimilated in the brain of weakness.No matter what you believe is faith man cannot be the final answer to understanding unless a power greater than themselves initiates
I just want to offer a thought to all of the hateful comments directed towards Christians. In the end, when you die, which one will be better off? I am a Christian, and I believe that Christ died to save me from my sins. In the end, if I am right, I go to heaven. If I am wrong, well then I am in the same boat as everyone else when I die. But what happens if an Atheist is wrong. If you are wrong and Christianity is right, atheists will go to hell. Seems like an easy choice to me.
@71jberg "If I am wrong, well then I am in the same boat as everyone else when I die." Nope if you are wrong you get to burn in hell along with the rest of us infidels while the Muslims laugh at you sitting in their purple chairs with their 72 virgins. You might want to consider all the possible Gods.
@71jberg that just show the foolishness of religous dogma right there. so it'sbetter to choose abd believe in god due to the possibility of eternal pain from a god who supposedly loves you? thats worship out of FEAR and buying love with a loaded gun. theres no dignity in reciveing fake love that way, love is to be earned through respect and your god loves to threaten and murder his way into buying this fearing love. we atheists are proud to say we live happily under the respect for all life
I'm sure Dinesh is a likeable guy, but frankly when it comes to religion - he is a moron. But I respect him for his speaking skills. So this is a fun debate. :D
I would agree with everything you just said. Your tone makes it seem like you think it's a negative to be moral just so one can make points about morality without God? That's as good a reason as any other... and a definitively better reason than doing something because you're afraid of the afterlife consequences.
Most atheists have a relatively strange sense of morality, but it ends up being the more sensible kind. It's usually better morality even by a Christian's standards.
i agree..even more the evanghelical protestants who wanna be gay and preach the bible to non gays and ask poor people with bill and morgages to pay 10 percent of all their earnings . plus generous offerings
I don't appreciate the humor of Dinesh and other apologists on this serious subject during debates. Audience members SHOULD translate this jest as DISRESPECT for the subject, and DISRESPECT for the ultimate truth of the matter.
hahaha, that's funny! he's basically saying that it's not worth it to argue with living atheist but just with the dead ones. that's smart! the dead atheists cannot defend their views, it's possible to misrepresent their statements, create strawmen, just plainly lie - no one of them is like Jesus - no one will be resurrected :D
"That Christianity is fully capable of resisting the barbs and arrows..."
No, it isn't. C.S. Lewis can create incredibly complex logical constructions based on the same false premises that conjure up Santa-Claus crayon-Christianity. Dan isn't attacking crayon-Christianity.
So it wasn't Jesus' loving holy spirit spreading the truth to Goa India or to S. America or elsewhere the disease thrives. No, Christianity was spread by torture, imprisonment, threat, execution & force.
U would never have said in the 1350 that christianity is false. It would have meant U being tortured mercilessly by those jesus loving christians & then burned to death. This is how it was allowed to grow & spread.
Just another reason that christianity & religion is man-made bullshit.
So many things to comment on... i will pick just one. Barker from 9:14 "Christianity makes claims that there is [a God (paraphrasing)]" Then Barker states that if this claim were true it would be accessible to (or by) science. Uh, bad logic. SOME Christians believe this. An atheist insists on it. But it would be bad logic to think the claim cannot be true simply BECAUSE of any lack of scientific accessibility.
in regards to cyberchurch. youre right about the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. but doesnt the lack of evidence prove at least that there was no man creating miracles (healing the sick, walking on water etc.) and if jesus was just a man....why is he worth worshiping? there are hundreds of great philosophers.. but they are just men. not worthy of worship.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You guys need to grow up. Dinesh is right that athesits need to stop being a hypocrites. Read his books instead of criticizing like babies. Seriously, maturaty is not in you guys favor.
Dinesh is wrong about the reason for the low caste to convert to Christianity, otherwise all low caste would be Christians now. On the contrary, most low caste are still Hindus and prefer to stay that way.
There are plenty respected archaeologists and historians who accept the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, due to the evidence they view as good enough. Claiming Jesus NEVER existed, even if He wasn't the unique son of God, is an extreme claim. It's up to you to prove it, since the burden of proof lies on the one who makes the positive claim. And remember, the absence of evidence is not always evidence for absence.
@soursourapples jesus did exist there is a non biblical evidence in the roman news paper.they talk about him being crucified,it says he claimed to be the king etc...
@Brainbuster1000 well could be who knows...but the roman newspapers and records the western history are all there in the archives of the vatican,in anycase even ignorant monkey people kill themselves nowadys in the name of god..so i guess in jesus times it was like nothing..
@BassP86 most of the teachings of jesus in the bible is from paganism. Mirror the paganism and Christianity. Almost the same. Virgin birth, resurrection, crucifixion, etc. So you can come to the conclusion that jesus is a collection of stories packed together.
Zeitgeist fan, huh? I'm sorry to say, but people like Joseph Peter (the creator of Zeitgeist) have not been doing their homework. Most similarities between paganistic religions and Christianty don't show up until after Christ. Example: Adonis is the pagan deity for which there is the clearest data of being resurrected besides Jesus. There are four accounts, but the earliest of those accounts is dated at 2nd Century AD, AFTER Christ.
@BassP86 i never even seen zeitgeist lol. Do you have a source on that? Since like christian apologetic to me. Paganism existed well before christianity. Are you telling me that paganism stole christmas and not the other way around?
The links are youtube videos that have cited sources. One of the videos is unfortunately condescending, but the information is still the same. The other has the majority of info that skeptics often bypass.
I'm not talking about Xmas. December 25th is not even the date of Jesus' birthday, & is not even sourced for many pagan deities for that matter. I'm saying that your claim is post hoc ergo propter hoc and is contradictory to the evidence, not necessarily referring to Xmas.
The predating of Paganism before Christianity doesn't prove that Christianity copied Paganism. That's why your claim is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Anyways, watch those links that I've provided in my initial comment.
Mithriaism is more directly a copy from Christianity, not the other way around. Not even the leading scholars on most of these pagan religions agree that the data says Christianity copied from them.
watch?v=l2m7ZbkPp94
watch?v=q-Gx6zcSgE8&feature=relmfu
No offense, but your "evidence" is extremely empty, and is only accepted by conspiracy theorists, not serious scholars.
He was talking nonsenes because he never heard any opposing views against his faith, but when he did he REALIZED he was wrong. It's called self honesty and it takes integrity. You should try it Dinesh.
D'Souza's point on why his ansesters converted to Christianity seems to completely miss the atheists' point. "My old religion was evil, so I found a better one." You didn't like your old idea, so you found one you liked more? You have that much proof that your old idea was true that you can pick up a new one almost instantly?
The entire point is is religion is untrue, unsupported and harms people. His story seems like a confused parable in support of that claim.
Having read your comments, I would ask that you respond specifically to an atheist argument against your God. You're quick to criticize, slow to prove.
I don't think they saw that as a reasonable option. Most civilizations that have ever existed believed in some type of god. It seems, from history, that to hold belief in God is simply a natural thing to do.
Dinesh really should have considered leaving the building after Barker's scathing opener. I'm glad someone finally demolished this guy definitively. His arguments should embarrass him, but somehow they don't. Here he faces someone with a deeper grasp of his own doctrine.
..doesn't go very well for Mr. D'souza, expectedly.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
its funny watching these Atheists react to Dinesh. He can school even the most seasoned Atheist into submission. No wonder Peter Singer has that dumb look on his face.
Silly atheists, go live your pathetic and meaningless lives. Ignorance is bliss.
Haha atheists dont bare the burden of proof. Thats the issue with religionists. They ask "Prove us wrong!" but they are the ones that should be trying to come up with something definitive (and they never do). Why do you think they are atheists? Because they are rational and logical.
Of what ultimate consequence is the life of a theist? Servitude and salvation... and then more servitude... forever? Why would that give anyone meaning?
When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door and tried to get you to read their pamphlets?
There might be other emotional rather than logical reasons why a person, such as yourself, chooses atheism. Disillusion with established religion, the problem of evil, personal tragedy, fear, maybe your mother didnt love you enough. A much more reasonable position is that of the agnostic who claims that he does not know whether there is a God and is open to the evidence.
Please, pretty please, show me the evidence. I'm ready. I spent a night alone in a "haunted house," (anticlimax) and saw my own sister turn into the Virgin Mary before my eyes (before I realized it was a trick of lighting and imagination).
I am agnostic. I DO NOT KNOW. But I am informed by hypothesis and experiment... by peer-reviewed scientific journals. I am persuaded by logic, math and science.
Please explain why my logic fails to demonstrate what you know so confidently.
there's no point in disproving the existence of unicorns (that's why it's called unfalsifiable), there's a point though in persuading people not to act upon such belief. (unless there are so few of them that they're considered mad and not people of faith :P)
I can't believe DInesh would admit that his forebears became christians by the "sword" ...
Equality for the Indians who became Christians? I seriously doubt that. Since when weren't European Christians not cruel and discriminatory to the local converts??
I know very well who is Dinesh D'Souza and I have watched his debates with Dennett, Hitchens (twice), and finally with Barker. I have also read some of his articles related to atheism. And after all that I hold the opinion that he does sound quite dumb. He changes the very fundamentals of logic (and also twists a lot of historical information) just to feed his bias.
I suspect that somewhere deep in his mind he is aware of his intellectual dishonesty but is too afraid to admit it
Dinesh knows how to play with words. That's a skill he has, but that doesn't make him right. (Please, don't force me to go into detail about his logical fallacies. I have more important things to do.)
its funny, Denish talks about how people dont fight for religious reasons ever but then I was listening to a debate between a rabbi and a jew for jesus who both agreed that people fight for religious reasons with christians and muslims killing jews at different times and muslims as well as christians helping jews at different times.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
a2zguitar youre a moron wrapped inside an idiot. Take a long walk off a short pier and quit wasting everyones time. Your existence is offensive to me.
yes i agree. and there are arguments based on reason and evidence for God's existence
your view of atheism is a misconception of terms. listen whatever you want to call it is arbitrary. the point is that IF you believe that God DOES NOT exist, then you are making a positive claim to knowledge and like you say must be defended.
but if you simply DO NOT KNOW if He exists or not, then you dont need evidence
Your claim that a god exists is a positive claim, a THEISTIC claim.
My rejection of your assertion is a negative claim to the truth of your assertion. Atheism is a rejection of theism, and hence, a negative claim. You are forced by the burden of proof to discharge your obligation by providing evidence.
I fail to see how you can so consistently and purposely misunderstand the points clearly presented and outlined in my comments.
You give only three arguments. There is a fourth and is in fact closer to my position than the three you give here. That is not that i do not know, but i see no reason to think so given your lack of evidence or ability to present any.
There is nothing intellectually wrong with listening to a persons theory, evaluating the evidence or lack therefore, and replying "I see no reason as yet to lend ANY credance whatsoever to the story you have just made up"
"there are arguments based on reason and evidence"
IF they are there when why after DAYS of asking for them have you not picked one and just presented it already? Im getting sick of you just SAYING they are there. Pick one and explain it if you can. If you dont know them then dont pretend to.
"I argue that". No, no you dont. You DECLARE that. Thats all. You just say it without arguments or evidence or points. Just saying it does not make it so.
In fact neither of us has any evidence on this "cause" you speak of. We do not even know if there WAS one as the idea of "cause" invokes temporality and time, as you might know, is a property of the universe. So the idea of cause and effect MIGHT have no meaning for all we know.
So really, you are just saying things here without backup
so is the universe was uncaused in your view? this would be a problem of infinite regress.
either the universe was caused or not. if its caused, then the best explanation by logic and reason is God. it cant be uncaused bcz in my previous post i show why its unsound.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said this. It was, in fact, one of several possibilities that I am capable of IMAGINING but I have not stood by ANY of these as I said we simply just do not know and have no evidence either way.
I can understand you being incapable of providing evidence, but literally changing what I say into what I do not in order to make yourself look better will get nothing but derision from me.
Further to this I might add you have also not presented any evidence for your second statement, that the universe began to exist. We know the big bang came from a singularity. But that is all. So it is not that it BEGAN, but that it changes from one form (the singularity) to another (an expanding universe)
So all we know is of this change of form. Again you have not presented any evidence therefore for a "beginning" a "cause" or even whether temporal causation even holds.
here, the problem with an infinitely existing universe is first that the problem of an infinite regress arises. there would be an infinite number of equally spaced past events before the time NOW..but if that were so then NOW wouldnt occur. so the universe must have begun a finite time ago.
the 2nd law or thermodynamics confirms this, as well as the standard big bang model with equations of spacetime.
Equally spaced what? Where are you inventing that from? You are just making things up now and its boring me. You have offered nothing to confirm any of this.
lmao...equally spaced events? an infinite regress cannot exist because that means that NOW would never have occurred...if you havent heard of this you havent looked into the philosophy of infinity enough. an infinite past means that an infinite amount of time has occurred before now..but logically that means now never occurred..thats philosophical evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
heres what kai nielsen says with regard to proving/disproving God:
Kai Nielsen says:
'To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false. All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it may still be the case that God exists. To show that the proofs do not work is not enough to show that God does not exist.'
So aside from my arguments, you need to provide some too. you're making a claim to knowledge, so give me YOUR evidence
I am perfectly happy to agree with this. Just because you are completely and chronically unable to provide any evidence for a god doesnt mean there is no god. I grant that.
However it by no means suggests there is one and I will operate my life without that assumption in the same way as I operate it without protecting myself from the number 13, alien abduction or from going trying to find where elvis lives now.
Also do not put words in my mouth. I have made no claim yet. I have simply said that you have not provided any evidence for a g od and that I am not aware of any such evidence existing myself either.
I at no point said there is no god. I said there is no reason as yet to think there is. Learn the difference and you will stop lying about me and being so very wrong, so very often
Atheists tend to be adept at attacking the beliefs of others but they seem to be incredibly poor at defending their own beliefs.
I have noticed that none of you ever bother to defend your unproven beliefs and ideas but instead choose to attack the beliefs of others as though this will some how validate your similarly unsubstantiated beliefs.
When the primary method of discourse of ones opponent is to ignore his opponents lines of reasoning and create strawmen, it is necessary to either attack his strawmen and destroy them, or to leave the debate.
As of right now, we have not been able to have anything resembling a 2-way discussion with guido, and have been forced to respond to all manner of insults to our intelligence in simply dealing with him.
Logical discourse requires two people willing to discuss, not talk at each other.
Religious belief is not assent without evidence; that would be superstition or credulity. Religious people are deeply interested in evidence, but they know that assent is not reducible to what John Henry Newman called formal inference. Rather, assent--even to ordinary truths--involves rationality but also hunch, intuition, direct experience, the testimony of others, etc.
Religious belief is also known as FAITH, this word has the EXACT definition of belief without evidence.
Religious people may be interested in evidence, however there is a level of cognitive dissonance in play when one must deny evidence to continue to believe that which comforts them.
Testimony is just about worthless, hunches are worthless without hard data, intuition the same, direct experience is subjective and therefore slanted without evidence to bring it into line with reality.
Faith is not credulity or superstition or accepting claims without evidence. All of those are examples of infra-rational moves. Faith is beyond reason, which means that it is not irrational but supra-rational. God cannot, by definition, be the object of analytical reason, since God is not an empirical object in the world. Therefore the move of the mind that grasps God is a reason other than scientific reason.
You claim that he is not an empirical object, yet fail to provide in any way traits of his existence, reasons why we SHOULD postulate his existence, etc.
We have no reason to bring a needlessly complicated god myth into our vision of reality when science has been and is showing us the natural explanations for phenomena in the natural world.
If we don't need a god myth to explain reality, why bother invoking one?
Well hold on, what about mathematical quantities or other abstract objects? Do the laws of logic or metaphysics not exist because we can't feel, touch, smell, taste, or hear them?
I havent heard a single argument from you to think that atheism is true. I've given you arguments that, given an event that we CAN observe, is best explained by God. And your response is basically 'oh we might discover different evidence in the future' or 'omg thats too complicated.." or the like
"I havent heard a single argument from you to think that atheism is true"
Why would you? Atheism is not a statement, it is merely the state of not believing your statement.
If you want to operate under the impression that someone who does not place credence in something you said is automatically someone who is placing credence in the opposite statement then the error is yours and yours alone.
WOW...you're kidding right? atheism isnt a statement?
its sad i actually have to tell "atheists" what their actual position is
according to the oxford webster dictionary, atheism is "the theory or belief that God does not exist."
that is a CLAIM to KNOWLEDGE, thus requiring justification, just as saying God does exist is a claim to knowledge requiring justification. you re confusing atheism with agnosticism; the two are mutually exclusive.
The Oxford-Webster definition of atheism is distorted, as has been pointed out numerous times.
A-theism, is a rejection of the theist claims of a god/goddess, that is all, a rejection of your positive claims about a mythical super creator.
Besides, for all practical and useful knowledge, we have absolutely nothing by way of evidence for any faith that posits a god....hell, I could worship the sun and come up with more evidence that it's god as opposed to jesus.
You choose one definition without looking into the entire etymology of the word and then presume to tell me what it means? Come now, you can do better than that.
"disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" says one other dictionary. A disbelief does not imply active belief in the opposite. I can quote more dictionaries.
What of the etymology. A- means without. Without a theism. This does not imply the holding of an opposite theism.
Correct, you disbelieve..but how can you defend that?
Theres a difference between atheism and agnosticism. You seem to think atheism = agnosticism. If you commit yourself to a side, then you have to defend yourself.
The A- prefix is the debate, as if can have two different contexts, but there is a difference between atheism and agnosticism. Agnostics dont know..atheists make the claim that God does not exist. The latter requires justification, yet the former, in not making any claim, doesnt
Believers have been boring the Atheists with assertions about the existence of god/s for centuries, and yet still they present no evidence. You would have us believe that belief in God is the reasonable, the default position, hence any refutation of it requires justification. However, belief in things without evidence is not reasonable, hence the default position is in fact a rejection of your hypothesis. You are making the claim, so you provide the evidence.
there are many arguments -- the argument from necessity, from the origin of the universe, from fine tuning, from morality being objective, from the resurrection of jesus, from free will, from evil,..and probably some others. you can look them up.
though i should say that neither theism nor atheism is a default position. agnosticism is the default position. so while i give arguments for my positive statement of believe, so too must you.
how do we know we arent just in the matrix? We don't. How do you know theism isn't part of the matrix? You don't. Maybe I'm unplugged and free from the matrix and you're not.
There are many many possibilities, but I don't have a problem waiting for the answers, and I won't accept bullshit as a defence against uncertainty. I have enough purpose and meaning in my "worldview" to be happy and productive.
You are the believer in the supernatural, not me; you say there's a god, not me.
we dont...on atheism. on theism we know we arent because we have origins from God. the same reasoning applies to science, logic, reality, math, etc.
as an atheist, to speak consistently youve got to take nihilism. thats essentially the position youre taking. if thats the route you want to take then thats fine, but on a practical level, i dont see that getting anyone very far
You're not even paying attention at this point, are you?
A-theism is a rejection of YOUR CLAIMS concerning the existence of a supernatural creator.
'we have origins from god'
You're assuming your conclusion a priori, and therefore your argument is moot and laughably pathetic, Please try again some time, when you've bothered to find evidence, and follow it to where it leads.
well whats your outside evidence to show that there are absolute truths or that there are objective moral values? wheres your argument?
dont be weak, give me an argument. at this point idc what you call it..I'm asking for an argument. If you cant even give me an argument, then dont act like you know God doesnt exist. instead just admit you dont know
BASED ON the cosmological argument i say God is the best explanation...whats your explanation for origins? lets see an argument from you now
Again you need this explained to you? There is no evidence for an objective moral standard or absolute truths. It is the democratic voice of people coming together with their desires for what the standard should be that, more often than not, reaches a consensus which gives the impression of a moral standard.
Simply as that. You need not postulate magical sky fairies or moral dictators to explain it. It stands perfectly well on its own.
1) isnt stating that there are no objective moral truths an objective moral truth?
2) we have discerned a moral realm, much like a physical realm. so given that we cant validate our sensory input, why accept that over morals? you cant prove any of this is real, so why pick and choose which 'senses' to accept and which ones not. any argument given for our empirical senses can be given for an objective moral sense
Again my statement answers these things. I am not here saying there is no god or there is no objective moral truths, except maybe as a language of convenience. My statement is that there is no evidence that there is such a thing. You are bastardising the english language in an attempt to attack a position I am not espousing.
for God, there is evidence, namely the traditional arguments and some relatively new ones. its best to research the arguments, then address them here.
for moral truths, there is also evidence, namely the very same methods of epistemology that we use for our physical senses. if you deny our moral sense, why accept our physical senses?
also its self contradicting to say 'there are no moral truths' bcz if not, then that statement itself is not true and therefore the argument is self defeatin
Is there evidence? Then present it! You have not even tried yet. You just keep saying it is there yet show a complete inability or unwillingness to describe any of it. We could all sit here and SAY there is evidence. I could do it. The next person could do it. It is of no interest.
If you think you have evidence then present it. This weeks long campaign of obfuscation is simply boring to me.
False, we've done no such thing. We've been given an illusion of 1
We're subject to the human condition. This gives us desires for ourselves and for the society we wish to live in
Democratically we come together and decide on these self held desires and we construct "morality" a list of rules upon which to operate socially and personally.
A democratic consensus on much of this "morality" is what is given you the impression of an objective moral realm
Again Ive no intention of defending views I dont hold. Im not saying theres no objective morality. Im saying Ive no reason to think there is
You operate under a false view that if you do not believe X then you automatically must believe NOT X. This isnt so and its an error that leads to many errors. Merely discounting it doesnt infer automatic support of the counter proposition
I see no reason to think there is objective morality and I see reasons why youd be deceived into thinking there is
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
aside from the argument about experiencing and objective moral realm, and the self defeating statement that you havent addressed, namely 'there are no objective moral truths', i simply ask you -- is torturing a child or raping someone a morally neutral act? forget socially advantageous or not..are these morally indifferent acts?
1) well thats a simple failure to understand. 'there are no moral truths' defeats itself, bcz why think that its true if there are no moral truths?
2) im not arguing anything like that..im saying in the same way that we accept our senses (i.e. experience, reason) we can similarly accept a moral sense...if you deny objective moral truths than why accept the observable physical universe?
Again simply declaring things here without backing them up in any way shape or form. You simply say that moral truths are the same as our senses. How. Why. Where. When. Evidence please.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
do you not understand? i apply the exact same means for validating my sense perception (reason, experience, etc) to moral truth. thats the evidence
again i say -- if you deny a moral sense, why accept physical senses? after all, you cant prove that your physical senses are valid, so why accept them?
ill repeat it again -- the evidence for moral truths is the exact same as physical truths. so if you accept the physical world then you must accept a moral world as well. thats the argument
Again declarations. We have origins from god? Prove it. You havent even shown there is a god, so how can you claim to have shown a second level statement that we have origins from it? Thats like saying I will bake a cake without first showing you i have cake mix. Where is the evidence for this god?
Yes, I know: the bible is factually correct because the bible says so.
Purpose and meaning are essentially human concepts, apart from perhaps our biological imperative to reproduce. And yes, we do create our own morals and ethics, we always have done. Many atheists do very well in life in terms of positive contributions to society and personal success, so to deny it is pointless.
Anyway, I'll leave you to fill these pages up with your pontifications.
This has been explained to you already. WE determine this, democratically. Everyone has their own opinions on it and the democratic voice can be used to determine what is important and what is not.
The fact that many people reach a democratic consensus, sometimes almost unanimously, is what is giving you the IMPRESSION of an objective standard. But an impression is all it is. There is no evidence being presented here for such objective standards
Present them then. Dont just say them. Pick one and explain how its an argument from god. I could just sit here and say "I think you are wrong because of the argument from pickles". What does this mean? Clearly nothing. I wouldnt be ignorant enough to just say things at you.
TELL us the arguments, EXPLAIN them, SHOW how they point to a god. Dont just SAY them and run away with your tail hanging.
How can I defend it? Simply by saying you have shown no evidence for the proposition and therefore I file it under the same category as everything else there is no evidence for such as fairies, thor, alien abduction and a still living elvis.
Your quote mining dictionaries or ignoring the full etymology of the words you want to play with doesnt change that one iota.
You have shown you have little to offer in this thread, but if you are going to reduce yourself to quote mining the dictionaries, to the expense of all others, in an attempt to prove a non-point you are on weaker ground than ever before.
So again, atheism is generally not a positive statement and requires no proofs. If you are making a positive statement that there is a god then the onus is on you to provide evidence for same
Or I could make up any old rubbish and demand you prove it wrong
LMAO WHAT? quote mining?? are you serious? I never wouldve thought that looking up the definition of your "position" was quote mining, attached with a seemingly pejorative connotation of course
if i ask you why is atheism true, you cant say 'bcz the arguments for God dont work" even if that were true, that wouldnt show that God doesnt exist..at best itd show we just dont know.
What's with the shoulder movements? Is DD possessed by the devil?
planetsaver1 4 months ago
@planetsaver1 Those eighties shoulder pads keep slipping from his feeble shoulders/
whauffend 3 months ago
We must never forget what Christianity was like when it was strong. It has had to give up so much authority, so much power, so much territory -- in medieval ages, the Church governed your life and should you even think against their doctrines, systems from hideous torture to barbaric executions were put in place to keep you in line. Only through bravery and morality and free enquiry has Christianity been tethered and returned to its hypocritical teachings of non-violence and peace on earth.
ardendogma 4 months ago
But the lower casts missed something when they observed that "No amount of merit" would advance them in life. For the Christian God thinks too that there is no amount of merit/good that a person may do to redeem themselves. And that in fact we are all worthless and dirty and worthy of only burning in hell forever except for the pity from a God who did not choose to prevent it in the first place. Religion isn't about good/merit it's about emotional manipulation and control.
rlmcviii 4 months ago
Mr. D'Souza, just because your people were seeking an alternative from the corrupt system they resided in, doesn't make the system they converted to any more righteous.
sushiboots 7 months ago
Wow. So this guys justification for his people fleeing to the christians was because they were nice? Didn't he just say about 10 seconds earlier that they were bearing swords? Hmm? Think about it.
sushiboots 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr. D'Souza, you're ancestors did not see the light, they saw the sword.
sushiboots 7 months ago
Thank you for posting this, tothesource1.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Dan claim that the level of confidence for the resurrection of Jesus is so low that it can be ignored. This is such an absurd claim that I would have to wonder if Dan ever studied the evidence.
YHWHisSovereign 8 months ago
If Atheist claim they their ancestors crawled out of the primordial soup, so be it. How short sighted to think every thing just happened by chance. Crazy!
orsmiles12 10 months ago
In less than 50 seconds Dinesh has already used a personal insult, looks like he's short on real arguments.
Feldegast92 11 months ago
someone explain to Mr. D'Souza that no one is BORN religious, they are only TAUGHT to be religious. ("...I was born christian...") No you weren't, dude.
hardinmichael1981 11 months ago
THE GODDAMN GUY SPEAKING BEHIND THE TABLE SAID UMMM A SHIT LOAD!!!
SlayingMinion 1 year ago
Neither man was a Christian by birth or by experience.Every man is powerless to believe. The brain is a dying physical tool used intellectually, therefore powerless, not dependable. All knowledge is powerless in a dying brain God is a gift.Faith like all who believe comes from words assimilated in the brain of weakness.No matter what you believe is faith man cannot be the final answer to understanding unless a power greater than themselves initiates
polopowers1 1 year ago
I just want to offer a thought to all of the hateful comments directed towards Christians. In the end, when you die, which one will be better off? I am a Christian, and I believe that Christ died to save me from my sins. In the end, if I am right, I go to heaven. If I am wrong, well then I am in the same boat as everyone else when I die. But what happens if an Atheist is wrong. If you are wrong and Christianity is right, atheists will go to hell. Seems like an easy choice to me.
71jberg 1 year ago
@71jberg And if Islam/Hinduism/Shintoism/..... is true, then you'll be going to hell for worshiping a false god.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
@71jberg "If I am wrong, well then I am in the same boat as everyone else when I die." Nope if you are wrong you get to burn in hell along with the rest of us infidels while the Muslims laugh at you sitting in their purple chairs with their 72 virgins. You might want to consider all the possible Gods.
09elgoog 1 year ago
@71jberg that just show the foolishness of religous dogma right there. so it'sbetter to choose abd believe in god due to the possibility of eternal pain from a god who supposedly loves you? thats worship out of FEAR and buying love with a loaded gun. theres no dignity in reciveing fake love that way, love is to be earned through respect and your god loves to threaten and murder his way into buying this fearing love. we atheists are proud to say we live happily under the respect for all life
fullMetaLxMantis 1 year ago
D'Souza is brilliant as usual ... Barker is a lost soul
alecrebel 1 year ago
Somebody buy Dinesh a suit that fits him.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
born atheist ,taut Christian
TheTEKMOJO 1 year ago
I'm sure Dinesh is a likeable guy, but frankly when it comes to religion - he is a moron. But I respect him for his speaking skills. So this is a fun debate. :D
HimmiJoe 1 year ago
@jgraham97mc
I would agree with everything you just said. Your tone makes it seem like you think it's a negative to be moral just so one can make points about morality without God? That's as good a reason as any other... and a definitively better reason than doing something because you're afraid of the afterlife consequences.
Most atheists have a relatively strange sense of morality, but it ends up being the more sensible kind. It's usually better morality even by a Christian's standards.
hogansch 1 year ago
@jgraham97mc
It was just my opinion. I pretty much consider all militant Catholics to be jerks.
They hide and defend paedophiles, you know?
BohemianBlasphemy 1 year ago
@BohemianBlasphemy
i agree..even more the evanghelical protestants who wanna be gay and preach the bible to non gays and ask poor people with bill and morgages to pay 10 percent of all their earnings . plus generous offerings
defenately a cheeky organization...
MegaAvenger2010 1 year ago
D'Souza is such a jerk.
BohemianBlasphemy 1 year ago 3
I don't appreciate the humor of Dinesh and other apologists on this serious subject during debates. Audience members SHOULD translate this jest as DISRESPECT for the subject, and DISRESPECT for the ultimate truth of the matter.
capoman1 1 year ago
This is one of the best brief descriptions of the epistemology of science vs religion I've heard or read.
chansetwo 1 year ago
hahaha, that's funny! he's basically saying that it's not worth it to argue with living atheist but just with the dead ones. that's smart! the dead atheists cannot defend their views, it's possible to misrepresent their statements, create strawmen, just plainly lie - no one of them is like Jesus - no one will be resurrected :D
yegorletoff 1 year ago
Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.
eloexplorer 1 year ago
Gee Dinesh, why does GOD punish amputees? You never did answer that question in your last debate with Shermer.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
Portuguese inquisition = 20,000 people dead. The author was Francis Xavier who was canonized later on.
Nice!
rpcarnell 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but Dinesh is just stupid. I used to give him a break because he was well-spoken, but enough is enough.
giggletronics 1 year ago
"That Christianity is fully capable of resisting the barbs and arrows..."
No, it isn't. C.S. Lewis can create incredibly complex logical constructions based on the same false premises that conjure up Santa-Claus crayon-Christianity. Dan isn't attacking crayon-Christianity.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
Dinesh = "My religion is immune, but the others suck."
dyzziedyazn 1 year ago
Dinesh is such a clown.
JoeBible 1 year ago
So it wasn't Jesus' loving holy spirit spreading the truth to Goa India or to S. America or elsewhere the disease thrives. No, Christianity was spread by torture, imprisonment, threat, execution & force.
U would never have said in the 1350 that christianity is false. It would have meant U being tortured mercilessly by those jesus loving christians & then burned to death. This is how it was allowed to grow & spread.
Just another reason that christianity & religion is man-made bullshit.
greyhall1 1 year ago 9
Comment removed
xspettacolare 1 year ago
yeah, but Buddha & Krishna did away with the cast system of the India.
for the most part the Gita doesn't teach the cast it's just based on traditions based on inner racism with in the Indian groups.
I think Dinesh D'Souza means well at least he's not saying death to everyone in the name of Mohammad.
Dan Baker means well too! I gotta hand it to both of them.
I am all for liberal religions based on reason & lodgic.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
So many things to comment on... i will pick just one. Barker from 9:14 "Christianity makes claims that there is [a God (paraphrasing)]" Then Barker states that if this claim were true it would be accessible to (or by) science. Uh, bad logic. SOME Christians believe this. An atheist insists on it. But it would be bad logic to think the claim cannot be true simply BECAUSE of any lack of scientific accessibility.
twoking10 1 year ago
Would you say the same thing about unicorns?
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1
oh stop you know unicorns are real dont be silly:)
xspettacolare 1 year ago
Comment removed
xspettacolare 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow
Dinish is awesome
steveascension 2 years ago
Comment removed
jfeuerhahn5 2 years ago
in regards to cyberchurch. youre right about the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. but doesnt the lack of evidence prove at least that there was no man creating miracles (healing the sick, walking on water etc.) and if jesus was just a man....why is he worth worshiping? there are hundreds of great philosophers.. but they are just men. not worthy of worship.
mitchellmarlow 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You guys need to grow up. Dinesh is right that athesits need to stop being a hypocrites. Read his books instead of criticizing like babies. Seriously, maturaty is not in you guys favor.
beeber2 2 years ago
Dinesh is wrong about the reason for the low caste to convert to Christianity, otherwise all low caste would be Christians now. On the contrary, most low caste are still Hindus and prefer to stay that way.
smodass 2 years ago
this guy is so full of shit, it is unbelievable.
iosuVakerizzo 2 years ago 3
jesus never existed. the evidence proves it.
i would like to see dinesh debate an archaelogist and historian, he would dissolve.
soursourapples 2 years ago 27
There are plenty respected archaeologists and historians who accept the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, due to the evidence they view as good enough. Claiming Jesus NEVER existed, even if He wasn't the unique son of God, is an extreme claim. It's up to you to prove it, since the burden of proof lies on the one who makes the positive claim. And remember, the absence of evidence is not always evidence for absence.
CyberchurchofChrist 2 years ago
no there cant be because if you look for your self there was no place called Nazereth when Jesus was born. case closed.
soursourapples 2 years ago 2
@soursourapples jesus did exist there is a non biblical evidence in the roman news paper.they talk about him being crucified,it says he claimed to be the king etc...
i am an atheist myself.but the evidence is there
MegaAvenger2010 1 year ago
@MegaAvenger2010 You are probably referring to Josephus Flavius. This is widely regarded as a later fabrication.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
@Brainbuster1000 well could be who knows...but the roman newspapers and records the western history are all there in the archives of the vatican,in anycase even ignorant monkey people kill themselves nowadys in the name of god..so i guess in jesus times it was like nothing..
MegaAvenger2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soursourapples
The Muslims even believe that Jesus existed.
setfreeinchrist 1 year ago
@soursourapples What evidence? Most New Testament scholars agree that the historical Jesus did exist
tommyjeanC 10 months ago
@soursourapples
"jesus never existed. the evidence proves it." - Really? What evidence is that?
BassP86 9 months ago
@BassP86 most of the teachings of jesus in the bible is from paganism. Mirror the paganism and Christianity. Almost the same. Virgin birth, resurrection, crucifixion, etc. So you can come to the conclusion that jesus is a collection of stories packed together.
ragna120k 9 months ago
@ragna120k
Zeitgeist fan, huh? I'm sorry to say, but people like Joseph Peter (the creator of Zeitgeist) have not been doing their homework. Most similarities between paganistic religions and Christianty don't show up until after Christ. Example: Adonis is the pagan deity for which there is the clearest data of being resurrected besides Jesus. There are four accounts, but the earliest of those accounts is dated at 2nd Century AD, AFTER Christ.
BassP86 9 months ago
@BassP86 i never even seen zeitgeist lol. Do you have a source on that? Since like christian apologetic to me. Paganism existed well before christianity. Are you telling me that paganism stole christmas and not the other way around?
ragna120k 9 months ago
@ragna120k
The links are youtube videos that have cited sources. One of the videos is unfortunately condescending, but the information is still the same. The other has the majority of info that skeptics often bypass.
I'm not talking about Xmas. December 25th is not even the date of Jesus' birthday, & is not even sourced for many pagan deities for that matter. I'm saying that your claim is post hoc ergo propter hoc and is contradictory to the evidence, not necessarily referring to Xmas.
BassP86 9 months ago
@ragna120k
(cont.)
The predating of Paganism before Christianity doesn't prove that Christianity copied Paganism. That's why your claim is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Anyways, watch those links that I've provided in my initial comment.
BassP86 9 months ago
@ragna120k
(cont.)
Mithriaism is more directly a copy from Christianity, not the other way around. Not even the leading scholars on most of these pagan religions agree that the data says Christianity copied from them.
watch?v=l2m7ZbkPp94
watch?v=q-Gx6zcSgE8&feature=relmfu
No offense, but your "evidence" is extremely empty, and is only accepted by conspiracy theorists, not serious scholars.
BassP86 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To close the eye of reason makes one blind to their faith in atheism..... Esandero
Esandero 2 years ago
Faith in athiesm? Make that "Athiestic faith" and you have an oxymoron there.
Faith is a belief about god.
Athiesm is a lack of a belief about god.
Athiesm is not faith.
DoomTone11 2 years ago 4
blind faith is to close the eye of reason.....ben franklin
moondoggie1327 2 years ago 2
He was talking nonsenes because he never heard any opposing views against his faith, but when he did he REALIZED he was wrong. It's called self honesty and it takes integrity. You should try it Dinesh.
InFromTheVoid 2 years ago 2
D'Souza's point on why his ansesters converted to Christianity seems to completely miss the atheists' point. "My old religion was evil, so I found a better one." You didn't like your old idea, so you found one you liked more? You have that much proof that your old idea was true that you can pick up a new one almost instantly?
The entire point is is religion is untrue, unsupported and harms people. His story seems like a confused parable in support of that claim.
Distortion0 2 years ago 4
D'Souza's a prick.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago 5
Ahhmmm....way to go Harvard
PrototypeO 2 years ago
I'm going to shoot that fucker's head!
sidiqmk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheism = epic fail
Seigu007 2 years ago
Having read your comments, I would ask that you respond specifically to an atheist argument against your God. You're quick to criticize, slow to prove.
thundergunn 2 years ago
All those lower caste Hindus needed to do is give up religion altogether and be rational thinking humans.
hopokuk 2 years ago
I don't think they saw that as a reasonable option. Most civilizations that have ever existed believed in some type of god. It seems, from history, that to hold belief in God is simply a natural thing to do.
Victoruto 2 years ago
Dinesh really should have considered leaving the building after Barker's scathing opener. I'm glad someone finally demolished this guy definitively. His arguments should embarrass him, but somehow they don't. Here he faces someone with a deeper grasp of his own doctrine.
..doesn't go very well for Mr. D'souza, expectedly.
multard 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Denish has more logical explainations of rational things than Dan. I think DB is a RETARD preacher who offer his worthless soul to atheism.
milcrube 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its funny watching these Atheists react to Dinesh. He can school even the most seasoned Atheist into submission. No wonder Peter Singer has that dumb look on his face.
Silly atheists, go live your pathetic and meaningless lives. Ignorance is bliss.
Seigu007 2 years ago
D'souza is a blandoid who doesn't even know he's losing, not that its possible for a theist to win a debate like this.
bbbbbbblob 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the non-believer loses in the end. Its a path the athiests have chosen for themselves. funny isnt it?
Seigu007 2 years ago
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you eternally!
smeezh 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how can any thinking person deny the existence of God? The proof is all around us AND WE ARE ALIVE TO TALK ABOUT IT. Thats proof enough for me.
Those of you who dont believe in God, youre no better than sheep.
Dinesh Owns you all btw. GG.
Seigu007 2 years ago
It isn't. Point it out. You can't can you?
hopokuk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Its funny listening to Athiests talk. Their time would be better spent disproving the existence of unicorns. What a hopeless existence they lead.
Seigu007 2 years ago
Haha atheists dont bare the burden of proof. Thats the issue with religionists. They ask "Prove us wrong!" but they are the ones that should be trying to come up with something definitive (and they never do). Why do you think they are atheists? Because they are rational and logical.
YourGodIsDeaD311 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rational and logical, according to who? I think you meant ignorant and pompous.
Atheists are so against having a belief in God that they would infringe on the rights of others who do choose to believe in God.
Of what ultimate consiquence is the life of an Atheist? When nothing is left but dust, who will remember you?
Seigu007 2 years ago
Of what ultimate consequence is the life of a theist? Servitude and salvation... and then more servitude... forever? Why would that give anyone meaning?
When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door and tried to get you to read their pamphlets?
hogansch 2 years ago 31
There might be other emotional rather than logical reasons why a person, such as yourself, chooses atheism. Disillusion with established religion, the problem of evil, personal tragedy, fear, maybe your mother didnt love you enough. A much more reasonable position is that of the agnostic who claims that he does not know whether there is a God and is open to the evidence.
OOOooo Epic Fail!
Seigu007 2 years ago
Please, pretty please, show me the evidence. I'm ready. I spent a night alone in a "haunted house," (anticlimax) and saw my own sister turn into the Virgin Mary before my eyes (before I realized it was a trick of lighting and imagination).
I am agnostic. I DO NOT KNOW. But I am informed by hypothesis and experiment... by peer-reviewed scientific journals. I am persuaded by logic, math and science.
Please explain why my logic fails to demonstrate what you know so confidently.
hogansch 2 years ago
What are your beliefs then? I suspect your mother loved you too much.... gross.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 years ago
there's no point in disproving the existence of unicorns (that's why it's called unfalsifiable), there's a point though in persuading people not to act upon such belief. (unless there are so few of them that they're considered mad and not people of faith :P)
orhaboqer 2 years ago
You are the perfect ambassador for the supernatural overlord. Your personality traits really shine in these comments.
Thanks for cheering me up though, I'm glad it was you that equated god to unicorns. I guess they both hide in the magical forest...
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 years ago 5
dinesh is so gross. He needs to stop thinking that he's hip.
hurley1 2 years ago
and youre clearly too stupid and ignorant to understand any of it. Moron. grow a brain.
Seigu007 2 years ago
I can't believe DInesh would admit that his forebears became christians by the "sword" ...
Equality for the Indians who became Christians? I seriously doubt that. Since when weren't European Christians not cruel and discriminatory to the local converts??
Turandot29 2 years ago
On what grounds is D'Souza considered an intellectual? To me he sounds quite dumb.
a2zguitar 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually you sound quite dumb, just read up on his bio. Dinesh is a prominent figure that is known to put his atheist opponents to shame.
princessdiana71 2 years ago
Dear princess,
I know very well who is Dinesh D'Souza and I have watched his debates with Dennett, Hitchens (twice), and finally with Barker. I have also read some of his articles related to atheism. And after all that I hold the opinion that he does sound quite dumb. He changes the very fundamentals of logic (and also twists a lot of historical information) just to feed his bias.
I suspect that somewhere deep in his mind he is aware of his intellectual dishonesty but is too afraid to admit it
a2zguitar 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Watch the latest debate btw. these two. Dinesh really gives it to the old man. He has really polished his debating skills.
princessdiana71 2 years ago
Dinesh knows how to play with words. That's a skill he has, but that doesn't make him right. (Please, don't force me to go into detail about his logical fallacies. I have more important things to do.)
I wish you amusement in your debates viewing.
Thank you for not trying to insult me this time.
Farewell!
a2zguitar 2 years ago 3
its funny, Denish talks about how people dont fight for religious reasons ever but then I was listening to a debate between a rabbi and a jew for jesus who both agreed that people fight for religious reasons with christians and muslims killing jews at different times and muslims as well as christians helping jews at different times.
waltermh111 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
a2zguitar youre a moron wrapped inside an idiot. Take a long walk off a short pier and quit wasting everyones time. Your existence is offensive to me.
Seigu007 2 years ago
Thank you for the compliment!
a2zguitar 2 years ago
You also seem to be suffering from dyslexia. Might wanna look into it.
Seigu007 2 years ago
Whatever you say, sir.
Have a nice life!
a2zguitar 2 years ago
Woot @ dan barker
IsometricCube 2 years ago
It's a bit easier to believe in a god if you're raised in Goa. Still need to visit that place one day.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
That a lot of 'ummmmms' for a harvard student isn't it?
cjunk351 2 years ago
How would a universe with a divine being be different than a universe without a divine being?
didymus2000 3 years ago
yes i agree. and there are arguments based on reason and evidence for God's existence
your view of atheism is a misconception of terms. listen whatever you want to call it is arbitrary. the point is that IF you believe that God DOES NOT exist, then you are making a positive claim to knowledge and like you say must be defended.
but if you simply DO NOT KNOW if He exists or not, then you dont need evidence
so which viewpoint do you fall under?
guidobambino 3 years ago
As usual, your argument is false and misleading.
Your claim that a god exists is a positive claim, a THEISTIC claim.
My rejection of your assertion is a negative claim to the truth of your assertion. Atheism is a rejection of theism, and hence, a negative claim. You are forced by the burden of proof to discharge your obligation by providing evidence.
I fail to see how you can so consistently and purposely misunderstand the points clearly presented and outlined in my comments.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
lmao okay so if i ask you "do you believe in God?" you can either say 'yes' 'no' or 'I dont know'...the first two require evidence.
if you say you dont know, then wtf are you doing here go research it?? watch a real debate..not this garbage
guidobambino 3 years ago
You give only three arguments. There is a fourth and is in fact closer to my position than the three you give here. That is not that i do not know, but i see no reason to think so given your lack of evidence or ability to present any.
There is nothing intellectually wrong with listening to a persons theory, evaluating the evidence or lack therefore, and replying "I see no reason as yet to lend ANY credance whatsoever to the story you have just made up"
irishmauddib 3 years ago
"there are arguments based on reason and evidence"
IF they are there when why after DAYS of asking for them have you not picked one and just presented it already? Im getting sick of you just SAYING they are there. Pick one and explain it if you can. If you dont know them then dont pretend to.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
1) anything that begins to exist has a cause
2) the universe began to exist
---------------
therefore, the universe has a cause
i argue that a cause of time, space, matter, and energy must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal, for it was created out of nothing
guidobambino 3 years ago
"I argue that". No, no you dont. You DECLARE that. Thats all. You just say it without arguments or evidence or points. Just saying it does not make it so.
In fact neither of us has any evidence on this "cause" you speak of. We do not even know if there WAS one as the idea of "cause" invokes temporality and time, as you might know, is a property of the universe. So the idea of cause and effect MIGHT have no meaning for all we know.
So really, you are just saying things here without backup
irishmauddib 3 years ago
so is the universe was uncaused in your view? this would be a problem of infinite regress.
either the universe was caused or not. if its caused, then the best explanation by logic and reason is God. it cant be uncaused bcz in my previous post i show why its unsound.
guidobambino 3 years ago
"so is the universe was uncaused in your view?"
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said this. It was, in fact, one of several possibilities that I am capable of IMAGINING but I have not stood by ANY of these as I said we simply just do not know and have no evidence either way.
I can understand you being incapable of providing evidence, but literally changing what I say into what I do not in order to make yourself look better will get nothing but derision from me.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Further to this I might add you have also not presented any evidence for your second statement, that the universe began to exist. We know the big bang came from a singularity. But that is all. So it is not that it BEGAN, but that it changes from one form (the singularity) to another (an expanding universe)
So all we know is of this change of form. Again you have not presented any evidence therefore for a "beginning" a "cause" or even whether temporal causation even holds.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
here, the problem with an infinitely existing universe is first that the problem of an infinite regress arises. there would be an infinite number of equally spaced past events before the time NOW..but if that were so then NOW wouldnt occur. so the universe must have begun a finite time ago.
the 2nd law or thermodynamics confirms this, as well as the standard big bang model with equations of spacetime.
guidobambino 3 years ago
Equally spaced what? Where are you inventing that from? You are just making things up now and its boring me. You have offered nothing to confirm any of this.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
lmao...equally spaced events? an infinite regress cannot exist because that means that NOW would never have occurred...if you havent heard of this you havent looked into the philosophy of infinity enough. an infinite past means that an infinite amount of time has occurred before now..but logically that means now never occurred..thats philosophical evidence.
guidobambino 2 years ago
No its not, its made up imagined nonsense of no interest to me in any way.
irishmauddib 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
heres what kai nielsen says with regard to proving/disproving God:
Kai Nielsen says:
'To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false. All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it may still be the case that God exists. To show that the proofs do not work is not enough to show that God does not exist.'
So aside from my arguments, you need to provide some too. you're making a claim to knowledge, so give me YOUR evidence
guidobambino 2 years ago
I am perfectly happy to agree with this. Just because you are completely and chronically unable to provide any evidence for a god doesnt mean there is no god. I grant that.
However it by no means suggests there is one and I will operate my life without that assumption in the same way as I operate it without protecting myself from the number 13, alien abduction or from going trying to find where elvis lives now.
irishmauddib 2 years ago 3
Also do not put words in my mouth. I have made no claim yet. I have simply said that you have not provided any evidence for a g od and that I am not aware of any such evidence existing myself either.
I at no point said there is no god. I said there is no reason as yet to think there is. Learn the difference and you will stop lying about me and being so very wrong, so very often
irishmauddib 2 years ago
Comment removed
guidobambino 3 years ago
Atheists tend to be adept at attacking the beliefs of others but they seem to be incredibly poor at defending their own beliefs.
I have noticed that none of you ever bother to defend your unproven beliefs and ideas but instead choose to attack the beliefs of others as though this will some how validate your similarly unsubstantiated beliefs.
xtrashed 3 years ago
When the primary method of discourse of ones opponent is to ignore his opponents lines of reasoning and create strawmen, it is necessary to either attack his strawmen and destroy them, or to leave the debate.
As of right now, we have not been able to have anything resembling a 2-way discussion with guido, and have been forced to respond to all manner of insults to our intelligence in simply dealing with him.
Logical discourse requires two people willing to discuss, not talk at each other.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
Religious belief is not assent without evidence; that would be superstition or credulity. Religious people are deeply interested in evidence, but they know that assent is not reducible to what John Henry Newman called formal inference. Rather, assent--even to ordinary truths--involves rationality but also hunch, intuition, direct experience, the testimony of others, etc.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Religious belief is also known as FAITH, this word has the EXACT definition of belief without evidence.
Religious people may be interested in evidence, however there is a level of cognitive dissonance in play when one must deny evidence to continue to believe that which comforts them.
Testimony is just about worthless, hunches are worthless without hard data, intuition the same, direct experience is subjective and therefore slanted without evidence to bring it into line with reality.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
Faith is not credulity or superstition or accepting claims without evidence. All of those are examples of infra-rational moves. Faith is beyond reason, which means that it is not irrational but supra-rational. God cannot, by definition, be the object of analytical reason, since God is not an empirical object in the world. Therefore the move of the mind that grasps God is a reason other than scientific reason.
xtrashed 3 years ago
God IS NO REASON.
You claim that he is not an empirical object, yet fail to provide in any way traits of his existence, reasons why we SHOULD postulate his existence, etc.
We have no reason to bring a needlessly complicated god myth into our vision of reality when science has been and is showing us the natural explanations for phenomena in the natural world.
If we don't need a god myth to explain reality, why bother invoking one?
MizarShadow 3 years ago 2
Well hold on, what about mathematical quantities or other abstract objects? Do the laws of logic or metaphysics not exist because we can't feel, touch, smell, taste, or hear them?
I havent heard a single argument from you to think that atheism is true. I've given you arguments that, given an event that we CAN observe, is best explained by God. And your response is basically 'oh we might discover different evidence in the future' or 'omg thats too complicated.." or the like
guidobambino 3 years ago
"I havent heard a single argument from you to think that atheism is true"
Why would you? Atheism is not a statement, it is merely the state of not believing your statement.
If you want to operate under the impression that someone who does not place credence in something you said is automatically someone who is placing credence in the opposite statement then the error is yours and yours alone.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
WOW...you're kidding right? atheism isnt a statement?
its sad i actually have to tell "atheists" what their actual position is
according to the oxford webster dictionary, atheism is "the theory or belief that God does not exist."
that is a CLAIM to KNOWLEDGE, thus requiring justification, just as saying God does exist is a claim to knowledge requiring justification. you re confusing atheism with agnosticism; the two are mutually exclusive.
guidobambino 3 years ago
The Oxford-Webster definition of atheism is distorted, as has been pointed out numerous times.
A-theism, is a rejection of the theist claims of a god/goddess, that is all, a rejection of your positive claims about a mythical super creator.
Besides, for all practical and useful knowledge, we have absolutely nothing by way of evidence for any faith that posits a god....hell, I could worship the sun and come up with more evidence that it's god as opposed to jesus.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
You choose one definition without looking into the entire etymology of the word and then presume to tell me what it means? Come now, you can do better than that.
"disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" says one other dictionary. A disbelief does not imply active belief in the opposite. I can quote more dictionaries.
What of the etymology. A- means without. Without a theism. This does not imply the holding of an opposite theism.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Correct, you disbelieve..but how can you defend that?
Theres a difference between atheism and agnosticism. You seem to think atheism = agnosticism. If you commit yourself to a side, then you have to defend yourself.
The A- prefix is the debate, as if can have two different contexts, but there is a difference between atheism and agnosticism. Agnostics dont know..atheists make the claim that God does not exist. The latter requires justification, yet the former, in not making any claim, doesnt
guidobambino 3 years ago
Believers have been boring the Atheists with assertions about the existence of god/s for centuries, and yet still they present no evidence. You would have us believe that belief in God is the reasonable, the default position, hence any refutation of it requires justification. However, belief in things without evidence is not reasonable, hence the default position is in fact a rejection of your hypothesis. You are making the claim, so you provide the evidence.
Valelacerte 3 years ago 2
there are many arguments -- the argument from necessity, from the origin of the universe, from fine tuning, from morality being objective, from the resurrection of jesus, from free will, from evil,..and probably some others. you can look them up.
though i should say that neither theism nor atheism is a default position. agnosticism is the default position. so while i give arguments for my positive statement of believe, so too must you.
guidobambino 3 years ago
how do we know we arent just in the matrix? We don't. How do you know theism isn't part of the matrix? You don't. Maybe I'm unplugged and free from the matrix and you're not.
There are many many possibilities, but I don't have a problem waiting for the answers, and I won't accept bullshit as a defence against uncertainty. I have enough purpose and meaning in my "worldview" to be happy and productive.
You are the believer in the supernatural, not me; you say there's a god, not me.
Valelacerte 3 years ago 2
we dont...on atheism. on theism we know we arent because we have origins from God. the same reasoning applies to science, logic, reality, math, etc.
as an atheist, to speak consistently youve got to take nihilism. thats essentially the position youre taking. if thats the route you want to take then thats fine, but on a practical level, i dont see that getting anyone very far
guidobambino 3 years ago
Atheism =/= Nihilism
You're not even paying attention at this point, are you?
A-theism is a rejection of YOUR CLAIMS concerning the existence of a supernatural creator.
'we have origins from god'
You're assuming your conclusion a priori, and therefore your argument is moot and laughably pathetic, Please try again some time, when you've bothered to find evidence, and follow it to where it leads.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
well whats your outside evidence to show that there are absolute truths or that there are objective moral values? wheres your argument?
dont be weak, give me an argument. at this point idc what you call it..I'm asking for an argument. If you cant even give me an argument, then dont act like you know God doesnt exist. instead just admit you dont know
BASED ON the cosmological argument i say God is the best explanation...whats your explanation for origins? lets see an argument from you now
guidobambino 3 years ago
Again you need this explained to you? There is no evidence for an objective moral standard or absolute truths. It is the democratic voice of people coming together with their desires for what the standard should be that, more often than not, reaches a consensus which gives the impression of a moral standard.
Simply as that. You need not postulate magical sky fairies or moral dictators to explain it. It stands perfectly well on its own.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
again i ask you two things:
1) isnt stating that there are no objective moral truths an objective moral truth?
2) we have discerned a moral realm, much like a physical realm. so given that we cant validate our sensory input, why accept that over morals? you cant prove any of this is real, so why pick and choose which 'senses' to accept and which ones not. any argument given for our empirical senses can be given for an objective moral sense
guidobambino 3 years ago
Again my statement answers these things. I am not here saying there is no god or there is no objective moral truths, except maybe as a language of convenience. My statement is that there is no evidence that there is such a thing. You are bastardising the english language in an attempt to attack a position I am not espousing.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
for God, there is evidence, namely the traditional arguments and some relatively new ones. its best to research the arguments, then address them here.
for moral truths, there is also evidence, namely the very same methods of epistemology that we use for our physical senses. if you deny our moral sense, why accept our physical senses?
also its self contradicting to say 'there are no moral truths' bcz if not, then that statement itself is not true and therefore the argument is self defeatin
guidobambino 2 years ago
Is there evidence? Then present it! You have not even tried yet. You just keep saying it is there yet show a complete inability or unwillingness to describe any of it. We could all sit here and SAY there is evidence. I could do it. The next person could do it. It is of no interest.
If you think you have evidence then present it. This weeks long campaign of obfuscation is simply boring to me.
irishmauddib 2 years ago
"discerned a moral realm"
False, we've done no such thing. We've been given an illusion of 1
We're subject to the human condition. This gives us desires for ourselves and for the society we wish to live in
Democratically we come together and decide on these self held desires and we construct "morality" a list of rules upon which to operate socially and personally.
A democratic consensus on much of this "morality" is what is given you the impression of an objective moral realm
irishmauddib 3 years ago
but thats doesnt answer the self contradiction your view raises:
how does the statement 'there are no objective moral truths' not self defeat itself being that, for it to be true, it MUST be a moral truth?
guidobambino 2 years ago
Again Ive no intention of defending views I dont hold. Im not saying theres no objective morality. Im saying Ive no reason to think there is
You operate under a false view that if you do not believe X then you automatically must believe NOT X. This isnt so and its an error that leads to many errors. Merely discounting it doesnt infer automatic support of the counter proposition
I see no reason to think there is objective morality and I see reasons why youd be deceived into thinking there is
irishmauddib 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
aside from the argument about experiencing and objective moral realm, and the self defeating statement that you havent addressed, namely 'there are no objective moral truths', i simply ask you -- is torturing a child or raping someone a morally neutral act? forget socially advantageous or not..are these morally indifferent acts?
guidobambino 2 years ago
Again words in my mouth. I never said there WAS NOT such a thing. I said there is NO REASON to think there is.
Again, if you correct this one small error you will cease to be so very wrong so very often.
irishmauddib 2 years ago 3
1. No. The lack of objective moral truths allows for subjective truths based on situational methods to arise.
2. Morals are only interpreted THROUGH the senses, not as some analogous concept to a physical world
Morals =/= physical
They are only overall feelings interpreted through the physical systems that we use to interpret the rest of our world.
If you can't get the basics right....why bother with the advanced stuff.
MizarShadow 2 years ago
1) well thats a simple failure to understand. 'there are no moral truths' defeats itself, bcz why think that its true if there are no moral truths?
2) im not arguing anything like that..im saying in the same way that we accept our senses (i.e. experience, reason) we can similarly accept a moral sense...if you deny objective moral truths than why accept the observable physical universe?
guidobambino 2 years ago
Again simply declaring things here without backing them up in any way shape or form. You simply say that moral truths are the same as our senses. How. Why. Where. When. Evidence please.
Stop.... just..... declaring.... things.
irishmauddib 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
do you not understand? i apply the exact same means for validating my sense perception (reason, experience, etc) to moral truth. thats the evidence
again i say -- if you deny a moral sense, why accept physical senses? after all, you cant prove that your physical senses are valid, so why accept them?
ill repeat it again -- the evidence for moral truths is the exact same as physical truths. so if you accept the physical world then you must accept a moral world as well. thats the argument
guidobambino 2 years ago
So you thinking you do something makes it true. No thanks. Next.
I deny nothing. I just say you have shown no evidence to suggest such a thing exists. Until you do I can disregard it.
Saying it must be so doesnt suddenly make it so. I could say "You MUST have an apple pie for a head". This doesnt make it true.
Show me the evidence. Stop just SAYING things are so.
irishmauddib 2 years ago
Again declarations. We have origins from god? Prove it. You havent even shown there is a god, so how can you claim to have shown a second level statement that we have origins from it? Thats like saying I will bake a cake without first showing you i have cake mix. Where is the evidence for this god?
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Yes, I know: the bible is factually correct because the bible says so.
Purpose and meaning are essentially human concepts, apart from perhaps our biological imperative to reproduce. And yes, we do create our own morals and ethics, we always have done. Many atheists do very well in life in terms of positive contributions to society and personal success, so to deny it is pointless.
Anyway, I'll leave you to fill these pages up with your pontifications.
Valelacerte 3 years ago
we create our own morals and ethics
can someone say subjectivism? if we create our own, who determines whats objectively moral and not?
unless you dont believe in objective morality....in which case that requires me to take a different approach to show you why you're wrong
guidobambino 3 years ago
This has been explained to you already. WE determine this, democratically. Everyone has their own opinions on it and the democratic voice can be used to determine what is important and what is not.
The fact that many people reach a democratic consensus, sometimes almost unanimously, is what is giving you the IMPRESSION of an objective standard. But an impression is all it is. There is no evidence being presented here for such objective standards
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Theism is a positive statement, and thus you must provide EVIDENCE for your claims of a god/gods.
Atheism is a rejection of your claim and therefore rejects your positive assertion.
The default position is, and must be atheism, until you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt your positive assertions.
So far, neither you, nor any educated apologeticist has even come close to beginning to bring any validity to any god thesis/assertion.
Keep on dealing with YOUR burden of proof.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
"there are many arguments"
Present them then. Dont just say them. Pick one and explain how its an argument from god. I could just sit here and say "I think you are wrong because of the argument from pickles". What does this mean? Clearly nothing. I wouldnt be ignorant enough to just say things at you.
TELL us the arguments, EXPLAIN them, SHOW how they point to a god. Dont just SAY them and run away with your tail hanging.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
How can I defend it? Simply by saying you have shown no evidence for the proposition and therefore I file it under the same category as everything else there is no evidence for such as fairies, thor, alien abduction and a still living elvis.
Your quote mining dictionaries or ignoring the full etymology of the words you want to play with doesnt change that one iota.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
You have shown you have little to offer in this thread, but if you are going to reduce yourself to quote mining the dictionaries, to the expense of all others, in an attempt to prove a non-point you are on weaker ground than ever before.
So again, atheism is generally not a positive statement and requires no proofs. If you are making a positive statement that there is a god then the onus is on you to provide evidence for same
Or I could make up any old rubbish and demand you prove it wrong
irishmauddib 3 years ago
LMAO WHAT? quote mining?? are you serious? I never wouldve thought that looking up the definition of your "position" was quote mining, attached with a seemingly pejorative connotation of course
if i ask you why is atheism true, you cant say 'bcz the arguments for God dont work" even if that were true, that wouldnt show that God doesnt exist..at best itd show we just dont know.
guidobambino 3 years ago