Hitchens is really getting off tangent here. The question is what standard does atheism adhere to in regards to morality and he goes off topic about religion, imams and priests. Is this really what atheists idolize? Seriously? Looks like atheism is not as rational as we thought it would be.
What foolish arrogance to believe that Jesus invented compassion. It's attitudes like that that fueled the racial genocide of North Americans by Europeans.
Did the 'supernatural' intend for humans to have morality as Paul (Rom 2:14-15) and "Paul" (Heb 8:10) seem to suggest? Or was human acquisition of knowledge of good and evil an act of disobedience and not the intention of the gods (Gen 3:5)? If humans couldn't discern right action from wrong, how could they possibly know that disobedience toward anyone was unethical? How could they be held to account any more than the animals who are made to suffer. What an incoherent mess.
Listen hunters and gatherers thats where we come from...we like to be in similar groups because it actually ensures our survival. If one group is stronger (in our modern case power through money or socially) we will ensure better chances for our survival...we don't think this way because it's inherant with our genetic heritage. So if your religious you fall under majority...but just because its a larger group doesn't mean they are correct or right. Biology has us all by "the balls", literally.
D'Souza with his "in India, the tears of strangers" remark goes to show it is culture and not religion that guides actions. I've witnessed "good catholics" in the military hazing the newbies just as happily as the athiest guys and I've seen the oppisite as well. The only thing that differenciates who is caring and who is not is their upbringing. Morals run much deeper than a book about fairy tales. Besides that book is full of murder and Genocide, and they're supposed to be the good guys!!!
If christianity "invented" virtues such as compassion as D'souza claims, what institution or person invented the counterparts? where does hate and anger come from?
Dinesh, the tool, strikes again. Altruism is the peacock's tail---it is a way of displaying reproductive fitness by advertising that one is likely to be kind to offspring and that one has so much strength and resources that he can readily afford to lose some of them (not to mention the fact that throughout most of human history the person being given to shared many genes with the one doing the giving). It is easily answered.
If Dinesh were right about morality not needing to be inculcated if it were evolved, couldn't somebody just as readily argue that growth is not genetic---since it too requires a particular action from the parent, the act of feeding. The parental relationship is the byproduct of evolution and the fact that organisms require parental support is no disproof of evolution, but rather it is one of its strongest evidences.
D'Souza's claim that compassion didn't exist before Christ is pretty bold. From where does he draw this conclusion? Or is this just another one of his numerous factless suppositions?
What a disgrace that this upstart boy, D'Souza, is being presented as an intellectual authority here. These are the perks of being a corporate lapdog and licking the hands of your master.
You could write a book about all the mind-boggling somersaults in logic that Dinesh is making here and attempting to foist on to the audience. It really is extraordinary. It's like he makes a point, and then forgets it 1 second later, and then contradicts it 2 seconds later. It's ludicrous.
@luwala23 Most simple people like yourself get sick when their brians can't process what their veiwing. Best advice for you is not to watch debates and just stick to books for kindergardener's. Hope this helps.
(a) the lack of an explanation does not prove the existence of the absent and unprovable
(b) the man who helped the Good Samaritan, er... that's the other way round, dude. And I think the point in the New Testament is don't judge outsiders because they might be more charitable than you.
Philosophers are known for having a flair for the dramatic. ;-) I would say a statement like "Altruism is inherently selfish." is more of a personal confession than a philosophical truth.
Not enough space to refute D'Souza, however: this issue is about 'where does morality come from' and his is a religious cop out. It's a complex issue, related to evolved mechanisms, learned group norms, reputation, reciprocation, other biases and maximizing personal utility. Where do we have to throw up our hands, once again, and say 'it's God'. He makes no case, no study, no argument. Just pins it on an unvalidated deity. This is a serious pursuit, no time for cop outs.
I am going to give props to Dinesh! I am. The man is a Brilliant debater! He must be. He is not, totally, being destroyed while having all the evidence belonging to the other side. Think about it. We KNOW that Atheism doesn't cause crimes. We know religion does. We know Evolution works, Physics works, hell we know that if I shoot you full of Oxytocin you are going to feel damn near religious. He is fighting a losing battle. Now if he'd just STOP....
Here's a homework assignment: Look up all the truly paradigm-shifting scientists throughout history, and do take note that the vast majority were believers. The truly great scientists believed in a higher power, almost to a person. Kepler, Galileo, Planck, Tesla, Newton...on and on and on.
My ideas of compassion come from believing that Jesus will never come so we only have ourselves. We don't need God to fill the gaps we don't understand. If so we would of have stopped at saying that rain was God's wrath. It's the 'wanting to understand' that has gotten us this far. Religions just halt the progress. Like Galileo and now Darwin.
Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth.
I wonder how morals the pedophile priests where when they raped little boys, and how moral was the pope when he transfer'd that priest from parish to parish , raping all along the way.
Social evolution is what Dinesh D'souza needs to become familiar with.
It is a concept that allows the human species to further its success, because of the benefits that are accrued from the fact that humans have evolved to be social beings, requires morality just to keep this crux of evolutionary success, healthy.
Altruism helps societies stay intact. There is no need of a god to explain it.
@yt2vinay - completely agree with you - lemme take another example , the other day i saw a video of a house dog nursing a kitty, Now is it because the handlers belong some religion that the cat and dog bonded ? do animals have religion?
"Jesus invented this, Jesus invented that." All of D'souza's arguments are based on the assumption that Jesus was a real person and not a ficticious character invented by the drunkards that made up the New Testament some 350 years later. If I were Hitchens, I would just look him in the face and say, "There is more evidence to support the existence of extraterrestrial UFOs than Christ, and I don't believe in those either...and neither do you. This conversation is over." Then I'd get up and leave.
God decided that he was incapable of forgiving us without a blood sacrifice. So, to protect us from himself, he sent the human version of himself to appease himself by sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself.
I hope you know that by stating that Jesus of Nazareth is a mythical figure, you're in the minority, and I'm speaking of both atheist and theist scholars. There is more evidence to support the existence of Jesus than the likes of Alexander the Great and Socrates.
While I would love for UFO's to be real, there is fuck all solid evidence for it.
@Dhalsim06 even if Jesus DID exist the myths surrounding him are plagiarized from religions that were around thousands of years before him. Jesus was a SOLAR MESSIAH. Look it up. His moral teachings were also inconsistent...EVEN a mythological Jesus disappointments a rational, critical and logical mind. And so what if we're in the minority...you wanna know something beautiful? The truth is truth despite how many deny it, yet lies are lies no matter how many people mistake lies for truth.
The religious texts reporting about Jesus is possible evidence of his existence. There were reports about the Roswell incident where ufo's are concerned.The resurection of Jesus was based on eye witness account, ufo sightings are based on eyewitness account, actually there are more people claiming to see ufos then there were people claiming to see Jesus in the resurection. So, either both are myth, one is myth, both are true. How can we claim either true and claim evidence.
or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all
@adlerbr12 no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical
@adlerbr12 No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of
@adlerbr12 just a question: what about the writings of historians such as josephus, pliny the elder, and suetonius? they have all recorded of the man we know as Jesus Christ and not all of these historians were Christians
D'Souza claimed that Jesus invented compassion. I'm sorry, but Buddha already pointed it out that compassion is the core of Buddhism, and this is something that Buddhists are achieving, and the source or the reason is not because to glory a God or a deity. We are our own masters. If they only knew more of Eastern philosophies, it isn't hard to debate about morality and ethics.
@ServeTheHive Your problem is that you have no evidence of that compassion being a fact of reality. Buddhists can approach Atheists in their killing fits.
@ServeTheHive no buddha invented the silver standard, which is do no harm unto others. Jesus invented the golden standard, which is do good for those who do not deserve it! Which is more important glorifying life by raising th lowly up, or by keeping the evil down? Both are ideal but Jesus's message is more heart-wrenchingly powerful!
@outtaker You have it completely wrong. Christianity is telling people to believe in Christ to be saved. Buddhism is telling each and everyone of us has the power to become enlightened and become the Buddha: you end ignorance, attachments, and stop the three poisons: hatred, greed, and delusions. It's quite methodical. I'm sorry, Christianity does not offer that. We don't keep evil down, Christians do. Church tells people "don't do this, don't do that," but it gives no permanent solution.
@ServeTheHive Na, atheists have everything backwards. That's why they don't use logic and evidence in their arguments. Just name-calling and slanderous speech...!!!
@outtaker (cont.) And if you haven't got a clue at the things that I have mentioned, then you should become acquainted with the Four Noble Truth and get to know the Noble Eightfold Path. Thanks a lot.
What about empathy? With empathy, seeing someone else suffer, related or not, actually causes the witness to suffer. This idea is also supported by the existence of mirror neurons.
Theists love an unfalisifiable argument, well here ya's go - Prove to me that compassion was not present amongst the builders of Stonehenge in 3000BC. Or those who celebrated Mungo Man in my country, Australia, in 70,000BC. Or the first to bury their dead in Krapina, 130,000 years ago.
D'souza is full of crap, all my family members donated blood after 9/11, and none of them are Christians, nor are they religious. It's was just humane to help one another.
to say all morals come from god implies that the immorality of the "atheist" regimes also came from god or shis "satanic" creation. You cant have it both ways
Absolutely right. I have met some true blue literalist christians who plainly state that we are in the front row seat and a participant in a cosmic battle between an omniscient, omnipotent power and, paradoxically, his own evil creation gone awry. In the end this power will judge all our souls, harshly if we listened to his cosmic counterbalance. You couldn't make this kind of thing up, or sell it in hollywood... Wait, don't tell Mel. Seriously, don't.
@ezelite Correct. Dinesh is taking two contradictory positions at once. 1) God must have created us as our morality cannot have evolved through mere Darwinian evolution. 2) Humans only acquire true morality once they become Christian. "In other cultures they have no Christian compassion or morality" Uh, didn't God create them too Dinesh? Freak. Both positions are shamelessly untrue anyway.
D'Souza's really begging the question here and drawing poor conclusions. The will to be good and to do good things purely for the sake of it, is a recognition of the fact modern society is something to be protected and valued. Offering a seat to an old lady is not a Christian virtue, it's a virtue of humankind and is an empathetic action. Cognitive neuroscience has explanations for a lot of these interactions now and they are all products of nature, to say otherwise is to do nature a disservice.
let's give the point to D'Souza that christian ethics/morals are basis of western society, that does not mean it has supernatural basis, it just means religion and the "morals" in religion are part of our evolutionary history, so fucking what, the real question is why do we need religion with the morals, religion is superfluous in regards to binding it with morality, and the existence of religion is no evidence of god.. just religion itself and that humans worship bullshit!
D'Souza has a very superficial understanding of the evolution of morality and altruistic behavior.
His rationale is faulty--you can be taught morals therefore a Darwinian argument is moot. This is flat wrong--you are taught LANGUAGE, therefore any Darwinian explanation for language and its origins is wrong?
The problem is that you cannot discredit years of robust theory and research with a faulty comment likt that, and yet it's taken as correct and the debate moves on.
I can't believe people go for the no god = no morality argument. Do people insulting themselves, or are they so ignorant that they don't understand that they are being insulted.
Theres a reason we have black people, but we also have white, and many other people. All the species of flowers, trees, fish, birds, everything, are all elements of Evolution at work. Deny it til the cows come home, it just shows more of your deliberate ignorance and willingness to remain dumb toward reality. Morals are a consequence of Christianity, Im still laughing my ass off on that one! Go take some science, and switch ur brain on for a few weeks, see how it feels.
really, so you'd be out stealing and raping and killing if it werent for the idea of being punished by a sky fairy after u die? Morality exists because of our darwinian roots by which if we were immoral to each other all the time, we would not have survived..... people being moral doesnt for a second prove a gods existance, nice try though.
Why speak about rape... lets talk about killing millions in abortion so we can live out our freedom as sexual beings. Or the objectification taking place in porn.. modern western soceity is steeped in deprivation and perversion. You dont even see it, because you think you are merely an evolved monkey.. D'Souza wins the debate. Deal with it ;)
um, WE are evolved from a common ancestor between APE and modern man, not monkeys..... but Im sure as a well educated person, you already know that. Religion is anything but moral, and we in no way derive our morals from it. In fact our best hypothesis' of human moralty once again point to our Darwinian beginnings. But again, as a well educated person, you knew that right??
Your morals and civilised way of thinking is a consequence of Christianity. But as a well educated person, you already realise that right? Darwinism is a theory. If you are well educated you also realise that, even though professors who mention the possiblity of intelligent design are fired in America.. that land of freedom. hurray.
Um no, AGAIN. Morals have zero to do with ur stupid religion, and thank "god" they dont. I think enough blood has been shed for what christanity has brought . Yes, I am educated, and for that your moronic assertions fail 100%. You have not studied enough to know what ur talking about. Anyone who says "just a theory", needs to step one: LOOK UP WHAT A SCIENTIFC THEORY IS. theres a reason its so accepted, its fact, based on DATA. ur "intelligent design" BS, is still left with zip to show for it!
So according to Dinesh, compassion didn't exist in Japan till around the 1400s, when they opened borders and finally allowed missionaries and other foreigners into the country.
Obviously they were all psycopaths and/or sociopaths before they ever heard of Jesus, which is exactly how they had an over thousand year old society before they ever heard of the idea.
How anyone takes this man seriously, let alone clap to his arguments, is beyond me.
Did Dinesh actually just claim that Jesus "invented compassion?"
Someone should have let him know...no, Jesus did not invent compassion or "true feeling for the other guy." Nor did Buddha BEFORE Jesus was supposed to have existed.
Dinesh could be informed by anyone with at least a highschool level background in biology that this is simply a fundamental and instinctive mammalian trait...even one observable in some non-mammals.
Oh good, we have a doctorate in ethology here with us on the Internet: Gonzo707!
You see an elephant with her young crossing a rapid river and the young falls behind. The mother will wait and encourage the young onward, but will never go back to save its child simply because, logically, it would be a waste of calories to retrace its steps.
The word you were looking for is "maternal instincts". THAT is fundamental to mammals. COMPASSION is a very odd phenomenon strictly found in HUMANS.
Oh good, we have a pretentious jackass here with us on the internet shooting their mouth off when they dont know what theyre talking about:
ibepresodent!
Look up "compassion" in the dictionary you moron. No, humans are not the only mammals to show compassion, and no Im not just talking about maternal instinct.
And do some actual reading about animals and their behavior before you declare what a certain species will and will not ever do.
oh please. I do not understand how it could be so difficult to understand hitchens' argument that human compassion and propensity toward caring for other human beings is innate in us as a species. Look at any species of animal on earth. For the sake of survival, all of them display a natural instinct for protecting and looking after other species' members, namely offspring and family.
And looking at other cultures, what about the countries in Europe which are almost entirely secular, do citizens of those countries just run around killing and raping each other because they haven't been taught not to by the Bible? lol. The US has the highest rate of gun violence and one of the highest crime rates on earth. I don't know, I just think it's total bull sht, this religious propaganda from people like D'Souza which tries to tell people that atheists are militant, violent people.
D'Souza presents a pretty ethnocentric view by insinuating that Hitchens should feel indebted to Christianity for compassion. By doing this he only analyzes western cultural traditions. The truth is Compassion is one of the most important three virtues of someone's character (DAYA), compassion is also something that is introduced yet contradicted (just as it is in christianity) repeatedly. What is less compassionate than eternal damnation, left to wither and die in the fires of hell. NOTHING
It does count for morality. Social animals have the rules (morals) that govern that group that arrose through years of weeding out those that did not follow. Those that do not follow the rules set by the social group, are exiled, killed, or at least punished.
/Applause for D'Souza hes the first Christian i have ever scene that actually understands evolution how ever the basicness of it. Makes his position a lot more respectable then that of most other christians.
who, for the name of crumb-cake, is clapping Dinesh in this debate. He's rubbish. He gives the impression of someone who has no flavour for true debate but just throws the christians in the crowd a bone. I'm guessing they just have more practice clapping in their death cults than the more educated people in the audience
You mean 100 thousand years ago a woman was being nursed back to health after her bones were broken. Jesus wasn't around to tell whoever was nursing her to be good to your neighbor.
Chimps and other non human animals have been recorded showing great morality with out the teaching of Christianity. Chimps have died trying to save others from drowning.
Where did they get their morality from?
Its a question that science can't fully answer but, that does not mean morality is a gift from god.
And Hitchens doesn't nail him for this either. In fact, none of the atheists I've read will even touch on free will (well, Sam Harris did in a footnote), even Dan Dennett who has written books about it. Dennett wouldn't nail him when he made the same stupid claim in the Tufts debate. D'Souza simply asserts that his decision to drop the pen is somehow not determined by physics, thinking it doesn't even require an explanation why. I very much doubt he understands the concept of emergence.
So according to D'Souza, if you cant explain something, you cop out using "God" as the explanation. So next time i have a college exam, if i don't know the answer, i will just say "god did it," as my answer. Also, there were moral standards brought upon by other religions, why does Christianity get the credit?
Richard Dawkins never said there was no explanation for altruism in humans. In fact, he said that it was an evolutionary trait because in prehistoric times nearly anyone man had met would have been a close relative or friend. Now that we've got in big cities were most people you'd meet are complete strangers but the trait still remains.
The idea that christianity invented compassion is not only absolut nonsense it is extremely rascist. What a fucking moron that christian guy is from start to finish.
Dinesh says that Christ created the culture of empathy and compassion. As an Indian, Dinesh knows thats not true--- Buddha preached many of those things more than 500 years before Jesus was born, and Buddha was clearly not a theist.
That's one of the things I like least about Dinesh. He makes claims that he either does or should know are false and then gambles on the chance that the audience does not have any better knowledge to call his bluff. Gambling is supposed to be a sin isn't it?
Gambling's one of the pretend sins like drinking, smoking, dancing, saying certain swear words. Jesus got outraged that they gambled in a temple, but I think that was more about the misuse of the temple than the gambling itself.
The 'sin' he's guilty of in that case is bearing false witness, which I guess you could say deceptive gambling is an extension of.
What got me is Hitchens pointing out the Good Samaritan predating Christ, then D'Souza mistakenly retreading the idea from 5:00 on.
Did anyone notice: Dinesh insists we have absorbed the lessons of Christianity by virtue of our having been raised in a Christian culture, but earlier rejected Hitchens claim that Christianity served as the stylistic template for early twentieth century totalitarianism by a presumably indistinguishable set of mechanisms for the reproduction of culture.
I can't stand a person who never gets around to asking the question, or making the point they need to make, because they spend 90 percent of the time trying to formulate groundwork for the question they are going to ask, that is unnecessarily complicated. Just ask the question, and then after the speaker gives his answer, you can commence with qualifying remarks or clarification of the original question.
I think Hitchens had said at their most recenet debate, "There's always one", referring to some guy who goes on a long diatribe without a question. Watching past Hitchens debates, it's freaky how right he is. It makes me uneasy listening to these guys, knowing they're gonna get hammered.
i also like that he says we're like animals because there is a natural law we have to obey, rather than saying we're like animals because we ARE animals, and are directly and indirectly related to every other species
More D'Souza red herrings. Morality is explained by evolution by rephrasing the question to make it more meaningful.
The real question is "Why doesn't psychopathic behaviour spread throughout society?". Because such behaviour breaks social cohesion and reduces survival. So on balance, "bad" people had fewer surviving offspring than "good" people. So "morality" spread through the population.
It really is as simple as that. Religious people make everything so complicated for themselves!
"Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little." Gautama Siddharta 563-483 B.C
What does atheism offer "us"? What a moron. That is the 'stinkin' thinkin' of the religious people. They adhere to the church FOR comfort.BECAUSE they "offer" that peace of mind.
Dinesh accuses Hitchens of being parasitical with respect to generosity deriving from Christian culture; yet earlier in the debate said that atheism cannot attribute totalitarian atrocities to the Christian underpinnings of the societies in which they emerge.
Couldnt you say in more ways than one that morality was born out of selfishness or defense? I mean what does helping others do, it makes you feel good about tyourself, which is a selfish feeling, it makes you feel good and moral and above other people, and here is another, morality-people being nice to each other instead of vicious and unforgiving, couldn't that just a defense mechanism for the weak? I think so, survival, which means it is an evolutionary trait and not divine.
So after we developed a more evolved brain, we developed a intellectual way of survival instead of a more physical type of survival, which we still do anyway because we aren't evolved enough, were imperfect, but war and death is used more for power and not survival, which power brings us back to where we started, alpha male, the top dog, the survival of the fittest and screw the weak, its all the same, we just have different methods, thats why we have technology and things like that.
I have thought of the first reason myself and I think it is certainly an explanation. I think it would only account for part of it's origin though. Look into Kinship, if you want to know where I think another part of it is from. And the second point is new to me, and does make a lot of sense, I doubt in all situations, but it is definitely thought-provoking.
Even if D'Souza were correct and there were no evolutionary benefit to morality, the thing that he's using to fill the metaphorical moral gap (god) is no answer at all.
actually, Jehovah's witnesses(with millions of followers across the world- so its not a small sect) PROHIBIT from giving or receiving blood based solely on the fundamental teachings of the Bible which claims purity of blood is sacred
good lord these stupid people ask the most rediculous questions that are really not questions but big complicated statements so they maybe will look smart in front of a guy like Hitchens and feel good about themselves? It's painful to listen to.
the term "good Samaritan" isn't found any where in the Bible. There is a story of the Samaritan that goes out of his way to help but the concept of that moral action is accepted as good... but there's no bible verse that states "the Good Samaritan came over" You won't find it so you can't just assume that the Samaritan is good but that his action was a very nice gesture... If I do something nice doesn't mean I'm just automatically a nice person, we build on the actions that makes us who we are.
A lot of people like you mistake the bible for a legal document or historical document, or almanac or whatever bogus stipulations you try to attach to it. He is referred to as good for his action in the story. Dont try to stretch this out into some other b/s story about the samaritan abusing drugs and not paying child support or something else!
Leave it at the helping others, thats what D'souza refers to and he never claims otherwise.
I think it's sad that it's 2012 and people like D'souza still have self-induced retardation.
Skepgnostic 1 week ago
Hitchens is really getting off tangent here. The question is what standard does atheism adhere to in regards to morality and he goes off topic about religion, imams and priests. Is this really what atheists idolize? Seriously? Looks like atheism is not as rational as we thought it would be.
Sniper2008009 2 months ago
:'-( Jesus did not invent compassion. Humans did not exist for at least 100,000 years without it, and then one day Jesus comes up with the idea.
DecayConstant 3 months ago
Jesus did NOT invent compassion.
News flash, people: Christianity was not the first philosophy to present such ideas.
Please, people, stop listening to religious demagogues and EDUCATE yourselves. PLEASE. History did NOT begin in Judea.
jjobie 3 months ago
Hitchen's had nothing to add after 7:30...
No love greater than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Love your enemies.
dontletithappen 5 months ago in playlist Dinesh D Souza and Christopher Hitchens Debate
This Dinesh D'souza is the epitome of intellectual desonesty.
LordVoldemort1987 6 months ago
What foolish arrogance to believe that Jesus invented compassion. It's attitudes like that that fueled the racial genocide of North Americans by Europeans.
kokopelli314 7 months ago
that question at 7:30 - ish..... o_O wow
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
Whenever D'Souza speaks, pull out your Occam's Razor.
sgunsgun2 8 months ago
what about the morality that condemns people people to TOTURE for eternity? douchebag.
Jesus invented empathy? Are you out of your mind? That's so daft it takes my breath...no one is that dumb.
blahbl4hblahtoo 9 months ago
what about the morality that condemns people people to TOTURE for eternity? douchebag.
blahbl4hblahtoo 9 months ago
8:18 - guy holding mic tries to hold back laughter after the guy asking the questions says "in fiji, they have men for dinner" lol
jordanisthebestess 9 months ago
Did the 'supernatural' intend for humans to have morality as Paul (Rom 2:14-15) and "Paul" (Heb 8:10) seem to suggest? Or was human acquisition of knowledge of good and evil an act of disobedience and not the intention of the gods (Gen 3:5)? If humans couldn't discern right action from wrong, how could they possibly know that disobedience toward anyone was unethical? How could they be held to account any more than the animals who are made to suffer. What an incoherent mess.
myerssa7 10 months ago
Listen hunters and gatherers thats where we come from...we like to be in similar groups because it actually ensures our survival. If one group is stronger (in our modern case power through money or socially) we will ensure better chances for our survival...we don't think this way because it's inherant with our genetic heritage. So if your religious you fall under majority...but just because its a larger group doesn't mean they are correct or right. Biology has us all by "the balls", literally.
MrAndrewMorse 11 months ago
D'Souza with his "in India, the tears of strangers" remark goes to show it is culture and not religion that guides actions. I've witnessed "good catholics" in the military hazing the newbies just as happily as the athiest guys and I've seen the oppisite as well. The only thing that differenciates who is caring and who is not is their upbringing. Morals run much deeper than a book about fairy tales. Besides that book is full of murder and Genocide, and they're supposed to be the good guys!!!
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
6:34 LOL!
Dillingerman1 11 months ago
Woah haha this is awesome ! Bravo Souza
blopajmbar62 1 year ago
Hitchens didnt answer the last question.
goldenage 1 year ago
If christianity "invented" virtues such as compassion as D'souza claims, what institution or person invented the counterparts? where does hate and anger come from?
chinoyeclay 1 year ago
Dinesh, the tool, strikes again. Altruism is the peacock's tail---it is a way of displaying reproductive fitness by advertising that one is likely to be kind to offspring and that one has so much strength and resources that he can readily afford to lose some of them (not to mention the fact that throughout most of human history the person being given to shared many genes with the one doing the giving). It is easily answered.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
If Dinesh were right about morality not needing to be inculcated if it were evolved, couldn't somebody just as readily argue that growth is not genetic---since it too requires a particular action from the parent, the act of feeding. The parental relationship is the byproduct of evolution and the fact that organisms require parental support is no disproof of evolution, but rather it is one of its strongest evidences.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
D'Souza's claim that compassion didn't exist before Christ is pretty bold. From where does he draw this conclusion? Or is this just another one of his numerous factless suppositions?
traceurjason 1 year ago
Man D'Souza is mopping the floor with Hitchens! Love it!
BornTwyce2 1 year ago
What a disgrace that this upstart boy, D'Souza, is being presented as an intellectual authority here. These are the perks of being a corporate lapdog and licking the hands of your master.
newfoundart 1 year ago
You could write a book about all the mind-boggling somersaults in logic that Dinesh is making here and attempting to foist on to the audience. It really is extraordinary. It's like he makes a point, and then forgets it 1 second later, and then contradicts it 2 seconds later. It's ludicrous.
F33bs 1 year ago
I'm amezed, D'Souza can scape from gravity! :O
PablitoCartero 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheoJbird 1 year ago
fucking christian monkeys in the audience will clap anything.
Mister0Alexi 1 year ago
@Mister0Alexi fucking misteroalexi will comment on anything. Your simple and so was your mom last night. Tell her thanks!
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv "You're" a spastic. You didn't fuck anyone last night, virgin boy
Mister0Alexi 1 year ago
D'Souza makes me sick.
luwala23 1 year ago
@luwala23 Most simple people like yourself get sick when their brians can't process what their veiwing. Best advice for you is not to watch debates and just stick to books for kindergardener's. Hope this helps.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv
Nonsense.
luwala23 1 year ago
Fucking hell...
(a) the lack of an explanation does not prove the existence of the absent and unprovable
(b) the man who helped the Good Samaritan, er... that's the other way round, dude. And I think the point in the New Testament is don't judge outsiders because they might be more charitable than you.
whereitsat309 1 year ago
All acts of altruism are essentially selfish acts according to many philosophers, if that´s right, d`souza can shut his pie hole
yatter1 1 year ago
@yatter1
Philosophers are known for having a flair for the dramatic. ;-) I would say a statement like "Altruism is inherently selfish." is more of a personal confession than a philosophical truth.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
HAHAH charity with no return. Why would anyone donate to a church if they didn't think they were going to heaven?
spinnersmetal 1 year ago
Not enough space to refute D'Souza, however: this issue is about 'where does morality come from' and his is a religious cop out. It's a complex issue, related to evolved mechanisms, learned group norms, reputation, reciprocation, other biases and maximizing personal utility. Where do we have to throw up our hands, once again, and say 'it's God'. He makes no case, no study, no argument. Just pins it on an unvalidated deity. This is a serious pursuit, no time for cop outs.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
I am going to give props to Dinesh! I am. The man is a Brilliant debater! He must be. He is not, totally, being destroyed while having all the evidence belonging to the other side. Think about it. We KNOW that Atheism doesn't cause crimes. We know religion does. We know Evolution works, Physics works, hell we know that if I shoot you full of Oxytocin you are going to feel damn near religious. He is fighting a losing battle. Now if he'd just STOP....
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
I cant stand this guy dinesh anymore. He really fully believes that Jesus was the only one who brought the concept of compassion into world...
Why dont the Chrisitans file a patent for compassion? "compassion - original made by Christianity"
daynvattah 1 year ago
Hitchens rebuttal regarding the man from Samaria was amazing. He destroyed Dinesh's point in one fell swoop.
payn0094 1 year ago
Dinesh is a demagogic douchebag
josviegas 1 year ago
Dinesh is an amazing example of the cognitive dissonance every intelligent believer has to suffer from.
If he wouldn't have to defend his christian postition, it would be extremely obvious to him, why we are altruistic (as many other animals as well).
It was better for us to overemphasize that, than to underemphasize.
Evolution does explain, why we see faces in cars, adore everything with big eyes, and beahve altruisitc.
It's better to make a false positive error, than a false negative.
smarthandsomeguy 1 year ago
@smarthandsomeguy
You would do better to be humble on this subject.
Here's a homework assignment: Look up all the truly paradigm-shifting scientists throughout history, and do take note that the vast majority were believers. The truly great scientists believed in a higher power, almost to a person. Kepler, Galileo, Planck, Tesla, Newton...on and on and on.
Don't be stupid. Don't regurgitate atheistic propaganda. Think.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
My ideas of compassion come from believing that Jesus will never come so we only have ourselves. We don't need God to fill the gaps we don't understand. If so we would of have stopped at saying that rain was God's wrath. It's the 'wanting to understand' that has gotten us this far. Religions just halt the progress. Like Galileo and now Darwin.
Killjeser 1 year ago
Haha, Hitchens is very harsh to the guy around 7:50!
conwict7 1 year ago
Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
I wonder how morals the pedophile priests where when they raped little boys, and how moral was the pope when he transfer'd that priest from parish to parish , raping all along the way.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
Just as there is inequity after the biblical era, there was charity prior to it.
rainbowspite222 2 years ago
7:40 = ...the fuck?
rolyan3 2 years ago
to dinesh buddha does not exist. nor the good samaritan, and there was NO GOOD PERSON on earht before fear of Yahweh came along..its crap.
CityzenJane 2 years ago 5
Social evolution is what Dinesh D'souza needs to become familiar with.
It is a concept that allows the human species to further its success, because of the benefits that are accrued from the fact that humans have evolved to be social beings, requires morality just to keep this crux of evolutionary success, healthy.
Altruism helps societies stay intact. There is no need of a god to explain it.
yt2vinay 2 years ago 17
Biological evolution benefits from this social evolution, which is why it has bypassed the requirement for morality to be hard-coded.
yt2vinay 2 years ago
@yt2vinay - completely agree with you - lemme take another example , the other day i saw a video of a house dog nursing a kitty, Now is it because the handlers belong some religion that the cat and dog bonded ? do animals have religion?
smrtmn9 2 years ago
"Jesus invented this, Jesus invented that." All of D'souza's arguments are based on the assumption that Jesus was a real person and not a ficticious character invented by the drunkards that made up the New Testament some 350 years later. If I were Hitchens, I would just look him in the face and say, "There is more evidence to support the existence of extraterrestrial UFOs than Christ, and I don't believe in those either...and neither do you. This conversation is over." Then I'd get up and leave.
IDLERACER 2 years ago 5
Exactly.
God decided that he was incapable of forgiving us without a blood sacrifice. So, to protect us from himself, he sent the human version of himself to appease himself by sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself.
yt2vinay 2 years ago 9
I hope you know that by stating that Jesus of Nazareth is a mythical figure, you're in the minority, and I'm speaking of both atheist and theist scholars. There is more evidence to support the existence of Jesus than the likes of Alexander the Great and Socrates.
While I would love for UFO's to be real, there is fuck all solid evidence for it.
So grow up
Dhalsim06 2 years ago
@Dhalsim06 even if Jesus DID exist the myths surrounding him are plagiarized from religions that were around thousands of years before him. Jesus was a SOLAR MESSIAH. Look it up. His moral teachings were also inconsistent...EVEN a mythological Jesus disappointments a rational, critical and logical mind. And so what if we're in the minority...you wanna know something beautiful? The truth is truth despite how many deny it, yet lies are lies no matter how many people mistake lies for truth.
pwismyname 2 years ago 2
@pwismyname disappoints*
pwismyname 2 years ago
The religious texts reporting about Jesus is possible evidence of his existence. There were reports about the Roswell incident where ufo's are concerned.The resurection of Jesus was based on eye witness account, ufo sightings are based on eyewitness account, actually there are more people claiming to see ufos then there were people claiming to see Jesus in the resurection. So, either both are myth, one is myth, both are true. How can we claim either true and claim evidence.
rainbowspite222 2 years ago
What I am saying is that either is equally likely and what can you say to disprove that is so?
rainbowspite222 2 years ago
@Dhalsim06
There is absolutely no evidence ( NONE AT ALL ) to prove that jesus lived, you're lying.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
@adlerbr12 That's bullshit. Either you're lying or unbelievably ignorant, i don't know what's worse
Dhalsim06 1 year ago
@Dhalsim06 \
or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all
adlerbr12 1 year ago
@adlerbr12 no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical
adlerbr12 1 year ago
@adlerbr12 No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of
adlerbr12 1 year ago
@adlerbr12 just a question: what about the writings of historians such as josephus, pliny the elder, and suetonius? they have all recorded of the man we know as Jesus Christ and not all of these historians were Christians
V4ntag3p0int 1 year ago
@Dhalsim06
read a book you moron, and stop acting like a pinhead, i suggest you read ,Robert price
adlerbr12 1 year ago
D'Souza claimed that Jesus invented compassion. I'm sorry, but Buddha already pointed it out that compassion is the core of Buddhism, and this is something that Buddhists are achieving, and the source or the reason is not because to glory a God or a deity. We are our own masters. If they only knew more of Eastern philosophies, it isn't hard to debate about morality and ethics.
ServeTheHive 2 years ago 15
@ServeTheHive Your problem is that you have no evidence of that compassion being a fact of reality. Buddhists can approach Atheists in their killing fits.
yedrow 1 year ago
@ServeTheHive no buddha invented the silver standard, which is do no harm unto others. Jesus invented the golden standard, which is do good for those who do not deserve it! Which is more important glorifying life by raising th lowly up, or by keeping the evil down? Both are ideal but Jesus's message is more heart-wrenchingly powerful!
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker You have it completely wrong. Christianity is telling people to believe in Christ to be saved. Buddhism is telling each and everyone of us has the power to become enlightened and become the Buddha: you end ignorance, attachments, and stop the three poisons: hatred, greed, and delusions. It's quite methodical. I'm sorry, Christianity does not offer that. We don't keep evil down, Christians do. Church tells people "don't do this, don't do that," but it gives no permanent solution.
ServeTheHive 1 year ago
@ServeTheHive We give solutions to all problems. That's why we're the best! :D
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker Nah, all Christians do is create problems. You have a lot of things backwards.
ServeTheHive 1 year ago
@ServeTheHive Na, atheists have everything backwards. That's why they don't use logic and evidence in their arguments. Just name-calling and slanderous speech...!!!
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker (cont.) And if you haven't got a clue at the things that I have mentioned, then you should become acquainted with the Four Noble Truth and get to know the Noble Eightfold Path. Thanks a lot.
ServeTheHive 1 year ago
@ServeTheHive That's why Hitchens has pointed out that coincidentally enough
the happenings of Jesus and all that came from it, occurred in a place, Palestine,
and at a time when they were the most illiterate and non thinking people
on earth. As opposed to it happening in the Orient where people were intellectual and
could read and write. And, as you say, these core Eastern philosophies already
embodying "Christian" morality existed and came to be in their own way without Jesus.
SinceretheGhost 7 months ago
What about empathy? With empathy, seeing someone else suffer, related or not, actually causes the witness to suffer. This idea is also supported by the existence of mirror neurons.
DJWWMU 2 years ago 3
Morals derived from evolution do not soley entail the preservation of our own genes. They also entail the preservation of our species.
Claiming charity or compassion as religious virtues is one thing. Claiming them as Christian is laughable.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
Theists love an unfalisifiable argument, well here ya's go - Prove to me that compassion was not present amongst the builders of Stonehenge in 3000BC. Or those who celebrated Mungo Man in my country, Australia, in 70,000BC. Or the first to bury their dead in Krapina, 130,000 years ago.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago 2
sounds a little bit like group selection, but i could be misunderstanding you.
luketc500 2 years ago
D'souza is full of crap, all my family members donated blood after 9/11, and none of them are Christians, nor are they religious. It's was just humane to help one another.
ycsmartgirl 2 years ago 4
to say all morals come from god implies that the immorality of the "atheist" regimes also came from god or shis "satanic" creation. You cant have it both ways
ezelite 2 years ago 7
Absolutely right. I have met some true blue literalist christians who plainly state that we are in the front row seat and a participant in a cosmic battle between an omniscient, omnipotent power and, paradoxically, his own evil creation gone awry. In the end this power will judge all our souls, harshly if we listened to his cosmic counterbalance. You couldn't make this kind of thing up, or sell it in hollywood... Wait, don't tell Mel. Seriously, don't.
operationmongoose 2 years ago 2
@ezelite Correct. Dinesh is taking two contradictory positions at once. 1) God must have created us as our morality cannot have evolved through mere Darwinian evolution. 2) Humans only acquire true morality once they become Christian. "In other cultures they have no Christian compassion or morality" Uh, didn't God create them too Dinesh? Freak. Both positions are shamelessly untrue anyway.
Mister0Alexi 1 year ago
why ints not free choice is cus its info that determens your action
oneko001 2 years ago
D'Souza's really begging the question here and drawing poor conclusions. The will to be good and to do good things purely for the sake of it, is a recognition of the fact modern society is something to be protected and valued. Offering a seat to an old lady is not a Christian virtue, it's a virtue of humankind and is an empathetic action. Cognitive neuroscience has explanations for a lot of these interactions now and they are all products of nature, to say otherwise is to do nature a disservice.
athlete117 2 years ago
let's give the point to D'Souza that christian ethics/morals are basis of western society, that does not mean it has supernatural basis, it just means religion and the "morals" in religion are part of our evolutionary history, so fucking what, the real question is why do we need religion with the morals, religion is superfluous in regards to binding it with morality, and the existence of religion is no evidence of god.. just religion itself and that humans worship bullshit!
marcligon1 2 years ago
D'Souza has a very superficial understanding of the evolution of morality and altruistic behavior.
His rationale is faulty--you can be taught morals therefore a Darwinian argument is moot. This is flat wrong--you are taught LANGUAGE, therefore any Darwinian explanation for language and its origins is wrong?
The problem is that you cannot discredit years of robust theory and research with a faulty comment likt that, and yet it's taken as correct and the debate moves on.
Neanderthalcouzin 2 years ago 2
I can't believe people go for the no god = no morality argument. Do people insulting themselves, or are they so ignorant that they don't understand that they are being insulted.
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago 3
he talks for 2 mins and all i get is
the fact: Christ invented morals: you're ungrateful historically
Rubbish and people woop that crap
youjutsusha 2 years ago
Theres a reason we have black people, but we also have white, and many other people. All the species of flowers, trees, fish, birds, everything, are all elements of Evolution at work. Deny it til the cows come home, it just shows more of your deliberate ignorance and willingness to remain dumb toward reality. Morals are a consequence of Christianity, Im still laughing my ass off on that one! Go take some science, and switch ur brain on for a few weeks, see how it feels.
vedder530 2 years ago
Hitchens avoids the question posed by the man from Toga.. Simply because he has no answer. No God: morality does not exist.
Jesuslily 2 years ago
really, so you'd be out stealing and raping and killing if it werent for the idea of being punished by a sky fairy after u die? Morality exists because of our darwinian roots by which if we were immoral to each other all the time, we would not have survived..... people being moral doesnt for a second prove a gods existance, nice try though.
vedder530 2 years ago
Why speak about rape... lets talk about killing millions in abortion so we can live out our freedom as sexual beings. Or the objectification taking place in porn.. modern western soceity is steeped in deprivation and perversion. You dont even see it, because you think you are merely an evolved monkey.. D'Souza wins the debate. Deal with it ;)
Jesuslily 2 years ago
um, WE are evolved from a common ancestor between APE and modern man, not monkeys..... but Im sure as a well educated person, you already know that. Religion is anything but moral, and we in no way derive our morals from it. In fact our best hypothesis' of human moralty once again point to our Darwinian beginnings. But again, as a well educated person, you knew that right??
vedder530 2 years ago
Your morals and civilised way of thinking is a consequence of Christianity. But as a well educated person, you already realise that right? Darwinism is a theory. If you are well educated you also realise that, even though professors who mention the possiblity of intelligent design are fired in America.. that land of freedom. hurray.
Jesuslily 2 years ago
Um no, AGAIN. Morals have zero to do with ur stupid religion, and thank "god" they dont. I think enough blood has been shed for what christanity has brought . Yes, I am educated, and for that your moronic assertions fail 100%. You have not studied enough to know what ur talking about. Anyone who says "just a theory", needs to step one: LOOK UP WHAT A SCIENTIFC THEORY IS. theres a reason its so accepted, its fact, based on DATA. ur "intelligent design" BS, is still left with zip to show for it!
vedder530 2 years ago
Woah, christ created compassion? What happened to "do unto others as you would want done unto you"
JohnGaltAlias 2 years ago
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago
oooooooooooooooooooo ya hitchens schooled that little bitch douchesouza.
that was awesome. go hitch.
hamerexploreremd 2 years ago
I love how D'Souza says "Christianity did not exist at the time!" at 03:59, completely missing the point. What an idiot.
GambitX37 2 years ago
That's priceless.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Dinesh is correct in saying that altruism doesn't really have an evolutionary explanation. However, there are PLENTY of psychological ones.
AndrewFranzke7 2 years ago
So according to Dinesh, compassion didn't exist in Japan till around the 1400s, when they opened borders and finally allowed missionaries and other foreigners into the country.
Obviously they were all psycopaths and/or sociopaths before they ever heard of Jesus, which is exactly how they had an over thousand year old society before they ever heard of the idea.
How anyone takes this man seriously, let alone clap to his arguments, is beyond me.
kaeBR 2 years ago
wow........americans are fucking idiots.
unchie979 2 years ago
Did Dinesh actually just claim that Jesus "invented compassion?"
Someone should have let him know...no, Jesus did not invent compassion or "true feeling for the other guy." Nor did Buddha BEFORE Jesus was supposed to have existed.
Dinesh could be informed by anyone with at least a highschool level background in biology that this is simply a fundamental and instinctive mammalian trait...even one observable in some non-mammals.
Gonzo707 2 years ago
Oh good, we have a doctorate in ethology here with us on the Internet: Gonzo707!
You see an elephant with her young crossing a rapid river and the young falls behind. The mother will wait and encourage the young onward, but will never go back to save its child simply because, logically, it would be a waste of calories to retrace its steps.
The word you were looking for is "maternal instincts". THAT is fundamental to mammals. COMPASSION is a very odd phenomenon strictly found in HUMANS.
ibepresodent 2 years ago
Oh good, we have a pretentious jackass here with us on the internet shooting their mouth off when they dont know what theyre talking about:
ibepresodent!
Look up "compassion" in the dictionary you moron. No, humans are not the only mammals to show compassion, and no Im not just talking about maternal instinct.
And do some actual reading about animals and their behavior before you declare what a certain species will and will not ever do.
No youre right, Jesus invented compassion!
Gonzo707 2 years ago
oh please. I do not understand how it could be so difficult to understand hitchens' argument that human compassion and propensity toward caring for other human beings is innate in us as a species. Look at any species of animal on earth. For the sake of survival, all of them display a natural instinct for protecting and looking after other species' members, namely offspring and family.
FatherofMan25 2 years ago
And looking at other cultures, what about the countries in Europe which are almost entirely secular, do citizens of those countries just run around killing and raping each other because they haven't been taught not to by the Bible? lol. The US has the highest rate of gun violence and one of the highest crime rates on earth. I don't know, I just think it's total bull sht, this religious propaganda from people like D'Souza which tries to tell people that atheists are militant, violent people.
FatherofMan25 2 years ago
D'Souza presents a pretty ethnocentric view by insinuating that Hitchens should feel indebted to Christianity for compassion. By doing this he only analyzes western cultural traditions. The truth is Compassion is one of the most important three virtues of someone's character (DAYA), compassion is also something that is introduced yet contradicted (just as it is in christianity) repeatedly. What is less compassionate than eternal damnation, left to wither and die in the fires of hell. NOTHING
pmentslenchanted 2 years ago
It does count for morality. Social animals have the rules (morals) that govern that group that arrose through years of weeding out those that did not follow. Those that do not follow the rules set by the social group, are exiled, killed, or at least punished.
Onodera1980 2 years ago
/Applause for D'Souza hes the first Christian i have ever scene that actually understands evolution how ever the basicness of it. Makes his position a lot more respectable then that of most other christians.
fearthepib 2 years ago
who, for the name of crumb-cake, is clapping Dinesh in this debate. He's rubbish. He gives the impression of someone who has no flavour for true debate but just throws the christians in the crowd a bone. I'm guessing they just have more practice clapping in their death cults than the more educated people in the audience
blueeyedhandsomeman 2 years ago
Christianity takes all its good stuff from Buddhism, which came around five-hundred years before.
whimsicaljoss 2 years ago
Comment removed
whimsicaljoss 2 years ago
To Dinesh - a fossil found of a old hominidae around a hundred years ago, was being taken care off...
now im sure jesus wasn't around a hundred years ago...
Im sorry, i forgot where i read that... i cant remember my sources.
Nades129 2 years ago
You mean 100 thousand years ago a woman was being nursed back to health after her bones were broken. Jesus wasn't around to tell whoever was nursing her to be good to your neighbor.
percymate 2 years ago
yeah... damn, forgot to make it a thousand... lol i sound like a moron...
Nades129 2 years ago
Chimps and other non human animals have been recorded showing great morality with out the teaching of Christianity. Chimps have died trying to save others from drowning.
Where did they get their morality from?
Its a question that science can't fully answer but, that does not mean morality is a gift from god.
valencehigh 2 years ago
Dinesh's argument for free will is extremely simplistic. With our current understanding of neuroscience, he should be ashamed.
pizzaman883 2 years ago
oh my GOD!! exactly what i would say after i slapped Dinesh's face
Nades129 2 years ago
And Hitchens doesn't nail him for this either. In fact, none of the atheists I've read will even touch on free will (well, Sam Harris did in a footnote), even Dan Dennett who has written books about it. Dennett wouldn't nail him when he made the same stupid claim in the Tufts debate. D'Souza simply asserts that his decision to drop the pen is somehow not determined by physics, thinking it doesn't even require an explanation why. I very much doubt he understands the concept of emergence.
Unavailablehandle 2 years ago
So according to D'Souza, if you cant explain something, you cop out using "God" as the explanation. So next time i have a college exam, if i don't know the answer, i will just say "god did it," as my answer. Also, there were moral standards brought upon by other religions, why does Christianity get the credit?
chrisinsocalif 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins never said there was no explanation for altruism in humans. In fact, he said that it was an evolutionary trait because in prehistoric times nearly anyone man had met would have been a close relative or friend. Now that we've got in big cities were most people you'd meet are complete strangers but the trait still remains.
meinsla 2 years ago
The idea that christianity invented compassion is not only absolut nonsense it is extremely rascist. What a fucking moron that christian guy is from start to finish.
durrutti 2 years ago 2
1:48
That's exactly why you do it!
You hope that she will like you more, ergo will be more like to be kind to you.
In our natural state, you WOULD see her tomorrow, so your brain ASSUMES you will.
Fucking hell, these two are clowns. So many points are being missed!
molewizard 2 years ago
Where do creationist/christians have the feeling that Humans are the only creature with morality. I dont talk Monkey, or Chimp how do they ???
O....... Yes through Jesus
Tmack1015 2 years ago
Dinesh says that Christ created the culture of empathy and compassion. As an Indian, Dinesh knows thats not true--- Buddha preached many of those things more than 500 years before Jesus was born, and Buddha was clearly not a theist.
jimmyjones05 2 years ago
That's one of the things I like least about Dinesh. He makes claims that he either does or should know are false and then gambles on the chance that the audience does not have any better knowledge to call his bluff. Gambling is supposed to be a sin isn't it?
Gazzar 2 years ago
Gambling's one of the pretend sins like drinking, smoking, dancing, saying certain swear words. Jesus got outraged that they gambled in a temple, but I think that was more about the misuse of the temple than the gambling itself.
The 'sin' he's guilty of in that case is bearing false witness, which I guess you could say deceptive gambling is an extension of.
What got me is Hitchens pointing out the Good Samaritan predating Christ, then D'Souza mistakenly retreading the idea from 5:00 on.
kreskinkun 2 years ago
Wow Hitchens point about the good Samaritan not being religious is a very good argument
safetheory 2 years ago
Did anyone notice: Dinesh insists we have absorbed the lessons of Christianity by virtue of our having been raised in a Christian culture, but earlier rejected Hitchens claim that Christianity served as the stylistic template for early twentieth century totalitarianism by a presumably indistinguishable set of mechanisms for the reproduction of culture.
bertinotti 2 years ago 3
...Conciousness is not a thing. It's an event.
LordOmberus 2 years ago
I can't stand a person who never gets around to asking the question, or making the point they need to make, because they spend 90 percent of the time trying to formulate groundwork for the question they are going to ask, that is unnecessarily complicated. Just ask the question, and then after the speaker gives his answer, you can commence with qualifying remarks or clarification of the original question.
alphacause 2 years ago
I think Hitchens had said at their most recenet debate, "There's always one", referring to some guy who goes on a long diatribe without a question. Watching past Hitchens debates, it's freaky how right he is. It makes me uneasy listening to these guys, knowing they're gonna get hammered.
jamianm 2 years ago
The guy at 7:00 made me cringe. Just fuck off mate, no-one cares.
lonerook860 2 years ago 4
Dinesh nails him at 3:00 and then again at 5:30.
Hitchen is the best debater of all time in my mind and I love him he is wicked smart, but he doesn't know theology nor care to learn it
billyboy630 2 years ago
I can't stand Dinesh, he's a snake oil salesman with an arsenal of crowd-pleasing rhetoric.
lonerook860 2 years ago 2
he is also a douche
Foothead1 2 years ago 4
small correction of your comment Foothead1, he is also a BIG douche
spaceboy1250 2 years ago
i also like that he says we're like animals because there is a natural law we have to obey, rather than saying we're like animals because we ARE animals, and are directly and indirectly related to every other species
iamjurell 3 years ago
5:24 "Old indian proverb that 'tears of strangers are only water"...smh.
it's an old Russian proverb, Dinesh.
gmn545 3 years ago
More D'Souza red herrings. Morality is explained by evolution by rephrasing the question to make it more meaningful.
The real question is "Why doesn't psychopathic behaviour spread throughout society?". Because such behaviour breaks social cohesion and reduces survival. So on balance, "bad" people had fewer surviving offspring than "good" people. So "morality" spread through the population.
It really is as simple as that. Religious people make everything so complicated for themselves!
BoneySkylord 3 years ago 3
6:00 Bullshit!!!
"Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little." Gautama Siddharta 563-483 B.C
Compassion a christian trademark, of course!!!
jotatsu 3 years ago 4
What does atheism offer "us"? What a moron. That is the 'stinkin' thinkin' of the religious people. They adhere to the church FOR comfort.BECAUSE they "offer" that peace of mind.
.....Pathetic. They need to grow a brain.
kalliemist 3 years ago 5
What does atheism offer "us"?
As William Wallace said...."Freeeeeeeedom!"
chrisinsocalif 2 years ago 2
Cue slow-mo camera and dramatic music.
pizzaman883 2 years ago
Face it.. he made perfect examples.
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
Dinesh accuses Hitchens of being parasitical with respect to generosity deriving from Christian culture; yet earlier in the debate said that atheism cannot attribute totalitarian atrocities to the Christian underpinnings of the societies in which they emerge.
bertinotti 3 years ago
Couldnt you say in more ways than one that morality was born out of selfishness or defense? I mean what does helping others do, it makes you feel good about tyourself, which is a selfish feeling, it makes you feel good and moral and above other people, and here is another, morality-people being nice to each other instead of vicious and unforgiving, couldn't that just a defense mechanism for the weak? I think so, survival, which means it is an evolutionary trait and not divine.
chrissup19 3 years ago
So after we developed a more evolved brain, we developed a intellectual way of survival instead of a more physical type of survival, which we still do anyway because we aren't evolved enough, were imperfect, but war and death is used more for power and not survival, which power brings us back to where we started, alpha male, the top dog, the survival of the fittest and screw the weak, its all the same, we just have different methods, thats why we have technology and things like that.
chrissup19 3 years ago
I have thought of the first reason myself and I think it is certainly an explanation. I think it would only account for part of it's origin though. Look into Kinship, if you want to know where I think another part of it is from. And the second point is new to me, and does make a lot of sense, I doubt in all situations, but it is definitely thought-provoking.
KonijNx2 3 years ago
Well thank you for your opinion, glad to see someone else has pondered the idea.
chrissup19 3 years ago
7:15 dood, WTF is he talking about?
Badboyblue3 3 years ago
i would say that it was just another self important verbal diarrhea from one who mistakes himself for someone who is actually intelligent :p
earthypig 3 years ago
Probably, he failed at asking an intelligent question. He was GTFO'd by the mic guy too, man that was dumb.
Badboyblue3 3 years ago
Even if D'Souza were correct and there were no evolutionary benefit to morality, the thing that he's using to fill the metaphorical moral gap (god) is no answer at all.
telboy1966manu 3 years ago 2
6:40
what a fucking dumbass lmao
WKaliber1 3 years ago 2
"what a fucking dumbass lmao" -
Incoherent dumbass at that.
luerwulf 3 years ago
actually, Jehovah's witnesses(with millions of followers across the world- so its not a small sect) PROHIBIT from giving or receiving blood based solely on the fundamental teachings of the Bible which claims purity of blood is sacred
1-0 to me Mr.D'Souza
WKaliber1 3 years ago 2
"The tears of strangers are only water" appears to be a Russian proverb; not Indian, nor, as Dinesh claims in his book, Chinese.
davidumpteen 3 years ago
good lord these stupid people ask the most rediculous questions that are really not questions but big complicated statements so they maybe will look smart in front of a guy like Hitchens and feel good about themselves? It's painful to listen to.
weversonman 3 years ago
the term "good Samaritan" isn't found any where in the Bible. There is a story of the Samaritan that goes out of his way to help but the concept of that moral action is accepted as good... but there's no bible verse that states "the Good Samaritan came over" You won't find it so you can't just assume that the Samaritan is good but that his action was a very nice gesture... If I do something nice doesn't mean I'm just automatically a nice person, we build on the actions that makes us who we are.
WreckaNice 3 years ago
A lot of people like you mistake the bible for a legal document or historical document, or almanac or whatever bogus stipulations you try to attach to it. He is referred to as good for his action in the story. Dont try to stretch this out into some other b/s story about the samaritan abusing drugs and not paying child support or something else!
Leave it at the helping others, thats what D'souza refers to and he never claims otherwise.
karamarouge 3 years ago