Hitchens is a genius. Dinesh D'Souza is a formidable debater (for example he gave a good challenge to Dennett) but Hitchens is so amazing that he makes him seem third rate by comparison.
Holy shit....D'Souza absolutely slaughters any shred of legitimacy he may have had here, when he talks about the speed of light possibly being different on another star...he has no idea what he's talking about...he needs to read up on some basic physics...the stupid is strong with this one...
@Sizerian ...he doesn't claim that light does travel at a different rate, only that we can't know it doesn't. Simple misunderstanding, nbd. Nice star wars ref though jajaja
@soJAWSome We can know as certainly as we can know any non-purely mathematical concept. Einstein solidified the knowledge that there was in fact a universal light speed limit with his theories of relativity. Space may inflate at different rates, but light travels at a consistent speed.
@Sizerian I think you're still missing the point, just slightly: we can't know such practical concepts with certainty; empirical evidence can increase our confidence, but it won't yield certainty. In the end, I think D'Souza is making the point that while faith is mocked by Hitchens, even Hitchens has faith in these natural laws, like we all do. It may be Christians who really understand the uncertainty of the universe: for this is precisely why there is a need for faith. (also @kokopelli314)
@soJAWSome But faith is the active belief in something without evidence. It fails to be faith with the presence of that evidence. Scrutinized and tested scientific theories are not faith based because they can be backed up. We cannot have 100 percent absolute certainty of anything unless it is provable thru mathematics or strong logic...but we can have a near certainty of a lot of things...gravity, atomics, the relationship between the natural forces and the like....and
@soJAWSome the light constant. In fact, relativity proves the light constant as a universal in spacial relationships, though not necessarily in time relationships. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion. What difference we see in distant observations is known to be flux due to gravity, and inflationary expansion, NOT Light speed variability.
The cheapest last-ditch attempt by D'Souza: Attacking someone's motives. He can't answer Hitchen's arguments. D'Souza is so stupid I don't even feel threatened enough by him to be angered by his stupidity.
Prove it... If this Christian story is a lie. Then it is the greatest conspiracy on earth. Like the many who haven't believed before and now do... Study the evidence and facts. Only in the WESTERN culture we live in today is the question asked is there a GOD. What a joke.... This type of question where all the evidence took place in the EAST never have those questions. WHY you ask is because they understand the truth of and Muslims convert to Christianity daily.
@rhodge1906 The burden of proof is not his, it's yours. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... and your side has thus far produced NONE.
The appeal to widespread belief never strengthens one's argument.
The number of people who believe something does not necessarily correlate to its truth. The majority used to think slavery was OK. The majority used to believe that the world was flat.
What a poorly constructed rebuttle on D'Souza's part. He entirely misses the point that christopher makes about heaven and hell and its immoral and terrifying promises and implications.
@Vagnigun "Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and cull the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun."
One last thing, the bible is not proof of God, it's God's revelation to humankind. The New Testiment was not created in response to prove the credibility of Christ but into response to the early chruch's and their early debates over what Christ said, wanted, and ment.
@Jmsadv "into response to the early chruch's and their early debates over what Christ said, wanted, and ment."
I really don't understand what you "ment" with this sentence. If you're saying the church fabricated much of the NT, well, don't let me dissuade you (we agree). I doubt this is what you mean, so I'll just wait and see if you reword it in a future response.
"If scientific laws admit of the possibility of exception, miracles are possible"
I don't know what's more ironic, his utter lack of evidence for this hand-waving about a "possibility of an exception"(immediately after berating Hitchens for not providing evidence for his statements),or his use of Hume to justify the possibility of a miracle.
Moreover, if these laws NATURALLY admit of exception, then the exception(s) are not miracles, merely products a less harmonious natural order.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to steer me in the right direction? I don't particularly enjoy being mistaken, and I would appreciate any correction on offer.
Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and Dawkins pulled the straight razor of logic from one ear to the other on religion. It now comes to the internet to flail and flop as it bleeds out in death throes.Like a vampire in the sun it dissolves to dust under the brilliance of the beam of logic and reason. Religion attracts the failed, the fallen, the weak of my species. It is a fantastic dividing marker for who is human and who is just religious.Dont ignore this important division, its there for a reason.
@699backstab Amazing how the foundation of science was built on such weak, the failed, and the fallen according to you. When I read your comments I just laugh. It's also interesting how atheist and agnostics have more to say about God then alot of christians. Spend the rest of your life attacking something that doesn't exist, just don't expect me to take you seriously.
@Jmsadv Not only do we have more to say, but according to a recent study, we actually know more about religions than the religious.
Atheists aren't attacking something that "doesn't exist", we're attacking something that persists in existing (religion), even though it's claims continue to be unjustified and detrimental to societal cohesion. The three Abrahamic faiths, in particular, offer glaring examples of just how divisive and dangerous these sorts of irrational belief system can be.
@Reerrpad5515 The very core of my religion (christinity) is my personal relationship with God. So Mr. agnostic since their are studys out their saying you know more about this then the mere chrisitian. What do you know about this?
Do you really think if the bible didn't exist then the belief in God would dissapear? It's kind of like saying when someone's partner dies that person forgets what love is or if it exist. Religion at is core are personal experiences.
@Jmsadv Your comment was making a general claim about atheists/agnostics, and I was replying in kind with a study which generalizes the knowledge base of different ideological backgrounds. Your personal relationship with an invisible friend is not anything I would be interested in weighing in on.
No, I don't think the bible is especially credible as a source of irrationality, though it does it's best with what it has. I like your analogy, but it breaks down when love is compared to religion.
@Reerrpad5515 Personal experiences are just that, Personal. I can no more prove to you that I love my dad then my personal experiences with God. If the success of chirstinity was mainly on the existence of the Bible then it would have never lasted much longer after the first Christians were killed. The bible is great for record keeping but can't compare to people's personal experiences.
@Reerrpad5515 It's true that non belivers have alot to say about the bible but without a personal realationship then the bible is just greek to the non beliver. Imagine writing a book about colors and reading it to a person born blind. Sure the blind person would have alot to say about colors but without the personal experiences, that blind person would be so far from the truth of what the expereince of seeing colors is like. I hope this anology helps.
@Jmsadv "without a personal realationship then the bible is just greek to the non beliver."
Every time a child stops believing in magic, a fairy loses her wings. If you don't really believe in the power of chakras, you cannot tap into their powers. If you don't believe in my imaginary friend Rob, you'll never see him.
See the problem with this type of argument? You KNOW it's a horrid argument, but you believe it anyway. Thats the danger: it's rarely just fairy wings at stake.
@1971eugenio2 Shut up, ignorant! Great that you can troll in youtube in two different languages. But I can do it too! -.- Go fuck yourself in hell, idiot. Or, just go get a life.
@shifterules Its irritation is not reasonable, does not know because all the ones that do not believe God start to say vile words when they are confronted
Dinesh is better here... "presumption with faith, when in truth they are not at all the same thing." ??? But FAITH is needed for every scientific surveys!!! Popper... FAITH, BELIEF...
Science is not an assumption, but it is based upon certain assumptions. If the universe is ultimately unintelligible then science is hogwash. So you must assume, before you can begin scientific inquiry, that the universe is intelligible.
And Dinesh, you wily weasel, what choice did the unborn dead, the spontaneously aborted, and the infant-dead have, with regard to siding themselves for or against your mythological god?
@Jmsadv He does not have to prove that god does not exist. It is the responsibility of the person making a positive assertation to prove that the assertation is true, thus it is d'souza's responsibility to prove to everyone that god exists and unless he can, it is reasonable and logical for Christopher to believe that god does not exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Dinesh has none. You have to think rationally, from what we know. Not pretend we know things we don't.
@Jmsadv Would be great if you actually answered the question than just using your "why are you so simple" line. I've seen you say that to a couple of people. Do you just like being confrontational? and stop being vague...what don't I understand? you're not writing anything of value, just snidey one liners...clearly, you can't hold a conversation because you haven't got a worthy argument.
That's not religion. That's geopolitics and economic dominion. Surely you're not so stupid as to believe:
A - That we actually went to the moon.
B - That a man in a cave promised a bunch of Arabs they would have 72 virgins if they flew planes (that they were incapable of flying first and foremost) into buildings. Plus, seven of the supposed hijackers are alive and well. The only thing 9/11 had to do with religion was expoiting peoples' prejudices to sell a war.
@TheDreamMechanic hahaha. conspiracy nut huh? okay, we didnt go to the moon and 911 was an inside job??? omg get fucking real. dont watch just loose change and a conspiracy s how on history channel and then call other more intellegent and rational people stupid please. tell the families of the people that died in those plane crashes that it was a conspiracy.
Regurgitate sensationalism, do we? It just so happens that there are many pending court cases BY the families themselves against our own government regarding its obvious complicity in those tragic events. All sensationalism and propaganda aside, steel buildings do not collapse because of fire, and they certainly don't collapse at freefall speed.
Also, the computer technology on the lunar spacecraft is equivalent to that in your average iPod. IPods are cool, but not that cool.
@TheDreamMechanic our political system cannot keep secrets, thats why when politicians get out of politics that write tell all books. the pure amount of peole that would have to be involved in creating 911 is enormous and someone would of said something you fool. your theory is so silly and infantile. You people are so gullible.
Can't keep secrets, huh? Are you really saying our government is an open book? The whole THING is a scam. Are you aware that there is no law on the books permitting our income tax? Are you aware that your birth certificate is the equivalent of a warehouse receipt; as our government offered its citizens as collateral due to its own bankruptcy? Are you aware that all of our high level politicians are well aware of this?
Surely you don't believe the government's take on 9/11.
@TheDreamMechanic you cant fathom that we actually got attacked by religious fanatics driven to kill by a literal interpretation of there stupid book? of course not thats too real, so you people have to make sense of things, so you create retarded bullshit that lacks all critical thinkin skill. you want to blame the government or whoever but by doing that u endanger us all, cuz religious fanatics did it and they will do it again. but im sure it will be another inside job right?
That makes it nice and easy, doesn't it? Blame religion. The only part religion played in 9/11 was the exploitation of religious prejudices to sell an unjustifiable war. Are religious fanatics ruining our economy? Are religious fanatics passing legislation that ships our jobs overseas? Are religious fanatics deliberately ruining the value of our currency?
Get a clue, asshat. And be more prolific in your syntax if you're going to debate the likes of me.
Really D'Souza? Really? In a debate where the speaker has limited time, you need Hitchens to explain all the evidence against religion? You are a sad individual.
Maybe so, but SOME evidence would be nice. Not just hotheaded windbaggery. This is the irony of these atheistic debators. These are supposed champions of evidence, yet they provide zero. Zilch. Nada. And the overwhelming irony is that their postitions are ultimately predicated upon faith (albeit of a different sort), the very cornerstone of their collective argument. For instance, if evolution is true, provide a slideshow of transitional fossils. The case would be closed.
Oh hey, guess what, Dinesh uses scripture to back up his claim! 'When the Bible says salvation is the gift OF god...' I love it as well, how Christians nit pick on certain little words and ephesize certain little bits, and try to convince you that THIS is what it really means. Well, as far as I can tell, what the Bible says, no matter how you read it, state pure and utter nonsense.
When you boil it down, Hitchens is just angry at his dad. The only reason people have any interest in hearing him talk is his British accent. Good luck claiming to defeat Dinesh in a debate. Real intellectuals know better.
He is also acutely self loathing. ;-) A bit of irony; the atheists that champion him as some sort of guru never seem to notice a very basic function in human psychology, namely: we project our inner world onto others. Hitchens is ate up with hate, animosity....you name it, he's ate up with it. A learned man of obvious syntactical resources, but that's about it. He's an opportunist windbag sensationalist, hence a book title like "God is Not Great."
@TheDreamMechanic I don't sense hate and animosity coming from Hitchens, just reason and logic. He destroys D'Souza and religion in this debate and he doesn't even need evidence, just simple common sense.
You don't sense hate and animosity coming from Hitchens? He's been quoted numerous times saying ominous things such as "If you don't consider me an enemy, you have no idea what an enemy is." He is FILLED with it.
And no, he didn't destroy D'Souza in this debate. If he were to have destroyed him, he wouldn't have been red faced and stuttering the majority of the second half of the debate. Give credit where credit is due. You may not agree with Dinesh, but he can debate.
@TheDreamMechanic Well I've not heard him say that and quotes like that are useless out of context. I don't rate D'Souza at all, he offers very little support for his own argument and instead decides to attack science and say stupid things like "Einstein was a deist" - Hitchens outclasses him all the way in my opinion, but that's just me
That quote isn't out of context; it's a direct quote from one of his online debates. Also, D'Souza does not attack science. That's a ridiculous issue to take. He is obviously well versed in science, cites science, confirms science...just because you don't agree with his viewpoint doesn't mean he's attacking you. And calling Einstein a deist isn't attacking science either. Einstein is quoted numerous times exploring the idea of "God"...one even he couldn't wrap his mind around.
@TheDreamMechanic Either way it is clearly a flippant remark made by Hitchens, it's hardly a big deal? D'Souza's main position is that science and atheism don't have a good enough explanation for the origin of life and so religion and christianity must therefore be true. It's a ridiculous argument on his part and one that carries very little weight. Hitchens has many valid points and assertions that makes his position much stronger so in my eyes he won the debate.
Aren't you being just a tad biased? You have misrepresented D'Souza's obvious and repeated position that he DOESN'T know...but from what he has come to experience, he thinks there is a Creator. He admits to not KNOWING. The arrogance is on the part of the atheists, particularly Dawkins and Hitchens...both windbags, respectively. If you'll note, the name calling, insulting, condescension...ALL come from the atheistic debators. It's lame; and appeals to the childlike of mind.
@TheDreamMechanic I fail to see how I am being biased but that's your opinion. If D'Souzas core religious belief is based entirely upon NOT knowing, then his belief is a particularly poor and frankly stupid one. Personally I think one should be thoroughly sure that one's beliefs are completely true and correct, otherwise they are not beliefs at all they are just wishful thinking. It seems to me to be far more infantile to believe in something for which there is NO proof.
Of course you do. It's a typical phenomenon among atheists and religious freaks alike. Dinesh D'Souza is many things, but stupid is not one of them. He for damn sure doesn't have all the answers; but he is humble enough to admit he doesn't KNOW how the universe came into being. That's good, because NO ONE knows. Not you, Hitchens, Dawkins...NO ONE. And if you have a belief on that subject, it IS an article of faith, because there isn't one iota of "factual" information.
@TheDreamMechanic Neither Hitchens or Dawkins claim to know how the universe was created. The main claim that atheists ever make is that they believe there to be no God because there is no evidence, just because they have conviction in their beliefs does not make them arrogant. We'll have to agree to disagree on D'Souza but as I'm guessing you're not a "religious freak" as you put it then we'd probably see eye to eye on many of the issues in this debate - I simply favour Hitchens
Nope. Not a religious freak here, brother man. I think the key in this argument is to get past all the name calling, intellectual condescension, and actually have an open minded debate. Its implications are vast, as I'm sure you know. Sounds like you and I are getting there! ;-)
@TheDreamMechanic Hitchens can indeed be very condescending and at times quite rude but for some reason I always find him rather humorous due to his charming way of phrasing things.
The whole debate is fascinating to me and whilst I personally would never carry a belief of any kind concerning a creator, after listening to many of these sessions I find myself agreeing with the majority of Hitchens' points - but again that's just me. Open mindedness is certainly the way forward here
@fallenkingdan Don't give up on him that easily... he just claimed that Dinesh is the one that doesn't 'know', but he definitely does, ie God Did It. Moreover the majority of atheists are the first to state they don't know why the universe is such and such. He just spewed a complete reverse fallacy of reality. :)
@adknerr I don't think anyone can possibly say why the universe was created and I don't think anyone could or even should. To find out 'why' the universe is the way it is would take all the wonder and majesty out of it - I don't want to know why and it simply doesn't matter anyway. What would we do different if we suddenly found out why the universe was created, it's an exercise in impossible and ridiculous pondering
And you just spewed a complete reversal of what Dinesh actually said. He has said - in every debate I've seen him in, not just this one, and uses it as case and point - that he does NOT know...but things such as the mass of the proton has to be exactly what it is, the graviational force, the strong and weak forces, the impossibly fine tuneness kind of thing...that looks to him like it was created by intelligence. Sorry. It's not so simple as "God did it."
@TheDreamMechanic No, I'm sorry, but Dinesh is clearly a creationist and refers all unknowns to a mysterious god instead of saying 'science doesn't quite know yet'. He constantly relies on his faith instead of reason when supporting his arguments, and yes I've watched every debate on youtube between him and Hitch... it's always the same broken, wrong, and embarrassing record with him.
if i spend the night in 'haunted' house and think i see ghosts and then tell my friend the next day and he doesnt believe. the burden of proof is on me to prove that there were ghosts, not on him to prove that there werent. if dinesh cannot grasp the most basic concept that you are never called upon to prove a negative then i dont know how he can be considered remotely intelligent by anyone. also dinesh, atheism isnt a belief rather it is the absence of a belief... embarrassing.
Laws of nature don't change, we just expand our knowledge to understand their full dimensions and constraints.Tha's it. If we find the speed of light, or gravity, etc, can have different limitations,than that isn't that a natural law is 'suspended' it means we didnt previously understand that law. Suspending natural law is nonsensical and a semantic ploy:if a given law alters or changes, that is a natural law in itself. Supernatural doesn't exist,only the natural as more than we yet comprehend.
I would ask Mr D'Souza to name 1 instance when the speed of light, in a vacuum, changes. Prove it isn't a content. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Atheists don't claim God DOESN'T exist. They say "You say he does....show me the proof"
this guy is either stupid or uneducated as is anybody who takes one atheist and generalizes atheists based on that one atheist. He doesn't understand Hichins's view at all. Hitchins doesn't hate the values that jesus spread. He hates the concept of a god. There is a large difference but this guy tries to misrepresent Hitchins's point of view to make him seem evil.
It's funny how Dinesh uses science to back up his arguments like the fine-tuning universe argument and at the same discredit science when he appeals David Hume saying light may not travel at the same speed constantly as presumed by science
Severly autistic and mentally ill aren't able to chose to accept or reject your god. Where do they stand in the afterlife then. Hell by default or is there some kind of purgatory for them. Please susbtantiate your answer with bible verse if you can.
That's a terrific argument from silence. Because the Bible doesn't speak of Jesus being breast fed as a baby, we can assume Mary had no breasts. Thanks for playing.
We do not know, wedo practice some guessing with science, defined as theory. But we also produce results, hence the vaccines you received as children and the computer you are using to broadcast this on. There's your evidence.
Hitch is a nice guy. Seriously deluded and lacking critical thought but basically harmless. He is the acceptable face of modern Athiesm. However, in the same country the USA there are fundamentalist thiest extremists who make the Taliban look tame by comparison. Sadly we cant have one without the other.
It is time to rid ourselves of all forms of Atheist belief.
I've watch far too many of these debates and I've noticed at least three huge trends in the religious argument:
1. The theist will not provide evidence for god. He will not even attempt to provide evidence for God, and rarely will he provide even false evidence.
2. The theist will combat any moral claims the atheists makes by asking where he gets the basis for morality, but the theist will never actually address the point.
3. The atheists refrain from pulling out the studies, which sucks.
I've had the same thoughts as you. I can't figure out why the theists are unable to grasp the atheistic arguments; I don't know if this is a problem of arrogance, ignorance or simply stupidity from the theistic side. It's true what Hemingway said that "Every thinking human being is an atheist"
Actually old Hitch has said in a interview that Dinesh is one of the few who understands him. Hitch hates Jesus said Dinesh and Hitch did not refute this so how far off is Dinesh on Hitch?
It should be mentioned though that Hitchens is one of the most "radical" atheists today, he even calls himself an anti-theist. And I never said that Dinesh was stupid or ignorant, but he's at least arrogant, when he in one debate after the other keeps bringing up the same old questions that have been refuted time and time again.
What questions are Dinesh dead wrong about? Dinesh has never said that he has absoulte evidence that God exist. Dinesh does offer evidence to support Jesus and a Supernatural cause to the Universe. Agian neither side has absoulte evidence for or against God, So why the name calling? Does anyone here still belive that Man-Made Global Warming is 100% true. Wheres the doubt on this claim?
I never said "dead wrong", but the thing is that he does twist facts and evidence and historical facts to say what he wants them to say. For example when he keeps bringing up these "atheistic regimes" like nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia to somehow say (or at least imply) that "atheists are evil"
The existence or non-existence of God is ultimately a metaphysical question. That Hitchens, or Hemingway, thinks Christianity is evil, or its supporters stupid, is irrelevant.
D'Souza admits that the speed of light in a vacuum has never been shown to vary and yet he says science accepts, as "faith", the invariability of light to change speed in a vacuum.
He has never been able to demonstrate that any miracle has ever occurred, yet he believes they did. All he has is unverifiable stories written by "who the hell knows". THAT is the epitome of "faith"
And then he has the balls to try to equate the two.
We absolutely do know that the speed of light is the same everywhere and in all media. Not because we have measured it in all corners of the universe, for this would be impossible, but because we've made so many other discoveries based on this simple assumption - and they work. Don't let it be said that we aren't sure that the speed of light is a constant or that some day, you might let go of an object and it will remain suspended in the air "unaware" of gravity. This is nonsense.
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.
@Jmsadv On the contrary, you are not merely simple, but an enabler of evil as well, if you support child-killer gods such as those of the Jews, Christians and the Muslims.
All gods are false. No god needs fallible human messenger-agent-middlemen, to communicate with its creation. If a god existed, it wouldn't try to communicate with us through a book or a prophet. What was good for a prophet to channel into these imaginary messages, ought to be good for the rest of us, as well, and not books.
Tell you what, google "timeline of human evolution" and stop making yourself look foolish. And James Ussher, Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and a prolific scholar, published a chronology that purported to time and date creation to the night preceding 27 October 4004 BC, according to the ages of Genesis under the proleptic Julian calendar. You may disagree, but your bible thumping buddies embrace it whole heartedly. At least you know that part is bogus, now you just need to work on the rest.
Dinesh moves onto endless ad-hominem. He might as well concede defeat already.
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Hitchens is a genius. Dinesh D'Souza is a formidable debater (for example he gave a good challenge to Dennett) but Hitchens is so amazing that he makes him seem third rate by comparison.
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Holy shit....D'Souza absolutely slaughters any shred of legitimacy he may have had here, when he talks about the speed of light possibly being different on another star...he has no idea what he's talking about...he needs to read up on some basic physics...the stupid is strong with this one...
Sizerian 1 month ago
@Sizerian ...he doesn't claim that light does travel at a different rate, only that we can't know it doesn't. Simple misunderstanding, nbd. Nice star wars ref though jajaja
soJAWSome 3 weeks ago
@soJAWSome We can know as certainly as we can know any non-purely mathematical concept. Einstein solidified the knowledge that there was in fact a universal light speed limit with his theories of relativity. Space may inflate at different rates, but light travels at a consistent speed.
Sizerian 3 weeks ago
@Sizerian I think you're still missing the point, just slightly: we can't know such practical concepts with certainty; empirical evidence can increase our confidence, but it won't yield certainty. In the end, I think D'Souza is making the point that while faith is mocked by Hitchens, even Hitchens has faith in these natural laws, like we all do. It may be Christians who really understand the uncertainty of the universe: for this is precisely why there is a need for faith. (also @kokopelli314)
soJAWSome 3 weeks ago
@soJAWSome But faith is the active belief in something without evidence. It fails to be faith with the presence of that evidence. Scrutinized and tested scientific theories are not faith based because they can be backed up. We cannot have 100 percent absolute certainty of anything unless it is provable thru mathematics or strong logic...but we can have a near certainty of a lot of things...gravity, atomics, the relationship between the natural forces and the like....and
Sizerian 2 weeks ago
@soJAWSome the light constant. In fact, relativity proves the light constant as a universal in spacial relationships, though not necessarily in time relationships. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion. What difference we see in distant observations is known to be flux due to gravity, and inflationary expansion, NOT Light speed variability.
Sizerian 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchen's doesn't even know what the Bible says. Not surprising I suppose.
dontletithappen 4 months ago in playlist Dinesh D Souza and Christopher Hitchens Debate
Believers seek certainty in an uncertain world.
kokopelli314 6 months ago
@kokopelli314
That doesn't make them right.
leftovers0 4 months ago
@leftovers0 Very true. Seeking certainty in an uncertain world is a form of madness.
kokopelli314 4 months ago
lol a mosquito in a nudist colony. hadn't heard that one, quite funny actually. x-p
ShawDAMAN 6 months ago
lol christ harmed nobody. I believe he killed someone in a roof incident.
DiVeronica 6 months ago
The cheapest last-ditch attempt by D'Souza: Attacking someone's motives. He can't answer Hitchen's arguments. D'Souza is so stupid I don't even feel threatened enough by him to be angered by his stupidity.
sirmattbelios 7 months ago
I love this debate so much.
XianRaodon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And I am one of those children who was preached to. It took me over 40 years to shed the poison that is the Christian religion.
Hitchism1 8 months ago in playlist Dinesh D Souza and Christopher Hitchens Debate
Comment removed
Hitchism1 8 months ago in playlist Dinesh D Souza and Christopher Hitchens Debate
Dude, christians made it up. Sorry.
blahbl4hblahtoo 8 months ago 3
@blahbl4hblahtoo
Prove it... If this Christian story is a lie. Then it is the greatest conspiracy on earth. Like the many who haven't believed before and now do... Study the evidence and facts. Only in the WESTERN culture we live in today is the question asked is there a GOD. What a joke.... This type of question where all the evidence took place in the EAST never have those questions. WHY you ask is because they understand the truth of and Muslims convert to Christianity daily.
rhodge1906 7 months ago
@rhodge1906 The burden of proof is not his, it's yours. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... and your side has thus far produced NONE.
The appeal to widespread belief never strengthens one's argument.
uscjd2004 6 months ago
@rhodge1906
The number of people who believe something does not necessarily correlate to its truth. The majority used to think slavery was OK. The majority used to believe that the world was flat.
leftovers0 4 months ago
@leftovers0 Not to mention, McDonald's has sold BILLIONS of hamburgers, but nobody in their right mind can possibly think they're good for you.
A weak metaphor, but you get the idea.
jjobie 2 months ago
lol. so i guess dinesh moaned loudest when we got bin laden. forgive thy enemies.
bethnor 8 months ago
@bethnor Are you saying he's a terrorist?
Mr145616 8 months ago
What a poorly constructed rebuttle on D'Souza's part. He entirely misses the point that christopher makes about heaven and hell and its immoral and terrifying promises and implications.
Dillingerman1 10 months ago
this indian is full of shit
murs720 10 months ago 2
Bravo D'Souza
blopajmbar62 11 months ago
@blopajmbar62 blech.
Ematched 11 months ago
@Vagnigun "Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and cull the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun."
~ Marx, K
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
One last thing, the bible is not proof of God, it's God's revelation to humankind. The New Testiment was not created in response to prove the credibility of Christ but into response to the early chruch's and their early debates over what Christ said, wanted, and ment.
Jmsadv 11 months ago
@Jmsadv "into response to the early chruch's and their early debates over what Christ said, wanted, and ment."
I really don't understand what you "ment" with this sentence. If you're saying the church fabricated much of the NT, well, don't let me dissuade you (we agree). I doubt this is what you mean, so I'll just wait and see if you reword it in a future response.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
"If scientific laws admit of the possibility of exception, miracles are possible"
I don't know what's more ironic, his utter lack of evidence for this hand-waving about a "possibility of an exception"(immediately after berating Hitchens for not providing evidence for his statements),or his use of Hume to justify the possibility of a miracle.
Moreover, if these laws NATURALLY admit of exception, then the exception(s) are not miracles, merely products a less harmonious natural order.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
@Reerrpad5515 You missed Dinesh's point.
Jmsadv 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jmsadv "You missed Dinesh's point."
Perhaps you would be so kind as to steer me in the right direction? I don't particularly enjoy being mistaken, and I would appreciate any correction on offer.
Thanks in advance.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and Dawkins pulled the straight razor of logic from one ear to the other on religion. It now comes to the internet to flail and flop as it bleeds out in death throes.Like a vampire in the sun it dissolves to dust under the brilliance of the beam of logic and reason. Religion attracts the failed, the fallen, the weak of my species. It is a fantastic dividing marker for who is human and who is just religious.Dont ignore this important division, its there for a reason.
699backstab 1 year ago
@699backstab Amazing how the foundation of science was built on such weak, the failed, and the fallen according to you. When I read your comments I just laugh. It's also interesting how atheist and agnostics have more to say about God then alot of christians. Spend the rest of your life attacking something that doesn't exist, just don't expect me to take you seriously.
Jmsadv 11 months ago
@Jmsadv Not only do we have more to say, but according to a recent study, we actually know more about religions than the religious.
Atheists aren't attacking something that "doesn't exist", we're attacking something that persists in existing (religion), even though it's claims continue to be unjustified and detrimental to societal cohesion. The three Abrahamic faiths, in particular, offer glaring examples of just how divisive and dangerous these sorts of irrational belief system can be.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 The very core of my religion (christinity) is my personal relationship with God. So Mr. agnostic since their are studys out their saying you know more about this then the mere chrisitian. What do you know about this?
Do you really think if the bible didn't exist then the belief in God would dissapear? It's kind of like saying when someone's partner dies that person forgets what love is or if it exist. Religion at is core are personal experiences.
-
'
Jmsadv 11 months ago
@Jmsadv Your comment was making a general claim about atheists/agnostics, and I was replying in kind with a study which generalizes the knowledge base of different ideological backgrounds. Your personal relationship with an invisible friend is not anything I would be interested in weighing in on.
No, I don't think the bible is especially credible as a source of irrationality, though it does it's best with what it has. I like your analogy, but it breaks down when love is compared to religion.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 Personal experiences are just that, Personal. I can no more prove to you that I love my dad then my personal experiences with God. If the success of chirstinity was mainly on the existence of the Bible then it would have never lasted much longer after the first Christians were killed. The bible is great for record keeping but can't compare to people's personal experiences.
Jmsadv 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 It's true that non belivers have alot to say about the bible but without a personal realationship then the bible is just greek to the non beliver. Imagine writing a book about colors and reading it to a person born blind. Sure the blind person would have alot to say about colors but without the personal experiences, that blind person would be so far from the truth of what the expereince of seeing colors is like. I hope this anology helps.
Jmsadv 11 months ago
@Jmsadv "without a personal realationship then the bible is just greek to the non beliver."
Every time a child stops believing in magic, a fairy loses her wings. If you don't really believe in the power of chakras, you cannot tap into their powers. If you don't believe in my imaginary friend Rob, you'll never see him.
See the problem with this type of argument? You KNOW it's a horrid argument, but you believe it anyway. Thats the danger: it's rarely just fairy wings at stake.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
"A flithy human sacrifice in a very remote part of Palestine."
haha, he always knows the best way to phrase it.
subpoprec 1 year ago
If God exists, then why would he make Christopher Hitchens an atheist?
jkumar8 1 year ago 19
@jkumar8 God did not create Christopher Hitchens an atheist? Christopher chose to be atheistic. The choice is free
1971eugenio2 1 year ago
@1971eugenio2 Shut up, ignorant! Great that you can troll in youtube in two different languages. But I can do it too! -.- Go fuck yourself in hell, idiot. Or, just go get a life.
shifterules 1 year ago
@shifterules Its irritation is not reasonable, does not know because all the ones that do not believe God start to say vile words when they are confronted
1971eugenio2 1 year ago
@1971eugenio2 Your english is only as bad as yout portuguese. And nobody did confront me, I was just trolling, just like you.
shifterules 1 year ago
@shifterules you are very fun
1971eugenio2 1 year ago
@jkumar8 No thats satan playing tricks on his mind!!!
KurtCobainof21 1 year ago
@jkumar8 People choose, God hasn't made Hitchens anything.
Jmsadv 11 months ago
@jkumar8 you mean, If god existed, .... (it is a fantasy after all :)) - nice post though
omegatron7 9 months ago
@jkumar8 he gave him free-will, he chose to be an atheist. I am being sarcastic, but that's the answer you will most likely hear from believers, LOL
49fiori 9 months ago
@jkumar8 lol!
3v3ntus 6 months ago
@jkumar8
God gave man free-will. Therefore, Chritopher Hitchens can say and do what he thinks is rational.
I agreed with little of what Hitchens believed, but I still appreciated him. R.I.P.
Nwidmann 2 weeks ago
@jkumar8 ...because God gives people freedom? God didn't make Christopher Hitchens an atheist in either the Christian or atheist view.
Genktarov 5 days ago in playlist More videos from operationmongoose
and he's a knob
SensiStarToaster 1 year ago
Dinesh gets pwnd
SensiStarToaster 1 year ago
Dinesh is better here... "presumption with faith, when in truth they are not at all the same thing." ??? But FAITH is needed for every scientific surveys!!! Popper... FAITH, BELIEF...
ledvonj 1 year ago
Comment removed
ledvonj 1 year ago
At about 5:27, D'Souza equates presumption with faith, when in truth they are not at all the same thing.
cvarga 1 year ago
@cvarga What is the difference between presuming in someting and beliving in something?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv To presume something is to accept it as true while acknowledging that it is at least possible that one is wrong. Faith is absolute certainty.
cvarga 1 year ago
Hitchens is good but Dinesh is better.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv If you think D'Souza is a better speaker and debater than Hitchens, then you are just as delusional as he is.
F33bs 1 year ago
@Jmsadv Whaaaaaaat?
magnusjsolberg 1 year ago
Comment removed
fallgropen 1 year ago
@fallgropen What debate are you watching?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
Comment removed
laberintodelasoledad 1 year ago
@laberintodelasoledad
Science is not an assumption, but it is based upon certain assumptions. If the universe is ultimately unintelligible then science is hogwash. So you must assume, before you can begin scientific inquiry, that the universe is intelligible.
praxus 1 year ago
Comment removed
laberintodelasoledad 1 year ago
And Dinesh, you wily weasel, what choice did the unborn dead, the spontaneously aborted, and the infant-dead have, with regard to siding themselves for or against your mythological god?
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
'Turn the other cheek', etc. are not "radically new". By the time of Jesus, Buddhists and Hindus had already heard about them in the Bhagavad-Gita.
Plus, whose 'eye for an eye' law was Jesus rejecting? His own, according to the Christians!
Jesus melded Jewish mythology with his philosophies because that's the best he could do to "upgrade" the Jews in his time.
The Golden Rule is way, way older than the Jewish mythologies.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
Dsouza was crushed.
nurlanagabek 1 year ago
D'Souza is such a disingenuous piece of shit.
MMA 1 year ago
Hitchens offers no evidence, What a joke.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv He does not have to prove that god does not exist. It is the responsibility of the person making a positive assertation to prove that the assertation is true, thus it is d'souza's responsibility to prove to everyone that god exists and unless he can, it is reasonable and logical for Christopher to believe that god does not exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Dinesh has none. You have to think rationally, from what we know. Not pretend we know things we don't.
jazz4 1 year ago
@jazz4 Whitenoise is what you have created!
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv Do you seriously not get this debate? you're so rooted in your belief you've blinded yourself. What would you like Hitchens to offer D'souza?
jazz4 1 year ago
@jazz4 It's sad how you understand very little. Why are you so simple?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv Would be great if you actually answered the question than just using your "why are you so simple" line. I've seen you say that to a couple of people. Do you just like being confrontational? and stop being vague...what don't I understand? you're not writing anything of value, just snidey one liners...clearly, you can't hold a conversation because you haven't got a worthy argument.
jazz4 1 year ago
@jazz4 You are simple, deal with it!
Jmsadv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jmsadv Oh, you just proved my point.
jazz4 1 year ago
@Jmsadv Like?
deathxe5 1 year ago
Hitch bitch slapped him easy
kidlomax 1 year ago 9
"science is made of those kind of assumptions..." hahahahahaha LOL!! Please, tell me that guy is not serious!!! Please!!!
tazmaniajg 1 year ago
science flies you to the moon. religion flies you into buildings...
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@SelfAware1
That's not religion. That's geopolitics and economic dominion. Surely you're not so stupid as to believe:
A - That we actually went to the moon.
B - That a man in a cave promised a bunch of Arabs they would have 72 virgins if they flew planes (that they were incapable of flying first and foremost) into buildings. Plus, seven of the supposed hijackers are alive and well. The only thing 9/11 had to do with religion was expoiting peoples' prejudices to sell a war.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic hahaha. conspiracy nut huh? okay, we didnt go to the moon and 911 was an inside job??? omg get fucking real. dont watch just loose change and a conspiracy s how on history channel and then call other more intellegent and rational people stupid please. tell the families of the people that died in those plane crashes that it was a conspiracy.
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@SelfAwar
Regurgitate sensationalism, do we? It just so happens that there are many pending court cases BY the families themselves against our own government regarding its obvious complicity in those tragic events. All sensationalism and propaganda aside, steel buildings do not collapse because of fire, and they certainly don't collapse at freefall speed.
Also, the computer technology on the lunar spacecraft is equivalent to that in your average iPod. IPods are cool, but not that cool.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic our political system cannot keep secrets, thats why when politicians get out of politics that write tell all books. the pure amount of peole that would have to be involved in creating 911 is enormous and someone would of said something you fool. your theory is so silly and infantile. You people are so gullible.
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@SelfAwar
Can't keep secrets, huh? Are you really saying our government is an open book? The whole THING is a scam. Are you aware that there is no law on the books permitting our income tax? Are you aware that your birth certificate is the equivalent of a warehouse receipt; as our government offered its citizens as collateral due to its own bankruptcy? Are you aware that all of our high level politicians are well aware of this?
Surely you don't believe the government's take on 9/11.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic you cant fathom that we actually got attacked by religious fanatics driven to kill by a literal interpretation of there stupid book? of course not thats too real, so you people have to make sense of things, so you create retarded bullshit that lacks all critical thinkin skill. you want to blame the government or whoever but by doing that u endanger us all, cuz religious fanatics did it and they will do it again. but im sure it will be another inside job right?
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@SelfAware1
That makes it nice and easy, doesn't it? Blame religion. The only part religion played in 9/11 was the exploitation of religious prejudices to sell an unjustifiable war. Are religious fanatics ruining our economy? Are religious fanatics passing legislation that ships our jobs overseas? Are religious fanatics deliberately ruining the value of our currency?
Get a clue, asshat. And be more prolific in your syntax if you're going to debate the likes of me.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
Really D'Souza? Really? In a debate where the speaker has limited time, you need Hitchens to explain all the evidence against religion? You are a sad individual.
AtticusSD 1 year ago
@AtticusSD
Maybe so, but SOME evidence would be nice. Not just hotheaded windbaggery. This is the irony of these atheistic debators. These are supposed champions of evidence, yet they provide zero. Zilch. Nada. And the overwhelming irony is that their postitions are ultimately predicated upon faith (albeit of a different sort), the very cornerstone of their collective argument. For instance, if evolution is true, provide a slideshow of transitional fossils. The case would be closed.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
In a world of people who believe in the idea of "turning the other cheek" a single sociopath could end civilization. Thanks a lot Jebus.
marcotenshi 1 year ago
Science doesn't make the assumption that reality follows any laws.
marcotenshi 1 year ago
Oh hey, guess what, Dinesh uses scripture to back up his claim! 'When the Bible says salvation is the gift OF god...' I love it as well, how Christians nit pick on certain little words and ephesize certain little bits, and try to convince you that THIS is what it really means. Well, as far as I can tell, what the Bible says, no matter how you read it, state pure and utter nonsense.
LostSubsForever 1 year ago
When you boil it down, Hitchens is just angry at his dad. The only reason people have any interest in hearing him talk is his British accent. Good luck claiming to defeat Dinesh in a debate. Real intellectuals know better.
KeyboredNinja 1 year ago
@KeyboredNinja cute. As if any of your statements prove anything.
dopejoel 1 year ago
@KeyboredNinja
He is also acutely self loathing. ;-) A bit of irony; the atheists that champion him as some sort of guru never seem to notice a very basic function in human psychology, namely: we project our inner world onto others. Hitchens is ate up with hate, animosity....you name it, he's ate up with it. A learned man of obvious syntactical resources, but that's about it. He's an opportunist windbag sensationalist, hence a book title like "God is Not Great."
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic I don't sense hate and animosity coming from Hitchens, just reason and logic. He destroys D'Souza and religion in this debate and he doesn't even need evidence, just simple common sense.
fallenkingdan 1 year ago
@fallenking
You don't sense hate and animosity coming from Hitchens? He's been quoted numerous times saying ominous things such as "If you don't consider me an enemy, you have no idea what an enemy is." He is FILLED with it.
And no, he didn't destroy D'Souza in this debate. If he were to have destroyed him, he wouldn't have been red faced and stuttering the majority of the second half of the debate. Give credit where credit is due. You may not agree with Dinesh, but he can debate.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic Well I've not heard him say that and quotes like that are useless out of context. I don't rate D'Souza at all, he offers very little support for his own argument and instead decides to attack science and say stupid things like "Einstein was a deist" - Hitchens outclasses him all the way in my opinion, but that's just me
fallenkingdan 1 year ago
@fallenking
That quote isn't out of context; it's a direct quote from one of his online debates. Also, D'Souza does not attack science. That's a ridiculous issue to take. He is obviously well versed in science, cites science, confirms science...just because you don't agree with his viewpoint doesn't mean he's attacking you. And calling Einstein a deist isn't attacking science either. Einstein is quoted numerous times exploring the idea of "God"...one even he couldn't wrap his mind around.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic Either way it is clearly a flippant remark made by Hitchens, it's hardly a big deal? D'Souza's main position is that science and atheism don't have a good enough explanation for the origin of life and so religion and christianity must therefore be true. It's a ridiculous argument on his part and one that carries very little weight. Hitchens has many valid points and assertions that makes his position much stronger so in my eyes he won the debate.
fallenkingdan 1 year ago
@fallenking
Aren't you being just a tad biased? You have misrepresented D'Souza's obvious and repeated position that he DOESN'T know...but from what he has come to experience, he thinks there is a Creator. He admits to not KNOWING. The arrogance is on the part of the atheists, particularly Dawkins and Hitchens...both windbags, respectively. If you'll note, the name calling, insulting, condescension...ALL come from the atheistic debators. It's lame; and appeals to the childlike of mind.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic I fail to see how I am being biased but that's your opinion. If D'Souzas core religious belief is based entirely upon NOT knowing, then his belief is a particularly poor and frankly stupid one. Personally I think one should be thoroughly sure that one's beliefs are completely true and correct, otherwise they are not beliefs at all they are just wishful thinking. It seems to me to be far more infantile to believe in something for which there is NO proof.
fallenkingdan 1 year ago
@fallenkingdan
Of course you do. It's a typical phenomenon among atheists and religious freaks alike. Dinesh D'Souza is many things, but stupid is not one of them. He for damn sure doesn't have all the answers; but he is humble enough to admit he doesn't KNOW how the universe came into being. That's good, because NO ONE knows. Not you, Hitchens, Dawkins...NO ONE. And if you have a belief on that subject, it IS an article of faith, because there isn't one iota of "factual" information.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic Neither Hitchens or Dawkins claim to know how the universe was created. The main claim that atheists ever make is that they believe there to be no God because there is no evidence, just because they have conviction in their beliefs does not make them arrogant. We'll have to agree to disagree on D'Souza but as I'm guessing you're not a "religious freak" as you put it then we'd probably see eye to eye on many of the issues in this debate - I simply favour Hitchens
fallenkingdan 1 year ago
@fallenkingdan
Nope. Not a religious freak here, brother man. I think the key in this argument is to get past all the name calling, intellectual condescension, and actually have an open minded debate. Its implications are vast, as I'm sure you know. Sounds like you and I are getting there! ;-)
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic Hitchens can indeed be very condescending and at times quite rude but for some reason I always find him rather humorous due to his charming way of phrasing things.
The whole debate is fascinating to me and whilst I personally would never carry a belief of any kind concerning a creator, after listening to many of these sessions I find myself agreeing with the majority of Hitchens' points - but again that's just me. Open mindedness is certainly the way forward here
fallenkingdan 1 year ago
@fallenkingdan Don't give up on him that easily... he just claimed that Dinesh is the one that doesn't 'know', but he definitely does, ie God Did It. Moreover the majority of atheists are the first to state they don't know why the universe is such and such. He just spewed a complete reverse fallacy of reality. :)
adknerr 1 year ago
@adknerr I don't think anyone can possibly say why the universe was created and I don't think anyone could or even should. To find out 'why' the universe is the way it is would take all the wonder and majesty out of it - I don't want to know why and it simply doesn't matter anyway. What would we do different if we suddenly found out why the universe was created, it's an exercise in impossible and ridiculous pondering
fallenkingdan 1 year ago
@adknerr
And you just spewed a complete reversal of what Dinesh actually said. He has said - in every debate I've seen him in, not just this one, and uses it as case and point - that he does NOT know...but things such as the mass of the proton has to be exactly what it is, the graviational force, the strong and weak forces, the impossibly fine tuneness kind of thing...that looks to him like it was created by intelligence. Sorry. It's not so simple as "God did it."
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic No, I'm sorry, but Dinesh is clearly a creationist and refers all unknowns to a mysterious god instead of saying 'science doesn't quite know yet'. He constantly relies on his faith instead of reason when supporting his arguments, and yes I've watched every debate on youtube between him and Hitch... it's always the same broken, wrong, and embarrassing record with him.
adknerr 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic Sry, Dinesh DOES say he knows how the Earth and Universe were created... ei God.
adknerr 1 year ago
His life expectancy numbers are way off. I thought Hitchens was educated?
KeyboredNinja 1 year ago
@KeyboredNinja
He as more inelegance in his little finger, then you have in your entire body.
Shut up moron.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KeyboredNinja
He as more inelegance in his little finger, then you have in your entire body.
Shut up moron.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
D´souza is a disgrace, a lying, twisting cauistical disgrace, no different to most christians I´ve come across
yatter1 1 year ago
if i spend the night in 'haunted' house and think i see ghosts and then tell my friend the next day and he doesnt believe. the burden of proof is on me to prove that there were ghosts, not on him to prove that there werent. if dinesh cannot grasp the most basic concept that you are never called upon to prove a negative then i dont know how he can be considered remotely intelligent by anyone. also dinesh, atheism isnt a belief rather it is the absence of a belief... embarrassing.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Silly Atheist, Trix are for kids!
Jmsadv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens had said the Dinesh is one of the best debater he has ever encountered, so who's judgement is wrong here? Yours or Hitchens?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
Laws of nature don't change, we just expand our knowledge to understand their full dimensions and constraints.Tha's it. If we find the speed of light, or gravity, etc, can have different limitations,than that isn't that a natural law is 'suspended' it means we didnt previously understand that law. Suspending natural law is nonsensical and a semantic ploy:if a given law alters or changes, that is a natural law in itself. Supernatural doesn't exist,only the natural as more than we yet comprehend.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
I would ask Mr D'Souza to name 1 instance when the speed of light, in a vacuum, changes. Prove it isn't a content. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Atheists don't claim God DOESN'T exist. They say "You say he does....show me the proof"
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
this guy is either stupid or uneducated as is anybody who takes one atheist and generalizes atheists based on that one atheist. He doesn't understand Hichins's view at all. Hitchins doesn't hate the values that jesus spread. He hates the concept of a god. There is a large difference but this guy tries to misrepresent Hitchins's point of view to make him seem evil.
sunset261 1 year ago
Blame the tolerant. Ugh. D'Souza is a douche.
ProLifeKevin 1 year ago
It's funny how Dinesh uses science to back up his arguments like the fine-tuning universe argument and at the same discredit science when he appeals David Hume saying light may not travel at the same speed constantly as presumed by science
jormorcastan 1 year ago
jesus, if he even existed was not the one who founded this ghastly cult. It was Paul...
setmedic 1 year ago
@setmedic You question Jesus' existence, but not Paul's? They were both born around the same time. Well, maybe 20 years difference or something.
MPaulHolmes 1 year ago
Severly autistic and mentally ill aren't able to chose to accept or reject your god. Where do they stand in the afterlife then. Hell by default or is there some kind of purgatory for them. Please susbtantiate your answer with bible verse if you can.
rainbowspite222 1 year ago
That's a terrific argument from silence. Because the Bible doesn't speak of Jesus being breast fed as a baby, we can assume Mary had no breasts. Thanks for playing.
realtick 1 year ago
We do not know, wedo practice some guessing with science, defined as theory. But we also produce results, hence the vaccines you received as children and the computer you are using to broadcast this on. There's your evidence.
rainbowspite222 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitch is a nice guy. Seriously deluded and lacking critical thought but basically harmless. He is the acceptable face of modern Athiesm. However, in the same country the USA there are fundamentalist thiest extremists who make the Taliban look tame by comparison. Sadly we cant have one without the other.
It is time to rid ourselves of all forms of Atheist belief.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
Radical ideas? Is there some sort of unmentioned rule to ignore China?
rolyan3 1 year ago
wow, he said "i will not read from scriptures and still he talks about jesus.......he is a one big fail, so is chrstianity
lifemetall 1 year ago
this is silly, the people b4 jesus what happens to them? What happens to murderers b4 jesus's time.
roggy12345 2 years ago
D'Souza 0 Hitchens drew a lot more than blood. Why does he bother I wonder.
CityzenJane 2 years ago 3
I've watch far too many of these debates and I've noticed at least three huge trends in the religious argument:
1. The theist will not provide evidence for god. He will not even attempt to provide evidence for God, and rarely will he provide even false evidence.
2. The theist will combat any moral claims the atheists makes by asking where he gets the basis for morality, but the theist will never actually address the point.
3. The atheists refrain from pulling out the studies, which sucks.
rolyan3 2 years ago
I've had the same thoughts as you. I can't figure out why the theists are unable to grasp the atheistic arguments; I don't know if this is a problem of arrogance, ignorance or simply stupidity from the theistic side. It's true what Hemingway said that "Every thinking human being is an atheist"
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago 3
It could be a combination of all three, but more likely it would be indoctrination.
The thumbs up was for the butterfly haha.
rolyan3 2 years ago
@KamasutraButterfly - I think you're right, there is a lot of arrogance in D'Souza, but I think for most people it's pure brainwashing.
gekritzl 1 year ago
Actually old Hitch has said in a interview that Dinesh is one of the few who understands him. Hitch hates Jesus said Dinesh and Hitch did not refute this so how far off is Dinesh on Hitch?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
It should be mentioned though that Hitchens is one of the most "radical" atheists today, he even calls himself an anti-theist. And I never said that Dinesh was stupid or ignorant, but he's at least arrogant, when he in one debate after the other keeps bringing up the same old questions that have been refuted time and time again.
KamasutraButterfly 1 year ago
What questions are Dinesh dead wrong about? Dinesh has never said that he has absoulte evidence that God exist. Dinesh does offer evidence to support Jesus and a Supernatural cause to the Universe. Agian neither side has absoulte evidence for or against God, So why the name calling? Does anyone here still belive that Man-Made Global Warming is 100% true. Wheres the doubt on this claim?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
I never said "dead wrong", but the thing is that he does twist facts and evidence and historical facts to say what he wants them to say. For example when he keeps bringing up these "atheistic regimes" like nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia to somehow say (or at least imply) that "atheists are evil"
And who said anything about global warming?!
KamasutraButterfly 1 year ago
@KamasutraButterfly
The existence or non-existence of God is ultimately a metaphysical question. That Hitchens, or Hemingway, thinks Christianity is evil, or its supporters stupid, is irrelevant.
praxus 1 year ago
@praxus yes, but that wasn't the point I was making, right? It is irrelevant to the existence of god, but not to the debate about it
KamasutraButterfly 1 year ago
free choice????if you do not your condanm in hell for eternity how this for frewill and choice yap sure!
mystisme 2 years ago
D'Souza admits that the speed of light in a vacuum has never been shown to vary and yet he says science accepts, as "faith", the invariability of light to change speed in a vacuum.
He has never been able to demonstrate that any miracle has ever occurred, yet he believes they did. All he has is unverifiable stories written by "who the hell knows". THAT is the epitome of "faith"
And then he has the balls to try to equate the two.
How can anyone take this bozo seriously?
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Two of the four horseman down. The other two refuse to debate Mr. D'souza. Pity.
Kolbe19 2 years ago
Why would they waste their time with this guy?
Dragos1591 2 years ago 2
@Dragos1591 I know! Hitchens' personal intolerance is no excuse!
spootyrat 2 years ago
2:10
I did it in the name of Christ!
to serve his purpose!
tr6tpdwn 2 years ago
Holy shit, Dinesh is such a fucking moron
he doent even realize how ridiculous he is, Hitchens should charge him a grand for butt raping him in public like that, LOL!
handofnergal 2 years ago 17
@handofnergal Where is your God-free respect for his humanity? After all, he is merely exhibiting his biological construct, no?
spootyrat 2 years ago
no? no.
pwismyname 2 years ago
@handofnergal Hitchens had said the Dinesh is one of the best debater he has ever encountered, so who's judgement is wrong here? Yours or Hitchens?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv
Hitchens was being polite, he didn't want to insult the imbecile.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
@adlerbr12 I think your judgement is way off, not Hitchens. Muhahahhahah
Jmsadv 1 year ago
We absolutely do know that the speed of light is the same everywhere and in all media. Not because we have measured it in all corners of the universe, for this would be impossible, but because we've made so many other discoveries based on this simple assumption - and they work. Don't let it be said that we aren't sure that the speed of light is a constant or that some day, you might let go of an object and it will remain suspended in the air "unaware" of gravity. This is nonsense.
mrw21 2 years ago
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 13
@yt2vinay makes perfect sense...
weekes3660 1 year ago
@yt2vinay Why are you so simple?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv On the contrary, you are not merely simple, but an enabler of evil as well, if you support child-killer gods such as those of the Jews, Christians and the Muslims.
All gods are false. No god needs fallible human messenger-agent-middlemen, to communicate with its creation. If a god existed, it wouldn't try to communicate with us through a book or a prophet. What was good for a prophet to channel into these imaginary messages, ought to be good for the rest of us, as well, and not books.
yt2vinay 1 year ago
Tell you what, google "timeline of human evolution" and stop making yourself look foolish. And James Ussher, Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and a prolific scholar, published a chronology that purported to time and date creation to the night preceding 27 October 4004 BC, according to the ages of Genesis under the proleptic Julian calendar. You may disagree, but your bible thumping buddies embrace it whole heartedly. At least you know that part is bogus, now you just need to work on the rest.
eurisko67 2 years ago
haaha, i love when Hitchens m'umbles "i've heard that before". d'souza always uses at least one of his handful of lame jokes in all his debates.
BillKiernan 2 years ago 2
i thought dd wasnt going to quote scripture to prove his point? but really thats all he's doing.
oooBOOSHooo 2 years ago
Indirectly, yes. Directly, no. His arguments still suck though.
pwismyname 2 years ago
doing something over and over expecting a different result is the definition of insanity DD.
oooBOOSHooo 2 years ago