D'Souza is so dishonest. He pretends that he reasoned his way into reconciling evolution with his religion. But the real answer is that he is allowed to accept evolution because the Pope said it's OK to agree with evolution. This is all post-hoc rationalisation. He has his religious beliefs first, then later he shops around for justifications and arguments to support it.
D'Souza argues as if 2500 years of philosophy and science had not happen and religion was the only source of morality. I was impressed by his statement that he wants to learn more about this subject though!
Neither ultimate cause nor purpose can be proven or falsified by empirical science.empirical science is not designed to detect or define a purpose. biological evolution can acknowledge no purpose but likewise it cannot contend that there is a purpose outside of a metaphysical conclusion that there is no God.science cannot offer access to God and can neither establish his existence nor falsify his existence. To deny God is not a scientific conclusion but one drawn from the LIMITATIONS of science
It can't access or falsify the divine chiwawa that created the universe either. Science not being able to access something is not a point in its favour- it's a suggestion that it's probably not there.
@GodTheHypothesis... this way of thinking is called materialism. You presuppose that all that exists is what u can smell, taste, see etc. Science is not concerned with philosophy. It does not measure purpose. it cannot find God and is silent in these discussions. This is why it is odd to me that all atheists point to "evidence" from science as "proof" for God or no God. It can never toch upon these things... so why the same argument no evidence, no God is circular reasoning
Well I'd call it empiricism rather than materialism. You don't presuppose anything, you just decide that you should only believe factual claims that are backed up by evidence- if that happens to lead to what you call materialism, then so be it- empiricism remains the ONLY way humans have found for making sure we're not just talking nonsense. I didn't say no evidence therefore no God.I said therefore probably no god-big difference. What reason do you have to assume there is a purpose?
@Surroundx Great observation. You've just placed your finger on the tragedy of the human condition, Sin. Our sin doesn't just effect us...it effects others as well, "no man is an island unto himself." This buttresses the point that there are Objective Morals we believe in...regardless if we confess them or not. If we believed in relativistic morals, then none of us would complain that someone "wronged" us....b/c what they thought they did was right.
@brettcav If morals were relativistic, people would still complain that someone wronged them because we are all selfish individuals interested in self-preservation (well, most of us anyway).
The fact that people, especially soldiers, can have their sense numbed, and a result their idea of morality blurs, shows that objective morality is not a transcendent thing, but rather resides in the brain.
@Surroundx I never said there wasn't an interaction in the brain. I am a soldier in the US Army, and am in fact deployed right now. The only reason that there is a need to numb the "moral senses" is so the soldier does not hesitate in killing the enemy..who are people. If there wasn't this internal sense of right/wrong, there would be no need for numbing. So, you would never convict the pedophile b/c he didn't threaten you? I would guess you would convict him and vote to exact justice on him.
@brettcav the fact that the moral sense CAN be numbed shows that they are not transcendent, otherwise you couldn't numb them. They would be unchangeable.
re. the pedophile: any act of pedophilia is intrinsically wrong because it causes any number of terrible things to happen to the victim. I do not need to believe in Divine-command theory to know that it is wrong to harm another person (or animal). As a self-conscious being, it is clear to me that harming others is wrong.
@Surroundx Numbing is not the same as REMOVING. The soldier still knows right/wrong b/c he comes home and loves his family and is productive to society..he still has a moral conscience. If we had a society in which pedophilia was the norm, it still would be wrong! Therefore, some behavior are objectively wrong.Unless God exists, then you can't say pedophilia is wrong, b/c He is the source of Objective Morals.Otherwise it's your opinion against the pedophile, and the pedophile believes he's right
@brettcav Numbing and removing certainly aren't the same thing. But numbing blurs our ability to judge morals SOMEWHAT, which should not be possible if we derive our morals from god. I do not know whether any of the worst people in history had any morals, but I suspect that they had less morals than the rest of us, though I can't quantify this. But clearly there have been many cultures in history who's sense of morality was very different from our own.
@Surroundx I appreciate what your saying. I agree that numbing blurrs our moral judgements (esp with drugs or Alcohol)..and you want to say, therefore morals are not transcendant, like God. I would say Objective Morals are transcendant, because their source is God. However it doesn't mean all cultures have recognized this..esp if man is fallen and disconnected from God, although not completely.
Like I said before, b/c a culture may have practiced pedophilia, it didn't make it right. However, you can't say it's not right unless there is a standard you are appealing to..an Objective standard of right and wrong..that goes beyond opinion and cultural mores.
Dennett's religion of "goodness" doesn't tell him what to do when he doesn't feel like doing it. Again the atheist tries to draw on objective principles w/o God. There is no objective morality w/o God.
@brettcav If there is objective morality then there must be objective immorality. And if there is objective immorality, god has an obligation to prevent it since they can if they are omnipotent.
@Surroundx Exactly. Objective morals are real; therefore God is real. As the source of objective morality and truth, it doesn't follow that just b/c there is immorality that God has to stop it. If we are free agents making choices (that are immoral) then we are stuck with the consequences. I'm sure you have experienced this. I certainly have. God's omnipotence, in this matter, is related to His power that created us to have free will.
@brettcav My main problem with your argument is that you are assuming that objective morality comes from a god. I think that an objective morality can be explained by an evolutionary response to environmental stimuli. Sam Harris makes some very articulate arguments to this extent. far more articulate than I could. It follows that someone claiming that religion is the source of morality needs to disprove the potential for an evolution of morality. How would you answer this?
@TheArmyofW If evolution is true and the existance of God is real, maybe God used the stimuli to confirm to man what he already knows..ie. that some things are objectively wrong. I think objective moral values are best explained by the existance of God, mainly b/c we all appeal to it's objectivity! We never say a rape of a little girl is amoral! Yes, rape is against the law, but even if the law didn't exist, it would still be wrong. Rather, the law identifies an immorality and exacts justice.
@brettcav To get this straight, you believe that objective morality comes from a god because it is objective? I find that objective morality could just as easily be explained be the advancement of civilization and societal interaction. A healthy society is hardly one that advocates rape or murder. How would this not explain morality without need of a god?
@Army What I said is..If you agree that Objective Morality exists, then it is best explained by the existance of God. The reason for this is b/c human beings are Subjective, and who is to say that your morals are better than mine.
In fact, Nazi Germany believed they were at the peak of human civilization..and that they could create a "man" via the process of evolution to that end. This Moral impetus took precedence over the treatment of those who were deemed "undesireable"..or having inferior genes. If you watch the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi's arguement was that the Allies had no moral authority to judge them...what's very interesting is the Allies rebuttle!
@brettcav This is a moot argument, as the initial premise of the Nazis was wrong. They found moral justification by the perversion of a biological principle; as opposed to defining right from wrong by the study of humanity. I'll give the Nuremberg trials a see next I have some time. I imagine the Allies used a similar objective morality argument to yours. That the Nazi's claimed the Allies had no moral authority on the matter is wrong, I agree; but for different reasons than you, methinks.
@brettcav Ah, well I suppose I should be more clear as to how I define Objective Morality. I think that you can come to a rational explanation of a human moral code in an objective manner. This kind of morality is subjective to the human experience, yes; however, it can be objectively reasoned with an analysis of human interaction. I do not say that there exists some eternal codified moral law; not to sound trite, but it seems to me the only eternal thing in this universe is change.
"10 percent of morality"!? How arbitrary and futile Dinesh is! Where does he get this number from? Maybe he should apply such riogrous statistics to the existence of Yaweh.
Does Dinesh really understand what he just said about the Scandinavia example?
He says if you erase God from a society you lose all your morals...And he says that 1 Minute after the perfect example that this is not the case has just been given: Scandinavian countries (even more than other European states) HAVE taken God out of their society for the biggest part and Tadaaa!!! Their societies are working better. Less crime, more wealth, more welfare.
Oh come on Dinesh! Go and learn a bit about Nietzsche's Zarathustra. You obviously don't know much about other religions before Judao/Christrian religions. "Christianity brought the foundations of morality?!.." Give me a break.
@dvc5797 - No, it didn't ... Western notions of morality developed the same as everyone elses. Indo-European morality was well established 1000's of yrs prior to Xtianity ... Xtianity was subject to & conformed to it ... A simple farming settlement couldn't have formed w/o an agreed morality ...
come on guys,.there was a time a preacher in sweden in his church preached against homosexuality from the bible and was sent to prison for that,.yes in sweden,.!my ohh my,.your doomed sweden,. let the muslims take over,..you reject the true light,.now Mohammad is coming for you,.get ready,.
It's great that Creationists such as D'Souza are now starting to accept the idea of evolution, 10 years ago evolution would have been the focus of the debate. Unfortunately that just means they are now on to the next thing that hasn't yet been explained by Science. Will it never end?
The problem is that theism is entirely redundant but so is 'new atheism'. By this I mean the a'deist' position that the four horseman among others hold. The only valid arguments theists have are for deism, not theism, and the new atheist position does well in ridiculing theism but fails at making a rational argument against deism. Most debates between theists and new atheists are a stale mate because the cosmological argument is completely logically sound but the rest is nonsense.
@323157 Go to Robert J Spitzer's magis center for faith and reason and get a refresher course in philosophy and science. Do you see why an ultimate cause cannot be composite? It stares you in the face if you know what "composition" means. The western metaphysics that will take you out of blindness is along the lines of Moritmer Adler's "SIx Great Ideas". If God and your free will aren't round little material objects then physics has zilcch to say about them.
Have a degree in Philosophy from a good Uni thanks, but appreciate the condescending response. At what point did I suggest that an ultimate cause would be composite? Do a refresher cause in 'reading basic sentences' and get back to me.
@starchaser28 How absurd that you are so misinformed that you don't even know that the founder of modern genetic evolutionary science was a Catholic monk and priest, August Mendel. One of the major probems of our world is the simplistic cultural illiterate like yourself who bases his dumb views of others on your own ignorance. Wlll ignorance like yours ever end? Darwin also believed in God. The argument that intelligence is an accidental byproduct of dust is ridiculous like your dusty opinions.
@Youdamana I seems that you've taken my comment out of context and started a new argument from it. I'm merely making an observable statement about the progress that has been made in the direction of acceptance for science & evolution. Darwin was througout his life: Christian -> Theist -> Doubtful. Many great scientists had religious upbringings, but in the course of their work had altered their views based on evidence they uncovered. Do you have a source for August Mendel?
@starchaser28 You haven't heard of Mendel? The Catholic priest who underlies genetic theory? HOw about another Catholc priest how did the Big Bang theory. Gorges Lemaitre. Never heard of him either? I honestly can't believe the cultural ignorance of the western word, where off the cuff imagined truisms about all of the mostly Christian scientists who brought us science just disappear with a wave of a TV remote. Sorry, but the ignorance of western religious intellectual life is appalling.
@starchaser28 Accepting evolution doesn't mean accepting Neo-dawinian evolution. Most if not all, Christian scientists accept microevolution, b/c the scientific method can show its existance. Macroevolution is a different topic and is wrought with holes and a complete lack of evidence in the real world. When was the last time you saw evolution trying out different things...like chicken feet on people..since we are all related as Dawin's "tree of life" assumes?
@starchaser28 Before unwillingly accepting it, D'Souza and his brothers were denying evolution. Before that, they would have burned us at the stake. The inquisitors probably sounded and reasoned just like D'Souza does. If they want to join evolution, they should excommunicate Ratzinger and make Dennett pope.
@andrwheekilee Would you like a list of evil verses? I promise you I know the Bible well, I'm from Texas and you get a steady dose of this BS there. I havr read it as well as the Koran, Hadeth and Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. All equally crazy......well maybe the Book of Mormon is a little more crazy. Also no need to attack me, that's just bad manners.
@ngimangi Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, search "Sky Cake" by Patton Oswald or... watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w ....Atheists don't need a sky daddy to be good. Why do I do unto others as I'd have done to me? Because it makes me feel good because, well, I'm a nice guy. Look in a mirror? Have I attacked anyone on here? (other than Dinesh D'Souza's opinion?)
morals had been promulgate by religious man but it come from our evolution progress and our changing mind whats is wright and wrong otherwise if it would come from god his morals supposly would be so perfect as some religious man it would not have change over century yet we see some change of our morals standing(what aceptable yesterday is not today ex:slavery )
OMG Dinesh really believe that the preciousness of every human life is a Christian idea.... wow.... he sounds so desperate and naive, astounding spewing of garbage
Mr. Denesh is a great speaker and debater I have been following him and other apologist for a while. what i don't understand is why some of you attack him Personally not on the points he makes. now for some of you who like good debates on both sides check out
Did anyone notice that Dinesh said that it's impossible to maintain a moral society without religion... RIGHT AFTER the questioner asked what they thought about the very atheist/agnostic Scandanavian society which demonstrably shows that an atheist society can be very moral?
Not to mention that earlier in the debate, Dinesh agrees with the notion that morality is not (to quote Stephen Fry) "in any way inventions of religion, or particular or peculiar to religion".
@bossmonkeykj, cause it's truth, howover, religion don't have to be Christianism, Islam.. atheism, agnosticism, secularism can be a quasi-religion at least as well
I love that Dinesh explains how flawed some of Nietzsche's philosophy was, but then uses that same flawed philosophy to [attempt to] justify his point. Dinesh = poster child of fail.
See, i would rather believe in God than Dan Dennett's so called GOODNESS. the people who always reject the existence of God embrace certain beliefs in things like goodness, nature, reason, and so forth. All these can never give us answers as good enough as the biblical ones. The answers they offer are INCOMPLETE...
if you're going to accept answers that are more complete, you're not necessarily going to get the correct answers though! anyone who claims to have the complete answer to anything is lying to you!
@okellookello just because we don't know the answers yet, doesn't mean you should just invent some convenient answers for yourself. You can actually see Dinesh inventing characteristics of god ON THE FLY, to explain whatever he needs to.
What you're doing is no better than the Greeks, inventing Zeus to explain lightning.
Dude. You can't be that stupid. Are you really implying that Christianity hasn't don't one single thing positive in its two thousand year history? You can disagree with it all you want to, but that is outright pathology. You need to seek help for that.
You really don't know many Christians, do you? And if so, you really aren't listening to them. I'll give you an example. My friend's best friend growing up led a very WILD life - a life like many can't comprehend. As glorious as it may look on paper, she found herself empty and in despair. Then she was saved. She would sit Marcia in a chair and read to her these passages of the Bible with tears of joy streaming down her face. It changed her life...for the better.
@TheDreamMechanic Funny when I was a christian I didn't think about the world around me very much and let my religion do all my work for me. Now as an atheist I know that there is no friend in the sky and I have to do the thinking for myself. It seems like most people become christians when they are having a tough time in their life. My life is perfectly fine no deity required. And what bible verses made her do that. The bible is worse than any horror book or movie that I ever saw or read.
And no, atheism can't do that. It can change lives certainly; but it cannot provide the all-encompassing revelation of God. Here's the thing: if you try to understand it with your mind, you're never going to get it. It's too big an idea to wrap your head around. And yes, it is. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise. It is something that happens in the heart. It opens you to a much larger field of experience than ego consciousness could ever touch.
@TheDreamMechanic No but atheism can provide the all encompassing revelation of reality. So you want me to have faith to understand god? Of course if you believe something exists then yes it will seem like it is real. Sorry but I have been there and now I will accept it only with proof.
Understand God? That's the tallest of orders, sir. The irony, and perhaps the bane of many existences here on earth (which would explain so much of the vitriol), is that no matter how much intellectual "progress" is made, it ultimately is only scratching the surface. We are experiencing a mystery whose depth knows no boundaries, and whose power will forever remain unmatched. I think you're confusing the anthropomorphic deity with a much larger idea.
Evolution and behavioral studies are far better at accounting for morality than invoking God, since we know humans exist but can only postulate that God does. You don't need to 'believe' in human-based morality, it's there to be understood. Dinesh accuses others of wandering out of their intellectual depth: he does this with human behavior and morality, and human pre-history. 'Moral' behavior is other-regarding, and it is an aspect of learned norms, evolved predispositions, and reciprocity.
Its really stupid for athests who claim that scandinavian countries like sweeden are great places because of athesim,.they should go and read the history of those countries,.sweden forinstance was found on christian values and it even had a state church until the 90s,. now with all that gone sweden is going on a free fall,.just ask the people who live there.,.things are changing,.for the worse,.
@patrickmuhere Difference is that they think of it as a tradition, and this is how it has been for decades. "We like it, but don't really believe it" is the attitude, and don't let it anywhere near politics. - The "fall" of Sweden, as you call it, is ridicules. They have problems with their immigration politics, but that's it, chump. And this is only problems relative to the other Scandinavian countries, still way above average. (No, I'm not Swedish)
D'Souza missed a key part of Dawkins' explanation of morality. We show altruism to strangers because we can't "turn off" the altruism genes that evolved to make sure we help our friends and family.
@gocrimson10 You can speak for yourself and your own genes, although I really don't believe you. I for one find it hard to turn my altruism genes on! I don't think I'm really any worse than the next guy, but introspection shows that that doesn't make me a great guy. The idea that people are generally good has some truth, but I don't think that that is the predominate part of mankind and if you just read this message board, it's not hard to see how readily people (e.g.) insult with impunity.
Yes, but if you give a dollar to a friend when he needs it, the friend will give you a dollar later on when you need it - both of you wind up increasing your chance of survival, to some small degree. The same instincts that tell you to give money to your friend also tell you to give money to strangers in need - the instincts can't tell the difference.
"if i give a a dollar to a homeless man i am essentially decreasing my chances of survival and increasing his."
Not really. You're helping to create a society which values helping those in need, knowing that one day, you or your children might be on the short end of the stick and may need the help of others.
I live in Scandinavia and yes we are very seculair here today, but its not true we never had. We have actully a very strong past and history in christianity. if we have 70% atheist today we surely had over 90% believers a 100 years ago.
D'Souza - "We are created in the image of GOD". Assertion after assertion and all
without rational support. How could he possibly know? Hundreds of GODS worshiped by thousands of tribes past and present and he is convinced the bronze age Hebrew tribe in posession of a unique truth. The same"chosen" people that some how fell out of favor?
This man believes and defends tales of magic in spite of his many years of "education". What imagination! Regards
@jaggerlags - it seems a pattern is emerging, no one is asking dennett any questions, why is that do you think?
here's what I think, no one is asking dennett any questions, because it is all out of context. the question I would ask dennett is: "thank you for your friendly greeting, where do you, wal-mart, keep your cheddar pork rinds?"
The most basic support of morality is the survival of the species. Empathy takes care of the rest. Those lacking empathy tend to be psycopaths(etc) and explain the likes of serial killers and so forth. There are your ethics and morales summed up. BTW there have been plenty of Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc psychopaths throughout history. many unnamed who purely kill in the name of god and religion. Yes, killing in the name of religion or god is psychopathic.
Actually, no. I'm not kidding. The science is called Gematria. My mentioning it was simply to point out how little you know about something you are so vehemently against. I'm no Bible thumper, but I will concede that a tremendous amount of thought and conviction went into that work. To have read one of the world's sacred texts once - years ago - and discarded it is okay from a personal standpoint. But don't try to speak with any semblance of authority on the subject. A very empty gesture.
It was over and out before the conversation started. You have no idea what you're talking about. I pointed out - with no uncertain terms - that you are completely ignorant when it comes to the Bible, yet you attempt to speak authoritatively and dismissively about it. That's pathetic, you know. If you're sitting there pissing yourself because of laughter, I would hope that your laughter is at yourself. You're WAY over your head in this argument. Now go do some research. For God's sake.
You really need to shut up now. Willful ignorance shouldn't be put on such prominent display. It's amazing to see exercising such contempt for the Bible (which you admit ignorance of) and its followers, yet you can't seem to grasp that the same thing is happening to YOU on the other side of the equation. I'm neither nor, yo. Bullshit is bullshit. And black holes, literally and figuratively, are bullshit. The big bang theory is bullshit. Consider it a trojan horse that worked like a charm.
dude your the deluded one, not me, im not a bible scholar but i did read the bloody thing, and yes its bloody, vile, intolerant and intimidating at best.
But lets stop this argument couse its going no where, your like that geek Dan Keeran that everytime (and ive seen other discusions of you) you hear comonsens you put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalalala...
You for damn sure aren't a Bible scholar. And you obviously have no idea how to read mythology, think for yourself, spell, or pose a formidable argument. The study of mythology is of much more VITAL importance. I imagine this sounds strange to you. Your kneejerk reaction is probably contempt. And that's by design, by the way. I've met a thousand of you. Homogenous. Blah. Yet vocal. I'll say it again: you're in way over your head in this argument. You need to shut your trap and listen.
@sphericalpyramid belief without evidence is (at best) silly. You seem to be schooled in (christian) scripture, if so you know it is not the inerrant word of god, so your position reduces to the deist/atheist argument,which is pointless. Now, use your obvious intelligence to help people instead of arguing trivialities.
I wasn't aware that knowing what you're talking about was a bad thing. If you're going to praise something - or denounce it - you should know what you're denouncing. I'm well aware of the fact that the Bible is the product of human penmanship. That's what fascinates me about it. In terms of mythology, the story of Christ is an amazing triumph of the human spirit, and is a luminous example of the phenomenal human being in full form. Mythology's purpose is to invoke spiritual consciousness.
i think "God" is a dead end argument until its found, God that is...
What puzzles me is if there is a membrane in the 11th dimension, where did that came from and where did all that stuff that made the membranes came from, etc etc etc... :)
I politely disagree. I think the "God" argument is one that has raged since humans emerged into consciousness, and will continue to do so. The idea of God is a reference to something that transcends all thought. It is beyond the pairs of opposites. Its mystery is infinite and unfathomable, yet the mere thought of which can inspire world ages and/or literally result in human enlightenment. The subjective dimension can't be ruled out in this debate, IMO. Anything else is dishonest.
Using the word God or Gods is just a way to say we dont know or understand...
Once Gods were everywhere on this planet, now some say, under pressure of most science discoveries, that God must be somewhere outside of this universe.
There must be a lot of stuff going on we dont know of and probebly will never comprehend, but saying there is a godlike figure that will put you to hell or something if you not behave is, i think, total nonsens...
Or "God" could be everything and everyone we've ever seen, everywhere we've ever been, and everything we can imagine. Energy + intelligence seems to be the basic formulation of the entire universe - on all levels, whether it be measuring how far it is to the next galaxy, the puzzling reciprocity of gravitational force, or the noodle-cooking enigma that is quantum mechanics. This whole thing is put together quite nicely, and to posit a creative intelligence isn't that much of a stretch.
If there is a god, even the one you sugest, its one that doesnt give a shit to whats happening to us...Andromeda comming this way on a collision course, our sun that wil burn up in +/- 4 to 5 billion years and will destroy earth while doing that, not to mention all the other happy things that could happen to us...
If there is a god its the Einstein like god i think, and that is not what most people understand to be "God"...(does this even make sense? my english sucks, sorry)
Look, dude. We as beings of a seventy five-ish year lifespan - using a system of gadgets that really only began to take shape (in the modern world) in the last few centuries CANNOT speak authoritatively about processes of time that take BILLIONS of years. This may sound strange to you, but take your nose out of the books for a moment and think. They don't know either. Nor will they ever know. People have been chasing this riddle for millennia, and will continue to do so for many more.
Trying to solve something sounds far more satisfying than just saying: oh we dont know, its so long ago, its so complicated bla bla bla, lets just say god did it.
I dont really think science speaks authoritatively, thats something realigions tend to do, and if something sounds like a pile of bogus its the last one...by far.
I think of science and religion as two attempts at making sense out of our world. Science is a useful tool to make sense out of the material universe, develop technology, etc. Religion is a useful tool to make sense of the moral and philosophical sphere. Two ways of looking at the same thing. Both vital to a comprehensive understanding of our world. What I'm saying is that there is dogma on either side of the equation, and each side asserts itself as the lone authority. Think for yourself.
Of course you've got to think for your self and reject dogmatic thinking.
And i dont think science tries to give answers to moral ishues, but if you think you could get morality from a Bible or a Qoer'ān i think your on the wrong path.
And that Religion is now seen as only a "authority" on those moral and philosophical ishues is becouse they have been proven wrong on all the other subjects they said they know the answer to...
You don't think science is trying to give answers to moral issues? Have you read Daniel Dennett? As he loves to proclaim "There is a GROWING body of evidence" And the whole thing is in vain, because science has no say in morality. And what do you mean by "the wrong path"? Please don't regurgitate the same atheist propaganda on this question. My guess is you've never studied these texts for any notable amount of time, and that you certainly have no idea of how to read mythology.
Ok, i will not talk about the wonderfull love and joy that is spread by islam and the wonderfull sharia law they all want us to be a part of, or the catholic church that says using a condom is immoral, as they do in african countrys and probably elsewhere, its far better to die of aids. And you can keep going on like this and where does it come from? Well maybe you should stop just reading the letters in those books and start looking what those txts really say.
You're being funny, right? Looking at what the texts really say, eh? Being that you are espousing all the hot-button media-friendly topics regarding religion, I take it you know dick about the Bible itself. Take the New Testament for instance. The initial two translations were Greek and Hebrew, both dual character systems (gematria). So there is a numerical scripture as well, and the langugage of the numbers mirrors the language of the grammar. Quite an intellectual feat, at the very least
I did read the bible, was some time ago but its still fresh enough to know i have no intention of reading it again. And as for the numerical stuff your kidding right?
Blackholes are made up but there are hidden messages in the bible? come on...
It seems to me that regardless of what comment is posted here, if it's pro D'Souza and anti Dennett, you'll be given negative ratings. Are there any objective, honest atheists watching this??
Read some comments on debates between other theists and atheists. Dinesh is just insufferable. He either grossly misunderstands his oppositions arguments or willfully distorts them, much worse than someone like Alister McGrath, Rabbi Wolpe, or many other theists.
That's funny because even Hitchens himself acknowledged D'Souza as "one of the most formidable debaters he has encountered on any subject". Now, I doubt Hitchens would have said this if all D'Souza did was grossly misunderstand questions or willfully distort them. You would know Hitchens has little tolerance for those he disrespects and is certainly not one for platitiudes. I think it's clear D'Souza is one of the best theist debaters out there so intimidated atheists conveniently disparage him.
Well I guess I disagree with Hitchens. D'Souza yells into the microphone and has a agitated way of speaking that's very off-putting, at least to me. His representation of reciprocal altruism here is way off. A central point of that theory is that the actor IS NOT AWARE of the motivation to protect his genes, rather the actor is hardwired to have a disposition to altruism because it tends to be beneficial. Does he miss that central feature or is he misleading those who don't know it already?
I actually don't appreciate D'Souza's aggression here. His yelling and condescension isn't dignified, least of all for someone defending Christianity. That aside, his arguments are sound. I believe he is ridiculing the reciprocal altruism theory because it is so fraught with inconsistencies but I'm sure he could easily challenge it on its own terms. However I often see atheist debaters do the same thing, eg. using proof that the earth wasn't created in 6 days as leverage to deny god's existence.
Bingo! Anything or anyone that gets the fundamentalists of any sort thinking in the "wrong" direction is immediately demonized, mocked, and marginalized. No different with the atheists it seems.
No shit, joe! Look how red the man's face is....his head as well! You could fry an egg on that man's head. D'Souza shouldn't have done that poor fellow like that. Dennett should never do another debate. He's God awful. Pun intended.
The amount of bullshit that Dinesh spu0ts is ridiculous. Does he seriously claim that Christianity is the founding of gender-equality? The bible is arguably one of the most misogynistic books ever written, and he has the nerve to say that it was the first to claim otherwise?
Dennett is too calm, chill and respectful to debate such a loudmouth like Dinesh.
agree.. Dennett and Dawkins, etc. are too interested in the truth, and intelectual honesty. They also expect others to be the same, that's why they don't do well in debates. - Hitchens on the other hand knows that these debates is all about word games, war of wits, and he loves to get down and dirty and exposing the retards. ;)
Bible as a whole, or the Christian element? And are you comparing it to today's morals, or the morals at the time? I think you're exactly wrong if you propose that the Christian writings were more misogynistic than what was going on in the world at that time.
Calm and chill? Are you high? Dennett is a stuttering, stammering, snivelling, snorting nervous wreck. I agree that Dinesh can be annoying. But Dennett chilling? That's crazy talk.
Hear, hear. I would like to add that if DDS wants to hang on to all the nice texts and rules from God, we should also stick to the uglier ones. See what he thinks about that.
@michigan6443 You can't even engage in any type of debate/argument. I've seen your comments and they are mostly vacuous claims and then statements of you not reading any more of people's drivel.
D'Souza is so dishonest. He pretends that he reasoned his way into reconciling evolution with his religion. But the real answer is that he is allowed to accept evolution because the Pope said it's OK to agree with evolution. This is all post-hoc rationalisation. He has his religious beliefs first, then later he shops around for justifications and arguments to support it.
huwrj 2 weeks ago
D'Souza argues as if 2500 years of philosophy and science had not happen and religion was the only source of morality. I was impressed by his statement that he wants to learn more about this subject though!
EquinoxIV 1 month ago
Part 14 has been deleted - someone please upload it again, and post links here.
BannorPhil 2 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett
I know I m just a stupid atheist but i am pretty sure that 13 is followed by 14. Isnt it? :S
santajimi 3 months ago
Equality of men and women a christian idea? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
santajimi 3 months ago
Neither ultimate cause nor purpose can be proven or falsified by empirical science.empirical science is not designed to detect or define a purpose. biological evolution can acknowledge no purpose but likewise it cannot contend that there is a purpose outside of a metaphysical conclusion that there is no God.science cannot offer access to God and can neither establish his existence nor falsify his existence. To deny God is not a scientific conclusion but one drawn from the LIMITATIONS of science
ngimangi 3 months ago
@ngimangi
It can't access or falsify the divine chiwawa that created the universe either. Science not being able to access something is not a point in its favour- it's a suggestion that it's probably not there.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis... this way of thinking is called materialism. You presuppose that all that exists is what u can smell, taste, see etc. Science is not concerned with philosophy. It does not measure purpose. it cannot find God and is silent in these discussions. This is why it is odd to me that all atheists point to "evidence" from science as "proof" for God or no God. It can never toch upon these things... so why the same argument no evidence, no God is circular reasoning
ngimangi 3 months ago
@ngimangi
Well I'd call it empiricism rather than materialism. You don't presuppose anything, you just decide that you should only believe factual claims that are backed up by evidence- if that happens to lead to what you call materialism, then so be it- empiricism remains the ONLY way humans have found for making sure we're not just talking nonsense. I didn't say no evidence therefore no God.I said therefore probably no god-big difference. What reason do you have to assume there is a purpose?
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
I just noticed that both their initials are D.D. lulz.
dagl086 4 months ago 4
@brettcav "If we are free agents making choices (that are immoral) then we are stuck with the consequences"
We certainly are. But OTHER people shouldn't be stuck with the consequences if somebody else decides to murder them etc.
Surroundx 6 months ago
@Surroundx Great observation. You've just placed your finger on the tragedy of the human condition, Sin. Our sin doesn't just effect us...it effects others as well, "no man is an island unto himself." This buttresses the point that there are Objective Morals we believe in...regardless if we confess them or not. If we believed in relativistic morals, then none of us would complain that someone "wronged" us....b/c what they thought they did was right.
brettcav 5 months ago
@brettcav If morals were relativistic, people would still complain that someone wronged them because we are all selfish individuals interested in self-preservation (well, most of us anyway).
The fact that people, especially soldiers, can have their sense numbed, and a result their idea of morality blurs, shows that objective morality is not a transcendent thing, but rather resides in the brain.
Surroundx 5 months ago
@Surroundx I never said there wasn't an interaction in the brain. I am a soldier in the US Army, and am in fact deployed right now. The only reason that there is a need to numb the "moral senses" is so the soldier does not hesitate in killing the enemy..who are people. If there wasn't this internal sense of right/wrong, there would be no need for numbing. So, you would never convict the pedophile b/c he didn't threaten you? I would guess you would convict him and vote to exact justice on him.
brettcav 5 months ago
@brettcav the fact that the moral sense CAN be numbed shows that they are not transcendent, otherwise you couldn't numb them. They would be unchangeable.
re. the pedophile: any act of pedophilia is intrinsically wrong because it causes any number of terrible things to happen to the victim. I do not need to believe in Divine-command theory to know that it is wrong to harm another person (or animal). As a self-conscious being, it is clear to me that harming others is wrong.
Surroundx 5 months ago
@Surroundx Numbing is not the same as REMOVING. The soldier still knows right/wrong b/c he comes home and loves his family and is productive to society..he still has a moral conscience. If we had a society in which pedophilia was the norm, it still would be wrong! Therefore, some behavior are objectively wrong.Unless God exists, then you can't say pedophilia is wrong, b/c He is the source of Objective Morals.Otherwise it's your opinion against the pedophile, and the pedophile believes he's right
brettcav 5 months ago
@brettcav Numbing and removing certainly aren't the same thing. But numbing blurs our ability to judge morals SOMEWHAT, which should not be possible if we derive our morals from god. I do not know whether any of the worst people in history had any morals, but I suspect that they had less morals than the rest of us, though I can't quantify this. But clearly there have been many cultures in history who's sense of morality was very different from our own.
Surroundx 5 months ago
@Surroundx I appreciate what your saying. I agree that numbing blurrs our moral judgements (esp with drugs or Alcohol)..and you want to say, therefore morals are not transcendant, like God. I would say Objective Morals are transcendant, because their source is God. However it doesn't mean all cultures have recognized this..esp if man is fallen and disconnected from God, although not completely.
brettcav 5 months ago
Like I said before, b/c a culture may have practiced pedophilia, it didn't make it right. However, you can't say it's not right unless there is a standard you are appealing to..an Objective standard of right and wrong..that goes beyond opinion and cultural mores.
brettcav 5 months ago
@brettcav We both agree that objective morals exist, we just disagree on their source.
Surroundx 5 months ago
Dennett's religion of "goodness" doesn't tell him what to do when he doesn't feel like doing it. Again the atheist tries to draw on objective principles w/o God. There is no objective morality w/o God.
brettcav 7 months ago
@brettcav If there is objective morality then there must be objective immorality. And if there is objective immorality, god has an obligation to prevent it since they can if they are omnipotent.
Surroundx 6 months ago
@Surroundx Exactly. Objective morals are real; therefore God is real. As the source of objective morality and truth, it doesn't follow that just b/c there is immorality that God has to stop it. If we are free agents making choices (that are immoral) then we are stuck with the consequences. I'm sure you have experienced this. I certainly have. God's omnipotence, in this matter, is related to His power that created us to have free will.
brettcav 6 months ago
@brettcav My main problem with your argument is that you are assuming that objective morality comes from a god. I think that an objective morality can be explained by an evolutionary response to environmental stimuli. Sam Harris makes some very articulate arguments to this extent. far more articulate than I could. It follows that someone claiming that religion is the source of morality needs to disprove the potential for an evolution of morality. How would you answer this?
TheArmyofWombats 5 months ago
@TheArmyofW If evolution is true and the existance of God is real, maybe God used the stimuli to confirm to man what he already knows..ie. that some things are objectively wrong. I think objective moral values are best explained by the existance of God, mainly b/c we all appeal to it's objectivity! We never say a rape of a little girl is amoral! Yes, rape is against the law, but even if the law didn't exist, it would still be wrong. Rather, the law identifies an immorality and exacts justice.
brettcav 5 months ago
@brettcav To get this straight, you believe that objective morality comes from a god because it is objective? I find that objective morality could just as easily be explained be the advancement of civilization and societal interaction. A healthy society is hardly one that advocates rape or murder. How would this not explain morality without need of a god?
TheArmyofWombats 5 months ago
@Army What I said is..If you agree that Objective Morality exists, then it is best explained by the existance of God. The reason for this is b/c human beings are Subjective, and who is to say that your morals are better than mine.
brettcav 5 months ago
In fact, Nazi Germany believed they were at the peak of human civilization..and that they could create a "man" via the process of evolution to that end. This Moral impetus took precedence over the treatment of those who were deemed "undesireable"..or having inferior genes. If you watch the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi's arguement was that the Allies had no moral authority to judge them...what's very interesting is the Allies rebuttle!
brettcav 5 months ago
@brettcav This is a moot argument, as the initial premise of the Nazis was wrong. They found moral justification by the perversion of a biological principle; as opposed to defining right from wrong by the study of humanity. I'll give the Nuremberg trials a see next I have some time. I imagine the Allies used a similar objective morality argument to yours. That the Nazi's claimed the Allies had no moral authority on the matter is wrong, I agree; but for different reasons than you, methinks.
TheArmyofWombats 5 months ago
@brettcav Ah, well I suppose I should be more clear as to how I define Objective Morality. I think that you can come to a rational explanation of a human moral code in an objective manner. This kind of morality is subjective to the human experience, yes; however, it can be objectively reasoned with an analysis of human interaction. I do not say that there exists some eternal codified moral law; not to sound trite, but it seems to me the only eternal thing in this universe is change.
TheArmyofWombats 5 months ago
Did that guy at 3:05 really say "messianic ideologies such as Naziism and Communism?" Am I hearing this right?
Also isn't cutting off the roots and keeping the branches how Bonsai trees are made? What's wrong with Bonsai?
666arzin 9 months ago
Comment removed
666arzin 9 months ago
Dinesh like WLC is not so much stupid as a con man of the most obvious kind...
kissmyass682 9 months ago
"10 percent of morality"!? How arbitrary and futile Dinesh is! Where does he get this number from? Maybe he should apply such riogrous statistics to the existence of Yaweh.
reinforcedpenisstem 9 months ago
Does Dinesh really understand what he just said about the Scandinavia example?
He says if you erase God from a society you lose all your morals...And he says that 1 Minute after the perfect example that this is not the case has just been given: Scandinavian countries (even more than other European states) HAVE taken God out of their society for the biggest part and Tadaaa!!! Their societies are working better. Less crime, more wealth, more welfare.
It's so sad how blind he is.
mercutio47 10 months ago
Way to dodge the question Dinesh.
ImBackAJ20101 1 year ago
Oh come on Dinesh! Go and learn a bit about Nietzsche's Zarathustra. You obviously don't know much about other religions before Judao/Christrian religions. "Christianity brought the foundations of morality?!.." Give me a break.
Parsayan 1 year ago
@Parsayan It did in the West, at least.
dvc5797 1 year ago
@dvc5797 - No, it didn't ... Western notions of morality developed the same as everyone elses. Indo-European morality was well established 1000's of yrs prior to Xtianity ... Xtianity was subject to & conformed to it ... A simple farming settlement couldn't have formed w/o an agreed morality ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
come on guys,.there was a time a preacher in sweden in his church preached against homosexuality from the bible and was sent to prison for that,.yes in sweden,.!my ohh my,.your doomed sweden,. let the muslims take over,..you reject the true light,.now Mohammad is coming for you,.get ready,.
patrickmuhere 1 year ago
3:02
ChainsGame 1 year ago
It's great that Creationists such as D'Souza are now starting to accept the idea of evolution, 10 years ago evolution would have been the focus of the debate. Unfortunately that just means they are now on to the next thing that hasn't yet been explained by Science. Will it never end?
starchaser28 1 year ago 15
@starchaser28
The problem is that theism is entirely redundant but so is 'new atheism'. By this I mean the a'deist' position that the four horseman among others hold. The only valid arguments theists have are for deism, not theism, and the new atheist position does well in ridiculing theism but fails at making a rational argument against deism. Most debates between theists and new atheists are a stale mate because the cosmological argument is completely logically sound but the rest is nonsense.
323157 11 months ago
@323157 Go to Robert J Spitzer's magis center for faith and reason and get a refresher course in philosophy and science. Do you see why an ultimate cause cannot be composite? It stares you in the face if you know what "composition" means. The western metaphysics that will take you out of blindness is along the lines of Moritmer Adler's "SIx Great Ideas". If God and your free will aren't round little material objects then physics has zilcch to say about them.
Youdamana 11 months ago
@Youdamana
Have a degree in Philosophy from a good Uni thanks, but appreciate the condescending response. At what point did I suggest that an ultimate cause would be composite? Do a refresher cause in 'reading basic sentences' and get back to me.
323157 10 months ago
@starchaser28 How absurd that you are so misinformed that you don't even know that the founder of modern genetic evolutionary science was a Catholic monk and priest, August Mendel. One of the major probems of our world is the simplistic cultural illiterate like yourself who bases his dumb views of others on your own ignorance. Wlll ignorance like yours ever end? Darwin also believed in God. The argument that intelligence is an accidental byproduct of dust is ridiculous like your dusty opinions.
Youdamana 11 months ago
Comment removed
starchaser28 11 months ago
@Youdamana I seems that you've taken my comment out of context and started a new argument from it. I'm merely making an observable statement about the progress that has been made in the direction of acceptance for science & evolution. Darwin was througout his life: Christian -> Theist -> Doubtful. Many great scientists had religious upbringings, but in the course of their work had altered their views based on evidence they uncovered. Do you have a source for August Mendel?
starchaser28 11 months ago
@starchaser28 You haven't heard of Mendel? The Catholic priest who underlies genetic theory? HOw about another Catholc priest how did the Big Bang theory. Gorges Lemaitre. Never heard of him either? I honestly can't believe the cultural ignorance of the western word, where off the cuff imagined truisms about all of the mostly Christian scientists who brought us science just disappear with a wave of a TV remote. Sorry, but the ignorance of western religious intellectual life is appalling.
Youdamana 11 months ago
@starchaser28 That has more to do with atheists having a made up caricature of what Christians believe.
andrwheekilee 11 months ago
@starchaser28 Dinesh has never stated that he is a creationist. He is more of the 'intelligent desing crowd. Then again, it's still bullshit.
GHortaV 10 months ago
@starchaser28 Accepting evolution doesn't mean accepting Neo-dawinian evolution. Most if not all, Christian scientists accept microevolution, b/c the scientific method can show its existance. Macroevolution is a different topic and is wrought with holes and a complete lack of evidence in the real world. When was the last time you saw evolution trying out different things...like chicken feet on people..since we are all related as Dawin's "tree of life" assumes?
brettcav 5 months ago
@starchaser28 what GOD? u think you can explain him with science?
ngimangi 3 months ago
@starchaser28 Before unwillingly accepting it, D'Souza and his brothers were denying evolution. Before that, they would have burned us at the stake. The inquisitors probably sounded and reasoned just like D'Souza does. If they want to join evolution, they should excommunicate Ratzinger and make Dennett pope.
whauffend 3 months ago
Morality?? Christianity?? Has this guy actually read the Bible??? Give me a break!!
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago 12
@Cougar139tweak You need to learn reading comprehension. Even reading it as literature would dispel your ignorance.
andrwheekilee 11 months ago
@andrwheekilee Would you like a list of evil verses? I promise you I know the Bible well, I'm from Texas and you get a steady dose of this BS there. I havr read it as well as the Koran, Hadeth and Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. All equally crazy......well maybe the Book of Mormon is a little more crazy. Also no need to attack me, that's just bad manners.
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak ... I do take it that he has. He's no ignorant. He's a deliberate liar. That's worst than being an ignorant.
cre599 10 months ago
@Cougar139tweak Morality?? Aethism?? Have you ever looked in the mirror? Give me a break!!
ngimangi 3 months ago
@ngimangi Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, search "Sky Cake" by Patton Oswald or... watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w ....Atheists don't need a sky daddy to be good. Why do I do unto others as I'd have done to me? Because it makes me feel good because, well, I'm a nice guy. Look in a mirror? Have I attacked anyone on here? (other than Dinesh D'Souza's opinion?)
Cougar139tweak 3 months ago
morals had been promulgate by religious man but it come from our evolution progress and our changing mind whats is wright and wrong otherwise if it would come from god his morals supposly would be so perfect as some religious man it would not have change over century yet we see some change of our morals standing(what aceptable yesterday is not today ex:slavery )
mystisme 1 year ago
Where's 14?
Walabinx 1 year ago 3
"the preciousness of every human life... that's a christian idea". what a shamefully ignorant statement.
022171 1 year ago 3
7:55 How is Jesus Christ any different than John Frum? Even from an atheist perspective, this is a ridiculous question.
aarondkemp 1 year ago
@aarondkemp Well at least John Frum brought some tangible stuff along with him :)
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
And the church classes women as equals with men??? What a load of absolute tosh!
ledburyrfc 1 year ago
"It's super and it's natural, but it's not supernatural." Wow, Dennett is a powerful thinker! Hehe.
mdoyon216 1 year ago
even dennett with all his "uhs" still pwns dinesh even though is obviously a more skilled debator.
pratto54321 1 year ago
OMG Dinesh really believe that the preciousness of every human life is a Christian idea.... wow.... he sounds so desperate and naive, astounding spewing of garbage
ozbandit 1 year ago 3
Nietszche as a great philosopher - Dinesh is utterly ignorant.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
Mr. Denesh is a great speaker and debater I have been following him and other apologist for a while. what i don't understand is why some of you attack him Personally not on the points he makes. now for some of you who like good debates on both sides check out
Bigtony3868 1 year ago
I wish santa clause would stop saying ah after each word very annoying.
michigan6443 1 year ago
7:22 Supreme doofus.
Smood47 1 year ago
WOW FUCK YOU FOR STRAW MANNING NIETZSCHE
AR333 1 year ago
Dennett just afirmm one of the most totalitarnian state concept so I say to him GOODBYE, so long, da da and so on.
metal87power 1 year ago
Did anyone notice that Dinesh said that it's impossible to maintain a moral society without religion... RIGHT AFTER the questioner asked what they thought about the very atheist/agnostic Scandanavian society which demonstrably shows that an atheist society can be very moral?
Not to mention that earlier in the debate, Dinesh agrees with the notion that morality is not (to quote Stephen Fry) "in any way inventions of religion, or particular or peculiar to religion".
bossmonkeykj 1 year ago
@bossmonkeykj, cause it's truth, howover, religion don't have to be Christianism, Islam.. atheism, agnosticism, secularism can be a quasi-religion at least as well
metal87power 1 year ago
@metal87power first of all, no, it's not the truth, because the questioner STARTED with the counterexample, and second, no, atheism is not a religion
bossmonkeykj 1 year ago
@bossmonkeykj, When? And second - yes, it is.
metal87power 1 year ago
@metal87power no, it's not. atheism is a religion like non-belief in the tooth fairy is a religion.
Dude, it's on this video. 3:05
bossmonkeykj 1 year ago
I love that Dinesh explains how flawed some of Nietzsche's philosophy was, but then uses that same flawed philosophy to [attempt to] justify his point. Dinesh = poster child of fail.
VenomOXP 1 year ago
Evolution doesn't have to explain morality, you freaking moron.
msteele79 1 year ago
@msteele79 If you are not a theist then it does.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
D'Souza's analogy of the car shows just what a retard he is.
msteele79 1 year ago
See, i would rather believe in God than Dan Dennett's so called GOODNESS. the people who always reject the existence of God embrace certain beliefs in things like goodness, nature, reason, and so forth. All these can never give us answers as good enough as the biblical ones. The answers they offer are INCOMPLETE...
okellookello 1 year ago
@okellookello
if you're going to accept answers that are more complete, you're not necessarily going to get the correct answers though! anyone who claims to have the complete answer to anything is lying to you!
chebob2009 1 year ago
@okellookello just because we don't know the answers yet, doesn't mean you should just invent some convenient answers for yourself. You can actually see Dinesh inventing characteristics of god ON THE FLY, to explain whatever he needs to.
What you're doing is no better than the Greeks, inventing Zeus to explain lightning.
bossmonkeykj 1 year ago
Does Dinesh seriously think that the christian religion has done a single good thing for this planet?
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
Dude. You can't be that stupid. Are you really implying that Christianity hasn't don't one single thing positive in its two thousand year history? You can disagree with it all you want to, but that is outright pathology. You need to seek help for that.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic Name one good thing that it has done. And could that thing have been done by someone secular?
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
You really don't know many Christians, do you? And if so, you really aren't listening to them. I'll give you an example. My friend's best friend growing up led a very WILD life - a life like many can't comprehend. As glorious as it may look on paper, she found herself empty and in despair. Then she was saved. She would sit Marcia in a chair and read to her these passages of the Bible with tears of joy streaming down her face. It changed her life...for the better.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic Funny when I was a christian I didn't think about the world around me very much and let my religion do all my work for me. Now as an atheist I know that there is no friend in the sky and I have to do the thinking for myself. It seems like most people become christians when they are having a tough time in their life. My life is perfectly fine no deity required. And what bible verses made her do that. The bible is worse than any horror book or movie that I ever saw or read.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
And no, atheism can't do that. It can change lives certainly; but it cannot provide the all-encompassing revelation of God. Here's the thing: if you try to understand it with your mind, you're never going to get it. It's too big an idea to wrap your head around. And yes, it is. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise. It is something that happens in the heart. It opens you to a much larger field of experience than ego consciousness could ever touch.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic No but atheism can provide the all encompassing revelation of reality. So you want me to have faith to understand god? Of course if you believe something exists then yes it will seem like it is real. Sorry but I have been there and now I will accept it only with proof.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
Understand God? That's the tallest of orders, sir. The irony, and perhaps the bane of many existences here on earth (which would explain so much of the vitriol), is that no matter how much intellectual "progress" is made, it ultimately is only scratching the surface. We are experiencing a mystery whose depth knows no boundaries, and whose power will forever remain unmatched. I think you're confusing the anthropomorphic deity with a much larger idea.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic In other words, life is a mystery so it must be a god who is even more mysterious. Makes a lot of sense.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Dinesh's misunderstaning and blatant misuse of Nietzsche to make his point is one of the most dishonest things he does on regular bases
HerrVonManstein 1 year ago 2
man Dinesh is a scumbag
DaveMcG 1 year ago 2
Evolution and behavioral studies are far better at accounting for morality than invoking God, since we know humans exist but can only postulate that God does. You don't need to 'believe' in human-based morality, it's there to be understood. Dinesh accuses others of wandering out of their intellectual depth: he does this with human behavior and morality, and human pre-history. 'Moral' behavior is other-regarding, and it is an aspect of learned norms, evolved predispositions, and reciprocity.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
Its really stupid for athests who claim that scandinavian countries like sweeden are great places because of athesim,.they should go and read the history of those countries,.sweden forinstance was found on christian values and it even had a state church until the 90s,. now with all that gone sweden is going on a free fall,.just ask the people who live there.,.things are changing,.for the worse,.
patrickmuhere 1 year ago
@patrickmuhere Is it a coincidence that "the change for the worse" in Sweden is happening at the same time as the huge muslim immigration?
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@patrickmuhere Difference is that they think of it as a tradition, and this is how it has been for decades. "We like it, but don't really believe it" is the attitude, and don't let it anywhere near politics. - The "fall" of Sweden, as you call it, is ridicules. They have problems with their immigration politics, but that's it, chump. And this is only problems relative to the other Scandinavian countries, still way above average. (No, I'm not Swedish)
fjoo 1 year ago
And where are Christianity's roots
ejueju 1 year ago
Put in spanish!! For latín kings!!
respondodudas 1 year ago
This guy dinesh loves making ridiculous similars that dont make sense
only in his head . Words: deluded and arrogant
1lovetechno 1 year ago
The asian's question completely crushed Dinesh tsk tsk
tigeruby 1 year ago
stupid moderator prevented an answer from a great question.
amindbody 2 years ago
D'Souza missed a key part of Dawkins' explanation of morality. We show altruism to strangers because we can't "turn off" the altruism genes that evolved to make sure we help our friends and family.
gocrimson10 2 years ago
@gocrimson10 You can speak for yourself and your own genes, although I really don't believe you. I for one find it hard to turn my altruism genes on! I don't think I'm really any worse than the next guy, but introspection shows that that doesn't make me a great guy. The idea that people are generally good has some truth, but I don't think that that is the predominate part of mankind and if you just read this message board, it's not hard to see how readily people (e.g.) insult with impunity.
nechristianson 2 years ago
if i give a a dollar to a homeless man i am essentially decreasing my chances of survival and increasing his.
TheWinepusher 1 year ago
Yes, but if you give a dollar to a friend when he needs it, the friend will give you a dollar later on when you need it - both of you wind up increasing your chance of survival, to some small degree. The same instincts that tell you to give money to your friend also tell you to give money to strangers in need - the instincts can't tell the difference.
gocrimson10 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheWinepusher
"if i give a a dollar to a homeless man i am essentially decreasing my chances of survival and increasing his."
Not really. You're helping to create a society which values helping those in need, knowing that one day, you or your children might be on the short end of the stick and may need the help of others.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@gocrimson10 lol, yeah right.
shilohwillcome 1 year ago
I live in Scandinavia and yes we are very seculair here today, but its not true we never had. We have actully a very strong past and history in christianity. if we have 70% atheist today we surely had over 90% believers a 100 years ago.
dealerovski82 2 years ago 2
D'Souza - "We are created in the image of GOD". Assertion after assertion and all
without rational support. How could he possibly know? Hundreds of GODS worshiped by thousands of tribes past and present and he is convinced the bronze age Hebrew tribe in posession of a unique truth. The same"chosen" people that some how fell out of favor?
This man believes and defends tales of magic in spite of his many years of "education". What imagination! Regards
1Skeptik1 2 years ago
Dinesh sucks, his analogies are bad. And he's wrong.
jaggerlags 2 years ago
@jaggerlags - it seems a pattern is emerging, no one is asking dennett any questions, why is that do you think?
here's what I think, no one is asking dennett any questions, because it is all out of context. the question I would ask dennett is: "thank you for your friendly greeting, where do you, wal-mart, keep your cheddar pork rinds?"
mollkatles 1 year ago
The most basic support of morality is the survival of the species. Empathy takes care of the rest. Those lacking empathy tend to be psycopaths(etc) and explain the likes of serial killers and so forth. There are your ethics and morales summed up. BTW there have been plenty of Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc psychopaths throughout history. many unnamed who purely kill in the name of god and religion. Yes, killing in the name of religion or god is psychopathic.
daeamarth 2 years ago
Actually, no. I'm not kidding. The science is called Gematria. My mentioning it was simply to point out how little you know about something you are so vehemently against. I'm no Bible thumper, but I will concede that a tremendous amount of thought and conviction went into that work. To have read one of the world's sacred texts once - years ago - and discarded it is okay from a personal standpoint. But don't try to speak with any semblance of authority on the subject. A very empty gesture.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
Your not kidding...? lol...i think i just pissed in my pants laughing...i think its over and out...really... ^^
Iammrspickley 2 years ago 2
It was over and out before the conversation started. You have no idea what you're talking about. I pointed out - with no uncertain terms - that you are completely ignorant when it comes to the Bible, yet you attempt to speak authoritatively and dismissively about it. That's pathetic, you know. If you're sitting there pissing yourself because of laughter, I would hope that your laughter is at yourself. You're WAY over your head in this argument. Now go do some research. For God's sake.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
What i would do isnt for gods sake, really.
What is pathectic though is the bollocks people trying to get out of texts like the bible.
If you cant find some meaning in it in a normal way, maybe try decoding it or give numbers some vague meaning.
And as for me not seeing the sheer beauty of something like Gamatria or bible decoding like you seem to do, i wont loose a nights rest over it.
You just go believe in your little Conspiracys and keep telling that the bigbang is dogma or blackholes are
Iammrspickley 2 years ago 2
You really need to shut up now. Willful ignorance shouldn't be put on such prominent display. It's amazing to see exercising such contempt for the Bible (which you admit ignorance of) and its followers, yet you can't seem to grasp that the same thing is happening to YOU on the other side of the equation. I'm neither nor, yo. Bullshit is bullshit. And black holes, literally and figuratively, are bullshit. The big bang theory is bullshit. Consider it a trojan horse that worked like a charm.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
dude your the deluded one, not me, im not a bible scholar but i did read the bloody thing, and yes its bloody, vile, intolerant and intimidating at best.
But lets stop this argument couse its going no where, your like that geek Dan Keeran that everytime (and ive seen other discusions of you) you hear comonsens you put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalalala...
Iammrspickley 2 years ago
You for damn sure aren't a Bible scholar. And you obviously have no idea how to read mythology, think for yourself, spell, or pose a formidable argument. The study of mythology is of much more VITAL importance. I imagine this sounds strange to you. Your kneejerk reaction is probably contempt. And that's by design, by the way. I've met a thousand of you. Homogenous. Blah. Yet vocal. I'll say it again: you're in way over your head in this argument. You need to shut your trap and listen.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
your a waste of time...
Happy new year and have a good time living your fantasy...
Iammrspickley 2 years ago 2
I'm happy you think so. Peace, love, and chicken grease.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
@sphericalpyramid belief without evidence is (at best) silly. You seem to be schooled in (christian) scripture, if so you know it is not the inerrant word of god, so your position reduces to the deist/atheist argument,which is pointless. Now, use your obvious intelligence to help people instead of arguing trivialities.
timrice666 2 years ago
I wasn't aware that knowing what you're talking about was a bad thing. If you're going to praise something - or denounce it - you should know what you're denouncing. I'm well aware of the fact that the Bible is the product of human penmanship. That's what fascinates me about it. In terms of mythology, the story of Christ is an amazing triumph of the human spirit, and is a luminous example of the phenomenal human being in full form. Mythology's purpose is to invoke spiritual consciousness.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
made up, couse clearly you are a authority on that part...
Iammrspickley 2 years ago 2
i think "God" is a dead end argument until its found, God that is...
What puzzles me is if there is a membrane in the 11th dimension, where did that came from and where did all that stuff that made the membranes came from, etc etc etc... :)
Iammrspickley 2 years ago
I politely disagree. I think the "God" argument is one that has raged since humans emerged into consciousness, and will continue to do so. The idea of God is a reference to something that transcends all thought. It is beyond the pairs of opposites. Its mystery is infinite and unfathomable, yet the mere thought of which can inspire world ages and/or literally result in human enlightenment. The subjective dimension can't be ruled out in this debate, IMO. Anything else is dishonest.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
Using the word God or Gods is just a way to say we dont know or understand...
Once Gods were everywhere on this planet, now some say, under pressure of most science discoveries, that God must be somewhere outside of this universe.
There must be a lot of stuff going on we dont know of and probebly will never comprehend, but saying there is a godlike figure that will put you to hell or something if you not behave is, i think, total nonsens...
Iammrspickley 2 years ago
Or "God" could be everything and everyone we've ever seen, everywhere we've ever been, and everything we can imagine. Energy + intelligence seems to be the basic formulation of the entire universe - on all levels, whether it be measuring how far it is to the next galaxy, the puzzling reciprocity of gravitational force, or the noodle-cooking enigma that is quantum mechanics. This whole thing is put together quite nicely, and to posit a creative intelligence isn't that much of a stretch.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
If there is a god, even the one you sugest, its one that doesnt give a shit to whats happening to us...Andromeda comming this way on a collision course, our sun that wil burn up in +/- 4 to 5 billion years and will destroy earth while doing that, not to mention all the other happy things that could happen to us...
If there is a god its the Einstein like god i think, and that is not what most people understand to be "God"...(does this even make sense? my english sucks, sorry)
Iammrspickley 2 years ago 2
Look, dude. We as beings of a seventy five-ish year lifespan - using a system of gadgets that really only began to take shape (in the modern world) in the last few centuries CANNOT speak authoritatively about processes of time that take BILLIONS of years. This may sound strange to you, but take your nose out of the books for a moment and think. They don't know either. Nor will they ever know. People have been chasing this riddle for millennia, and will continue to do so for many more.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
Trying to solve something sounds far more satisfying than just saying: oh we dont know, its so long ago, its so complicated bla bla bla, lets just say god did it.
I dont really think science speaks authoritatively, thats something realigions tend to do, and if something sounds like a pile of bogus its the last one...by far.
Iammrspickley 2 years ago
I think of science and religion as two attempts at making sense out of our world. Science is a useful tool to make sense out of the material universe, develop technology, etc. Religion is a useful tool to make sense of the moral and philosophical sphere. Two ways of looking at the same thing. Both vital to a comprehensive understanding of our world. What I'm saying is that there is dogma on either side of the equation, and each side asserts itself as the lone authority. Think for yourself.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
Of course you've got to think for your self and reject dogmatic thinking.
And i dont think science tries to give answers to moral ishues, but if you think you could get morality from a Bible or a Qoer'ān i think your on the wrong path.
And that Religion is now seen as only a "authority" on those moral and philosophical ishues is becouse they have been proven wrong on all the other subjects they said they know the answer to...
Iammrspickley 2 years ago
You don't think science is trying to give answers to moral issues? Have you read Daniel Dennett? As he loves to proclaim "There is a GROWING body of evidence" And the whole thing is in vain, because science has no say in morality. And what do you mean by "the wrong path"? Please don't regurgitate the same atheist propaganda on this question. My guess is you've never studied these texts for any notable amount of time, and that you certainly have no idea of how to read mythology.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
Ok, i will not talk about the wonderfull love and joy that is spread by islam and the wonderfull sharia law they all want us to be a part of, or the catholic church that says using a condom is immoral, as they do in african countrys and probably elsewhere, its far better to die of aids. And you can keep going on like this and where does it come from? Well maybe you should stop just reading the letters in those books and start looking what those txts really say.
Iammrspickley 2 years ago
Comment removed
Iammrspickley 2 years ago
You're being funny, right? Looking at what the texts really say, eh? Being that you are espousing all the hot-button media-friendly topics regarding religion, I take it you know dick about the Bible itself. Take the New Testament for instance. The initial two translations were Greek and Hebrew, both dual character systems (gematria). So there is a numerical scripture as well, and the langugage of the numbers mirrors the language of the grammar. Quite an intellectual feat, at the very least
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
I did read the bible, was some time ago but its still fresh enough to know i have no intention of reading it again. And as for the numerical stuff your kidding right?
Blackholes are made up but there are hidden messages in the bible? come on...
Iammrspickley 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But if you think this is just atheists propaganda fine, thats not my problem...
Iammrspickley 2 years ago
It seems to me that regardless of what comment is posted here, if it's pro D'Souza and anti Dennett, you'll be given negative ratings. Are there any objective, honest atheists watching this??
happysappy21 2 years ago
Read some comments on debates between other theists and atheists. Dinesh is just insufferable. He either grossly misunderstands his oppositions arguments or willfully distorts them, much worse than someone like Alister McGrath, Rabbi Wolpe, or many other theists.
lifeofbob 2 years ago
That's funny because even Hitchens himself acknowledged D'Souza as "one of the most formidable debaters he has encountered on any subject". Now, I doubt Hitchens would have said this if all D'Souza did was grossly misunderstand questions or willfully distort them. You would know Hitchens has little tolerance for those he disrespects and is certainly not one for platitiudes. I think it's clear D'Souza is one of the best theist debaters out there so intimidated atheists conveniently disparage him.
happysappy21 2 years ago
Well I guess I disagree with Hitchens. D'Souza yells into the microphone and has a agitated way of speaking that's very off-putting, at least to me. His representation of reciprocal altruism here is way off. A central point of that theory is that the actor IS NOT AWARE of the motivation to protect his genes, rather the actor is hardwired to have a disposition to altruism because it tends to be beneficial. Does he miss that central feature or is he misleading those who don't know it already?
lifeofbob 2 years ago
I actually don't appreciate D'Souza's aggression here. His yelling and condescension isn't dignified, least of all for someone defending Christianity. That aside, his arguments are sound. I believe he is ridiculing the reciprocal altruism theory because it is so fraught with inconsistencies but I'm sure he could easily challenge it on its own terms. However I often see atheist debaters do the same thing, eg. using proof that the earth wasn't created in 6 days as leverage to deny god's existence.
happysappy21 2 years ago
Bingo! Anything or anyone that gets the fundamentalists of any sort thinking in the "wrong" direction is immediately demonized, mocked, and marginalized. No different with the atheists it seems.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
It's super. It's natural. It's just not supernatural..... Great fucking line!!!!! AMEN
2eelShmeal 2 years ago
No shit, joe! Look how red the man's face is....his head as well! You could fry an egg on that man's head. D'Souza shouldn't have done that poor fellow like that. Dennett should never do another debate. He's God awful. Pun intended.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dennet's speech is terribly halting... he gets one idea out for Dinesh's 3.
joe72205 2 years ago
McDonalds can get 10 burgers out for every one I make at home. Doesn't make the burgers better.
TheNotoriousBOA 2 years ago 2
The amount of bullshit that Dinesh spu0ts is ridiculous. Does he seriously claim that Christianity is the founding of gender-equality? The bible is arguably one of the most misogynistic books ever written, and he has the nerve to say that it was the first to claim otherwise?
Dennett is too calm, chill and respectful to debate such a loudmouth like Dinesh.
ChaseKittens 2 years ago 35
agree.. Dennett and Dawkins, etc. are too interested in the truth, and intelectual honesty. They also expect others to be the same, that's why they don't do well in debates. - Hitchens on the other hand knows that these debates is all about word games, war of wits, and he loves to get down and dirty and exposing the retards. ;)
fjoo 2 years ago 28
@fjoo And Hitchens destroys Dinesh every time they debate...
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago 2
@fjoo really? you too should go to day-care and study.
michigan6443 1 year ago
@michigan6443 Have no idea what you're replying to.
fjoo 1 year ago
Bible as a whole, or the Christian element? And are you comparing it to today's morals, or the morals at the time? I think you're exactly wrong if you propose that the Christian writings were more misogynistic than what was going on in the world at that time.
copperblade 2 years ago
The bible AND Christianity.
And you'd think that a holy scripture would be more moral than the moral zeitgheist of the time...
ChaseKittens 2 years ago
@ChaseKittens
Calm and chill? Are you high? Dennett is a stuttering, stammering, snivelling, snorting nervous wreck. I agree that Dinesh can be annoying. But Dennett chilling? That's crazy talk.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic
Have you not seen Dennett speak before? That's just how he talks!
chebob2009 1 year ago
@ChaseKittens
Hear, hear. I would like to add that if DDS wants to hang on to all the nice texts and rules from God, we should also stick to the uglier ones. See what he thinks about that.
JasperNagtzaam 1 year ago
@ChaseKittens You are wrong. you should go to day-care and read.
michigan6443 1 year ago
@michigan6443 Grow up.
ChaseKittens 1 year ago
@ChaseKittens You need a life. That progressive pill you swallowed from the Limousine-Liberal camp has messed you. last time i read your drivel.
michigan6443 1 year ago
@michigan6443 You can't even engage in any type of debate/argument. I've seen your comments and they are mostly vacuous claims and then statements of you not reading any more of people's drivel.
ChaseKittens 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
D'souza slammed Dennett in this debate.
blueghost510 2 years ago