quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur!!! What is asserted without reason may be denied without reason!!! If no grounds have been given for an assertion, then there are no grounds needed to reject it......need I say more.
@CertainUncertainty Well, his statement actually makes sense. To accept something that you don't know in the empirical sense would require something like faith.
1:54 - D'Souza's argument here is brilliant. And Hitchen knows it. Look at the expression on Hitchens face at 3:03 and 4:03. He has no script left. D'Souza's point is a view held by alot of theists - that most modern atheistic beliefs require quite a few leaps of faith themselves....
@DaveKarl You really think his argument is brilliant?? The expression on Hitchen's face seems to be of concentration (3:03) and as if he wants to say something, but knows that he is not supposed to (4:03).
@DaveKarl A theist who also reads minds and pontificates on the content found! even for a religious person, you are vapid and arrogant to the extreme.
@yatter1 don't care if D'Souza thinks if Elvis Presley is still alive. A man can still make a good argument. Instead of character assasination, why not deal with the actual argument put forward? Because too difficult for you? Atheists constantly like to refer to peoples personal character when debating, to avoid having to actually answer difficult points. ...And that reveals something about their own character. So much for the scientific approach....
what is dinesh rambling about? belief is NOT the same as admitting you dont know. and that analogy about his brother was just awful. you believe your brother is there and you know your brother is there should have been the analogy.
It's more irrational to say you believe and take the position on the other side of the issue because you don't just believe in everything until it's proven false. What a ridiculous man.
It was a great mistake to have set up this debate such that Hitchens was receiving all the questions and had no opportunity to respond to D'Souza's often contentious answers. Particularly evident with the point on the 'leap of faith'. The level of question-begging is incredible. Both had interesting points to make over the course of the debate, but the format weakened the quality of the exchange.
A supernatural experience does not commonly turn people towards religion unless they arleady have a knowledge or bias towards it. More commonly it causes the individual to question beyond what references to the transcendant are already available. People are usually turning to specific religions because of the abscence of transcendance in their lives and an emptiness. For some, x religion that they chose fills the gap comfortablly.
Is there life after death, maybe the near death experiences that have been reported, along with the strange sightings via such patients who have come back from death. I would like there to be a life after death that is beautiful and free. But I DONT KNOW and religious texts only serve to provide more confusion and hypocricy and absence to this answer.
considering the bias of his opponent, who seamed more preoccupied on attacking atheists (like there is such a thing as a group that can be called atheists...) than actually responding to hitchens.
He also presented logical fallacies one after another, like saying the civilized world had no morals in ancient rome and greece...
No it's just that the audience didn't understand the range of his historical and political references. And it was biased as per D'Souza attacking specific points and not answering questions.
Sure, but one of Hitchen's great strengths has been to cut through the popular paradigm of a room and challenge their comfort with regard to their own beliefs. He strikes me as considerably muted here. There may also be a rule, not apparent, which limits peoples responses: Debaters might not be allowed to respond to challenges to their answers to audience questions.
that our universe is only one of many in a multiverse (Lee Smolin call these fantasies)
that there are many lifeforms in our universe or multiverses
that if there is a creator, "he" obeys the same rules of law that we know about (and we know very little) and that his spatial dimensions (or any other dimensioins) corresponds to ours
Does anyone here think that Judeo-Christian belief is a bit, you know, provincial? All religions are.
I mean, the cosmos is unthinkably enormous, with black holes and supernova, other possible worlds, and maybe our universe is part of a multiverse...
And yet the creator of this is focused on one, tiny blue ball in one solar system, responding to a woman's prayer that her ass get's a little less fat.
@Neanderthalcouzin Exactly its a bias, man made bullshit story to suit our interests, to support the idea that "I" myself am soooo important, and its used to avoid the hardest questions about life.
@Neanderthalcouzin - I never knew you were in contact with the creator? Care to let us know his personal schedule over the next millenium? A few insider tips perhaps? Could be useful.
I say this because you seem to 'know' what he's 'focused' on. And you seem to have a good picture of HIS universes design. (Like a lot of Athesist think they do). And you're actually knowledgable enough (about universe designing) to critique it!
@DaveKarl You're projecting that arrogance my friend. It's religious people who claim to be in contact with the creator, not me, so save those kind of comments for them in the future. You'll notice subjecting your ideas and assumptions to the scientific method is the most humbling thing you can do, so save the disdain for someone who thinks they're above that.
@Neanderthalcouzin 'It's religious people who claim to be in contact with the creator, not me,'
P1 - Then how is it you are so well versed in Universe design and management, that you can step up to criticise it in the manner you do? As both you and Hitchens point out, that for the universe to be so unthinkably big and then for the creator to be focused on one tiny blue ball (earth) on the edge of the galaxy - that would be strange / unlikely / flawed.
@DaveKarl (2) Your arguments perpetually presuppose a deity. You have to at least define what you mean by this, and explain what kind of God this is, I'm open to hear suggestions. Presumably not the patriarch in the sky from monotheistic religion, who literally created the earth and life as is. If you believe that, than there's not much to say. However, if you want to make a more sophisticated argument for an initiator of the cosmos, go ahead.
@Neanderthalcouzin - It's YOUR argument that presupposes you have the ability to critique a deity!
In short - If I say to you there's an all powerful deity who designed everything. Your response is: '...Well its a bad design'.
My question is: How can you say that? What would you know about cosmos design?? - I can understand you saying u don't believe in it, fine. But what's with this 'stepping into Gods shoes' that you're doing??
@DaveKarl What are you talking about? Let's go through this. Your statement of an all powerful deity who 'designed' everything is a blind assertion, without evidence. Secondly, when did I say it was a 'bad design'? I have never said that, ever. The caricature of describing a God who biases one planet and one species is clearly a critique of the Judeo-Christian cosmological view, haven't you got that yet? Stop putting words in my mouth, and missing the primary point.
It isn't a criticism of a deity, it's a general skepticism towards the Judeo-Christian explanation and depiction. So certainly I don't claim to know (a) that there's a God and (b) what it is concerned with and the nature of existence. That is the criticism of religion.Notice how you haven't yet explained what this deity is, and how certain explanations account better for nature and reality than science.If it's valid,I'm open to it. Who is this God?What is its relationship to the cosmos?
@DaveKarl (1) You think I'm criticizing the Universe? That's a preposterous assertion, and peculiar. Let me make this clear, I take a scientific interest in the way things work, the history and nature of the Universe. So I refuse to make statements of certainty without evidence, and based on faith. Hitchens is playing devil's advocate, in order to address the implausibility of an interventionist deity who concerns himself with one corner of an infinite cosmos.
You said: 'Hitchens is playing devil's advocate, in order to address the implausibility of an interventionist deity who concerns himself with one corner of an infinite cosmos. '
How do you know he only concerns himself with ONLY one corner? Where did you get that from? (Hence my inital sarcasm about you being in contact with him). And why is him showing concern to only one corner, a flaw of some kind? Why?
awesome dinesh, very smart...one guy said do not be afraid of death there's nothing after death, but i'll say to him, that when death will come, you will be afraid or feel scared.
I actually don't observe a lot of old folk too afraid of dying. They seem to be able to accept it.
I don't have much of a problem with death. I mean... did you miss the three billion years of life on earth?
No. You were dead all that time. And your not going to miss anything when you return to that state.
I find that possibly the notions of the Religious about where you go after you die might ACTUALLY be frightening. Whereas, I have no reason to fear the natural order...
8:14 "...and I think this is, for the person who thinks about it, a deep mystery". wow, did we really just waste all this time only to end up back at the "evolution is just a theory" proposition? i wish there was an eject button that could fling d'souza right off the stage with this nonsense.
I agree with molewizard here. Hitchens probably expects, especially in an academic setting, that people reason as thoroughly as he does; he thinks they should be adept enough to understand. He does not understand his enemy. He doesn't know what it is like to believe, and to want to believe. I would submit that the crowd is not likely to actually study the topic as well. In my discussions with the atheists and religious, it often occurs to me just how much both of us don't know.
Dinesh D'Sousa starts to look more and more frustrated as the end of the debate nears. It really begins to show when he starts saying stuff like, "It's my BELIEF! I believe it! I do! I do! I do! Therefore, God exists."
wow hitchens has blown me away in this debate, he adjusts his manner and attack to the vibe of the debate and the character of the person hes debating... with frank turek i think he had little respect for his arguments and thought that it wasnt a true debate, and so could appear almost nasty at points, and didnt answer directly to turek, with doug something or other, a preacher, he respected greatly the politeness of the opposite viewpoint and was gentle, and with this one he is at his best.
I don't think Hitchens is actually that good at debating Atheism. He misses a great number of Logic points, and has missed almost my entire rationalisation for Atheism.
I don't think Religion or Atheism being a force for violence has any bearing on its viability AT ALL.
Morality doesn't influnce reality. Gravity is not going to reverse because of the fucking Holocaust.
But he spends the majority of time arguing why religion is inherantly evil - rather than actually explaining to his audience WHY people so readily act in an evil manner in a religious environment.
The problem here is twofold: Firstly, he barely argues for non-existance at all - So he is arguing to people who believe their God to be real and good that other people are evil in his name. So what?
Secondly, it is rarely non-Atheists who understand this. He implies too much, assumes you have an Atheistic point of view. He assumes you will understand why religion can be so evil - Assumes you see the very 'evil' in what you are a part of.
Of course you won't. It has to be explained before it is aknowledged.
"even though i don't know, i believe" <--- the essence of faith. to take on unprovable beliefs and then follow them as a philosophy. as opposed to following that which is rational and can be proven. I'll take the latter any day. otherwise, i fear i may be approached by someone claiming jumping off a cliff might be really good for me, and be compelled to believe it and follow it.
D'Souza comes from a Christian family so we can safely assume that his religious indoctrination started at an early age, which explains a great deal, especially some of the ways his critical faculties have been shut down.
He talks about "belief" without acknowledging that an essential part of "belief" is asserting the absolute truth of what you believe in. You either believe it to be true or you don't. Saying "I believe because I don't know" is utter nonsense. "Hope" would make more sense.
@BoneySkylord - I disagree. It's not 'utter nonsense' at all. I think you're just making a big deal about a minor grammar improvement you'd like to suggest. You 'believe' something when you you don't know for sure. Sound pretty straightforward.
@DaveKarl stop pretending that you understand the subject at hand when you clearly have not the first clue what´s being argued here, pray to god and hope he listens to you, I´m not going to
I think this debate is a little unfair. Not only does D'souza have som lame arguments witch are not true about atheism, but most of the time he has made a certain point against Hitchens the guy who holds the debade (who is christian himself...) emidiately go on to the next question. Give Hitchens the time to answer, damnit
Ir really doesnt matter. As an apolegetic D'souza is or pretty dumb or a liar in many senses. I've so far in the 9 videos point mistakes like "Einstein was a theist", christian in spanish inquisition, crusades, witch hunts, etc killed a few only, thats not biggie, the idea of compassion come from christians, the idea of free will->moral compared with a rock.
The guy skip his incorrect points, evade anwser, plain lie, i mean cmon i've seen theist with better arguments.
Yet because weak minded people like you exist, they determined these should be kept so as not to "confuse" you. Yet here you are defending bogus science you arent even aware is bogus. For crying out loud you dont even know that 99% of the science you spew is absolute you are still arguing nonsensical 1930's science in the year 2009. LMAO
All i can do really is laugh at your ignorance of your own beliefs.
Your approach to an argument is a good demonstration of your intelligence. If you are laughing, you are merely laughing at your own lack of knowledge.
1930's science? All of my understanding of science is 'bogus'? If this is your faith based opinion, then so be it, however, truth does not deal in faith or opinions. You should take a science class.
BTw..my last comment is not an insult to you. Most of the bogus comments you made are actually addressed in the ben Stein movie Expelled and addressed to an american head of science curriculum who 100% admits that they have kept completely bogus info like the common 4 winged fruit fly, the complete bogus Haeckel embryos, Darwins finches in history text books precisely because people like you are too dumb to make reasoned conclusions from the actual truth. ALL HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE.
My Bogus comments? "people like me are too dumb"? "All have been proven false"?
Well, if this is your approach to arguments, then you should not complain about Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennette, Christopher Hitchens and Michael Shermer because not only are they more convincing but they actually HAVE DATA to show.
But because of politics and ridiculous allegiances to disproven scientific myths, lazy people like you carry on spouting completely disproven bullshit, not because you are ignorant, but fellow scientists have made it so that you dont know much about the crap you believe in. They have deemed you too stupid to look at the truth for yourself and make a decision on your own. So they teach you bogus nonsense to avoid "confusing you"
Studies on "Darwins finches" have also discovered that darwin was completely misguided in supposing that the shortening of beaks was for the superior birds during drought. They found that the beaks grew back after the drought passed thus the so called weaker species survived and surpassed the shorter beaked birds..
So many examples like the bogus 8 winged fruit flies, and bogus evidence of vistigial appendages on creatures have been confirmed to disprove evolution
If you didnt know this, Darwin had no clue about mutation and many many discoveries have been found to dispute evolution.
Not to mention many contradicting fossils found in many places including china (the biggest)from the precambrian period completely nullifying or casting serious doubts on Darwin's tree of life
"Nearly all biologists were convinced by the latter half of the nineteenth century that spontaneous generation of all types of living organisms was impossible (Bergman, 1993a)"
And yet here you are, trying to convince people that an idea that has been soundly proven as impossible, not by religious zealots, but scientists themselves, is an idea that is "plausible"
Please tell me why ID or God are less plausible again?
This is exactly why D'souza's style of arguments against Atheist is like cryptonite to them. He forces them away from morose discussions about little boys' genitals and burning bushes and forces them to defend the so called "science" they almost always only hint about.
How many times do you hear Dawkins talk about his bogus nonsensical theories about self generated, self replicating molecules that can produce DNA.
Its easier to talk about little boy's genitals than to explain that isnt it?
D'souza's style of argument is terribly fallacious, and often more illogical then that of Hitchens.
D'souza may make a good argument that Scientists do not know, but scientists never claim to know more then they can. However, he does not stop at that, but further claims that in this absence of knowledge, Christianity has the answers. This of course is fallacious and Michael Shermer caught him in this during their debate.
I beg to differ. In D'souza's debate with Hitchens, he says it several times that there is a serious lack of knowledge on both sides. And that he chooses to address it with faith while Hitchens attempts to dismiss his faith while pretending to have the answers.
Then people like dennett and Dawkins pretty much engage in outright deception decieving people about this so called science as though it were fact.
This has been my main argument with them all along.
I must also protest your description of D'souza style of argument as terribly fallacious and illogical. You are engaging in the same failed tactics of Hitchens and Dennett when they faced D'souza in debates.
Just adhominem and barbs about his intelligence instead of pointing out the weaknesses of the argument like i have done about the falsehoods of Dennett, Hitchens and Dawkins.
Citations of which you didnt respond to btw, so i assume i was correct in my claims about them.
I don't understand. Dinesh D'souza makes many claims that do not have proof of, or sufficient support for them, he continuously makes claims that have no correlation like those of atheism with respect to Stalin, Hitler and Mao. I find these arguments illogical and fallacious.
To turn these arguments around and suggest that religion is the root of the holocaust or Mao's genocide is to go a bit far. These issues are more complex then that. Both sides of this debate do poorly.
No D'souza does not make "claims" with no proof. In all his comments, he either provides evidence, source or when talking about metaphysical issues with no proof he clearly states so. If that is what he was doing trust me, Hitchens, and Dennett would not let that pass.
Also in this debate, he does not claim that the holocaust was caused by religion. That is a claim towards which Hitchens was leaning towards and D'souza argues with him about it imploring him to accept the crimes on human kind carried out by self avowed atheists or people using atheists ideals like darwinism and eugenics to commit those crimes.
The holocaust was part of Hitler's eugenics ideas and he had many ideas he got from known athiests like Friedrich Nietzsche.
Darwinism is not an atheist 'ideal', for evolution whether we like it or not, occurs naturally in the world to explain how hereditary traits get passed on, and over a vast periods of time the slight difference that occurs naturally in the copy of these hereditary traits has a gradual evolution, all of course aided by environment and competition. Not all Atheists understand evolution or accept it as fact. The reason bio-evolution may be popular among atheists is for the same reason gravity is.
The problem of producing a term like 'atheist' and putting groups of humans into this category, and then contributing immoral acts done by people in this category to all atheists is to be merely illogical.
Otherwise, as a logical argument, seemingly every society on our planet is majority aunicornist, and they all seem to have a crime rate. Can we claim that this lack of belief in unicorns leads to immoral crime? No, firstly we would have to prove the relation between morality and Unicorns.
Your arguments are beginning to take on an infantile mode! Hitler adopted the writings of Nietzsche, an avowed atheist who once said "God is dead". It is his philosophy that hitler adopted among other ideals from darwinism to eugenics.
Aunicornists have never gone out and committed mass murders due to principles justified through their beliefs.
Dont try to minimize their beliefs or lack thereof with this rather shallow minded attempt!
You seem to approach this topic very rash and uncritically.
You are making an error as to think that 'God is dead' is the belief of all atheist, which it is not. If someone believes that 'Without God, everything is allowed" they are not taking on an atheistic ideology, they are forming an ideology of their own which happens to also include a lack of belief in theism. Nazism may be atheistic, and adopted blood philosophy based evolutionary science, but this is not atheism, this is Nazism.
There was one argument that Dinesh made about miracles which seemed somewhat fallacious and illogical. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, "There are two ways miracles can occur, God uses a non-natural source to produce something that would not have occured naturally. And another is that, there is something that would not have occured if natural forces were left to their devices but the supernatural intervention is to use natural forces to bring about a result that would otherwise not of occured."
Please point out the time stamp in the video where he said this or post the video title where he says this because i dont understand the part you quote.
The quote comes from the debate he has with Michael Shermer at about 8:00 in the 9th part during question period.
"The Great Debate: Dinesh D'Souza v. Michael Shermer"
In my opinion, the response Dinesh gives has an air of eloquence but with careful scrutiny reveals it is merely an illogical sentence. Do I need to break it down even? I'm sure you see what I am talking about. Either way, my point is that despite how eloquent a debater Dinesh seems to be, he does fall short often.
Good thing is those of us on this side of the debate tend to be fair minded. Yes D'souza gave a very inadequate explanation. He fell into the one of the classic diversionary traps built for believers by athiests. What better way to make some one look illogical than ask him questions of the kind. Rather than focussing on the issues atheists themselves cant answer like how the big bang violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics, or the impossible odds of abiogenesis or macro evolution.
Evolution has much research and evidence to support itself. The amount of knowledge gained in biological evolution has been great in the last few decades. Through study of genetics alone we can achieve much understanding of relations between humans and our cousin the primates, and which cousins we are closest to.
Religion is the best antonym we have for science. Religion goes about making unsupported claims, and imposes it's faith onto others. Science imposes only it's truth and evidence.
You are wrong yet again. in the last 3 decades more evidence has been found against evolution than has been found supporting it. For example in cytology it has been found that at a cellular level all organisms are identical and have absolutely no evidence of evolution at all.
In genetics it has been found that the mutations required to advance a species positively are highly improbable requiring millions of billions of billions of mutations to achieve even one positive mutation
Either way, do not throw out random John A. Davison claims at me thinking that they will some how hold precedence over the claims and theories that are today currently the most promising theories, not because of bias of course, but because of overt evidence these theories win their place. I will not say that paradigm shifts do not occur in science, but I will only say that paradigm shifts are earned with a lot of evidence.
I do not throw out random John. A. Davison claims. The admissions of a true athiest like Dawkins about evolution are not made in a vacum. What you are not aware of is that Dawarnism is practically dead in all modern science and that the theory of evolution has shifted so far that Darwin's evolution theory can rightly be regarded as complete nonsense.
Darwin wasnt aware of mutation, he had no clue about genetics. So many discoveries in these fields have proved his theory completely bogus
Infact the assailment on darwins theory has been so bad scientists have had to come up with ridiculous theories like "punctuated evolution" after genetics found Darwin's evolution theory to be an absurd impossibility because of the ridiculously masssive fatality rate that would have seen the entire planet drowned in a wash of failed mutative animal states (literally up to your eyeballs)
But 99% of all evolution proponents dont even know that Darwin's science has entirely been proven bogus
Most of the theories you are actually throwing out are actually dead theories scientists dont even bother defending any more in the face of a knowledgeable expert. For crying out loud you stll spew bogus disproved darwin theories that scientists dont even respect any more. And i mean the most avid anti god, or anti creationist scientists wont even wag a tongue in defense of Darwins nonsense because they know full well its indefensible. It is old bogus ignorant science
I was under thee impression that D'souza thinks science does not hold all the answers, therefore, he seeks the answers in Christianity. If he seeks answers that do not need evidence (faith based belief), then as Hitchens says, he demonstrates a willingness to believe in anything.
Either way, Science holds more promise and answers to questions we may have then religion does. I would rather not have an answer, then have an answer but have no sufficient reason to believe the answer is true.
Matter of fact there is more scientific evidence that abiogenesis is impossible than there is evidence supporting that idea. This however does not stop you or others to claim it as reasonable (despite its multiple shortcomings, majority of which are advanced by fellow scientists)
That to me is actually more illogical than a person who believes in creator. At least with that believer, their own arguments dont contradict themselves unlike those who believe in abiogenesis.
check out this video and go to the one minute mark to see for yourself Dennetts rather sad habit of stating half truths and fantastic speculation almost as though it were fact.
I had to come back to this because i knew for sure you were wrong about Dennett
"I do think that you should regard it as no more probable then any other hypothesis that carries no support."
This is my current stance and this is why i simply reject the teachings of Dawkins, Dennett etc.
And just so you know, abiogenesis is way too many holes and still leaves very many unanswered questions much like the big bang theory or ID. We have no more information on abiogenesis than ID or even dawkins own aliens theory. To me they are on the same level.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that has been tested and does somewhat provide us with the building blocks of life. It seems to be a probable way that life could have begun, and it seems to be our best explanation to date. It is much better to say 'there is ONE possibility of how life began, however, we are not certain if this is how life on OUR planet began."
I don't see Abiogenesis being on the same level as ID at all. ID doesn't seem to have a level, nor does the aliens theory.
Let me get this straight you propose to tell people that random elements out in the open atmosphere combined to formulate the beginnings of life.
I hate to break this to you, that sounds about as logical as an alien did it or ID. There is absolutely no proof or even science for that matter of fact the idea is a complete violation of the 3rd law of thermo dynamics.
You have to rely on faith and not science to advance that theory alone. Same as the ID, alien of God crowd!
Many of the theories of abiogenesis do have holes, but many of them are still under critical study, so I'm not one to argue for or against. It seems promising, much more promising then the study of God (A subject of which that by definition cannot be studied or falsified, therefore no evidence COULD be found for it's validity.). Either way, science does not need to have answers to our questions immediately, but it is the best method we have so far for getting unbiased answers and evidence.
I was under the impression that abiogenesis was a fancy way of saying inanimate matter becoming life. To my knowledge, I think there are a multitude of studies being done in this subject. I don't see this as being 'dead end' studies if advances and discoveries are still being made. A dead end study I would think, would be the study of the bible as a source of knowledge for how life came about. I agree with you, that until sufficient evidence is collected for a claim, a claim should not be made.
We should really accept Dawkins "aliens" explanation rather than an intelligent designer or even God based on what scientific logic, or what established rules of probability?
The Dawkins 'Aliens' explanation is rather weak, but I would gather it has a bit more probability then the bronze age creation myth of early humans. Both of which are FAR TOO weak to even consider without much more evidence. The problem with these two hypotheses is that there is NOT a shred of evidence coming in to support them. Abiogenesis is seemingly our best hypothesis and has support to clarify it's probability.
Ultimately, the truth is that none of these men have the answers. Yet they prefer to substitute one faith for another!
This is exactly why i reject their arguments because they provide no answers at all. Frankly all they do is create doubt about the biblical God so to speak and do nothing at all in advancing the true origin of life.
All I can say on this subject is that Abiogenesis is our best hypothesis, and in terms of probability, it out does the early creation myths of bronze age humans. The biblical God and stories are improbable claims and are left unsupported by evidence and in terms of history, anthropology and archaeology, these religious claims prove to be very much a product of human beings which is of course a VERY probable claim to make. In comparison to creation myth, abiogenesis is very much an advancement.
does not make Hitler a practicing catholic. He is an atheist and passes a decree upon a church with the threat of violence.
But they try to sell these dictators as "religious entities" for this illicit use of religion while they, the dictators dont even adopt or claim the religion.
I see what you are saying. Nazism was not a monotheistic religion, there might not have been a belief in God required. A percentage of Nazis may have been atheist, and few may have been monotheists. What Hitchens argues, and he has done so on many occasions (as well as Sam Haris), He argues that this belief in the Nazi ideology functioned much like a faith based religion. This nazi ideology was not open to debate which is what you expect to see in a religious structured ideology.
Hitchens and Dennett when asked about Stalin both tell bogus stories about how Stalin known atheist apparently utilized previous religious structure to form his murderous totalitarian state. What they neglect to say, that Stalin did this as an atheist. NOt as a christian. Its his atheist beliefs that allow him to kill millions. The tools of his government are irrelevant in this case. What I mean is that for Hitler to direct the pope to command all catholics to celebrate his birthday,
I do not think that Stalin's immorality is a result of a lack of belief in a God. Stalin did what he did because he had a belief, not because of a lack of belief. There is a difference here. He had his own beliefs and motives that are of course separate from monotheism, however, they are still beliefs.
This seems more a case against Stalinism then against atheism.
What Dennette(and Hitchens?) is arguing is that, it was not atheism that led Stalin, but a belief in his ideology.
D'Souza says there are many questions that are not in the empirical domain, such as the afterlife, and so evidence is unavailable. This is one of successive and nonsensical defences erected by religion to save its arse: God and his realms are unknowable, immeasurable and beyond our capacity to understand.
And yet despite their admission to complete ignorance, they somehow have the knowledge that science cannot determine God's existence.
Of course, they know God only exists in their minds.
Atheists say there are many questions that are not in the empirical domain, such as the beginning of life, and so evidence is unavailable. This is one of successive and nonsensical defences erected by atheism to save its arse: the big bang and abiogeneis are unknowable, immeasurable and beyond our capacity to understand.
Of course, they know the big bang only exists in their minds.
Your own words used towards the beliefs of athiests
Atheists tend to be adept at attacking the beliefs of others but they seem to be incredibly poor at defending their own beliefs.
I have noticed that none of you ever bother to defend your unproven beliefs and ideas but instead choose to attack the beliefs of others as though this will some how validate your similarly unsubstantiated beliefs.
I dont have to defend my beliefs. I just have to point out the skeleton remains of Homo habilis, Australopithecus, and Homo erectus to prove to you that the Bible was invented after a certain point in human history, as was God.
And just so you know, i have read about homo habilis in several books, not a single one of them stated that his discovery disproved the bible. Matter of fact not a single scientist ever stated this. I surely wonder where you got such a horrendously misguided view.
this question is completely way off and you are the childish one. I saw this entire debate, and I dont recall D'souza describe in depth the capabilities of the "spirit" or even talk about such nonsense any where in this debate. If he did please point it out.
You are the one how makes outrageous assumptions then attribute them to Dinesh even in the face of video and audio evidence that doesnt show any of the claims you make about D'souza. If he did please point out where ASAP!
I have an real unabashed viceral hatred for organised religion. (That doesnt mean I am and atheist and dont believe in the virtues of a truthful religion) that link provides nothing but another advertisement for one of the worst of the worst religions in the world. (that is my personal opinion and it will not change).
It is religions like this that give atheists the power of appeal and growing numbers they get by the day.
Are you not generalizing when you say 'the atheists'? One can generalize Christians or Muslims because they have a guide to follow but still, one should be wary about making generalizations. Nonetheless, generalizing atheism is almost silly, because there is no guide that they follow. It is seemingly only an absence of someones else's belief. Many atheists don't know science, and do not claim to have answers, they merely do not believe what it is others believe.
"Atheists tend to be adept at attacking the beliefs of others but they seem to be incredibly poor at defending their own beliefs."
This is a generalization among most of all the other points you make. Do you not think that perhaps you are making an error in generalizing. Can you be more specific about who you are directing your arguments at?
What beliefs are Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett etc poor at arguing for? It seems vague to me. Are they not only arguing against a claim? What claim would they be holding that they do not have an argument for? This is a strange statement to make about scientists, because they only hold claims that have a sufficient argument for it's probability.
Issues like the beginning of life, their ideas on the creation of the universe, and pretty much all aspects of evolution for which they dont have any evidence for.
Hitchens for example when asked to explain how something comes from nothing, almost always responds by going into a monologue about earths pending doom at the hand of andromeda in a question format. Thus avoiding answering the question and instead yet again attacking religion.
The beginning of life as in Abiogenesis and other hypotheses are good ideas of how life may arise on our planet, but one cannot argue 100% certainty for these claims. We are learning more and more about how life might have begun by looking to other planets. What type of argument do you expect? an argument of certainty for how life began on our planet? No such argument exists. What do you mean by 'something' comes from 'nothing'? In terms of life? or Universe?
I mean in terms of the universe. And yes we are not 100% sure about the certainity of these claims but that is not what Hitchens leads you to believe. Matter of fact Hitches almost never admits his total ignorance on the issue. You may find a very scant short sentence admitting ignorance on the subject but 90% of the time he is making rather outrageous leading comments about what "scientists know or suspect"
Though he never claims it as fact, he does put out many false notions.
And the worst thing about Hitchens, Dawkins,Dennett etc, is the arrogance with which they sell half truths always neglecting to point out what they dont know, but are almost always sure to fire off some barbs towards those with differing opinions, or religion itself, so as to ensure that their audience members assume them to be the smarter more knowledgeable side.
They teach by insulting and making caricatures of other peoples view points. They are more interested in advancing a viewpoint
than seeking truth. Those who can follow debates well and are not easily swayed quickly see that its not logic or even reason on hitchens side, rather just clever word smithing and cheap appeals to the emotions of the often easily fooled audience infront of him..(ala the outrageous remarks about circumcision)
I REALLY SHOULDNT HAVE POSTED SUCH A LONG RESPONSE. I SHOULD HAVE JUST POINTED YOU TO 3.39 IN THIS VERY YOUTUBE CLIP.
Ps..Something from nothing refers to the universe. (Hitchens as do most atheists avoid abiogenesis completely because they know its a dead end for them)
Abiogenesis is not a dead end but one of many answers that are probable, but it is, again, a subject that we do not have a full answer for. We have only one example of life beginning, except we can only study it 4 billion years after the fact. It is very difficult to determine the exact path nature took for producing life since we are limited to one example that occurred a long time ago. However, it is the best hypothesis we have to date.
But you see, you never find Dawkins, dennett or even hitchens admit that they dont have these answers almost never.
Matter of fact Dawkins would rather say something as stupid as Aliens started life on earth as he did when pushed by Ben Stein, but you wont find such extravagant musings in any of his books or lectures. Oh no, he saves such gems for those situations when some one works up the bile to stay focussed and ask him those questions that matter
Well, Abiogenesis and "Aliens starting life on earth" are some of the many hypotheses you can come up with. It narrows down mainly in terms of probability and which hypothesis is more likely to be the case with out planet. Evidence seems more close to Abiogenesis rather then Aliens delivering life here. Either way, the only argument that I would think Dawkins is making, is that either of these ideas is MUCH more probable then what is suggested in religions.
You would only come to such conclusions about Dawkins only if you were already biased towards his opinions. It is really outrageous of you to make such a tortured excuse knowing full well the vitirolic attacks thrown at those who support the ID hypothesis from none other than Dawkins. Same "scientist" that goes on to advance the "aliens" theory.
Seriously who does Dawkins think people should be laughing at now? And u, do you expect me to accept this as the more logical?
I do not expect you to think that 'Aliens creation story' are more logical then anything, nor do I think you should accept this as more probable then creation myth. However, I do think that you should regard it as no more probable then any other hypothesis that carries no support. In terms of logic itself, all these claims fall apart, all except the hypothesis of abiogenesis which is seemingly why it is still on the top of probable reasons.
Dawkins and Dennett I do not recognize as being people who would make claims of certainty. Dawkins often will argue with probabilities, but I do not know him to make claims of certainties. Again, most of the arguments he has against religion are that religion makes claims of certainty that can not be known, and further seeks to impose these claims on others. If anything, Dawkins and Dennette attack the ideas of religion as being not probable and without support.
Dennett does make claims of certainity, matter of fact in his debate vs D'souza he makes several statements (though not claims) are structured in such a way that the listener could easily assume he is stating fact. Which in my view is the same as out right purposeful deception. As does Dawkins who only clarifies the majority of his statements only if the listener chooses to quiz him his statements. He never volunteers truth on his ignorance or lack of information on for example abiogenesis
Hitchens has a good historical knowledge of war, politics, religion and the totalitarian desire for rule that monotheistic religions tend to have. I have from time to time cringed when he speaks about sciences, however, his historical arguments are normally very accurate. I respect his opinion and arguments about the problems that arise with religions in terms of history, war, politics, societies, logic etc. however, he may be a little lacking on the science side of the debate.
Hitchens may be a good historian but he has been caught in several cases either omitting the truth or out righ stretching it out.
Claiming that Stalin's russia that is a known atheist state to be some kind of secret religious cult that worshipped Stalin is absolutely nonsensical. Same for Hitler, Mao, Polpot etc!. (Though he never specifically states that none of them were atheists, his arguments would tend to lead the careless listener to believe this was a case.)
The problem I have with this argument altogether is that atheism has very little to do with the subject. The ideology of these dictators is not fueled by the absence of belief. It is fueled by their own immoral beliefs. This is not a reflection on atheism, but a reflection on each of these individuals ideologies.
This theistic arguments against atheism is an obvious misleading connection.
I agree with you that when asked questions like "How does a universe come from nothing?", Hitchens should not dodge these questions, however, there is no answer to such questions. The issue that Hitchens has with such questions, is that they are loaded questions often when posed by theist. Science does not claim to know the origins of the Universe, which leads Hitchens, I'm assuming, to attack theist for claiming to know an answer(God did it) that cannot be know.
If I say, "Well, Christianity is not probable." I'm attacking the probability of a claim. I do not need to know the origins of the Universe to say that an idea is not probable. Perhaps Deism is the only belief system that requires the knowledge of our Universe's origin to be proven wrong, however, Deism can merely hide that divinity a bit further into the infinite regression.
In every practical aspect of a religious person's life, they let reason and empirical evidence be their guide. They don't take out a mortgage on the faith that the bank they go to is the best one, they compare rates and make a rational decision. When there is a puddle on the sidewalk in front of them, they don't step right in it because there's no evidence they'll get wet this time.. But to form their view of life and reality itself, they'll just throw that all out for "faith".
Man, Question for Hitchens, Reply by Hitchens, rebuttal by D'souza, next question.
Which is alright, but D'Souza frequently goes off topic or makes non sequiturs in his arguments which are phrased to make an impact and not a well argued point.
In terms of rhetoric D'Souza is well gifted, but he frequently applies standards to Hitchens which he himself does not uphold.
i realize mostly atheists like myself watch these videos. so i disagree with basically everything dinesh says. but i just realized how good of a job he is doing debate wise. he could be beating hitchens here.
While you claim to be an atheist and you have all the right to, but to compliment dinesh shows that you take the open minded and don't just disregard what the whole debate is about, now i don't know everything but i will also say i don't need to know everything to "believe." That's the thing with faith, it's the substance of things not seen but hoped for (bible verse). But as humans we have to somehow agree to disagree. So i agree, while we disagree, your honesty is fresh.
well it depends what you think winning is. His points are lame and his arguments are absolutely inferior to Hitchens'. Hitchens has destroyed all his points to such a degree that Dinesh cannot even touch them again. He sidetracks and talks about something else.
I have to call you a severely biased individual or some one who completely lacks the ability to comprehend even the simplified philosophies illustrated by D'souza and dumbed down so well that even the dumbest of all can understand his concepts.
We all notice that you made ridiculously generalized comments about D'souza and didnt even bother to point out even one example where he was apparently destroyed. NOT ONCE!
Assertion: There is life after death. And everyone in the after life has to be a homosexual and hate Jesus.
Why should Mr. D'Sousa not believe this?
vijaykraj 1 month ago
"The reason I say I believe is because I don't know."- Dinesh D'sousa
stephenexmachina 5 months ago
Thank you for posting this, operationmongoose.
writersblock26 7 months ago
quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur!!! What is asserted without reason may be denied without reason!!! If no grounds have been given for an assertion, then there are no grounds needed to reject it......need I say more.
Cougar139tweak 10 months ago
Dinesh only quotes Hitchens because he wants applause
littlteapot 1 year ago
3:35 D'Souza: "the reason I believe is because I don't know." Any questions?
CertainUncertainty 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
writersblock26 7 months ago
@writersblock26
The point being raised is that faith is not a good enough reason to believe in the existence of a supernatural entity.
Faith is not a virtue.
leftovers0 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CertainUncertainty Well, his statement actually makes sense. To accept something that you don't know in the empirical sense would require something like faith.
writersblock26 4 months ago
@CertainUncertainty Yep, that about sums it up. Scary.
jjobie 2 months ago
D'Souza is a name dropper.
runfuret 1 year ago
@runfuret cry me a river, lol
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@runfuret Agreed.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Dsouza lacks critical thinking.
nurlanagabek 1 year ago
It's not "intelligence" in nature, it's necessity.... what fails does not exist.
whereitsat309 1 year ago
1:54 - D'Souza's argument here is brilliant. And Hitchen knows it. Look at the expression on Hitchens face at 3:03 and 4:03. He has no script left. D'Souza's point is a view held by alot of theists - that most modern atheistic beliefs require quite a few leaps of faith themselves....
DaveKarl 1 year ago
@DaveKarl You really think his argument is brilliant?? The expression on Hitchen's face seems to be of concentration (3:03) and as if he wants to say something, but knows that he is not supposed to (4:03).
What leaps of faith are you referring to?
Englishdosser86 1 year ago
@DaveKarl A theist who also reads minds and pontificates on the content found! even for a religious person, you are vapid and arrogant to the extreme.
yatter1 1 year ago
Comment removed
DaveKarl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yatter1 don't care if D'Souza thinks if Elvis Presley is still alive. A man can still make a good argument. Instead of character assasination, why not deal with the actual argument put forward? Because too difficult for you? Atheists constantly like to refer to peoples personal character when debating, to avoid having to actually answer difficult points. ...And that reveals something about their own character. So much for the scientific approach....
DaveKarl 1 year ago
what is dinesh rambling about? belief is NOT the same as admitting you dont know. and that analogy about his brother was just awful. you believe your brother is there and you know your brother is there should have been the analogy.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Because he doesn't know then "Magic" is perfectly logical. Funny, funny man.
slbkitty32 1 year ago
It's more irrational to say you believe and take the position on the other side of the issue because you don't just believe in everything until it's proven false. What a ridiculous man.
rgiwillia 1 year ago
Hitchenss wanst really on his A game for this.
DarqueSock 1 year ago
It was a great mistake to have set up this debate such that Hitchens was receiving all the questions and had no opportunity to respond to D'Souza's often contentious answers. Particularly evident with the point on the 'leap of faith'. The level of question-begging is incredible. Both had interesting points to make over the course of the debate, but the format weakened the quality of the exchange.
followthepassenger 1 year ago
A supernatural experience does not commonly turn people towards religion unless they arleady have a knowledge or bias towards it. More commonly it causes the individual to question beyond what references to the transcendant are already available. People are usually turning to specific religions because of the abscence of transcendance in their lives and an emptiness. For some, x religion that they chose fills the gap comfortablly.
rainbowspite222 1 year ago
Is there life after death, maybe the near death experiences that have been reported, along with the strange sightings via such patients who have come back from death. I would like there to be a life after death that is beautiful and free. But I DONT KNOW and religious texts only serve to provide more confusion and hypocricy and absence to this answer.
rainbowspite222 1 year ago
Hitchens is awful here. I think he's lost it.
coolioto 2 years ago
considering the bias of his opponent, who seamed more preoccupied on attacking atheists (like there is such a thing as a group that can be called atheists...) than actually responding to hitchens.
He also presented logical fallacies one after another, like saying the civilized world had no morals in ancient rome and greece...
behemuth 1 year ago 2
No it's just that the audience didn't understand the range of his historical and political references. And it was biased as per D'Souza attacking specific points and not answering questions.
rainbowspite222 1 year ago
Sure, but one of Hitchen's great strengths has been to cut through the popular paradigm of a room and challenge their comfort with regard to their own beliefs. He strikes me as considerably muted here. There may also be a rule, not apparent, which limits peoples responses: Debaters might not be allowed to respond to challenges to their answers to audience questions.
coolioto 1 year ago
Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence...*facepalm*
TheInfernalSpark 2 years ago
...
None of the above premises are proved, therefore you can't say that the Jude-Christian belief is provincial based on those premises.
drawthrough 2 years ago
...
that the cosmos is unthinkably enormous
that our universe is only one of many in a multiverse (Lee Smolin call these fantasies)
that there are many lifeforms in our universe or multiverses
that if there is a creator, "he" obeys the same rules of law that we know about (and we know very little) and that his spatial dimensions (or any other dimensioins) corresponds to ours
...
drawthrough 2 years ago
Neanderthalcouzin , at a first glance it might feel provincial IF the premises are:
...
drawthrough 2 years ago
Does anyone here think that Judeo-Christian belief is a bit, you know, provincial? All religions are.
I mean, the cosmos is unthinkably enormous, with black holes and supernova, other possible worlds, and maybe our universe is part of a multiverse...
And yet the creator of this is focused on one, tiny blue ball in one solar system, responding to a woman's prayer that her ass get's a little less fat.
Neanderthalcouzin 2 years ago 21
@Neanderthalcouzin Exactly its a bias, man made bullshit story to suit our interests, to support the idea that "I" myself am soooo important, and its used to avoid the hardest questions about life.
Slugg329 1 year ago
@Neanderthalcouzin - I never knew you were in contact with the creator? Care to let us know his personal schedule over the next millenium? A few insider tips perhaps? Could be useful.
I say this because you seem to 'know' what he's 'focused' on. And you seem to have a good picture of HIS universes design. (Like a lot of Athesist think they do). And you're actually knowledgable enough (about universe designing) to critique it!
DaveKarl 1 year ago
@DaveKarl You're projecting that arrogance my friend. It's religious people who claim to be in contact with the creator, not me, so save those kind of comments for them in the future. You'll notice subjecting your ideas and assumptions to the scientific method is the most humbling thing you can do, so save the disdain for someone who thinks they're above that.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@Neanderthalcouzin 'It's religious people who claim to be in contact with the creator, not me,'
P1 - Then how is it you are so well versed in Universe design and management, that you can step up to criticise it in the manner you do? As both you and Hitchens point out, that for the universe to be so unthinkably big and then for the creator to be focused on one tiny blue ball (earth) on the edge of the galaxy - that would be strange / unlikely / flawed.
Why? Can you manage/design it better?...
DaveKarl 1 year ago
...P2 - What frame of reference could YOU possibly have to suggest how a
deity would think or 'should' manage its creation? It's a nonsensical argument.
..But an insight into how Athesist sometimes project themselves as God and think how they could do it better!
Another example in this lecture Chris actually criticises the human bodys design suggesting human Pre-Frontal Lobes are too small!!
It's impossible Arrogance....
DaveKarl 1 year ago
@DaveKarl (2) Your arguments perpetually presuppose a deity. You have to at least define what you mean by this, and explain what kind of God this is, I'm open to hear suggestions. Presumably not the patriarch in the sky from monotheistic religion, who literally created the earth and life as is. If you believe that, than there's not much to say. However, if you want to make a more sophisticated argument for an initiator of the cosmos, go ahead.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@Neanderthalcouzin - It's YOUR argument that presupposes you have the ability to critique a deity!
In short - If I say to you there's an all powerful deity who designed everything. Your response is: '...Well its a bad design'.
My question is: How can you say that? What would you know about cosmos design?? - I can understand you saying u don't believe in it, fine. But what's with this 'stepping into Gods shoes' that you're doing??
DaveKarl 1 year ago
@DaveKarl What are you talking about? Let's go through this. Your statement of an all powerful deity who 'designed' everything is a blind assertion, without evidence. Secondly, when did I say it was a 'bad design'? I have never said that, ever. The caricature of describing a God who biases one planet and one species is clearly a critique of the Judeo-Christian cosmological view, haven't you got that yet? Stop putting words in my mouth, and missing the primary point.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
It isn't a criticism of a deity, it's a general skepticism towards the Judeo-Christian explanation and depiction. So certainly I don't claim to know (a) that there's a God and (b) what it is concerned with and the nature of existence. That is the criticism of religion.Notice how you haven't yet explained what this deity is, and how certain explanations account better for nature and reality than science.If it's valid,I'm open to it. Who is this God?What is its relationship to the cosmos?
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@DaveKarl (1) You think I'm criticizing the Universe? That's a preposterous assertion, and peculiar. Let me make this clear, I take a scientific interest in the way things work, the history and nature of the Universe. So I refuse to make statements of certainty without evidence, and based on faith. Hitchens is playing devil's advocate, in order to address the implausibility of an interventionist deity who concerns himself with one corner of an infinite cosmos.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
@Neanderthalcouzin - You not getting my point.
You said: 'Hitchens is playing devil's advocate, in order to address the implausibility of an interventionist deity who concerns himself with one corner of an infinite cosmos. '
How do you know he only concerns himself with ONLY one corner? Where did you get that from? (Hence my inital sarcasm about you being in contact with him). And why is him showing concern to only one corner, a flaw of some kind? Why?
DaveKarl 1 year ago
Russel's teapot demolishes D'Souza at the 4:00 mark.
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago 4
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 6
Atheism FTW!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 5
awesome dinesh, very smart...one guy said do not be afraid of death there's nothing after death, but i'll say to him, that when death will come, you will be afraid or feel scared.
lopele82 2 years ago
I actually don't observe a lot of old folk too afraid of dying. They seem to be able to accept it.
I don't have much of a problem with death. I mean... did you miss the three billion years of life on earth?
No. You were dead all that time. And your not going to miss anything when you return to that state.
I find that possibly the notions of the Religious about where you go after you die might ACTUALLY be frightening. Whereas, I have no reason to fear the natural order...
VarialProductions 2 years ago 4
8:14 "...and I think this is, for the person who thinks about it, a deep mystery". wow, did we really just waste all this time only to end up back at the "evolution is just a theory" proposition? i wish there was an eject button that could fling d'souza right off the stage with this nonsense.
FatherofMan25 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
FatherofMan25 2 years ago
Comment removed
FatherofMan25 2 years ago
Shows a complete lack of understanding of the word "theory" doesn't it.
ninjanerd8 2 years ago
I agree with molewizard here. Hitchens probably expects, especially in an academic setting, that people reason as thoroughly as he does; he thinks they should be adept enough to understand. He does not understand his enemy. He doesn't know what it is like to believe, and to want to believe. I would submit that the crowd is not likely to actually study the topic as well. In my discussions with the atheists and religious, it often occurs to me just how much both of us don't know.
Geoinmotion 2 years ago 2
Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
whimsicaljoss 2 years ago 2
Dinesh D'Sousa starts to look more and more frustrated as the end of the debate nears. It really begins to show when he starts saying stuff like, "It's my BELIEF! I believe it! I do! I do! I do! Therefore, God exists."
PapaMagnum 2 years ago 4
He's frustrated that Hitchens uses cheap debating tactics. He shouldn't be... I don't see why he is, but he gets frustrated by them.
You should see him debate his brother. His brother HATES him for it.
molewizard 2 years ago
The moderator looks like napoleon dynamite! lol
jocular1987 2 years ago
Hey! I went to college with the scruffy guy in the green sweater.
roseline55 2 years ago
wow hitchens has blown me away in this debate, he adjusts his manner and attack to the vibe of the debate and the character of the person hes debating... with frank turek i think he had little respect for his arguments and thought that it wasnt a true debate, and so could appear almost nasty at points, and didnt answer directly to turek, with doug something or other, a preacher, he respected greatly the politeness of the opposite viewpoint and was gentle, and with this one he is at his best.
guitardrew05 2 years ago
I don't think Hitchens is actually that good at debating Atheism. He misses a great number of Logic points, and has missed almost my entire rationalisation for Atheism.
I don't think Religion or Atheism being a force for violence has any bearing on its viability AT ALL.
Morality doesn't influnce reality. Gravity is not going to reverse because of the fucking Holocaust.
molewizard 2 years ago
Comment removed
JonMAmor 2 years ago
But he spends the majority of time arguing why religion is inherantly evil - rather than actually explaining to his audience WHY people so readily act in an evil manner in a religious environment.
The problem here is twofold: Firstly, he barely argues for non-existance at all - So he is arguing to people who believe their God to be real and good that other people are evil in his name. So what?
molewizard 2 years ago
Comment removed
JonMAmor 2 years ago
Secondly, it is rarely non-Atheists who understand this. He implies too much, assumes you have an Atheistic point of view. He assumes you will understand why religion can be so evil - Assumes you see the very 'evil' in what you are a part of.
Of course you won't. It has to be explained before it is aknowledged.
molewizard 2 years ago
"even though i don't know, i believe" <--- the essence of faith. to take on unprovable beliefs and then follow them as a philosophy. as opposed to following that which is rational and can be proven. I'll take the latter any day. otherwise, i fear i may be approached by someone claiming jumping off a cliff might be really good for me, and be compelled to believe it and follow it.
davidngo4415 2 years ago 2
D'Souza comes from a Christian family so we can safely assume that his religious indoctrination started at an early age, which explains a great deal, especially some of the ways his critical faculties have been shut down.
He talks about "belief" without acknowledging that an essential part of "belief" is asserting the absolute truth of what you believe in. You either believe it to be true or you don't. Saying "I believe because I don't know" is utter nonsense. "Hope" would make more sense.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago 27
@BoneySkylord - I disagree. It's not 'utter nonsense' at all. I think you're just making a big deal about a minor grammar improvement you'd like to suggest. You 'believe' something when you you don't know for sure. Sound pretty straightforward.
DaveKarl 1 year ago
@DaveKarl stop pretending that you understand the subject at hand when you clearly have not the first clue what´s being argued here, pray to god and hope he listens to you, I´m not going to
yatter1 1 year ago
@BoneySkylord
Well said.
MrElectroGizmo 1 year ago
"the reason I say 'I believe' is because I DON'T KNOW"
Bingo! glad someone said it
chessdawgz 2 years ago 3
I think this debate is a little unfair. Not only does D'souza have som lame arguments witch are not true about atheism, but most of the time he has made a certain point against Hitchens the guy who holds the debade (who is christian himself...) emidiately go on to the next question. Give Hitchens the time to answer, damnit
krauseristheman 2 years ago 5
Ir really doesnt matter. As an apolegetic D'souza is or pretty dumb or a liar in many senses. I've so far in the 9 videos point mistakes like "Einstein was a theist", christian in spanish inquisition, crusades, witch hunts, etc killed a few only, thats not biggie, the idea of compassion come from christians, the idea of free will->moral compared with a rock.
The guy skip his incorrect points, evade anwser, plain lie, i mean cmon i've seen theist with better arguments.
jotatsu 2 years ago 3
LMFAO 3:15 Hitchens face is hilarious.
AtheistBrad 3 years ago
Yet because weak minded people like you exist, they determined these should be kept so as not to "confuse" you. Yet here you are defending bogus science you arent even aware is bogus. For crying out loud you dont even know that 99% of the science you spew is absolute you are still arguing nonsensical 1930's science in the year 2009. LMAO
All i can do really is laugh at your ignorance of your own beliefs.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Your approach to an argument is a good demonstration of your intelligence. If you are laughing, you are merely laughing at your own lack of knowledge.
1930's science? All of my understanding of science is 'bogus'? If this is your faith based opinion, then so be it, however, truth does not deal in faith or opinions. You should take a science class.
Gwisss 3 years ago 6
BTw..my last comment is not an insult to you. Most of the bogus comments you made are actually addressed in the ben Stein movie Expelled and addressed to an american head of science curriculum who 100% admits that they have kept completely bogus info like the common 4 winged fruit fly, the complete bogus Haeckel embryos, Darwins finches in history text books precisely because people like you are too dumb to make reasoned conclusions from the actual truth. ALL HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE.
karamarouge 3 years ago
My Bogus comments? "people like me are too dumb"? "All have been proven false"?
Well, if this is your approach to arguments, then you should not complain about Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennette, Christopher Hitchens and Michael Shermer because not only are they more convincing but they actually HAVE DATA to show.
Gwisss 3 years ago 4
But because of politics and ridiculous allegiances to disproven scientific myths, lazy people like you carry on spouting completely disproven bullshit, not because you are ignorant, but fellow scientists have made it so that you dont know much about the crap you believe in. They have deemed you too stupid to look at the truth for yourself and make a decision on your own. So they teach you bogus nonsense to avoid "confusing you"
karamarouge 3 years ago
Studies on "Darwins finches" have also discovered that darwin was completely misguided in supposing that the shortening of beaks was for the superior birds during drought. They found that the beaks grew back after the drought passed thus the so called weaker species survived and surpassed the shorter beaked birds..
So many examples like the bogus 8 winged fruit flies, and bogus evidence of vistigial appendages on creatures have been confirmed to disprove evolution
karamarouge 3 years ago
If you didnt know this, Darwin had no clue about mutation and many many discoveries have been found to dispute evolution.
Not to mention many contradicting fossils found in many places including china (the biggest)from the precambrian period completely nullifying or casting serious doubts on Darwin's tree of life
karamarouge 3 years ago
"Nearly all biologists were convinced by the latter half of the nineteenth century that spontaneous generation of all types of living organisms was impossible (Bergman, 1993a)"
And yet here you are, trying to convince people that an idea that has been soundly proven as impossible, not by religious zealots, but scientists themselves, is an idea that is "plausible"
Please tell me why ID or God are less plausible again?
karamarouge 3 years ago
This is exactly why D'souza's style of arguments against Atheist is like cryptonite to them. He forces them away from morose discussions about little boys' genitals and burning bushes and forces them to defend the so called "science" they almost always only hint about.
How many times do you hear Dawkins talk about his bogus nonsensical theories about self generated, self replicating molecules that can produce DNA.
Its easier to talk about little boy's genitals than to explain that isnt it?
karamarouge 3 years ago
D'souza's style of argument is terribly fallacious, and often more illogical then that of Hitchens.
D'souza may make a good argument that Scientists do not know, but scientists never claim to know more then they can. However, he does not stop at that, but further claims that in this absence of knowledge, Christianity has the answers. This of course is fallacious and Michael Shermer caught him in this during their debate.
Gwisss 3 years ago
I beg to differ. In D'souza's debate with Hitchens, he says it several times that there is a serious lack of knowledge on both sides. And that he chooses to address it with faith while Hitchens attempts to dismiss his faith while pretending to have the answers.
Then people like dennett and Dawkins pretty much engage in outright deception decieving people about this so called science as though it were fact.
This has been my main argument with them all along.
karamarouge 3 years ago
I must also protest your description of D'souza style of argument as terribly fallacious and illogical. You are engaging in the same failed tactics of Hitchens and Dennett when they faced D'souza in debates.
Just adhominem and barbs about his intelligence instead of pointing out the weaknesses of the argument like i have done about the falsehoods of Dennett, Hitchens and Dawkins.
Citations of which you didnt respond to btw, so i assume i was correct in my claims about them.
karamarouge 3 years ago
I don't understand. Dinesh D'souza makes many claims that do not have proof of, or sufficient support for them, he continuously makes claims that have no correlation like those of atheism with respect to Stalin, Hitler and Mao. I find these arguments illogical and fallacious.
To turn these arguments around and suggest that religion is the root of the holocaust or Mao's genocide is to go a bit far. These issues are more complex then that. Both sides of this debate do poorly.
Gwisss 3 years ago
No D'souza does not make "claims" with no proof. In all his comments, he either provides evidence, source or when talking about metaphysical issues with no proof he clearly states so. If that is what he was doing trust me, Hitchens, and Dennett would not let that pass.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Also in this debate, he does not claim that the holocaust was caused by religion. That is a claim towards which Hitchens was leaning towards and D'souza argues with him about it imploring him to accept the crimes on human kind carried out by self avowed atheists or people using atheists ideals like darwinism and eugenics to commit those crimes.
The holocaust was part of Hitler's eugenics ideas and he had many ideas he got from known athiests like Friedrich Nietzsche.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Darwinism is not an atheist 'ideal', for evolution whether we like it or not, occurs naturally in the world to explain how hereditary traits get passed on, and over a vast periods of time the slight difference that occurs naturally in the copy of these hereditary traits has a gradual evolution, all of course aided by environment and competition. Not all Atheists understand evolution or accept it as fact. The reason bio-evolution may be popular among atheists is for the same reason gravity is.
Gwisss 3 years ago
The problem of producing a term like 'atheist' and putting groups of humans into this category, and then contributing immoral acts done by people in this category to all atheists is to be merely illogical.
Otherwise, as a logical argument, seemingly every society on our planet is majority aunicornist, and they all seem to have a crime rate. Can we claim that this lack of belief in unicorns leads to immoral crime? No, firstly we would have to prove the relation between morality and Unicorns.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Your arguments are beginning to take on an infantile mode! Hitler adopted the writings of Nietzsche, an avowed atheist who once said "God is dead". It is his philosophy that hitler adopted among other ideals from darwinism to eugenics.
Aunicornists have never gone out and committed mass murders due to principles justified through their beliefs.
Dont try to minimize their beliefs or lack thereof with this rather shallow minded attempt!
karamarouge 3 years ago
You seem to approach this topic very rash and uncritically.
You are making an error as to think that 'God is dead' is the belief of all atheist, which it is not. If someone believes that 'Without God, everything is allowed" they are not taking on an atheistic ideology, they are forming an ideology of their own which happens to also include a lack of belief in theism. Nazism may be atheistic, and adopted blood philosophy based evolutionary science, but this is not atheism, this is Nazism.
Gwisss 3 years ago
There was one argument that Dinesh made about miracles which seemed somewhat fallacious and illogical. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, "There are two ways miracles can occur, God uses a non-natural source to produce something that would not have occured naturally. And another is that, there is something that would not have occured if natural forces were left to their devices but the supernatural intervention is to use natural forces to bring about a result that would otherwise not of occured."
Gwisss 3 years ago
Please point out the time stamp in the video where he said this or post the video title where he says this because i dont understand the part you quote.
karamarouge 3 years ago
The quote comes from the debate he has with Michael Shermer at about 8:00 in the 9th part during question period.
"The Great Debate: Dinesh D'Souza v. Michael Shermer"
In my opinion, the response Dinesh gives has an air of eloquence but with careful scrutiny reveals it is merely an illogical sentence. Do I need to break it down even? I'm sure you see what I am talking about. Either way, my point is that despite how eloquent a debater Dinesh seems to be, he does fall short often.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Good thing is those of us on this side of the debate tend to be fair minded. Yes D'souza gave a very inadequate explanation. He fell into the one of the classic diversionary traps built for believers by athiests. What better way to make some one look illogical than ask him questions of the kind. Rather than focussing on the issues atheists themselves cant answer like how the big bang violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics, or the impossible odds of abiogenesis or macro evolution.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Evolution has much research and evidence to support itself. The amount of knowledge gained in biological evolution has been great in the last few decades. Through study of genetics alone we can achieve much understanding of relations between humans and our cousin the primates, and which cousins we are closest to.
Religion is the best antonym we have for science. Religion goes about making unsupported claims, and imposes it's faith onto others. Science imposes only it's truth and evidence.
Gwisss 3 years ago
You are wrong yet again. in the last 3 decades more evidence has been found against evolution than has been found supporting it. For example in cytology it has been found that at a cellular level all organisms are identical and have absolutely no evidence of evolution at all.
In genetics it has been found that the mutations required to advance a species positively are highly improbable requiring millions of billions of billions of mutations to achieve even one positive mutation
karamarouge 3 years ago
To your knowledge, you've proven me wrong.
Either way, do not throw out random John A. Davison claims at me thinking that they will some how hold precedence over the claims and theories that are today currently the most promising theories, not because of bias of course, but because of overt evidence these theories win their place. I will not say that paradigm shifts do not occur in science, but I will only say that paradigm shifts are earned with a lot of evidence.
Gwisss 3 years ago
I do not throw out random John. A. Davison claims. The admissions of a true athiest like Dawkins about evolution are not made in a vacum. What you are not aware of is that Dawarnism is practically dead in all modern science and that the theory of evolution has shifted so far that Darwin's evolution theory can rightly be regarded as complete nonsense.
Darwin wasnt aware of mutation, he had no clue about genetics. So many discoveries in these fields have proved his theory completely bogus
karamarouge 3 years ago
Infact the assailment on darwins theory has been so bad scientists have had to come up with ridiculous theories like "punctuated evolution" after genetics found Darwin's evolution theory to be an absurd impossibility because of the ridiculously masssive fatality rate that would have seen the entire planet drowned in a wash of failed mutative animal states (literally up to your eyeballs)
But 99% of all evolution proponents dont even know that Darwin's science has entirely been proven bogus
karamarouge 3 years ago
Most of the theories you are actually throwing out are actually dead theories scientists dont even bother defending any more in the face of a knowledgeable expert. For crying out loud you stll spew bogus disproved darwin theories that scientists dont even respect any more. And i mean the most avid anti god, or anti creationist scientists wont even wag a tongue in defense of Darwins nonsense because they know full well its indefensible. It is old bogus ignorant science
karamarouge 3 years ago
I was under thee impression that D'souza thinks science does not hold all the answers, therefore, he seeks the answers in Christianity. If he seeks answers that do not need evidence (faith based belief), then as Hitchens says, he demonstrates a willingness to believe in anything.
Either way, Science holds more promise and answers to questions we may have then religion does. I would rather not have an answer, then have an answer but have no sufficient reason to believe the answer is true.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Matter of fact there is more scientific evidence that abiogenesis is impossible than there is evidence supporting that idea. This however does not stop you or others to claim it as reasonable (despite its multiple shortcomings, majority of which are advanced by fellow scientists)
That to me is actually more illogical than a person who believes in creator. At least with that believer, their own arguments dont contradict themselves unlike those who believe in abiogenesis.
karamarouge 3 years ago
youtube -dot- com /watch ?v=8puuM-C9XIY
check out this video and go to the one minute mark to see for yourself Dennetts rather sad habit of stating half truths and fantastic speculation almost as though it were fact.
I had to come back to this because i knew for sure you were wrong about Dennett
karamarouge 3 years ago
"I do think that you should regard it as no more probable then any other hypothesis that carries no support."
This is my current stance and this is why i simply reject the teachings of Dawkins, Dennett etc.
And just so you know, abiogenesis is way too many holes and still leaves very many unanswered questions much like the big bang theory or ID. We have no more information on abiogenesis than ID or even dawkins own aliens theory. To me they are on the same level.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that has been tested and does somewhat provide us with the building blocks of life. It seems to be a probable way that life could have begun, and it seems to be our best explanation to date. It is much better to say 'there is ONE possibility of how life began, however, we are not certain if this is how life on OUR planet began."
I don't see Abiogenesis being on the same level as ID at all. ID doesn't seem to have a level, nor does the aliens theory.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Let me get this straight you propose to tell people that random elements out in the open atmosphere combined to formulate the beginnings of life.
I hate to break this to you, that sounds about as logical as an alien did it or ID. There is absolutely no proof or even science for that matter of fact the idea is a complete violation of the 3rd law of thermo dynamics.
You have to rely on faith and not science to advance that theory alone. Same as the ID, alien of God crowd!
karamarouge 3 years ago
Many of the theories of abiogenesis do have holes, but many of them are still under critical study, so I'm not one to argue for or against. It seems promising, much more promising then the study of God (A subject of which that by definition cannot be studied or falsified, therefore no evidence COULD be found for it's validity.). Either way, science does not need to have answers to our questions immediately, but it is the best method we have so far for getting unbiased answers and evidence.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Saying that theories of abiogenesis do have holes is like saying there is a "some" distance between earth and neptune.
Until science makes credible advances i suggest every one stops claiming unfinished or practically dead end studies as legitimate theories.
I dont even think scientists even study abiogenesis any more.
karamarouge 3 years ago
I was under the impression that abiogenesis was a fancy way of saying inanimate matter becoming life. To my knowledge, I think there are a multitude of studies being done in this subject. I don't see this as being 'dead end' studies if advances and discoveries are still being made. A dead end study I would think, would be the study of the bible as a source of knowledge for how life came about. I agree with you, that until sufficient evidence is collected for a claim, a claim should not be made.
Gwisss 3 years ago
We should really accept Dawkins "aliens" explanation rather than an intelligent designer or even God based on what scientific logic, or what established rules of probability?
karamarouge 3 years ago
The Dawkins 'Aliens' explanation is rather weak, but I would gather it has a bit more probability then the bronze age creation myth of early humans. Both of which are FAR TOO weak to even consider without much more evidence. The problem with these two hypotheses is that there is NOT a shred of evidence coming in to support them. Abiogenesis is seemingly our best hypothesis and has support to clarify it's probability.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Ultimately, the truth is that none of these men have the answers. Yet they prefer to substitute one faith for another!
This is exactly why i reject their arguments because they provide no answers at all. Frankly all they do is create doubt about the biblical God so to speak and do nothing at all in advancing the true origin of life.
karamarouge 3 years ago
All I can say on this subject is that Abiogenesis is our best hypothesis, and in terms of probability, it out does the early creation myths of bronze age humans. The biblical God and stories are improbable claims and are left unsupported by evidence and in terms of history, anthropology and archaeology, these religious claims prove to be very much a product of human beings which is of course a VERY probable claim to make. In comparison to creation myth, abiogenesis is very much an advancement.
Gwisss 3 years ago
does not make Hitler a practicing catholic. He is an atheist and passes a decree upon a church with the threat of violence.
But they try to sell these dictators as "religious entities" for this illicit use of religion while they, the dictators dont even adopt or claim the religion.
karamarouge 3 years ago
I see what you are saying. Nazism was not a monotheistic religion, there might not have been a belief in God required. A percentage of Nazis may have been atheist, and few may have been monotheists. What Hitchens argues, and he has done so on many occasions (as well as Sam Haris), He argues that this belief in the Nazi ideology functioned much like a faith based religion. This nazi ideology was not open to debate which is what you expect to see in a religious structured ideology.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Hitchens and Dennett when asked about Stalin both tell bogus stories about how Stalin known atheist apparently utilized previous religious structure to form his murderous totalitarian state. What they neglect to say, that Stalin did this as an atheist. NOt as a christian. Its his atheist beliefs that allow him to kill millions. The tools of his government are irrelevant in this case. What I mean is that for Hitler to direct the pope to command all catholics to celebrate his birthday,
karamarouge 3 years ago
I do not think that Stalin's immorality is a result of a lack of belief in a God. Stalin did what he did because he had a belief, not because of a lack of belief. There is a difference here. He had his own beliefs and motives that are of course separate from monotheism, however, they are still beliefs.
This seems more a case against Stalinism then against atheism.
What Dennette(and Hitchens?) is arguing is that, it was not atheism that led Stalin, but a belief in his ideology.
Gwisss 3 years ago
D'Souza says there are many questions that are not in the empirical domain, such as the afterlife, and so evidence is unavailable. This is one of successive and nonsensical defences erected by religion to save its arse: God and his realms are unknowable, immeasurable and beyond our capacity to understand.
And yet despite their admission to complete ignorance, they somehow have the knowledge that science cannot determine God's existence.
Of course, they know God only exists in their minds.
WKaliber1 3 years ago
Atheists say there are many questions that are not in the empirical domain, such as the beginning of life, and so evidence is unavailable. This is one of successive and nonsensical defences erected by atheism to save its arse: the big bang and abiogeneis are unknowable, immeasurable and beyond our capacity to understand.
Of course, they know the big bang only exists in their minds.
Your own words used towards the beliefs of athiests
karamarouge 3 years ago
Atheists tend to be adept at attacking the beliefs of others but they seem to be incredibly poor at defending their own beliefs.
I have noticed that none of you ever bother to defend your unproven beliefs and ideas but instead choose to attack the beliefs of others as though this will some how validate your similarly unsubstantiated beliefs.
karamarouge 3 years ago
I dont have to defend my beliefs. I just have to point out the skeleton remains of Homo habilis, Australopithecus, and Homo erectus to prove to you that the Bible was invented after a certain point in human history, as was God.
It is your job to defend your beliefs, not mine.
WKaliber1 3 years ago
WHAT???? remains of Homo habilis prove the bible wrong? could you elaborate on this? How in the world did you arrive at this conclusion?
Why does he only prove the "bible" wrong and not the torah, or koran, or bhuddists beliefs?
How in the hell does a skeleton prove a bible wrong, and most importantly?
WHO THE HELL ASKED YOU TO PROVE THE BIBLE WRONG? WHO IS EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE BIBLE?
Or are you mistaking "religion" with the bible?
karamarouge 3 years ago
And just so you know, i have read about homo habilis in several books, not a single one of them stated that his discovery disproved the bible. Matter of fact not a single scientist ever stated this. I surely wonder where you got such a horrendously misguided view.
karamarouge 3 years ago
I want to comment on D'Souza's assumption about afterlife.
He says that it's not verifiable.
But, it comes in direct contradiction with science.
Imagine we take D'Souza drug him, open his skull and sever some of the nerves is his head such that he can't perform arithmetic and can't walk.
But if he has a spirit what you do to his brain wouldn't matter?
Do you think that when he dies he would be be able to do those things?
I doubt it.
D'Souza is like a child. He is a superficial sophist.
AlanCom1 3 years ago
this question is completely way off and you are the childish one. I saw this entire debate, and I dont recall D'souza describe in depth the capabilities of the "spirit" or even talk about such nonsense any where in this debate. If he did please point it out.
You are the one how makes outrageous assumptions then attribute them to Dinesh even in the face of video and audio evidence that doesnt show any of the claims you make about D'souza. If he did please point out where ASAP!
karamarouge 3 years ago
This may interest you:
conversiondiary . com/2008/04/viewing.html
xtrashed 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
she's a loser, just like you
AlanCom1 3 years ago
remove the spaces
xtrashed 3 years ago
I have an real unabashed viceral hatred for organised religion. (That doesnt mean I am and atheist and dont believe in the virtues of a truthful religion) that link provides nothing but another advertisement for one of the worst of the worst religions in the world. (that is my personal opinion and it will not change).
It is religions like this that give atheists the power of appeal and growing numbers they get by the day.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Are you not generalizing when you say 'the atheists'? One can generalize Christians or Muslims because they have a guide to follow but still, one should be wary about making generalizations. Nonetheless, generalizing atheism is almost silly, because there is no guide that they follow. It is seemingly only an absence of someones else's belief. Many atheists don't know science, and do not claim to have answers, they merely do not believe what it is others believe.
Gwisss 3 years ago
what is your point? (i ask because i really dont want to get into a debate that doesnt really interest me)
karamarouge 3 years ago
"Atheists tend to be adept at attacking the beliefs of others but they seem to be incredibly poor at defending their own beliefs."
This is a generalization among most of all the other points you make. Do you not think that perhaps you are making an error in generalizing. Can you be more specific about who you are directing your arguments at?
Gwisss 3 years ago
For that statement, feel free to apply it to Hitchens and other atheists that argue in his style. Dennett, Dawkins etc
karamarouge 3 years ago
What beliefs are Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett etc poor at arguing for? It seems vague to me. Are they not only arguing against a claim? What claim would they be holding that they do not have an argument for? This is a strange statement to make about scientists, because they only hold claims that have a sufficient argument for it's probability.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Issues like the beginning of life, their ideas on the creation of the universe, and pretty much all aspects of evolution for which they dont have any evidence for.
Hitchens for example when asked to explain how something comes from nothing, almost always responds by going into a monologue about earths pending doom at the hand of andromeda in a question format. Thus avoiding answering the question and instead yet again attacking religion.
karamarouge 3 years ago
The beginning of life as in Abiogenesis and other hypotheses are good ideas of how life may arise on our planet, but one cannot argue 100% certainty for these claims. We are learning more and more about how life might have begun by looking to other planets. What type of argument do you expect? an argument of certainty for how life began on our planet? No such argument exists. What do you mean by 'something' comes from 'nothing'? In terms of life? or Universe?
Gwisss 3 years ago
I mean in terms of the universe. And yes we are not 100% sure about the certainity of these claims but that is not what Hitchens leads you to believe. Matter of fact Hitches almost never admits his total ignorance on the issue. You may find a very scant short sentence admitting ignorance on the subject but 90% of the time he is making rather outrageous leading comments about what "scientists know or suspect"
Though he never claims it as fact, he does put out many false notions.
karamarouge 3 years ago
And the worst thing about Hitchens, Dawkins,Dennett etc, is the arrogance with which they sell half truths always neglecting to point out what they dont know, but are almost always sure to fire off some barbs towards those with differing opinions, or religion itself, so as to ensure that their audience members assume them to be the smarter more knowledgeable side.
They teach by insulting and making caricatures of other peoples view points. They are more interested in advancing a viewpoint
karamarouge 3 years ago
than seeking truth. Those who can follow debates well and are not easily swayed quickly see that its not logic or even reason on hitchens side, rather just clever word smithing and cheap appeals to the emotions of the often easily fooled audience infront of him..(ala the outrageous remarks about circumcision)
karamarouge 3 years ago
I REALLY SHOULDNT HAVE POSTED SUCH A LONG RESPONSE. I SHOULD HAVE JUST POINTED YOU TO 3.39 IN THIS VERY YOUTUBE CLIP.
Ps..Something from nothing refers to the universe. (Hitchens as do most atheists avoid abiogenesis completely because they know its a dead end for them)
karamarouge 3 years ago
Abiogenesis is not a dead end but one of many answers that are probable, but it is, again, a subject that we do not have a full answer for. We have only one example of life beginning, except we can only study it 4 billion years after the fact. It is very difficult to determine the exact path nature took for producing life since we are limited to one example that occurred a long time ago. However, it is the best hypothesis we have to date.
Gwisss 3 years ago
But you see, you never find Dawkins, dennett or even hitchens admit that they dont have these answers almost never.
Matter of fact Dawkins would rather say something as stupid as Aliens started life on earth as he did when pushed by Ben Stein, but you wont find such extravagant musings in any of his books or lectures. Oh no, he saves such gems for those situations when some one works up the bile to stay focussed and ask him those questions that matter
karamarouge 3 years ago
Well, Abiogenesis and "Aliens starting life on earth" are some of the many hypotheses you can come up with. It narrows down mainly in terms of probability and which hypothesis is more likely to be the case with out planet. Evidence seems more close to Abiogenesis rather then Aliens delivering life here. Either way, the only argument that I would think Dawkins is making, is that either of these ideas is MUCH more probable then what is suggested in religions.
Gwisss 3 years ago
You would only come to such conclusions about Dawkins only if you were already biased towards his opinions. It is really outrageous of you to make such a tortured excuse knowing full well the vitirolic attacks thrown at those who support the ID hypothesis from none other than Dawkins. Same "scientist" that goes on to advance the "aliens" theory.
Seriously who does Dawkins think people should be laughing at now? And u, do you expect me to accept this as the more logical?
karamarouge 3 years ago
I do not expect you to think that 'Aliens creation story' are more logical then anything, nor do I think you should accept this as more probable then creation myth. However, I do think that you should regard it as no more probable then any other hypothesis that carries no support. In terms of logic itself, all these claims fall apart, all except the hypothesis of abiogenesis which is seemingly why it is still on the top of probable reasons.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Dawkins and Dennett I do not recognize as being people who would make claims of certainty. Dawkins often will argue with probabilities, but I do not know him to make claims of certainties. Again, most of the arguments he has against religion are that religion makes claims of certainty that can not be known, and further seeks to impose these claims on others. If anything, Dawkins and Dennette attack the ideas of religion as being not probable and without support.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Dennett does make claims of certainity, matter of fact in his debate vs D'souza he makes several statements (though not claims) are structured in such a way that the listener could easily assume he is stating fact. Which in my view is the same as out right purposeful deception. As does Dawkins who only clarifies the majority of his statements only if the listener chooses to quiz him his statements. He never volunteers truth on his ignorance or lack of information on for example abiogenesis
karamarouge 3 years ago
Hitchens has a good historical knowledge of war, politics, religion and the totalitarian desire for rule that monotheistic religions tend to have. I have from time to time cringed when he speaks about sciences, however, his historical arguments are normally very accurate. I respect his opinion and arguments about the problems that arise with religions in terms of history, war, politics, societies, logic etc. however, he may be a little lacking on the science side of the debate.
Gwisss 3 years ago
Hitchens may be a good historian but he has been caught in several cases either omitting the truth or out righ stretching it out.
Claiming that Stalin's russia that is a known atheist state to be some kind of secret religious cult that worshipped Stalin is absolutely nonsensical. Same for Hitler, Mao, Polpot etc!. (Though he never specifically states that none of them were atheists, his arguments would tend to lead the careless listener to believe this was a case.)
karamarouge 3 years ago
The problem I have with this argument altogether is that atheism has very little to do with the subject. The ideology of these dictators is not fueled by the absence of belief. It is fueled by their own immoral beliefs. This is not a reflection on atheism, but a reflection on each of these individuals ideologies.
This theistic arguments against atheism is an obvious misleading connection.
Gwisss 3 years ago
I agree with you that when asked questions like "How does a universe come from nothing?", Hitchens should not dodge these questions, however, there is no answer to such questions. The issue that Hitchens has with such questions, is that they are loaded questions often when posed by theist. Science does not claim to know the origins of the Universe, which leads Hitchens, I'm assuming, to attack theist for claiming to know an answer(God did it) that cannot be know.
Gwisss 3 years ago
If I say, "Well, Christianity is not probable." I'm attacking the probability of a claim. I do not need to know the origins of the Universe to say that an idea is not probable. Perhaps Deism is the only belief system that requires the knowledge of our Universe's origin to be proven wrong, however, Deism can merely hide that divinity a bit further into the infinite regression.
Gwisss 3 years ago
In every practical aspect of a religious person's life, they let reason and empirical evidence be their guide. They don't take out a mortgage on the faith that the bank they go to is the best one, they compare rates and make a rational decision. When there is a puddle on the sidewalk in front of them, they don't step right in it because there's no evidence they'll get wet this time.. But to form their view of life and reality itself, they'll just throw that all out for "faith".
weversonman 3 years ago
Man, Question for Hitchens, Reply by Hitchens, rebuttal by D'souza, next question.
Which is alright, but D'Souza frequently goes off topic or makes non sequiturs in his arguments which are phrased to make an impact and not a well argued point.
In terms of rhetoric D'Souza is well gifted, but he frequently applies standards to Hitchens which he himself does not uphold.
xsomenoobx 3 years ago
4:05 captures a perfect moment of Hitchens beaten
Shut up atheists, you're so last fall
rupertshean 3 years ago
Fucking moron.
Smood47 3 years ago
didn't Dinesh just admit faith is not a means of knowing things?
take that, theist scum
chessdawgz 3 years ago
i realize mostly atheists like myself watch these videos. so i disagree with basically everything dinesh says. but i just realized how good of a job he is doing debate wise. he could be beating hitchens here.
wragnar1122 3 years ago
Your honesty is very admirable.
RebelRay 3 years ago
Only due to the restraints of the debate. Given time to say all that he would, Hitchens would destroy him outright.
angryafro 3 years ago
While you claim to be an atheist and you have all the right to, but to compliment dinesh shows that you take the open minded and don't just disregard what the whole debate is about, now i don't know everything but i will also say i don't need to know everything to "believe." That's the thing with faith, it's the substance of things not seen but hoped for (bible verse). But as humans we have to somehow agree to disagree. So i agree, while we disagree, your honesty is fresh.
WreckaNice 3 years ago
well it depends what you think winning is. His points are lame and his arguments are absolutely inferior to Hitchens'. Hitchens has destroyed all his points to such a degree that Dinesh cannot even touch them again. He sidetracks and talks about something else.
Slash417 3 years ago
I have to call you a severely biased individual or some one who completely lacks the ability to comprehend even the simplified philosophies illustrated by D'souza and dumbed down so well that even the dumbest of all can understand his concepts.
We all notice that you made ridiculously generalized comments about D'souza and didnt even bother to point out even one example where he was apparently destroyed. NOT ONCE!
karamarouge 3 years ago