Off-topic thought experiment: I wonder if Dinesh would have become a closeminded, neo-Con, chauvinistic Hindu, had he instead been born a few hundred miles away from his home town of Goa, where the Portuguese Catholics had influence over his religion, and then come to the US as a Hindu. He certainly shares the same anti-Islamic prejudice that his Hindu alter-ego would have had.
The reasons reign of imperceptibly evil men like Hitler and Stalin CANNOT be considered secular is because they were viewed to be a little more than human. Anyone in the US is free to criticise Obama and all is up for debate.
You can't even have that in Russia and Germany. Hitler and Stalin were absolved from public criticism. You can't even try. Why? Because they were the fearful leaders that can do no wrong and to question them means death. Religion in its purest and most basic form.
I cannot believe D'souza is accusing someone else of an ignorance of history after the rubbish he was stumbling over in the early chapters of this debate
oh for fucks sake it wasnt atheism that killed those people, it was SOCIALISM. that is what happens when you have a theocratic centralized power that doesnt have a wealth developing sector. the country got poor and the central power couldnt provide for the people because government is inherently bureaucratic and incompetent which is why it should be kept as small as possible. you centralize power then you get theocracy... very simple.
Among Christians, there are differences about what is moral, and even what is Biblical. At the time there were Christians who would never accept the Inquisition. So it would be fair to say that, as there were and are bad Christians, there were and are bad Atheists. I don't see how any of this proves or disproves the existence of God.
It is my understanding that slavery had been abolished by the Achaemenid dynasty in Ancient Persia. That's a little earlier than Christianity. Somebody send this bullet to Prof Hitchens for his next debate, unless he's already heard it.
You know I really hate it when pricks like Dinesh use ad hominem such as "this is what happens when you let the biologist leave the lab" when he himself utters nonsense about the cosmos and physics, and misquoting Hawking like there's no tomorrow. This is what happens when you let the Christian out of the church.
@tigeruby I wouldn't say that D'Souza's remark you mention is an ad hominem, just a very sophomorish appeal to a sad tendency of a large number of Academia to speak outside of their expertise.
Ph.D carries a great deal of credibility and weight with it, but that does not translate into expertise in areas outside the narrow scope, there is a sad habit of many of the better known intellectuals to engage in this thinking.
D'Souza is full of it - he whines that there is a double standard when it comes to history's crimes but he is the one who is not comparing like with like. Atheism does not claim to be a source of authority or morals (indeed, that's the main criticism of its critics). Religion DOES claim that authority. (Never mind his shameless white-washing of the Inquistion glossing completely over forced conversions, stealing property and mass expulsions)
Birds can sing in language they sang when Hitch was born, inthe old English brogue.They sang ,"a man from from Liverpool would have been better but all the good English cannot be born while a Londoner is drinking tea"So they called him Chris and cackeld everyday since.
Hold up a second. So when Hitler used Christian rhetoric to incite genocide he was decieving us but when Jefferson used it to condem slavery that makes religious deep down inside?
Apologies if I seem to be commenting a lot on the videos of this debate but I'm sure any reasonable person can find plenty to object to.
So are you saying that Jefferson engauged in propaganda using imagery he didn't believe in to further a cause he did believe in? Makes him out to be sort of mercenary doesn't it?
@mmnootzenpoof Jefferson was not an atheist he said explicitly in multiple letters that he had a god
but he goes into no specifics into aspects of that god, he was openly disdainful of organized religion, freely doubted the purported divinity of jesus
So he was no christian either. Deism was the avant garde and new metaphysical proposition of the enlightened man at the time and the farthest we are able to logically extend our knowledge of Jefferson's belief. Creator is purposefully ambiguous
@mmnootzenpoof It is possible that Jefferson mispelled God backwards and what he really meant to say was the word dog. It is possible that Jefferson left the docuemnts on the table and someone write the word "God" and Jefferson did not notice it and submitted the documents as such. My possibilities merit as much trustworthyness as yours. No less. Prove it.
@cjla1987 It's pretty clear that Jefferson was no Christian....in fact, he compiled his own "Bible" -- it had no miracles, Jesus dies in the end, and it was only 47 pages long. Since Youtube won't let us post links in comments, you'll have to search for it yourself. It's called the "Jefferson Bible"
@mmnootzenpoof Hey, waz up. How are you? Listen to what I am saying...Let me ask you, what is the relevance of miracles in Jefferson's values? What is the difference between miracles and values? It's self-evident. What if Jefferson gor rid of the miracles in the Bible? Doesn't matter. We get the values from that Bible. Jefferson said it in the Declaration of Independence. We got the value of liberty from the Bible. You and I got it from there. Jefferson said it in the Declaration. Yes/no?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Jefferson the skeptic calls his nation to obedience to God — and this motto is hardly a neutral reference to a god, since the depiction was of the Israelites being lead through the wilderness. Are we to believe that Jefferson proposed a national symbol that he personally did not believe was appropriate for the federal government to recognize? Jefferson gives us the answer: the anti-Christian system [is] imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.
D'Souza establishes the notion that Jefferson was a closet deist.
This is an incorrect notion to make. Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus.
@TheNinjaBoy7 Theology is theology, morality is morality, and values are values. We get the value of liberty from the Bible. If you disagree with my statement then you disagree with Jefferson's statement is the Declaration of Independence. We get the value of liberty from the Bible. Not from Humanism, nor from Secularism, nor from Buddhism, but from that Bible. What do you have to say for yourself now.
Usually people laugh when Hitchens says that N Korea is necrocracy, and some of his other jokes. Here they dont seem to understand them but they laugh when Prager says he wishes cheese cakes were low fat, and when D'Souza repeats the overused quote that you shouldnt wrestle with a pig,
Not the most intelligent audience Hitchens has faced though infinately more intelligent than the morons who booed everything he said when he faced Galloway in NY.
i didnt say not approving Hitchens made the audience less inteligence. I would rather they gave him tough questions. But the fact that they dont react to Hitchens more intelligent and hidden jokes, while laughing out loud at the silly things his opponents say, to me suggests that it is a less intelligent audience than the ones Hitchens is used to.
thats my point , becuase audience does not think hes jokes are funny does tno mean they aren inteligent and i think of their jokes as equivalent to those from hitchens. It has nothing to do with inteligence but rather.
Its like i said if someone does not laugh at the jokes of dsouza and prager that he is not inteligen, people who are atheists simply wont laugh at their jokes just as christians wont laugh at the jokes from hitchens.
Hitchens never says that D'Souza or Prager should feel bad for the crimes of Christendom, he merely points out the crimes. D'Souza is the one playing the trick here.
according to an AP news report on Oct 17, 2009 in EKET Nigeria.
A father, convinced by his pastor, that his 9 year old son was a witch tried to perform an exorcism by pouring acid down his son's throat. It spilled as the boy struggled, burning away his face and eyes. He died a month later.
Exodus 22:18 "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live"
So according to the bible, this father was perfectly justified.
Personally, I would have to say that the "cure for ignorance" is NOT the bible!
What you describe is like the Islamic bloodthirsty savages, pouring acid down a son's mouth: HORRID-like Islamic's acts of terrorism, like slicing off Richard Pearl's head on TV. Christianity is NOT represented by what this pastor did. Can we blame you then, for all the atrocities done by the Godless Communists Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Your argument falls and goes "THUD!" by bringing up this example of the acid. This isn't the Gospel of Christ-but again, you wouldn't know about the Gospel.
Does the bible say, or does it not say, to kill witches?
Did Pope Innocent VIII, or did he not, give explicit instructions (Papal Bull of 1484) to seek out and punish witches?
When Jesus spoke the words "not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is fulfilled", did he refute the instruction to kill witches or endorse it?
Is Jesus God or isn't he?
Did Thomas Muthee not "implored Jesus to protect Sarah Palin from "the spirit of witchcraft."
My point is that this kind of stupid behavior is still occurring and the bible is used to justify it. Where do you think that idiot in Nigeria got the idea from in the first place? If the God of the bible doesn't want witches killed, then what exactly is the point of that verse?
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
part 3) And interestingly enough, God says to kill witches but then doesn't give any guidance on how to identify a witch, leaving it up to people like that pastor and the boy's father to figure it out on their own. Does it not strike you as kind of odd that a book that says "God is love" (1 John 4:8) would have been so careless as to basically guarantee the suffering and death of innocent people like that boy in Nigeria.
part 4) And if God is real and omniscient, did he, or did he not "know" that Exodus 22:18 would be abused and that innocent people would suffer and die because of it? So again I ask, what is the point of that verse?
1st-one can pick out any verse of Scripture to fulfull their own selfish agendas, as Protestants do to build their own "church"-whereas Jesus said, "Hear My Church."-not Church(ES)-
2nd-His is all-omnipotent & at least Catholics don't presume to know everything, as He said, "My world is not your world"-thus, we aren't supposed to understand everything that God can does or knows.The Church calls it a Sacred Mystery. Protestans think they know God's Will,wrongly, as "Unsearchable are His ways."
For an example, in a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." True, D'souza indicates that Jefferson did believe in a transcendent creator, however, his error was assuming it was Christian.
Alright, I was reasonably happy with Prager up until the last 30 seconds or so of this video. Hitchens -correctly- made the point that no one had argued for theism during the debate. Pragers response: I'm trying to stick to topic here, namely, is there a god? I am arguing for the Jewish god....Is the Jewish god not theistic?!?!? Honestly, disappointing.
How do these guys so conistently miss the point? Do they actually try to miss the point? Or is it just that their perception is so warped that they can't actually hear what the other person is saying?
Ironic that D'Souza actually offers THE EXACT REASON WHY the USSR and Nazi Germany fall into the "religious totalitarian" mould -
"They replace religious tradition with class or race"
there u go...they followed the religious template. ho hum, another own goal.
It's YOU that 's completey missing the point. The debate is over the existence of GOD - the creator of all things; not the role of Religion in its various forms as a root of evil, death and destruction in the world. Are you even listening to what they're discussing???
Hitchens is, to my mind, clearly sticking to the ground set out in the title of the debate "The Christian God, the Jewish God or no god" hence it's not actually a debate about the existence of 'some god' but the validity of theistic perceptions of god. If it was supposed to be a debate for an against deism, than it would not include direct references to theistic beliefs
Thanks for the triple question mark by the way, might have missed u're tone otherwise
Its laughable when religion defends it brutality by saying, well Atheists did it to!!! They sound like 5 year old kids arguing with their mommy. Thank GOD I'm an Atheist !!!
Especially because they miss the fact that atheism is not some group of people united for a cause or a common belief. I'm not responsible for some whack-job's actions simply because he also doesn't have an imaginary friend.
Hitchens Dawkins and Harris should not debate god because deism is much more plausible than theism and their opponents are not deists. I saw the same shit happening when Harris debated Wolpe.
D'souza and Prager end up arguing for deism then when Hitchens nails them for it they say well religion wasn't the topic god was.
The heart of the heartless world, the sigh of the oppressed creature, the spirit of the spiritless situation an opiate for the people. Religion has plucked the flowers from the chain not so that men may wear the chain without consolation but so they may break the chain and cull the living flower.
Marx
Beautiful prose
Communism is bullshit but Marx was surely a genius.
Hitchens gives D'souza and Prager a goal when he tries to say atheist dictators are not really secular.
He is right but it seems dishonest.
The simple answer to the charge that atheism is more bloody than theocracy is to point out that murder was done in the name of racial purity and communism not atheism.
Job done!
Why Christopher insists on his tactic of equating secular dictatorships to the church is a mystery.
sorry, I love Hitchens but I have a deep understanding of North Korea as well, North Korea is an atheist state as they believe in no god. They worship their leader as great but hes not "god"
this is why people need to stop calling themselves by their non-beliefs
i dont believe in pink unicorns, and neither do you, we dont walk around calling ourselves non-pink-unicornists.
but calling north korea a bad place, because it's an atheist place, is wrong.
if it were religious, with the same people there, and kim il sung demanded that people not worship him and his dead dad, but a pink unicorn god called Fred, would it be any better?
He doesn't say they call him God. Listen to what he actually says again. He talks about mysticism and superstition, etc. Compare North Korea to the United States consitution. There's no comparison and that's really Hitchens' point. You can't call North Korea secular without being dishonest or ignorant in the process.
Man I hate D'Souza... he is so ignorant. 'An ordinary Altheist on a good day kills millions'. You can tell he gets through to some, that's what makes him so horrible. Sickening. At least everyone with an IQ above 50 can tell Prager is a buffoon.
Desouza. You are as usual missing the point. Sure atheists killed many. But Christians killed in the NAME of their faith. The atheists were killers but they didn't kill in the name of atheism, thay just happened to be atheists.
Yeah. Religious people can't seem to figure out that they're in check mate with this argument. They like to use those examples because people have been somewhat programed to hate them from birth and religious people are just trying to add atheist to the "evil list".
I always see it as a last leg to stand on argument. Oh, and the Pascal's wager argument. If you think about it, it's moot in a given religion. If the wager is even considered, you automatically give credence to the possibility that there could be other gods, leaving the (gasp) conclusion that your god could be false and other gods the true ones.
I would just add that D'souza and Prager would argue that the Christian killers were somehow misled, straying from the path while they killed.
According to D'souza and Prager's generally agreed upon message, the atheists committed murder precisely because they had no path to stray from.
It's a fairly strong argument when looked at individually but Hitchen's made both of them look silly and he won over the majority of the churchgoing audience faster than either of them.
@Domzdream How can you say he misses the point? He directly addresses your objection. The point is that atheists find it offensive when they are charged with these millions of murders because they not arguing for a form of atheism that would kill millions of people and thus they should not be held accountable. D'Souza is saying the exact same thing with regard to Christianity.
Nope. Listened to it again. He misses the point. Or atleast he misleads the people using false allogations. Meaning, Nazis were Roman Catholics. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Endless people have done MANY clips showing christian symbols on various parts of the uniform. Hell, there's even a picture of Hitler shaking hands with the Arch Bishop of the Vatican.
This DeSouza is such a lying slimy dick cheesy snake. He scolds Dawkins about a lack of understanding regaring history, but here he is being absolutely wrong! Or, which I believe, he's lying. And that's a sin, isn't it?
@Domzdream I just watched a debate between Dawkins and Lohn Lennox and Dawkins does concede that there is debate regarding whether or not Hitler was actually religious or not.
He may have claimed to be Catholic, but his actions were clearly contradictory. D'Souza references two good books, I am not sure if he mentions them in this debate, but they are Hitler Table Talk which is a collection of quotes from Hitler denouncing religion.
Well, we can expound upon this. Let's face it, 99.999% of christinas live out their lives in contradiction to what they were taught, or what they follow. We all lie. We all, steal (downlaoding this and that from web for free), we kill in the name of god, etc etc).
Yes, Hitler was a bit of this and that. But ultimately, the conclusion I get oevrall, is that he was indeed a catholic. Even by political reasons, he was catholic.
@Domzdream This is reat, I love this conversation! I really do. I am in a Christian bubble so it is great to get a counterpoint!
Yes, many Christians live hypocritical lives. Absolutely. Unfortunately, alot of people guage Christianity by Christians and not Christ. It seems to me as though it is like if a Nissan were to cut us off in traffic, would we hate all Nissans? Absolutely not, we understand it was the driver. I think that parallels with Christianity.
Regarding the Nissan theory (Im being serious, no sarcasm there by the way, just in case), have you noticed how a certain type of people drive a certain type of car.
Like, most BMW drivers I noticed are pricks on the road. Usually aggressive, careless, and impulsive. So, sometimes, judging a driver by the car he drives isn't a far stretched notion.
Same goes for people who wear a certain kind of clothing, or decorate their homes in a particular way. These are basic characteristic traits of a personality. It can become basic psychology when stripped down.
@Domzdream I see your point, where I am from BMW's are considered drug dealer cars. I think your point is that we should judge a book by its cover, which I think makes sense. The Bible agrees, 'You will know them by their fruit.'
Ultimately, the point is that we should look at the founder of a worldview and its core teaching rather than its abuses. Look at these peoples actions and the teachings of Jesus and you will see that they are not the logical outworkings of His teachings.
@Domzdream However, when we look at the logical outworkings of many of these atrocities caused by atheism, it is a logical outworking of atheistic beliefs. The theory of survival of the fittest and natural selection is a major part of this. Hitler wanted to elimnate the weak and was heavily influenced by Nietzche and the idea of the 'superman.' Hitler worked out this philosophy to its logical conclusion.
A lot of people think that judging people based on the way they look isn't pc. BUt I have thought about it, and it comes down to pascal's wager. Sort of .
Most of the time, our assessments tend to be right. Not always, but most of the time. If you see a man wearing a suit and tie, he isn't going to a rave, is he. Or the other way around. If it clucks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
@Domzdream I think that makes sense. You judge the book by its cover until you start to see whats inside the book. Judging the cover should just give an idea of what the book is about, but its not 100% as you said. Ultimately, if you judge a book by its cover you should do it with a grain of salt.
@Domzdream I think this is Dinesh's point though. Christians are guaged by the atrocities done in their name. They are judged by this cover. However, atheists feel they should not have their atrocities on their cover. Ultimately, if you judge Christianity as a book, do it on Christ.
@Domzdream I think Dinesh argues that Hitler was a political Catholic. But I would also agree. I know people who after they have become Christians hold themselves to a higher standard and have stopped dl illegally. I still know some who do dl illegally.
@Domzdream The second was the two volume 'History of the Third Reich.'
There are clearly other regimes that have killed and were based on atheistic foundations. I think the point that many atheists argue is that, 'Look, were atheists and were not killing people.' That is the same point many Christians are trying to make.
@Domzdream " Hitler was a Roman Catholic", HOW STUPID ARE YOU?...just because you say you are a Christian than go and kill millions of people doesnt mean you are a christan, because a christian wouldent kill anyone. That is like saying " Im an atheist but I go to church every sunday, read the bible, and pray" Saying you are one thing doesnt make you that one thing just because you said it. Its your actions that speak.
@Domzdream You are an idiot. I just gave you the analogy of a someone saying they're an ATHEIST and still going to church and praying that doesnt make them an ATHEIST. Standing up "love your neighbor as yourself" wont lead you to kill millions of people.
Ah. We're at the next stage. That of name calling.
ok....fuck-tard!
You poor dummy. You don't even know what the definition of your own fucking religion is, and that's pretty bad.
That's like saying, I'm Hindu. But it isn't because I believe in Brahman, but rather it's because I like cows.
Secondly, the atheistic position is an intellectual one. Not because of rebellion against god. It's due to reading the fucking bible, thus one of the main reasons for discarding this idiotic -
Let me tell you who else was a christian. Mussolini, Jesus, Hitler, ALl those who kill abortionists, etc etc
But here's the kicker of it all ya fuck-tard! You don't even know your own bible. It (MANY TIMES) encourages murder.
-esus said, But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence. (Luke 19:27 NRS)
- priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
This is your own deiety who tells people to murder.
@Domzdream Quoting the Bible isent going to disprove god. Just because you dont agree with something doesnt make it not true. Atheists say that Christians pick and choose what they want from the Bible and you my Atheist friend are doing the same thing. You are just mad at God. You have no justification for your belief. And please dont tell me you cant prove something that doesnt exist because you very easily can. You have more faith than a Christian.
Well, you kind of can. By showing a replete amout of contradictions, which disprove it was dictated by god, unless this god is a burke. Simply on the basis of logic and philosophy, the bible is EASILY refuted.
Theists DO cherry pick. I come across that almost every single day, are you kidding? geez....
When I was a catholic christian, the priest never read out the bad bits like god commanding rape on women and children, no. He only chose the fluffy fun bits, which indicates to me-
-me that even this poor dope thought the god he worships did vile detestable things, then at the same time proclaiming love. Love? Where? Forgiveness? Where?
How can I be mad at god if I pretty much KNOW that he/she doesnt exist. That's just silly man.
The belief I have is science, rational thought, thus evidence. If that is a belief (which it isn't really), I'll take a large gulp of that.
You can prove god? WOW! I'm all ears. Please convince me!
@Domzdream You said just " pretty much KNOW that he/she doesnt exist." If you KNOWN something doesnt exist it should be VERY EASY to prove it...Il wait
What about wizards, bassolisks,minotaurs, centaurs, pixies, leprechauns, goblins, and pink unicorns? no.
Hoo....oookayyy. We now have established that we have never seen, nor proven that such things exist on the account of a lack of evidence. We can clearly state that we know they do dont exist.
Now we turn to your crappy god. We have no evidence for this deiety, thus why you need faith in the first place, haha-
-haha, facepalm! What's worse is you're asserting something exists even though you cant see it, smell it, touch it, (anything) it. But you silly christians KNOW that it exists.
Refer to my previous paragraph about the pixies and goblins. same applies to your god.
The funny thing is- you actually believe in Balrogs, cherrubs, wizards, dragons, etc etc, because it's all in the bible.
It's all facepalming material right there. The bible is pure comedy, when not being violent.
@mas03 Sure. Read the bible. God himself supposedly gets involved. Sorry bro, not a good argument to stand by.
Aside from that: The slaughter of central and south american tribesmen by catholics by the sword. The only way out was conversion. John Brown, who hacked off the heads of slave owners because God told him to. The Spanish Inquisition. Cromwell and his butcher of the pagan Irish. Need I continue into the 19th, 20th, and 21st century?
Question: Who suffers the greater moral deficiency? The person who believes, without any evidence whatsoever, that the creator of all things not only sanctions and allows genocide, but actually COMMANDS IT; or the person who does not?
@Kristophirst It is pretty sill to suggest that there is no evidence whatsoever. I mean if their are professors at the highest levels of academia such as: Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. There must be some good evidence. I.E. John Lennox has 3 PhD's and I do not think he would believe something with no evidence whatsoever.
I can't remember what book I read this, but when Sung would say something about anything even if he wasn't a expert it would become doctrine, because Sung said it.
Neither Christianity nor Judaism stops at deism - they are both theistic by definition. Prager therefore had not only the mandate but also every opportunity to expound his conception of theism as he saw fit, but simply chose not to.
D'Souza wants to imply that killing less implies moral superiority over the killing of more. I would like to say that there are simply more people today, as well as more efficient methods for killing. That aside, he is evading the hypocrisy of Christian doctrines. Even Jewish faith has circumstances posited in which killing is perfectly fine. It is a way of preventing murder in the general public while maintaining ones right to do so when it suits the purpose. It is a tactic of rulers.
(continued from previous post) Those arguments don't prove the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. They don't prove that this creative intelligence wants you to worship him, that he cares about you, or that he thinks such and such moral proposition is morally correct or repugnant. Theists, regardless of how hard they try, can never seem to bridge the chasm between these impotent "proofs" to arriving at the conclusion that any God, of any religion, is justifiably believable.
Hitchens concludes this segment in the best way possible, and it is something that I have reiterated in my arguments against theists time and time again. All the common arguments for God's existence - such as the cosmological argument, teleological argument, ontological argument, anthropic argument, etc. are all non sequiturs. They don't prove the God of the theist or of any particular religion. At most they prove a creative force or intellect, and nothing more (continued).
Hitchens hit the nail right on the head. The charge that Prager makes, taken from Dostoevskys novel, that without God everything is permitted, can be reversed. The religious suicide bomber demonstrates this, and it also is demonstrated by the ethnic cleansing practiced by the Jewish people in the Old Testament. God does not hinder immoral actions. If one has an immoral intent, all one does is attribute that moral intent to God and use him as justification for it.
very smart, i have trouble articulating my thoughts, but thats pretty much how i feel religion is. For a mother to drown her children in a bathtub for no reason but she went insane, is wrong. But if that same mother drowned her children in the name of god, shes in the right. It just doesnt click in my head that people can be so perverse and psychotic, but claiming it as gods work will earn you the seat next to his throne. Its hypocrisy.
(continued from previous post) D'Souza also ignores that the multitude of people who assisted every despot, including Kim Jong il, grew up in religious cultures, and did not immediately relinquish their religious affiliation upon the dictator's seizure of power. Hence, religion did not seem to negate the population's complicity in these actions, and therefore religion must be implicated in the crimes of these regimes as well.
D'Souza claims that Hitchens is performing a slight of hand trick when he ascribes the tyranny of North Korea, and other despotic regimes to religious like behavior. Hitchens is not performing a slight of hand, he is stating a bold face fact. These despotic regimes were not rational at all, but suffered from the same faith based nonsense as religions, where unquestioning obedience is cherished over critical thinking. (continued)
(continued from previous post)If Christianity was the impetus behind slavery's abolition, Christianity should have abolished slavery when it became the dominant religion in Europe 1700 years ago. Yet slavery persisted in western culture, even when Christianity was at its apex. So logically, something ASIDE from Christianity, worked to eliminate slavery. Furthermore, slavery was condoned in the Old Testament. Paul upheld the slavery in the New Testament.
D'Souza is engaging in major historical revisionism here. Though it is true that there were some very good Christians that argued against slavery, and worked towards its abolition, like William Wilberforce, the abolition of slavery was not the result of Christian teaching. It was instead the result of certain intellectual developments of the Enlightenment and, more importantly, changing economic circumstances (continued).
its true, and very funny too, i think the funniest part is that he holds more knowledge on the religion that these two follow, and religions they dont follow, and hes an atheist! It shows the openness and curiosity of an atheist mind, and the ignorance and arrogance of a theist
It is true that Hitchens seems to have more of an all encompassing knowledge of religion than these other two avowedly religious people. However, I would say that this is not uncommon. I have come to find out, in my discourse with theists, that they display an amazing amount of ignorance about other religions that they don't follow, and even demonstrate ignorance on many aspects of their own faith - especially in areas that reflect poorly on their faith.
yes, i guess id fall under the agnostic category, no im not religious, but i study religions because they fascinate me. I take the time to gain knowledge before debating someones beliefs, i dont see why theists dont take the time to read and study and learn about atheology, or even other religions for that matter. Plainly, its just ignorance, yet im the ignorant one for questioning and debating.
I think being myopic on this issue actually serves their interests.
I have tried to discuss with one Christian (one could call him a Fundamentalist Catholic, I guess), and in his mind it is a debate between his god, and no god (when he debates with me. When he talks to Protestants he gets much more specific). Whenever I broaden the perspective to put his religion in context, he would complain and try to re-frame the discussion to his worldview vs. what he saw as no worldview.
Beriukay, I can empathize with the scenario you mentioned. In my 10 plus years debating theists on online forums, they always want the argument restructured only to suit their particular formulation of God. What they don't seem to realize is that the arguments they employ, like the cosmological argument, teleological argument, anthropic argument, moral arguments etc. only prove, at most, a general type of deity, and never any God so specific as they intend.
I'm sorry, but heads and shoulders above HItchens?! It seems you have a biast. D'Souza is probably the best theist debater I've yet to see, however, Hitchens is undeniably brilliant.
The best theist debater was philosopher/pastor/professor Greg Bahnsen. From my experience having been involved with academic debating both as participant, judge and organizing tournaments, I can tell you that Dinesh is head and shoulders above Hitchens.. AS a debater. Hitchens may very well be brilliant but he's an average debater at best whereas Dinesh is in his element in these debates. Hitchens I imagine would be better as a lecturer or at public speaking.
Hitchens talent is as a writer, thats where he is at his sharpest. Get D'Souza and Hitchens to write a book, hitchens would undoubtably come out in front.
They've both written their perspective books and this is a debate about the ideas in their books. Actually Hitchens and his fellow atheist books by guys like Dennet, Harris have been thoroughly panned by other atheist scientists like Jay Gould of Harvard fame.
Oh ok, so because of one guy from Harvard panned Hitchens book - this means it sucks. Forget the fact that Hitchens is regarded by many as one of the greatest thinkers of his generation. Forget that his books are on the best sellers lists. Because Jay Gould said the book was bad, Htichens should pack up his bat and ball and go home?
You are head and shoulders out of your mind if you think Dinesh is above these guys. He's easily the worst. I've seen him debate CH before, he can't hold a candle to CH. The problem with these debates is that CH is so intellectually superior I feel the average populace doesn't follow as well as they do the other two.
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I was just speaking from a strictly debate perspective from my own experience with academic debating. But seeing as how even atheist scientists like Gould and Tyson have levied similar criticisms at CH, Dawkins and the like, I'm pretty sure I'm not too far off. Peace.
i agree with you. dinesh is neater i guess you could say. hitchens is pretty scattered, but i think it has something to do with this being really 2 on1.
"You are head and shoulders out of your mind if you think Dinesh is above these guys. He's easily the worst. I've seen him debate CH before, he can't hold a candle to CH. The problem with these debates is that CH is so intellectually superior I feel the average populace doesn't follow as well as they do the other two. " I agree with you. However, I think that it's America that has the 'upper hand' on ignorance. However, that what you get with an 'American Idol culture'.
I can't tell if Prager is dishonestly manipulating what Hitchens is really saying or if he honestly just doesn't understand the points he's making.
Garro2 2 months ago
Off-topic thought experiment: I wonder if Dinesh would have become a closeminded, neo-Con, chauvinistic Hindu, had he instead been born a few hundred miles away from his home town of Goa, where the Portuguese Catholics had influence over his religion, and then come to the US as a Hindu. He certainly shares the same anti-Islamic prejudice that his Hindu alter-ego would have had.
skat1140 4 months ago
@skat1140 And of course if he had been born in Kashmir, he would be grateful that the Muslims had occupied his state.
punnet2 1 month ago
ok dinesh was dead as soon as he talked about jefferson
pratto54321 7 months ago
"not to know this, is not to know anything about it". Hitchens should really make a t-shirt for that.
jhenry2468 9 months ago
I'm sure the same is the true of the rest of you....my creator(s) are my parents.
libgirl420 9 months ago
Atheism was used in the Soviet world so people would have allegiance only to the State and/or Stalin, NOT a non-existant nonsence God.
Also, Richard Dawkins being a biologist makes his points and mind no less valid and no less logical at reading people and society.
NormanAngle 10 months ago
in my country (mexico) you buy a dollar for 12 pesos, if we use the same measure, you would need 12 d'souzas brains to buy 1 hitchens brain......
fouche1820 11 months ago 5
Christopher outclasses the opposition, as always.
SkullOfYorick 11 months ago
The reasons reign of imperceptibly evil men like Hitler and Stalin CANNOT be considered secular is because they were viewed to be a little more than human. Anyone in the US is free to criticise Obama and all is up for debate.
You can't even have that in Russia and Germany. Hitler and Stalin were absolved from public criticism. You can't even try. Why? Because they were the fearful leaders that can do no wrong and to question them means death. Religion in its purest and most basic form.
TheDanielWooi 1 year ago 5
Prager is such an idiot. He claims that he sticks to the topic and then a second later says that the topic is the Jewish and Christian God/s.
Btw, the audience aren't much better.
RPFS2008 1 year ago
Dinesh really tests the time honored tradition of "Never hit a man with glasses".
2eelShmeal 1 year ago
fuck! he does that "biologist out of the lab" line in EVERY SINGLE DEBATE.
southsydney 1 year ago 3
@southsydney Those 'jokes' he did appear in every other debate also... He really needs some new material.
kusalaviro 1 year ago
"LA SANTA INQUISICION ESPANOLA" burned 5,000 people, 110 000 Jews Spaniards obligated to abandom the country likewise for 350 000 Arab Spaniards
jormorecast 1 year ago
@MrBladeCrash
Exactly.
Domzdream 1 year ago
Dinesh cannot seem to get his tiny brain round the fucking issue!
Stallin didnt commit his evils in the NAME of atheism...
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
I cannot believe D'souza is accusing someone else of an ignorance of history after the rubbish he was stumbling over in the early chapters of this debate
tommyboomboom 1 year ago
oh for fucks sake it wasnt atheism that killed those people, it was SOCIALISM. that is what happens when you have a theocratic centralized power that doesnt have a wealth developing sector. the country got poor and the central power couldnt provide for the people because government is inherently bureaucratic and incompetent which is why it should be kept as small as possible. you centralize power then you get theocracy... very simple.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Among Christians, there are differences about what is moral, and even what is Biblical. At the time there were Christians who would never accept the Inquisition. So it would be fair to say that, as there were and are bad Christians, there were and are bad Atheists. I don't see how any of this proves or disproves the existence of God.
Entropy56 1 year ago
It's painful to have to sit through so much inane drivel before geting to hear some actual wisedom!
reilly616 1 year ago
It is my understanding that slavery had been abolished by the Achaemenid dynasty in Ancient Persia. That's a little earlier than Christianity. Somebody send this bullet to Prof Hitchens for his next debate, unless he's already heard it.
romansampo 1 year ago
Prager is a douche.
setmedic 1 year ago 3
You know I really hate it when pricks like Dinesh use ad hominem such as "this is what happens when you let the biologist leave the lab" when he himself utters nonsense about the cosmos and physics, and misquoting Hawking like there's no tomorrow. This is what happens when you let the Christian out of the church.
tigeruby 1 year ago 3
@tigeruby I wouldn't say that D'Souza's remark you mention is an ad hominem, just a very sophomorish appeal to a sad tendency of a large number of Academia to speak outside of their expertise.
Ph.D carries a great deal of credibility and weight with it, but that does not translate into expertise in areas outside the narrow scope, there is a sad habit of many of the better known intellectuals to engage in this thinking.
Floridanon407 1 year ago
@tigeruby EXACTLY!
PopUpPenguin 1 year ago
D'Souza is full of it - he whines that there is a double standard when it comes to history's crimes but he is the one who is not comparing like with like. Atheism does not claim to be a source of authority or morals (indeed, that's the main criticism of its critics). Religion DOES claim that authority. (Never mind his shameless white-washing of the Inquistion glossing completely over forced conversions, stealing property and mass expulsions)
hazydavey 1 year ago
Hitchens rules. Prager, D'Souza: fail.
LaVraiVerite 1 year ago 2
Birds can sing in language they sang when Hitch was born, inthe old English brogue.They sang ,"a man from from Liverpool would have been better but all the good English cannot be born while a Londoner is drinking tea"So they called him Chris and cackeld everyday since.
polopowers1 2 years ago
Hold up a second. So when Hitler used Christian rhetoric to incite genocide he was decieving us but when Jefferson used it to condem slavery that makes religious deep down inside?
Apologies if I seem to be commenting a lot on the videos of this debate but I'm sure any reasonable person can find plenty to object to.
Reid573 2 years ago 2
Is it possible that Jefferson chose to speak in terms of God because he was writing for his audience, who did believe in God?
mmnootzenpoof 2 years ago 39
So are you saying that Jefferson engauged in propaganda using imagery he didn't believe in to further a cause he did believe in? Makes him out to be sort of mercenary doesn't it?
TruthWatch 2 years ago
@mmnootzenpoof possible, not probable.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@mmnootzenpoof Jefferson was not an atheist he said explicitly in multiple letters that he had a god
but he goes into no specifics into aspects of that god, he was openly disdainful of organized religion, freely doubted the purported divinity of jesus
So he was no christian either. Deism was the avant garde and new metaphysical proposition of the enlightened man at the time and the farthest we are able to logically extend our knowledge of Jefferson's belief. Creator is purposefully ambiguous
Floridanon407 1 year ago
@mmnootzenpoof It is possible that Jefferson mispelled God backwards and what he really meant to say was the word dog. It is possible that Jefferson left the docuemnts on the table and someone write the word "God" and Jefferson did not notice it and submitted the documents as such. My possibilities merit as much trustworthyness as yours. No less. Prove it.
cjla1987 1 month ago
@cjla1987 It's pretty clear that Jefferson was no Christian....in fact, he compiled his own "Bible" -- it had no miracles, Jesus dies in the end, and it was only 47 pages long. Since Youtube won't let us post links in comments, you'll have to search for it yourself. It's called the "Jefferson Bible"
mmnootzenpoof 1 month ago
@mmnootzenpoof Hey, waz up. How are you? Listen to what I am saying...Let me ask you, what is the relevance of miracles in Jefferson's values? What is the difference between miracles and values? It's self-evident. What if Jefferson gor rid of the miracles in the Bible? Doesn't matter. We get the values from that Bible. Jefferson said it in the Declaration of Independence. We got the value of liberty from the Bible. You and I got it from there. Jefferson said it in the Declaration. Yes/no?
cjla1987 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jefferson the skeptic calls his nation to obedience to God — and this motto is hardly a neutral reference to a god, since the depiction was of the Israelites being lead through the wilderness. Are we to believe that Jefferson proposed a national symbol that he personally did not believe was appropriate for the federal government to recognize? Jefferson gives us the answer: the anti-Christian system [is] imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago
D'Souza establishes the notion that Jefferson was a closet deist.
This is an incorrect notion to make. Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus.
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago 10
@TheNinjaBoy7 Theology is theology, morality is morality, and values are values. We get the value of liberty from the Bible. If you disagree with my statement then you disagree with Jefferson's statement is the Declaration of Independence. We get the value of liberty from the Bible. Not from Humanism, nor from Secularism, nor from Buddhism, but from that Bible. What do you have to say for yourself now.
cjla1987 1 month ago
Usually people laugh when Hitchens says that N Korea is necrocracy, and some of his other jokes. Here they dont seem to understand them but they laugh when Prager says he wishes cheese cakes were low fat, and when D'Souza repeats the overused quote that you shouldnt wrestle with a pig,
Not the most intelligent audience Hitchens has faced though infinately more intelligent than the morons who booed everything he said when he faced Galloway in NY.
gtalcstories 2 years ago
"Not the most intelligent audience Hitchens has faced"
if inteligence of an audience is measured by approving what hitchens has said that public is not very inteligent
niinja2 2 years ago
i didnt say not approving Hitchens made the audience less inteligence. I would rather they gave him tough questions. But the fact that they dont react to Hitchens more intelligent and hidden jokes, while laughing out loud at the silly things his opponents say, to me suggests that it is a less intelligent audience than the ones Hitchens is used to.
gtalcstories 2 years ago
thats my point , becuase audience does not think hes jokes are funny does tno mean they aren inteligent and i think of their jokes as equivalent to those from hitchens. It has nothing to do with inteligence but rather.
Its like i said if someone does not laugh at the jokes of dsouza and prager that he is not inteligen, people who are atheists simply wont laugh at their jokes just as christians wont laugh at the jokes from hitchens.
niinja2 2 years ago
Hitchens never says that D'Souza or Prager should feel bad for the crimes of Christendom, he merely points out the crimes. D'Souza is the one playing the trick here.
arulien 2 years ago
Dumb bitch needs to stop interrupting Hitchens with "thank you" - Hitchens will finish when he finishes, damn it.
AcidLady85 2 years ago
according to an AP news report on Oct 17, 2009 in EKET Nigeria.
A father, convinced by his pastor, that his 9 year old son was a witch tried to perform an exorcism by pouring acid down his son's throat. It spilled as the boy struggled, burning away his face and eyes. He died a month later.
Exodus 22:18 "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live"
So according to the bible, this father was perfectly justified.
Personally, I would have to say that the "cure for ignorance" is NOT the bible!
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
What you describe is like the Islamic bloodthirsty savages, pouring acid down a son's mouth: HORRID-like Islamic's acts of terrorism, like slicing off Richard Pearl's head on TV. Christianity is NOT represented by what this pastor did. Can we blame you then, for all the atrocities done by the Godless Communists Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Your argument falls and goes "THUD!" by bringing up this example of the acid. This isn't the Gospel of Christ-but again, you wouldn't know about the Gospel.
BigBingFan 2 years ago
@BigBingFan
part 1)
Does the bible say, or does it not say, to kill witches?
Did Pope Innocent VIII, or did he not, give explicit instructions (Papal Bull of 1484) to seek out and punish witches?
When Jesus spoke the words "not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is fulfilled", did he refute the instruction to kill witches or endorse it?
Is Jesus God or isn't he?
Did Thomas Muthee not "implored Jesus to protect Sarah Palin from "the spirit of witchcraft."
continued...
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
@BigBingFan
part 2)
My point is that this kind of stupid behavior is still occurring and the bible is used to justify it. Where do you think that idiot in Nigeria got the idea from in the first place? If the God of the bible doesn't want witches killed, then what exactly is the point of that verse?
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
@BigBingFan
part 3) And interestingly enough, God says to kill witches but then doesn't give any guidance on how to identify a witch, leaving it up to people like that pastor and the boy's father to figure it out on their own. Does it not strike you as kind of odd that a book that says "God is love" (1 John 4:8) would have been so careless as to basically guarantee the suffering and death of innocent people like that boy in Nigeria.
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
@BigBingFan
part 4) And if God is real and omniscient, did he, or did he not "know" that Exodus 22:18 would be abused and that innocent people would suffer and die because of it? So again I ask, what is the point of that verse?
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
1st-one can pick out any verse of Scripture to fulfull their own selfish agendas, as Protestants do to build their own "church"-whereas Jesus said, "Hear My Church."-not Church(ES)-
2nd-His is all-omnipotent & at least Catholics don't presume to know everything, as He said, "My world is not your world"-thus, we aren't supposed to understand everything that God can does or knows.The Church calls it a Sacred Mystery. Protestans think they know God's Will,wrongly, as "Unsearchable are His ways."
BigBingFan 2 years ago
For an example, in a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." True, D'souza indicates that Jefferson did believe in a transcendent creator, however, his error was assuming it was Christian.
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago 3
Alright, I was reasonably happy with Prager up until the last 30 seconds or so of this video. Hitchens -correctly- made the point that no one had argued for theism during the debate. Pragers response: I'm trying to stick to topic here, namely, is there a god? I am arguing for the Jewish god....Is the Jewish god not theistic?!?!? Honestly, disappointing.
Mercurybath 2 years ago
"Alright, I was reasonably happy with Prager up until the last 30 seconds or so of this video"
You mean, you had no problems with his idiocy before that? That's quite an achievement.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago
Well, I was pretty drunk when I was watching this, I guess I was letting some of his babble slide. Or maybe I was just zoning while he spoke.
Mercurybath 2 years ago
What a weak argument Dsouza has.
its not relevant how many people have died, the fact remains that religion(s) has persecuted people in its name.
madeddi 2 years ago
it seems to D'Souza that if I used the word goddamn, then I'm "peculiarly devout",,NOT!!!!!!!!!!
WisdomVendor 2 years ago
Great summation by Hitchens on the point of deism to theism....
Resenbrink 2 years ago
Well, yes, Prager, I'm pretty sure Yahweh =/= Deistic God. Fail.
lepolemicist 2 years ago 2
How do these guys so conistently miss the point? Do they actually try to miss the point? Or is it just that their perception is so warped that they can't actually hear what the other person is saying?
Ironic that D'Souza actually offers THE EXACT REASON WHY the USSR and Nazi Germany fall into the "religious totalitarian" mould -
"They replace religious tradition with class or race"
there u go...they followed the religious template. ho hum, another own goal.
Gidwan 2 years ago 2
It's YOU that 's completey missing the point. The debate is over the existence of GOD - the creator of all things; not the role of Religion in its various forms as a root of evil, death and destruction in the world. Are you even listening to what they're discussing???
OHIOSTATE2030 2 years ago
I was listening quite intently actually
Hitchens is, to my mind, clearly sticking to the ground set out in the title of the debate "The Christian God, the Jewish God or no god" hence it's not actually a debate about the existence of 'some god' but the validity of theistic perceptions of god. If it was supposed to be a debate for an against deism, than it would not include direct references to theistic beliefs
Thanks for the triple question mark by the way, might have missed u're tone otherwise
Gidwan 2 years ago
Ok, i see your point. And I apologize for the triple question marks earlier.
OHIOSTATE2030 2 years ago
No probs :)
Gidwan 2 years ago
Its laughable when religion defends it brutality by saying, well Atheists did it to!!! They sound like 5 year old kids arguing with their mommy. Thank GOD I'm an Atheist !!!
MrPriorityone 2 years ago 3
Especially because they miss the fact that atheism is not some group of people united for a cause or a common belief. I'm not responsible for some whack-job's actions simply because he also doesn't have an imaginary friend.
safetypin00 2 years ago 2
Another own goal for the atheists.
Hitchens Dawkins and Harris should not debate god because deism is much more plausible than theism and their opponents are not deists. I saw the same shit happening when Harris debated Wolpe.
D'souza and Prager end up arguing for deism then when Hitchens nails them for it they say well religion wasn't the topic god was.
Why all these own goals? I don't get it.
brucepig 2 years ago
i´m sorry you comment does not make any sense at all.
HeavyweightThinker 2 years ago
The heart of the heartless world, the sigh of the oppressed creature, the spirit of the spiritless situation an opiate for the people. Religion has plucked the flowers from the chain not so that men may wear the chain without consolation but so they may break the chain and cull the living flower.
Marx
Beautiful prose
Communism is bullshit but Marx was surely a genius.
brucepig 2 years ago
I believe the quote starts with: "Criticism" has plucked the "imaginary" flowers from the chain...
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
I think Hitchens just didn't realize what he said. He says "criticism of religion" in other debates.
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
Hitchens gives D'souza and Prager a goal when he tries to say atheist dictators are not really secular.
He is right but it seems dishonest.
The simple answer to the charge that atheism is more bloody than theocracy is to point out that murder was done in the name of racial purity and communism not atheism.
Job done!
Why Christopher insists on his tactic of equating secular dictatorships to the church is a mystery.
It gives the religious a point they don't deserve
brucepig 2 years ago
Totalitarian regimes abolish religion not because they are intrinsically atheist,
They abolish religion because it gives people hope and a reason to join together and resist the oppression of their fellow man.
Also the ego of a dictator will not allow the masses to hold any authority above theirs.
First rule of a dictator, crush all resistance.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago 4
sorry, I love Hitchens but I have a deep understanding of North Korea as well, North Korea is an atheist state as they believe in no god. They worship their leader as great but hes not "god"
jvdx34 2 years ago
this is why people need to stop calling themselves by their non-beliefs
i dont believe in pink unicorns, and neither do you, we dont walk around calling ourselves non-pink-unicornists.
but calling north korea a bad place, because it's an atheist place, is wrong.
if it were religious, with the same people there, and kim il sung demanded that people not worship him and his dead dad, but a pink unicorn god called Fred, would it be any better?
i doubt it, and i dont think you can either.
beebobox 2 years ago
He doesn't say they call him God. Listen to what he actually says again. He talks about mysticism and superstition, etc. Compare North Korea to the United States consitution. There's no comparison and that's really Hitchens' point. You can't call North Korea secular without being dishonest or ignorant in the process.
athlete117 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheNinjaBoy7 2 years ago
Man I hate D'Souza... he is so ignorant. 'An ordinary Altheist on a good day kills millions'. You can tell he gets through to some, that's what makes him so horrible. Sickening. At least everyone with an IQ above 50 can tell Prager is a buffoon.
SmoothPinkWater 2 years ago 14
Desouza. You are as usual missing the point. Sure atheists killed many. But Christians killed in the NAME of their faith. The atheists were killers but they didn't kill in the name of atheism, thay just happened to be atheists.
Domzdream 2 years ago 30
Yeah. Religious people can't seem to figure out that they're in check mate with this argument. They like to use those examples because people have been somewhat programed to hate them from birth and religious people are just trying to add atheist to the "evil list".
Redbaron011 2 years ago 4
I always see it as a last leg to stand on argument. Oh, and the Pascal's wager argument. If you think about it, it's moot in a given religion. If the wager is even considered, you automatically give credence to the possibility that there could be other gods, leaving the (gasp) conclusion that your god could be false and other gods the true ones.
I love the Pascal's wager when brought up.
Domzdream 2 years ago
Then religious people say that not all religions should be considered equally, that some religions (aka their own) are more probable than others.
The answer, of course, is that between atheisms, deism and agnosticism, 99% is gone. Now, zeus, baal, yahweh or the flying spagetti monster?
accountbypass1 2 years ago
I'm not disagreeing.
I would just add that D'souza and Prager would argue that the Christian killers were somehow misled, straying from the path while they killed.
According to D'souza and Prager's generally agreed upon message, the atheists committed murder precisely because they had no path to stray from.
It's a fairly strong argument when looked at individually but Hitchen's made both of them look silly and he won over the majority of the churchgoing audience faster than either of them.
LazyIrish829 2 years ago
@Domzdream How can you say he misses the point? He directly addresses your objection. The point is that atheists find it offensive when they are charged with these millions of murders because they not arguing for a form of atheism that would kill millions of people and thus they should not be held accountable. D'Souza is saying the exact same thing with regard to Christianity.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
Nope. Listened to it again. He misses the point. Or atleast he misleads the people using false allogations. Meaning, Nazis were Roman Catholics. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Endless people have done MANY clips showing christian symbols on various parts of the uniform. Hell, there's even a picture of Hitler shaking hands with the Arch Bishop of the Vatican.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
This DeSouza is such a lying slimy dick cheesy snake. He scolds Dawkins about a lack of understanding regaring history, but here he is being absolutely wrong! Or, which I believe, he's lying. And that's a sin, isn't it?
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream I just watched a debate between Dawkins and Lohn Lennox and Dawkins does concede that there is debate regarding whether or not Hitler was actually religious or not.
He may have claimed to be Catholic, but his actions were clearly contradictory. D'Souza references two good books, I am not sure if he mentions them in this debate, but they are Hitler Table Talk which is a collection of quotes from Hitler denouncing religion.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
Well, we can expound upon this. Let's face it, 99.999% of christinas live out their lives in contradiction to what they were taught, or what they follow. We all lie. We all, steal (downlaoding this and that from web for free), we kill in the name of god, etc etc).
Yes, Hitler was a bit of this and that. But ultimately, the conclusion I get oevrall, is that he was indeed a catholic. Even by political reasons, he was catholic.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream This is reat, I love this conversation! I really do. I am in a Christian bubble so it is great to get a counterpoint!
Yes, many Christians live hypocritical lives. Absolutely. Unfortunately, alot of people guage Christianity by Christians and not Christ. It seems to me as though it is like if a Nissan were to cut us off in traffic, would we hate all Nissans? Absolutely not, we understand it was the driver. I think that parallels with Christianity.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
Regarding the Nissan theory (Im being serious, no sarcasm there by the way, just in case), have you noticed how a certain type of people drive a certain type of car.
Like, most BMW drivers I noticed are pricks on the road. Usually aggressive, careless, and impulsive. So, sometimes, judging a driver by the car he drives isn't a far stretched notion.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
Same goes for people who wear a certain kind of clothing, or decorate their homes in a particular way. These are basic characteristic traits of a personality. It can become basic psychology when stripped down.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream I see your point, where I am from BMW's are considered drug dealer cars. I think your point is that we should judge a book by its cover, which I think makes sense. The Bible agrees, 'You will know them by their fruit.'
Ultimately, the point is that we should look at the founder of a worldview and its core teaching rather than its abuses. Look at these peoples actions and the teachings of Jesus and you will see that they are not the logical outworkings of His teachings.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@Domzdream However, when we look at the logical outworkings of many of these atrocities caused by atheism, it is a logical outworking of atheistic beliefs. The theory of survival of the fittest and natural selection is a major part of this. Hitler wanted to elimnate the weak and was heavily influenced by Nietzche and the idea of the 'superman.' Hitler worked out this philosophy to its logical conclusion.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
A lot of people think that judging people based on the way they look isn't pc. BUt I have thought about it, and it comes down to pascal's wager. Sort of .
Most of the time, our assessments tend to be right. Not always, but most of the time. If you see a man wearing a suit and tie, he isn't going to a rave, is he. Or the other way around. If it clucks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream I think that makes sense. You judge the book by its cover until you start to see whats inside the book. Judging the cover should just give an idea of what the book is about, but its not 100% as you said. Ultimately, if you judge a book by its cover you should do it with a grain of salt.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@Domzdream I think this is Dinesh's point though. Christians are guaged by the atrocities done in their name. They are judged by this cover. However, atheists feel they should not have their atrocities on their cover. Ultimately, if you judge Christianity as a book, do it on Christ.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@Domzdream I think Dinesh argues that Hitler was a political Catholic. But I would also agree. I know people who after they have become Christians hold themselves to a higher standard and have stopped dl illegally. I still know some who do dl illegally.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@Domzdream The second was the two volume 'History of the Third Reich.'
There are clearly other regimes that have killed and were based on atheistic foundations. I think the point that many atheists argue is that, 'Look, were atheists and were not killing people.' That is the same point many Christians are trying to make.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@Domzdream
not "in the name of" ... *because* of.
RPFS2008 1 year ago
@RPFS2008
yup.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream
I'm glad we agree.
RPFS2008 1 year ago
@Domzdream can you give me examples of christians killing in the name of their faith?
mas03 7 months ago
@mas03
ARE YOU KIDDING????????? Holy fucking shit HAHAHA!
Off the top of my head----ummmm....The Norway bomber.
ALL pagans were gathered and killed after christianity became introduced legally.
The crusades.
The burning of women who were barely suspected of wirtchcraft by their suspicious neighbours.
Hitler (pssst....he was a Roman Catholic).
Abortion clinics which were bombed.
Etc Etc ETC ETC ETC......
Do the math. Christianity is disgusting and I don't know why you see it as peace.
Domzdream 7 months ago
@Domzdream " Hitler was a Roman Catholic", HOW STUPID ARE YOU?...just because you say you are a Christian than go and kill millions of people doesnt mean you are a christan, because a christian wouldent kill anyone. That is like saying " Im an atheist but I go to church every sunday, read the bible, and pray" Saying you are one thing doesnt make you that one thing just because you said it. Its your actions that speak.
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03
Er...even a priest would disagree with you there. By definition, a christian is what I've stated before.
Stop creating new definitions just because you disagree with the ACTUAL definition.
And yes, Hitler was a Christian. Thus all the christian meeting, and slogans, and symbols etc etc.
Look it up on ANY google page
(facepalmSLAP!)
Domzdream 5 months ago
@Domzdream You are an idiot. I just gave you the analogy of a someone saying they're an ATHEIST and still going to church and praying that doesnt make them an ATHEIST. Standing up "love your neighbor as yourself" wont lead you to kill millions of people.
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03
Ah. We're at the next stage. That of name calling.
ok....fuck-tard!
You poor dummy. You don't even know what the definition of your own fucking religion is, and that's pretty bad.
That's like saying, I'm Hindu. But it isn't because I believe in Brahman, but rather it's because I like cows.
Secondly, the atheistic position is an intellectual one. Not because of rebellion against god. It's due to reading the fucking bible, thus one of the main reasons for discarding this idiotic -
Domzdream 5 months ago
@mas03
-idiotic faith.
Let me tell you who else was a christian. Mussolini, Jesus, Hitler, ALl those who kill abortionists, etc etc
But here's the kicker of it all ya fuck-tard! You don't even know your own bible. It (MANY TIMES) encourages murder.
-esus said, But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence. (Luke 19:27 NRS)
(cont)
Domzdream 5 months ago
@mas03
And one more for good measure-
- priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
This is your own deiety who tells people to murder.
---you're an idiot!----
Domzdream 5 months ago
@Domzdream Quoting the Bible isent going to disprove god. Just because you dont agree with something doesnt make it not true. Atheists say that Christians pick and choose what they want from the Bible and you my Atheist friend are doing the same thing. You are just mad at God. You have no justification for your belief. And please dont tell me you cant prove something that doesnt exist because you very easily can. You have more faith than a Christian.
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03
Well, you kind of can. By showing a replete amout of contradictions, which disprove it was dictated by god, unless this god is a burke. Simply on the basis of logic and philosophy, the bible is EASILY refuted.
Theists DO cherry pick. I come across that almost every single day, are you kidding? geez....
When I was a catholic christian, the priest never read out the bad bits like god commanding rape on women and children, no. He only chose the fluffy fun bits, which indicates to me-
Domzdream 5 months ago
@mas03
-me that even this poor dope thought the god he worships did vile detestable things, then at the same time proclaiming love. Love? Where? Forgiveness? Where?
How can I be mad at god if I pretty much KNOW that he/she doesnt exist. That's just silly man.
The belief I have is science, rational thought, thus evidence. If that is a belief (which it isn't really), I'll take a large gulp of that.
You can prove god? WOW! I'm all ears. Please convince me!
Domzdream 5 months ago
@Domzdream You said just " pretty much KNOW that he/she doesnt exist." If you KNOWN something doesnt exist it should be VERY EASY to prove it...Il wait
mas03 5 months ago
@mas03
Do you know of any fairies that exist? no.
What about dragons? no.
What about wizards, bassolisks,minotaurs, centaurs, pixies, leprechauns, goblins, and pink unicorns? no.
Hoo....oookayyy. We now have established that we have never seen, nor proven that such things exist on the account of a lack of evidence. We can clearly state that we know they do dont exist.
Now we turn to your crappy god. We have no evidence for this deiety, thus why you need faith in the first place, haha-
Domzdream 5 months ago
@mas03
-haha, facepalm! What's worse is you're asserting something exists even though you cant see it, smell it, touch it, (anything) it. But you silly christians KNOW that it exists.
Refer to my previous paragraph about the pixies and goblins. same applies to your god.
The funny thing is- you actually believe in Balrogs, cherrubs, wizards, dragons, etc etc, because it's all in the bible.
It's all facepalming material right there. The bible is pure comedy, when not being violent.
Domzdream 5 months ago
@mas03 Sure. Read the bible. God himself supposedly gets involved. Sorry bro, not a good argument to stand by.
Aside from that: The slaughter of central and south american tribesmen by catholics by the sword. The only way out was conversion. John Brown, who hacked off the heads of slave owners because God told him to. The Spanish Inquisition. Cromwell and his butcher of the pagan Irish. Need I continue into the 19th, 20th, and 21st century?
TheAzionist 5 months ago
Question: Who suffers the greater moral deficiency? The person who believes, without any evidence whatsoever, that the creator of all things not only sanctions and allows genocide, but actually COMMANDS IT; or the person who does not?
Kristophirst 2 years ago 6
@Kristophirst It is pretty sill to suggest that there is no evidence whatsoever. I mean if their are professors at the highest levels of academia such as: Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. There must be some good evidence. I.E. John Lennox has 3 PhD's and I do not think he would believe something with no evidence whatsoever.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
I can't remember what book I read this, but when Sung would say something about anything even if he wasn't a expert it would become doctrine, because Sung said it.
Valkyrie0010 2 years ago 3
Neither Christianity nor Judaism stops at deism - they are both theistic by definition. Prager therefore had not only the mandate but also every opportunity to expound his conception of theism as he saw fit, but simply chose not to.
KithyKeisari 2 years ago
Hitchens owns God
cardmastad 2 years ago 4
D'Souza clearly knows nothing about Marx...
chessdawgz 2 years ago 6
Yeah. I was so glad to hear Hitchens calling Dinesh out on his bullshit about Marx.
Ngooo 2 years ago 4
@chessdawgz Why do you say that?
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
D'Souza wants to imply that killing less implies moral superiority over the killing of more. I would like to say that there are simply more people today, as well as more efficient methods for killing. That aside, he is evading the hypocrisy of Christian doctrines. Even Jewish faith has circumstances posited in which killing is perfectly fine. It is a way of preventing murder in the general public while maintaining ones right to do so when it suits the purpose. It is a tactic of rulers.
Geoinmotion 2 years ago 3
D'Souza repeats his same argument at every debate (almost verbatim), despite the fact that he's been refuted numerous times...
UnionJack26 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So does Hitchens.
saqib09 2 years ago
He makes the "this is what happens when you let a biologist out of the lab" joke every chance he gets.
Does he think that you only find animals in test tubes? He must be confused with high energy physicists.
marcotenshi 2 years ago 2
again, what is prager doing at the same table as hitchens and d'souza?
ladytarheel1 2 years ago
In an unsuccessful attempt to tag team against Hitchens perhaps?
pmf8 2 years ago 4
Wow, very strong counterargument by Hitchens. WITH god, everything is permitted!
nickrd182 2 years ago 5
haha! I so much agree!
datuna 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) Those arguments don't prove the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. They don't prove that this creative intelligence wants you to worship him, that he cares about you, or that he thinks such and such moral proposition is morally correct or repugnant. Theists, regardless of how hard they try, can never seem to bridge the chasm between these impotent "proofs" to arriving at the conclusion that any God, of any religion, is justifiably believable.
alphacause 2 years ago
Hitchens concludes this segment in the best way possible, and it is something that I have reiterated in my arguments against theists time and time again. All the common arguments for God's existence - such as the cosmological argument, teleological argument, ontological argument, anthropic argument, etc. are all non sequiturs. They don't prove the God of the theist or of any particular religion. At most they prove a creative force or intellect, and nothing more (continued).
alphacause 2 years ago
Hitchens hit the nail right on the head. The charge that Prager makes, taken from Dostoevskys novel, that without God everything is permitted, can be reversed. The religious suicide bomber demonstrates this, and it also is demonstrated by the ethnic cleansing practiced by the Jewish people in the Old Testament. God does not hinder immoral actions. If one has an immoral intent, all one does is attribute that moral intent to God and use him as justification for it.
alphacause 2 years ago 3
very smart, i have trouble articulating my thoughts, but thats pretty much how i feel religion is. For a mother to drown her children in a bathtub for no reason but she went insane, is wrong. But if that same mother drowned her children in the name of god, shes in the right. It just doesnt click in my head that people can be so perverse and psychotic, but claiming it as gods work will earn you the seat next to his throne. Its hypocrisy.
TuPaCaLyPsE1872 2 years ago 2
(continued from previous post) D'Souza also ignores that the multitude of people who assisted every despot, including Kim Jong il, grew up in religious cultures, and did not immediately relinquish their religious affiliation upon the dictator's seizure of power. Hence, religion did not seem to negate the population's complicity in these actions, and therefore religion must be implicated in the crimes of these regimes as well.
alphacause 2 years ago
D'Souza claims that Hitchens is performing a slight of hand trick when he ascribes the tyranny of North Korea, and other despotic regimes to religious like behavior. Hitchens is not performing a slight of hand, he is stating a bold face fact. These despotic regimes were not rational at all, but suffered from the same faith based nonsense as religions, where unquestioning obedience is cherished over critical thinking. (continued)
alphacause 2 years ago
(continued from previous post)If Christianity was the impetus behind slavery's abolition, Christianity should have abolished slavery when it became the dominant religion in Europe 1700 years ago. Yet slavery persisted in western culture, even when Christianity was at its apex. So logically, something ASIDE from Christianity, worked to eliminate slavery. Furthermore, slavery was condoned in the Old Testament. Paul upheld the slavery in the New Testament.
alphacause 2 years ago
D'Souza is engaging in major historical revisionism here. Though it is true that there were some very good Christians that argued against slavery, and worked towards its abolition, like William Wilberforce, the abolition of slavery was not the result of Christian teaching. It was instead the result of certain intellectual developments of the Enlightenment and, more importantly, changing economic circumstances (continued).
alphacause 2 years ago
Anyone else get the urge to punch Prager every time he opens his mouth?
swanseasasda 3 years ago
yes, every single time, him and bill o'reilly are easily the biggest bags of douche on the planet
TuPaCaLyPsE1872 2 years ago
Hitchens is the only one on stage who has mastered critical thinking on the subject of the divine.
MichaelSJLH 3 years ago 2
its true, and very funny too, i think the funniest part is that he holds more knowledge on the religion that these two follow, and religions they dont follow, and hes an atheist! It shows the openness and curiosity of an atheist mind, and the ignorance and arrogance of a theist
TuPaCaLyPsE1872 2 years ago
It is true that Hitchens seems to have more of an all encompassing knowledge of religion than these other two avowedly religious people. However, I would say that this is not uncommon. I have come to find out, in my discourse with theists, that they display an amazing amount of ignorance about other religions that they don't follow, and even demonstrate ignorance on many aspects of their own faith - especially in areas that reflect poorly on their faith.
alphacause 2 years ago
yes, i guess id fall under the agnostic category, no im not religious, but i study religions because they fascinate me. I take the time to gain knowledge before debating someones beliefs, i dont see why theists dont take the time to read and study and learn about atheology, or even other religions for that matter. Plainly, its just ignorance, yet im the ignorant one for questioning and debating.
TuPaCaLyPsE1872 2 years ago
I think being myopic on this issue actually serves their interests.
I have tried to discuss with one Christian (one could call him a Fundamentalist Catholic, I guess), and in his mind it is a debate between his god, and no god (when he debates with me. When he talks to Protestants he gets much more specific). Whenever I broaden the perspective to put his religion in context, he would complain and try to re-frame the discussion to his worldview vs. what he saw as no worldview.
beriukay 2 years ago
Beriukay, I can empathize with the scenario you mentioned. In my 10 plus years debating theists on online forums, they always want the argument restructured only to suit their particular formulation of God. What they don't seem to realize is that the arguments they employ, like the cosmological argument, teleological argument, anthropic argument, moral arguments etc. only prove, at most, a general type of deity, and never any God so specific as they intend.
alphacause 2 years ago
Dinesh is head and shoulders above both these guys as a debater. It's rather unfair.
melonbarmonster 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but heads and shoulders above HItchens?! It seems you have a biast. D'Souza is probably the best theist debater I've yet to see, however, Hitchens is undeniably brilliant.
Mike3303 3 years ago
The best theist debater was philosopher/pastor/professor Greg Bahnsen. From my experience having been involved with academic debating both as participant, judge and organizing tournaments, I can tell you that Dinesh is head and shoulders above Hitchens.. AS a debater. Hitchens may very well be brilliant but he's an average debater at best whereas Dinesh is in his element in these debates. Hitchens I imagine would be better as a lecturer or at public speaking.
melonbarmonster 3 years ago
Hitchens talent is as a writer, thats where he is at his sharpest. Get D'Souza and Hitchens to write a book, hitchens would undoubtably come out in front.
mar8les 3 years ago
They've both written their perspective books and this is a debate about the ideas in their books. Actually Hitchens and his fellow atheist books by guys like Dennet, Harris have been thoroughly panned by other atheist scientists like Jay Gould of Harvard fame.
melonbarmonster 3 years ago
Oh ok, so because of one guy from Harvard panned Hitchens book - this means it sucks. Forget the fact that Hitchens is regarded by many as one of the greatest thinkers of his generation. Forget that his books are on the best sellers lists. Because Jay Gould said the book was bad, Htichens should pack up his bat and ball and go home?
mar8les 3 years ago
Uhh.... Steve Jay Gould is not just one guy...
melonbarmonster 3 years ago
Hitchens and D'Souza are both excellent.
The other guy's a schmuck.
UdallIn72 3 years ago 2
You are head and shoulders out of your mind if you think Dinesh is above these guys. He's easily the worst. I've seen him debate CH before, he can't hold a candle to CH. The problem with these debates is that CH is so intellectually superior I feel the average populace doesn't follow as well as they do the other two.
slantythecamel 3 years ago 3
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I was just speaking from a strictly debate perspective from my own experience with academic debating. But seeing as how even atheist scientists like Gould and Tyson have levied similar criticisms at CH, Dawkins and the like, I'm pretty sure I'm not too far off. Peace.
melonbarmonster 3 years ago
i agree with you. dinesh is neater i guess you could say. hitchens is pretty scattered, but i think it has something to do with this being really 2 on1.
yamaha893 3 years ago
"You are head and shoulders out of your mind if you think Dinesh is above these guys. He's easily the worst. I've seen him debate CH before, he can't hold a candle to CH. The problem with these debates is that CH is so intellectually superior I feel the average populace doesn't follow as well as they do the other two. " I agree with you. However, I think that it's America that has the 'upper hand' on ignorance. However, that what you get with an 'American Idol culture'.
crazykb 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 h