Typical religious response for everything here. You'll notice he has to compare religious and non religious beliefs into earthly things. Comparing say OJ killing his wife, and using the multi-verse theory to prove his innocence, to the fact that the reason our universe is so perfect (in terms of having correct gravity so on) is due to laws. He's comparing 2 different meanings of laws (this is in video 8). Thats what religious people do, they make comparisons like that. We however use known facts
I find it so insulting that D'Souza has to attribute everything good that secular societies do to Jesus. He makes the point that we should blame atheism for the crimes of Hitler and Stalin, but religion can't be blamed for the actions of the Israelis and Palestinians, and that when secular Europe aids starving children in Rwanda, it must be because of christian influence. Does anyone else see the hypocracy?
Ok, are you all Dan's ass kissing students? Go read a little and see that Dinesh just proves him an academic moron. There are indeed areguments against all that, but Dan cannot even find the rhethoric to work around them. What's he been doing all his career if not preparing for debates like that?
I ask this just so you can see how arrogantly smug and silly that sounds.
I'm also going to accuse you of having not read any of Dan's works, or having ever educated yourself as to the facts. I'm also going to assert that all of dinesh's arguments have easy counters, none are new, and his debate strategy is pathetic.
There, now we're on completely equal ground, because neither one of us have actually DEMONSTRATED our points. People like you annoy me.
@BigLundi Are you a brain dead idiot? You are grasping for straws, and it’s pitiful to watch you sinking fast.I’d trow you a life raft but why make Darwin,”Who co-incidentally was not a scientist,” proud. Notice the sympathetic wince?
Dinesh asserts fantastic claims and offers no evidence for them and then complains that science doesn't take the claims seriously. Hmm… I think he lives in a fantasy world.
Why is there two comments thumbed up, that say exactly the same think? Why can`t you just listen TO the words he is saying, not THE WAY he is saying them? From first to last part, the most thumbed up comm. are exactly the same...Why is that? Does it has anything to do with the debate? No... So please STOP TALKING ABOUT THE WAY DINESH TALKS!
@ventelflavius it is meant in the way that you'd think somebody who thinks he has enough reasoned arguments on his side and can debunk the ones of the other debater, wouldn't rely on shouting out his points.
that's what people usually do if there point is to weak to stand on it's own...
and in my opinion dineshs points are weak and fallacious which is why it makes complete sence that he shouts. notice how calm dennett argues. he doesn't need to be loud because his points make way more sence.
I wish the "christian" word be crossed out in Dinesh' riposte. The act of goodness has nothing to do with christianity. Prior to inception of christianity, I firmly believe that humans were already capable of goodness as we are capable at the present time. I do not need provide proof for it, but just invoke "faith," for it is the simplest form of reasoning (muwahhaha)
I´ve seen a lot of comments accusing Dinesh of being irrational. I haven´t seen a single one addressing his points. Sorry, his irrationality is not that evident to me, could someone make a valid argument against him? I am curious to know how many of you are for real or just bigmouthed.
It is irrational to assume, that the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants implies a god – science just has not figured it out yet. But Dinesh insists that GOD is required in a fine-tuning that according to Steven Weinberg is not that fine after all. Invoking GOD describes noting except ignorance.
When Newton was not able to predict whether the planetary orbits were stable or not he evoked GOD. Later Laplace showed that there was no need for the god hypothesis.
@smeggo I burst out laughing at your comment. But I think the shoulder pads are there for exactly the same reason as the raised voice and the inflated rhetoric.
Look at all these retarded atheists in this comment section that actually think Dennett won this debate. Dennett looked lost ever since the first rebuttal.
You assholes are living in denial, Dennett got CLOWNED in this debate and couldn't focus with his microphone.
Theists have better arguments then your shit, so all the atheistic cult members that SWAAAARM youtube can talk, talk, talk all you want, but you are the assholes of society. Your anything goes mentality will ruin this world
@TimelessApologist Are you on a debate team? Have you ever participated in a real debate? I'm guessing no, cuz if u did you'd realize all Dinesh does is literally collage random points which in turn make no sense or, don't arrive at a factual conclusion. Yes Dennet isn't the greatest debater, but its funny that he is so tolerent as am I as an atheist, and your an individual claiming atheism is "the problem" yet U SEEM LIKE THE ASSHOLE LOL!!!
indians have better family values than this home land ditcher says. i agree that western philosophy has done a lot great things but it mainly comes from people like socrates to bertrand russell rather than anti homo sexual anti jewish christianity.
Sometimes I don't even understand what D' Souza is saying because it honestly makes no sense. Like he starts shouting and by the time he's done he's just said a lot of fluffy stuff.
Of course we've evolved over the last 5000 years! We see changes in a variety of our genes! Again D'Souza knows little biology. Southern Baptists favored slavery! The New Testament justifies slavery! Religionists fight over land because they want people of THEIR RELIGION to live on that land. Psychotics experience delusions as real too, just like religionists!
dinesh misrepresents so much of what dan says.. he either does not hear or understand what dan is saying, or he willfully misrepresents it and changes what dan actually SAYS into what dinesh needs him to have said in order to fit with the arguments he wants to give.
i enjoy some apologists, but i find it painful watching dinesh. his arguments are childish and he ignores what the opponent says to him.
Thanks for the illustrative, etymological breakdown. I guess it didn't dawn on you I was correcting you on the term, "evolve" you originally brought up. Yet you found a way to attack me for it anyway. Priceless. Talk about sand-box argumentation techniques, I believe the use of the word "obvious" in argument is one of those techniques to which you refer. You know, presupposing what you should be proving. About that "not caring" thing, I'll take your silence as an adoptive admission.
the reason people like protestants and catholics in northern ireland and palestinians vs israelies are fighting over land, rather than sharing it, is BECAUSE they are religious! if they didnt have the diffrent religious backgrounds and adapt secular reasoning they would have no problem SHARING the land instead of killing eachother over whos patch of "holy ground" it is
Is it just me, but overwhelmingly the people who love Denett are attacking Dinesh personally, whining about his passion and style of debating, whereas those who love Dinesh are applauding his performance. This glaring, observation of the obvious is the definitive proof that Dinesh carried the debate and dismantled Denett on viertually every point. After Denett's initial volley he was reduced to a stuttering stammering half-wit incapable of properly defending his original position. Loved it.
@tonestar100 Oh yeah, because "stuttering stammering half-wit" isn't a personal attack at all. Or when you called him feeble in your post to me below. Good thing you're here to hold us morally inferior slouches to a higher standard.
@PanWolven "Stuttering and stammering" were adjectives clearly and accurately describing what I observed with the naked eye. They are not attack words. Indeed, "feeble" also accurately and dispassionately describes Denett's countenance in rebuttal. I'll admit, "half-wit" is a value judgment. However, to assail me for the use of the word "half-wit" is as about as superfluous as you haranguing Dinesh for his use of the word "evolve." Morally inferior slouch?? Sorry, not my concern at all.
@bebopuk88 Take a look at the last 10 comments Einstein. Not a one has a substantive comment on the merit of D'Souza's arguments. Just like your comment. Denett's arguments are as dead as Darwin.
@tonestar100 Last 10 comments of what? Your last 10 comments, or in the video? Why are you getting so vicious? If you are having trouble seeing past the presentations to the points on offer then I suggest reading a transcription of the debate. I'm sure there's one floating around somewhere.
@bebopuk88 I watched the entire debate. Obviously I'm not talking about the Q&A in the video. My characterization of the outcome of the debate located at the top of the Link Comments is more than an adequate synopsis of the debate. Denett's smarmy arrogance was neutralized quite effectively.
@tonestar100 Denett is the one who's smarmy and arrogant? ha ha oh wow. religion is arrogance parading as humility. i've taken a look at your page. clearly you'll support the religious argument whatever happens, as you've done here. it's such a shame that people here would rather believe in jewish zombies than the truth. i dont need to see your characterization of the argument because if it's anything like d;souza's it's a waste of time or you simply didn't understand. ha ha oh wow
Wait! Darwin invented the word evolve, Dinesh? Or did he use a word that already had the meaning of change? A word that perhaps has its first known use in 1775 and has its origin in latin (according to Webster)? So could it be that Dennet is using a perfectly normal word in the english language exactly as it was intended to be used, without referring to biological evolution?
Arguments from ignorance - there's no mistery in why Dinesh has a lot of them.
@tonestar100 Actually it was a comment on this particular 7.35 minute clip. I could have pointed out several other of his fallacies, but it seemed superfluous. This one just happened to grab my attention due to its stupidity.
I took no part in the debate, so I can't be a sore loser. If you mean to say that Dinesh was the winner then you seriously need to look at it again, because yelling nonsense at the top of your lungs and avoiding giving a straight answer doesn't make you a winner.
@PanWolven The only thing superfluous is your carping about Dinesh's use of the word evolve. Apart from you it's rapidly apparent no one else cares. I need to look at the debate again? Sorry, I've seen enough carnage for now. Obviously for you, it's style over substance. Maybe Dinesh could have been less incredulous at the median intelligence level of the Tuft's student body, (think high-school with ash trays)including the smart-ass homo with lap-top - but wtf he's passionate and cares.
@PanWolven Thanks for pointing out you took no part in the debate. Even though it's painfully obvious your heart was with the old man who became increasingly more feeble as the debate wore on. Even with a home court advantage he choked miserably. Denett's fines moment was his opening remarks. It was all downhill from there. Stuttering and stammering, grasping for some witty retort that was not forthcoming. Sad and pathetic really.
@tonestar100 I'd admit that this wasn't Dennet's finest moment. He let Dinesh get away with far too much bs. On the other hand, if the tactic was to allow Dinesh enough rope to hang himself I'd say it worked perfectly. I've seldom seen him reach this level of clownishness before.
And no, for me it's fact over fiction. Dinesh, as always, stuck with the latter and that's why he lost even to a diminished Dennet.
@PanWolven "He let Dinesh get away with far too much bs." Like a wounded child sticking up for dear old dad. Sweet, really. One man's "clownishness" is another man's "astonishment and incredulity." In fairness, the student questions were as appalling as they were short-sighted, antagonistic, emotionally-wrought and designed in part to rehabilitate a vanquished Denett. Not one bonafide, intellectually provocative question. All in all, a dismal showing for Tufts.
@tonestar100 "wounded child sticking up for dear old dad". This from the person who can't handle that someone doesn't like his hero. I can see why you'd defend him however, as you're as detached from reality and as unwilling to take responsibility for your own statements as he is. I on the other hand couldn't care less about Dennet's performance. I was pointing out the flaws in Dinesh's argument. As far as I'm concerned he could've debated Chip and Dale and still come out looking the bigger fool
@PanWolven That's just it; you weren't pointing out flaws in Dinesh's argument. You were carping without proving shit. Your generalized complaints based on style is FAR from "pointing out flaws in Dinesh's argument." Get real. BTW, this is the first I've heard or watched either of these two debate. I've seen enough of both of them and certainly read more than enough from you.
@tonestar100 Dinesh claim was that Dennet was misusing the word evolution in applying it to areas that had nothing to do with biological evolution. This is a flaw in his argument for the exact reasons I stated. You can easily verify this yourself. And while you look up "evolution" you might want to look up this favourite word of yours "carping", as you're the only one of us guilty of it.
Hey, if you don't want to read more from me feel free to stop carping and I'll have no reason to respond. :)
@PanWolven Again - your claim you couldn't care less aka "losers lament" is once again on full display. Imploring me to look up words - is that another one of your "substantive" arguments? Again, an entire debate and you're still focused on the word "evolution?" If you're gonna be a "last word" douche-bag, at least arm yourself with more than asking me to look up words or asking me to research your comments. Why? Because you care. Alot.
@tonestar100 What reality do you live in? Where in that post did I say anything about not caring? why do you lie when anyone reading this can easily verify the truth?
Let's try this again. I posted a comment about Dinesh's strawman argument regarding the word evolution. You had a fit and won't let it go and then blame me for focusing on the very topic of discussion. Oh and I'm the bad guy for asking you to look up the facts rather than go on an ignorant and dishonest rant? That's just pathetic.
@PanWolven Actually, the word was "evolve." Different word, different potential meanings. Evolve has graduated to "evolution" and even picked up "straw-man" on the way. Way to go! Your moving argument is like a blooming flower, gaining pedals and pollen everywhere you take it. Gotta love it. In case you think I'm in the throes of a fit, I'm laughing.
@tonestar100 Actually evolution is the process of evolving, but that's beside the point as Dinesh used the word evolution and you're just trying to steer the conversation away from your obvious falsehoods. Like I said before, I can see why you'd like Dinesh. You both use the same sand-box level argumentation techniques.
@Bremerxxxx nonono give him a microphone, just do it the same way I saw it done to a guy with a headache in a "healing" service at the church I went to...by hitting him on the head with it.
You think I'm kidding...it actually happened. I was religious at the time and my sister had to kick me out of the sanctuary for not being able to stop laughing.
@Bremerxxxx Thanks for parading your freshman english logical fallacies before us without any supporting argument for any of them. Should I presume you know what you're talking about?
Just one point of dozens I could refute: The Jews and Muslims are absolutely fighting over Israel because of religion. It would be childish to assume it would take the form of a shouting match over which was the greater prophet (as Dinesh characterizes such a disagreement).
Both groups truly believe they have a God-given mandate to occupy the same tiny little strip of "holy" land on this great big earth, and God's permission to kill anyone else who believes the same.
D'Souza says, "Religious people experience god as very real in their lives." Well, Dinesh, Schizophrenic people experience hallucinations as very real in their lives, so what's your point?
@theocean You're assuming they're delusional, but maybe atheists are delusional about God's non-existence. If one person sees something and another person doesn't, isn't the best explanation that it is real. Unless you've already made your conclusion, isn't it better to assume that they are honest and true about what they're experiencing. I know people can claim anything about their experiences, but the experiences among Christians are exactly what you'd expect if God does exist.
My issue with D'Souza's arguments is the fact that they fall to pieces if you simply change the language he is speaking. I'll give you an example. D'Souza says that you could find no natural explanation if there was no nature. In many languages there are very different words for nature and naturally, so making a connection is absurd. Everyone seems to agree, if you want to agree with D'Souza's side atleast admit he is a very bad representation for you, I'll admit Dennett is kinda boring for ours
I find it quite hilarious that he mentions Doctors Without Borders - a very strictly secular organization.
The only thing funnier is that he is accusing Dennett and the rest of them of going outside of their areas of expertise, while everything that comes out of his mouth is pure garbage that is not only outside of his "expertise" (not that he has any), but outside of his comprehension.
Dinesh says that israelis and middle easterners are fighting over land, not something having to do with their religions. In actuality they are fighting over the land their god supposedly set aside for them within their "book". He's either an idiot, or an idiot.
Also, D'Souza needs to learn something about altruism and pro-social behavior among non-human primates. He seems to think that evolutionary psychology is still primarily about veneer theory and reciprocity. So, as usual, he's attacking an outdated straw man, just as he does with cosmology.
OK, I will say I wish that Dennett were a bit more organized in his responses, but I also wish D'Souza were less loud and obnoxious and childish in presenting his own non-arguments. Let's not forget that D'Souza has failed to seriously respond to any of Dennett's points directed at him, since the beginning. ("Seriously" meaning not just by repeating them in mocking tones.) So who's to say that this pompous ass is winning? Is D'Souza entitled to having his points addressed but Dennett isn't?
@MrKirkr Darwin made the Theory of Evolution popular. I don't care if a theory is "Darwinian" or not. To me, what is important is understanding how people, plants, animals, land masses, enviroments, and ideas CHANGE OVER TIME - years, centuries, millenia, a Million years, a Billion years. And most important of all, what does the EVIDENCE say?
"you produce 2/3 of the people who have seen UFO's on a daily basis since the beginning of time and I'll take [that argument] seriously."
Most people who think they saw a UFO don't constantly think they are seeing them, though that one experience effects them constantly. So we don't need to have 2/3 of the people in history constantly seeing UFOs, just a few punctuated moments of delusion for effect. also, we DO have 100% of people deluding themselves and making mistakes and assumptions daily.
The Israelis and Palestinians actually fight on "who is the better prophet? Just look: Why do they want Jerusalem in the first place? The Israelis want it, because Moses took them there. The Muslims want it, because Mohammed went to heaven from there.
It's quite appalling that someone who was a fellow at Stanford could/would actually paint a really disingenuous picture of the possibility of morality in an atheistic frame. Really, it was really sad to see that. Come on. Dennett's argument and reasons are deep and complex. Mr. Mudslinging Distorter over there just asserts them to be false just because he refuses to even give a limited generous picture of what Dennett was talking about... It's so embarrassing and incensing.
I agree with PlanetBongo. Dinesh simply isn't at the level that Dennet is. I don't think he knows what a spectacle of bullshit he makes. He's good at prattling on and on...
The problem with this debate is that the arguments Dan comes with requires more brain capacity because they have to be factual and logical correct. He also faces Dinesh and actually responds directly to him absurd claims. Dinesh, on the other hand, faces the audience and preaches his religion using feelings and 4-grade argumentation. I think some people buy into that.
YEAH they are fighting over land, but religion is the characteristic that divides them! If religion didnt exist there would be no fight cuz they would all be the same people! It is so obvious, how do you not see that?
I'm tired of scientists who specialize in one field try to use use their knowledge of that field to explain entire cosmic phenomena......ONE SIZE FITS ALL ...is just logically and reasonably unsound. Yet People like Dan Dennett, Richard Dwarkins and many other sicientist, think that they are experts in everything....including morality... wow...i'm speechless!
@okellookello Are you serious? You know that same argument applies to the D'Souza camp. Unlike D'Souza, Dennett is actually formulating a cogent argument against theism based on observed facts. While, on the other hand, D'Souza relies on the volume of your speakers and tangled... well, I don't know if I want to call them this... 'arguments'.
"I don't want this to be in a mud slinging debate" WTF!? Why would Dinesh even have to bring that up? The only mud slinging would be done by Dinesh! The only reason he said that is because he was called out by Dennett and he knew he could not back out of his position. He did the same thing with Hitchens! Reason and science win again!
Dinesh hit the nail on the head. The "new atheism" movement consists of a bunch of guys wandering outside of their area of expertise and mocking things that they do not understand. Dennett has had some interesting and intelligent observations about the mind and free will, but somehow, he assumes (along with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) that his knowledge in one field somehow maps its way onto the field of theology. It would be like if I think my philosophy degree also makes me a biologist.
@rumblefishism Theology is predicated on the existence of god. The affirmative atheists attack that basic assumption. They thus appear to delve into theology, while they really just dismantle its unquestioned assumption.
And biology is predicated on the existence of living things, sociology is predicated on the existence of social groups, mathematics is predicated on the existence of numbers, physics is predicated on the existence of moving bodies. I can launch attacks on these basic assumptions, but if I have never studied any of these things, then I do not see why my attacks should be taken seriously.
Furthermore, theology is not predicated on the existence of God. It's predicated on the existence of religion. In theology, you study religious texts, what the tenets of various religions are, philosophical positions, and the like. The field itself does not assume that God exists, it simply presents the belief systems that are out there and professors may argue in favor of one. But you can probably find atheists who study theology as well.
@rumblefishism It seems like you have an idealized, Dennet "teach the world religions" view of theology. In practice, it exists for every individual religion and is synonymous with apologetics. The difference between theology and the scientific fields you've mentioned is that theology contains a metaphysical assumption that is highly questionable and has not been satisfactorily addressed by theologians for centuries. Surely you have seen the bogus arguments in your philosophy classes.
No, I don't have any subjective views on what theology ought to be. I can only tell you what it is. It is not the study of apologetics. In fact, a class on the "existence of God" probably would fall under a philosophy major moreso than a theology major. Otherwise, a typical class in a theology class may focus specifically on religious texts, exegesis, ancient theologians, etc. It does not presume that God exists, only that God belief has been pervasive throughout history.
My point is that the soldiers of this new atheist movement are not really in a position to determine if the metaphysical positions of theists are justified because they have a very limited understanding of what these positions are. To figure this out, you have to *study* theology or at least philosophy. Of the new atheists, Dennett is the only one who is actually a philosopher, but he specializes in things that have nothing to do with God.
Accepting your definition of theology, it is true that none of the new atheists are experts in the field (neither is Dinesh). But it is unsatisfying to read theologians' critiques snidely mentioning the atheists' lack of expertise in theology only to follow it up with the old Augustian "arguments" for the proposition that have long been invalidated by the philosophical community. These ad hominem derisions just seem weak when the original arguments are not refuted.
@rumblefishism Tangentially, I suspect the reason for Dawkin's and Dennett's foray into this area is due to many non-expert creationists claims that overlap into their fields (evolution and consciousness/free will). The findings of those fields seem to go against most religious teachings, yet creationists don't mind their own lack of expertise there.
I'll grant you that someone like Ray Comfort has no business discussing evolution, but Michael Behe, for example, is actually a professor of biochemistry and he advocates intelligent design. However, it is not so much the degree. It is the fact that people like Dawkins dismiss philosophy/theology as fundamentally useless and refuse to take it seriously, whereas William Dembski will spend lots of time researching evolution and approach it from a more neutral perspective.
If I ever got a choice into having a conversation about philosophy, existentialism or even on completely polar opposite subjects. I would have to pick Denett, he is a far friendly man, with lots of great qualities and I get the impression that the freedom of expression and colourful discourse would be present. With Dinesh i get the impression that he will belittle you and treat you as an ignorant fool regardless.
Dinesh absolutely wipes the floor with Daniel. It isn't close folks! It really isn't. Dinesh is so far above Daniel in terms of logic and reason it really makes Daniel look like a high school kid. Some of the posters on this site or so clueless and ignorant it's no wonder they think highly of Mr. Dennett. Ideology trumps facts and wisdom to the closed minded.
@MrFreeLibertarian Nah, he's a better speaker. If you actually listen to the points of both, Dennett is much deeper and more sophisticated in his points.
So D'Souza has backpedaled from trying to dispute Dennett's claims directly to attacking his character ("I just don't want him to be the guy doing it")? This is amaaaazing.
Hmmmm, so slavery was abolished because of our christian heritage? I seem to remember some arguments from Leviticus endorsing slavery. I also seem to remember that the Israelites were told commit genocide against the Middionites.
Hmmmm, so slavery was abolished because of our christian heritage? I seem to remember some arguments from Leviticus endorsing slavery. I also seem to remember that the Israelites were told commit genocide against the Middionites.
This man Dinesh is of the most hypocritical & dishonest kind! Sick bastard is so brainwashed that he goes on to claim that all morality on this earth is a result of Christian teachings .. Retard has not heard of Hinduism Vedanta Buddism each one preaching compassion and love ..!? For other viewers I request you to look up the 'Art Of Living Foundation' > watch?v=JTFPT4hanYc
Religious people kill. Atheists Kill. The only commonality is our species. That being said if we remove religion we remove the mechanism by which we gain sanction for murder and genocide and make it ok. Removing religion from power won't stop war, but it will stop 1 excuse for war and it will remove the divine sanction that makes war the moral thing to do.
what people like this desouza guy does is they pick and choose the stuff in their religion that is good. The fact is that the bible both old and new has a lot of weird stuff in it that would be simply unacceptable to follow. Most of these religions has some really weird shit. It would not be possible to follow word for word christianity and many other religions.
Our culture evolved due to Christianity. Actually our forefathers where atheists, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote his own bible, without any mention of God or miracles. Furthermore, if we get our morality from religion then explain why all the prenatal bombings are exclusively Christian as is the KKK and the tea bagger movement.
don't talk unless you know what your talking about. Thats called toxic religion, same as the rivers of blood and bodies created in atheist regimes. open your eyes.
those are results of toxic religion. look at stalin, fidel castro, etc. killed millions total based on atheism. You sure didn't get your morals from atheism
Read the books, enlightenment was largely a christian secularity created by the church, so was the renassaince. both of these times were the beginnings of the scientific revolution in christendom, where logic, reason and science were created by christians to revel in the glory of the creator
D'souza's position is not his own. In every one of his ideas, he cites multiple philosophies, theories, etc. His arguments is just a collection of other data. He indicts scientists and theorists from 1400 on. You could almost say that D'souza is the christian encyclopedia
@1csteffen I could, but I wouldn't. For example, if he only uses Christian sources then he is being very bias, and only attempting to strengthen a position that might be wrong.
he uses steven wienburg, dawkins, neitzsche, dennett, sagon, and all the leading atheist scientists to show the conspicuous indication that even atheists are starting to second guess that existence is limited to darwinism and chance.
@1csteffen I don't think it is 'concpicuous' to be honest. I just don't see why the 'we are here because we are here' arguement as a positive step in verifying theisum. Besides, one of things that gets me is Dinesh says 'There is no evolutionery argument for us being on earh' and that is the case, simply because evolution is biology, planets and their formings cosmology, which is totally different. That is why I don't really consider Dinesh to be an intelligent person.
Muslims and Jews fight for land, in the name of religion. So too, Hindus and Muslims, etc. DInesh, correct yourself. The fight for land etc is not on the basis of non-religious basis, thats the point. Evangelism and terrorism misuse concepts of freedom and human rights, for expansion of respective religious flocks.
He said that Dan Dennett doesn't take religion into serious consideration? Didn't Dan just explain at the start of the debate how to rationally teach religion in schools? This already implies that religion, if taught ONLY by one's faith and denying the other faiths, is a toxic responsibility to hold and pass onto the young. This is true because of the religious "strawmen" of the world. What an idiot.
Dinesh is so ignorant it overwhelms me. Bottom line, Dennett is wasting his time debating irrational statures the like of Dinesh. It's very impossible to debate someone that "thinks" he knows, when in fact, very ignorant about the matter. If he would at least study some of the modern scientific fixes and findings on both theories, then I think he wouldn't be screaming so loudly as he is now, lol.
I like this part of the debate. Mr. D'Souza has a point about professors who specialize in one area speaking like they are authority figures in other areas. It's probably why he is winning a lot of these debates because he more well verse in these other areas and can catch the fallacies in their argument whenever they leave their field of expertise.
@chezanoble: D'Souza gives his opinions on all sorts of things without being a professor AT ALL. If he's going by the idea that you need to be a professor to speak about something, then he should discount himself immediately. Same as if his argument is that you need expertise: Dennett is NOT outside his area of expertise talking about religion and human morality, but Dinesh clearly is when he talks about the Israeli conflict being a non-religious one.
Dinesh is naive in the extreme not to realise that one of the main reasons that Israel is at war with palestine has a lot to do with the fact that God promised that land to the Jewish people.
Hello, Dinesh .... "atheist bigots don't take religion seriously".
Did you not just hear Dan Dennett suggest that religion (ALL religions, not simply Christianity) should be taught to ALL children as a way of steering them away from the toxic exclusionist doctrines that are found in many religions? Ooops, sorry, I forgot that ideologues such as yourself don't have to listen to other viewpoints.
4.50, dinesh claims that he is attempting to make the case for religion to be 'taken seriously'... this he does by ranting and raving, and shamelessly misrepresenting counter-arguments... this is laughable
That's a good point. I'd love to see you debate Dinesh to see how you would wipe the floor with him and model for us the correct way to debate. I trust you have some very good ideas.
once again, dinesh, quite dishonestly, takes the wrong ball and runs with it all the way to touchdown... this is his main technique. he relies on sound and fury to disguise his basic tactic, and it works... on idiots
Dinesh D'Souza: World Champion of Straw Man Knock-Down
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Typical religious response for everything here. You'll notice he has to compare religious and non religious beliefs into earthly things. Comparing say OJ killing his wife, and using the multi-verse theory to prove his innocence, to the fact that the reason our universe is so perfect (in terms of having correct gravity so on) is due to laws. He's comparing 2 different meanings of laws (this is in video 8). Thats what religious people do, they make comparisons like that. We however use known facts
joshgiesbrecht 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dinesh FTW!!!!
Seigu007 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I find it so insulting that D'Souza has to attribute everything good that secular societies do to Jesus. He makes the point that we should blame atheism for the crimes of Hitler and Stalin, but religion can't be blamed for the actions of the Israelis and Palestinians, and that when secular Europe aids starving children in Rwanda, it must be because of christian influence. Does anyone else see the hypocracy?
DBSpenser 2 months ago
Comment removed
DBSpenser 2 months ago
Comment removed
DBSpenser 2 months ago
Ok, are you all Dan's ass kissing students? Go read a little and see that Dinesh just proves him an academic moron. There are indeed areguments against all that, but Dan cannot even find the rhethoric to work around them. What's he been doing all his career if not preparing for debates like that?
felipe2712 3 months ago
@felipe2712 Are you a Dinesh ass kisser?
I ask this just so you can see how arrogantly smug and silly that sounds.
I'm also going to accuse you of having not read any of Dan's works, or having ever educated yourself as to the facts. I'm also going to assert that all of dinesh's arguments have easy counters, none are new, and his debate strategy is pathetic.
There, now we're on completely equal ground, because neither one of us have actually DEMONSTRATED our points. People like you annoy me.
BigLundi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigLundi Are you a brain dead idiot? You are grasping for straws, and it’s pitiful to watch you sinking fast.I’d trow you a life raft but why make Darwin,”Who co-incidentally was not a scientist,” proud. Notice the sympathetic wince?
Seigu007 2 months ago
Dinesh asserts fantastic claims and offers no evidence for them and then complains that science doesn't take the claims seriously. Hmm… I think he lives in a fantasy world.
hikermanwa 4 months ago
dinesh is hopelessly outclassed here. he's committed every fallacy in the book. it's clear he has no idea what the hell he's talking about.
doaftheloaf 4 months ago
Why is there two comments thumbed up, that say exactly the same think? Why can`t you just listen TO the words he is saying, not THE WAY he is saying them? From first to last part, the most thumbed up comm. are exactly the same...Why is that? Does it has anything to do with the debate? No... So please STOP TALKING ABOUT THE WAY DINESH TALKS!
ventelflavius 5 months ago
@ventelflavius it is meant in the way that you'd think somebody who thinks he has enough reasoned arguments on his side and can debunk the ones of the other debater, wouldn't rely on shouting out his points.
that's what people usually do if there point is to weak to stand on it's own...
and in my opinion dineshs points are weak and fallacious which is why it makes complete sence that he shouts. notice how calm dennett argues. he doesn't need to be loud because his points make way more sence.
WhoKnowsWE 4 months ago
Evolution doesn't imply that things get 'better', Dinesh.
multard 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wish the "christian" word be crossed out in Dinesh' riposte. The act of goodness has nothing to do with christianity. Prior to inception of christianity, I firmly believe that humans were already capable of goodness as we are capable at the present time. I do not need provide proof for it, but just invoke "faith," for it is the simplest form of reasoning (muwahhaha)
SEEANDPEA 5 months ago
Comment removed
SEEANDPEA 5 months ago
D'Souza's entire argument sounds like "i don't understand, and I don't care to understand." "Blah, Blah, Blah"
xd3monchildx 5 months ago
I´ve seen a lot of comments accusing Dinesh of being irrational. I haven´t seen a single one addressing his points. Sorry, his irrationality is not that evident to me, could someone make a valid argument against him? I am curious to know how many of you are for real or just bigmouthed.
ThePhilosorpheus 5 months ago
@ThePhilosorpheus Just take the cosmological argument:
It is irrational to assume, that the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants implies a god – science just has not figured it out yet. But Dinesh insists that GOD is required in a fine-tuning that according to Steven Weinberg is not that fine after all. Invoking GOD describes noting except ignorance.
lukashoermann 5 months ago
@lukashoermann Agreed, his book is full of jumps-into-conclusions like that one
ThePhilosorpheus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePhilosorpheus PS:
When Newton was not able to predict whether the planetary orbits were stable or not he evoked GOD. Later Laplace showed that there was no need for the god hypothesis.
lukashoermann 5 months ago
No Dinesh , They are fighting over holy land. Rings a bell?
Morclaw 5 months ago
He also desperately needs to take that suit to a tailor.
smeggo 6 months ago
@smeggo I burst out laughing at your comment. But I think the shoulder pads are there for exactly the same reason as the raised voice and the inflated rhetoric.
What a comprehensively bizarre little organism.
polymath7 3 months ago
If you took a shot every time D'Souza rhetorically exclaims "And WHY!?", you would die of alcohol poisoning before the debate was over.
smeggo 6 months ago
Sad that Dennett doesn't bury D'souza Hitchens style. He really doesn't
Hermy1138 6 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett
I'd really like to know how the fuck anyone thinks D'souza won this debate.
GBart 6 months ago
Look at all these retarded atheists in this comment section that actually think Dennett won this debate. Dennett looked lost ever since the first rebuttal.
You assholes are living in denial, Dennett got CLOWNED in this debate and couldn't focus with his microphone.
Theists have better arguments then your shit, so all the atheistic cult members that SWAAAARM youtube can talk, talk, talk all you want, but you are the assholes of society. Your anything goes mentality will ruin this world
TimelessApologist 6 months ago
@TimelessApologist Are you on a debate team? Have you ever participated in a real debate? I'm guessing no, cuz if u did you'd realize all Dinesh does is literally collage random points which in turn make no sense or, don't arrive at a factual conclusion. Yes Dennet isn't the greatest debater, but its funny that he is so tolerent as am I as an atheist, and your an individual claiming atheism is "the problem" yet U SEEM LIKE THE ASSHOLE LOL!!!
TreeSmoke1999 6 months ago
Comment removed
TimelessApologist 6 months ago
indians have better family values than this home land ditcher says. i agree that western philosophy has done a lot great things but it mainly comes from people like socrates to bertrand russell rather than anti homo sexual anti jewish christianity.
sasiandem 7 months ago
Thank you for posting this, tothesource1.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Sometimes I don't even understand what D' Souza is saying because it honestly makes no sense. Like he starts shouting and by the time he's done he's just said a lot of fluffy stuff.
fifimsp 7 months ago
Dinesh complains about people talking about things outside their field?
Wow. Just wow.
deathtris 7 months ago
Of course we've evolved over the last 5000 years! We see changes in a variety of our genes! Again D'Souza knows little biology. Southern Baptists favored slavery! The New Testament justifies slavery! Religionists fight over land because they want people of THEIR RELIGION to live on that land. Psychotics experience delusions as real too, just like religionists!
BrentGrainger2000 7 months ago
You can sure tell from the way Dinesh lies and misrepresents that this slime comes from politics.
disrxt 8 months ago
Dinesh's understanding of evolution is frightening...
youztuber5000 8 months ago
for the love of goodness, why does he have to scream and act like a pre-teen
bebopuk88 8 months ago
Say what you like about him, at least Dinesh can work the microphone. ;P
dlmc1989 9 months ago
dinesh misrepresents so much of what dan says.. he either does not hear or understand what dan is saying, or he willfully misrepresents it and changes what dan actually SAYS into what dinesh needs him to have said in order to fit with the arguments he wants to give.
i enjoy some apologists, but i find it painful watching dinesh. his arguments are childish and he ignores what the opponent says to him.
ScotchMonkey08 9 months ago 2
Dinesh is correct.
divawriter 9 months ago
yeah... land that was supposedly given to them by god.... what a fool D'Souza is
FactNotFaith 10 months ago
Loud junk, while painful to listen to, IS STILL JUNK.
rjc34 10 months ago
Sam Harris, biology major? Who knew he was an undergrad?
ShoutaFuwano 10 months ago
"Walking outside their fields where they know very little"....you mean, just like you do dinesh?
shandcunt 10 months ago
Thanks for the illustrative, etymological breakdown. I guess it didn't dawn on you I was correcting you on the term, "evolve" you originally brought up. Yet you found a way to attack me for it anyway. Priceless. Talk about sand-box argumentation techniques, I believe the use of the word "obvious" in argument is one of those techniques to which you refer. You know, presupposing what you should be proving. About that "not caring" thing, I'll take your silence as an adoptive admission.
tonestar100 11 months ago
the reason people like protestants and catholics in northern ireland and palestinians vs israelies are fighting over land, rather than sharing it, is BECAUSE they are religious! if they didnt have the diffrent religious backgrounds and adapt secular reasoning they would have no problem SHARING the land instead of killing eachother over whos patch of "holy ground" it is
sodalight666 11 months ago
Is it just me, but overwhelmingly the people who love Denett are attacking Dinesh personally, whining about his passion and style of debating, whereas those who love Dinesh are applauding his performance. This glaring, observation of the obvious is the definitive proof that Dinesh carried the debate and dismantled Denett on viertually every point. After Denett's initial volley he was reduced to a stuttering stammering half-wit incapable of properly defending his original position. Loved it.
tonestar100 11 months ago
@tonestar100 Oh yeah, because "stuttering stammering half-wit" isn't a personal attack at all. Or when you called him feeble in your post to me below. Good thing you're here to hold us morally inferior slouches to a higher standard.
PanWolven 11 months ago
@PanWolven "Stuttering and stammering" were adjectives clearly and accurately describing what I observed with the naked eye. They are not attack words. Indeed, "feeble" also accurately and dispassionately describes Denett's countenance in rebuttal. I'll admit, "half-wit" is a value judgment. However, to assail me for the use of the word "half-wit" is as about as superfluous as you haranguing Dinesh for his use of the word "evolve." Morally inferior slouch?? Sorry, not my concern at all.
tonestar100 11 months ago
@tonestar100
It's just you. They are whining about his style of debating in addition to his argument
bebopuk88 8 months ago
@bebopuk88 Take a look at the last 10 comments Einstein. Not a one has a substantive comment on the merit of D'Souza's arguments. Just like your comment. Denett's arguments are as dead as Darwin.
tonestar100 8 months ago
@tonestar100 Last 10 comments of what? Your last 10 comments, or in the video? Why are you getting so vicious? If you are having trouble seeing past the presentations to the points on offer then I suggest reading a transcription of the debate. I'm sure there's one floating around somewhere.
bebopuk88 8 months ago
@bebopuk88 I watched the entire debate. Obviously I'm not talking about the Q&A in the video. My characterization of the outcome of the debate located at the top of the Link Comments is more than an adequate synopsis of the debate. Denett's smarmy arrogance was neutralized quite effectively.
tonestar100 8 months ago
@tonestar100 Denett is the one who's smarmy and arrogant? ha ha oh wow. religion is arrogance parading as humility. i've taken a look at your page. clearly you'll support the religious argument whatever happens, as you've done here. it's such a shame that people here would rather believe in jewish zombies than the truth. i dont need to see your characterization of the argument because if it's anything like d;souza's it's a waste of time or you simply didn't understand. ha ha oh wow
bebopuk88 8 months ago
Comment removed
bebopuk88 8 months ago
Wait! Darwin invented the word evolve, Dinesh? Or did he use a word that already had the meaning of change? A word that perhaps has its first known use in 1775 and has its origin in latin (according to Webster)? So could it be that Dennet is using a perfectly normal word in the english language exactly as it was intended to be used, without referring to biological evolution?
Arguments from ignorance - there's no mistery in why Dinesh has a lot of them.
PanWolven 11 months ago
@PanWolven One hour of vigorous debate and this is your big point of contention? Sore loser.
tonestar100 11 months ago
@tonestar100 Actually it was a comment on this particular 7.35 minute clip. I could have pointed out several other of his fallacies, but it seemed superfluous. This one just happened to grab my attention due to its stupidity.
I took no part in the debate, so I can't be a sore loser. If you mean to say that Dinesh was the winner then you seriously need to look at it again, because yelling nonsense at the top of your lungs and avoiding giving a straight answer doesn't make you a winner.
PanWolven 11 months ago
@PanWolven The only thing superfluous is your carping about Dinesh's use of the word evolve. Apart from you it's rapidly apparent no one else cares. I need to look at the debate again? Sorry, I've seen enough carnage for now. Obviously for you, it's style over substance. Maybe Dinesh could have been less incredulous at the median intelligence level of the Tuft's student body, (think high-school with ash trays)including the smart-ass homo with lap-top - but wtf he's passionate and cares.
tonestar100 11 months ago
@PanWolven Thanks for pointing out you took no part in the debate. Even though it's painfully obvious your heart was with the old man who became increasingly more feeble as the debate wore on. Even with a home court advantage he choked miserably. Denett's fines moment was his opening remarks. It was all downhill from there. Stuttering and stammering, grasping for some witty retort that was not forthcoming. Sad and pathetic really.
tonestar100 11 months ago
@tonestar100 I'd admit that this wasn't Dennet's finest moment. He let Dinesh get away with far too much bs. On the other hand, if the tactic was to allow Dinesh enough rope to hang himself I'd say it worked perfectly. I've seldom seen him reach this level of clownishness before.
And no, for me it's fact over fiction. Dinesh, as always, stuck with the latter and that's why he lost even to a diminished Dennet.
PanWolven 11 months ago
@PanWolven "He let Dinesh get away with far too much bs." Like a wounded child sticking up for dear old dad. Sweet, really. One man's "clownishness" is another man's "astonishment and incredulity." In fairness, the student questions were as appalling as they were short-sighted, antagonistic, emotionally-wrought and designed in part to rehabilitate a vanquished Denett. Not one bonafide, intellectually provocative question. All in all, a dismal showing for Tufts.
tonestar100 11 months ago
@tonestar100 "wounded child sticking up for dear old dad". This from the person who can't handle that someone doesn't like his hero. I can see why you'd defend him however, as you're as detached from reality and as unwilling to take responsibility for your own statements as he is. I on the other hand couldn't care less about Dennet's performance. I was pointing out the flaws in Dinesh's argument. As far as I'm concerned he could've debated Chip and Dale and still come out looking the bigger fool
PanWolven 11 months ago
@PanWolven That's just it; you weren't pointing out flaws in Dinesh's argument. You were carping without proving shit. Your generalized complaints based on style is FAR from "pointing out flaws in Dinesh's argument." Get real. BTW, this is the first I've heard or watched either of these two debate. I've seen enough of both of them and certainly read more than enough from you.
tonestar100 11 months ago
@tonestar100 Dinesh claim was that Dennet was misusing the word evolution in applying it to areas that had nothing to do with biological evolution. This is a flaw in his argument for the exact reasons I stated. You can easily verify this yourself. And while you look up "evolution" you might want to look up this favourite word of yours "carping", as you're the only one of us guilty of it.
Hey, if you don't want to read more from me feel free to stop carping and I'll have no reason to respond. :)
PanWolven 11 months ago
@PanWolven Again - your claim you couldn't care less aka "losers lament" is once again on full display. Imploring me to look up words - is that another one of your "substantive" arguments? Again, an entire debate and you're still focused on the word "evolution?" If you're gonna be a "last word" douche-bag, at least arm yourself with more than asking me to look up words or asking me to research your comments. Why? Because you care. Alot.
tonestar100 11 months ago
@tonestar100 What reality do you live in? Where in that post did I say anything about not caring? why do you lie when anyone reading this can easily verify the truth?
Let's try this again. I posted a comment about Dinesh's strawman argument regarding the word evolution. You had a fit and won't let it go and then blame me for focusing on the very topic of discussion. Oh and I'm the bad guy for asking you to look up the facts rather than go on an ignorant and dishonest rant? That's just pathetic.
PanWolven 11 months ago
@PanWolven Actually, the word was "evolve." Different word, different potential meanings. Evolve has graduated to "evolution" and even picked up "straw-man" on the way. Way to go! Your moving argument is like a blooming flower, gaining pedals and pollen everywhere you take it. Gotta love it. In case you think I'm in the throes of a fit, I'm laughing.
tonestar100 11 months ago
@tonestar100 Actually evolution is the process of evolving, but that's beside the point as Dinesh used the word evolution and you're just trying to steer the conversation away from your obvious falsehoods. Like I said before, I can see why you'd like Dinesh. You both use the same sand-box level argumentation techniques.
PanWolven 11 months ago
D'Souza's repeated argument fallacies: Straw Man, Ad hominem, Personal Incredulity, Special Pleading, and so on.
Please don't give D'Souza a microphone. He's loud enough.
Bremerxxxx 1 year ago
@Bremerxxxx nonono give him a microphone, just do it the same way I saw it done to a guy with a headache in a "healing" service at the church I went to...by hitting him on the head with it.
You think I'm kidding...it actually happened. I was religious at the time and my sister had to kick me out of the sanctuary for not being able to stop laughing.
ChristopherOde 11 months ago
@Bremerxxxx Thanks for parading your freshman english logical fallacies before us without any supporting argument for any of them. Should I presume you know what you're talking about?
tonestar100 11 months ago
around 6:42 I just had to stop watching.....
ZenJestr 1 year ago
Just one point of dozens I could refute: The Jews and Muslims are absolutely fighting over Israel because of religion. It would be childish to assume it would take the form of a shouting match over which was the greater prophet (as Dinesh characterizes such a disagreement).
Both groups truly believe they have a God-given mandate to occupy the same tiny little strip of "holy" land on this great big earth, and God's permission to kill anyone else who believes the same.
DocBlasto 1 year ago
Great points made by D'Souza.
130adi 1 year ago
D'Souza says, "Religious people experience god as very real in their lives." Well, Dinesh, Schizophrenic people experience hallucinations as very real in their lives, so what's your point?
theocean1973 1 year ago
@theocean You're assuming they're delusional, but maybe atheists are delusional about God's non-existence. If one person sees something and another person doesn't, isn't the best explanation that it is real. Unless you've already made your conclusion, isn't it better to assume that they are honest and true about what they're experiencing. I know people can claim anything about their experiences, but the experiences among Christians are exactly what you'd expect if God does exist.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
Um...Dinesh is completely wrong: the abolition of slavery and equality of women happened DESPITE christianity!
theocean1973 1 year ago
D'Souza does a great job at masking reason with volume.
Claypoolkid666 1 year ago 32
@Claypoolkid666 Do you mean REPLACING reason with volume?
hikermanwa 4 months ago
My issue with D'Souza's arguments is the fact that they fall to pieces if you simply change the language he is speaking. I'll give you an example. D'Souza says that you could find no natural explanation if there was no nature. In many languages there are very different words for nature and naturally, so making a connection is absurd. Everyone seems to agree, if you want to agree with D'Souza's side atleast admit he is a very bad representation for you, I'll admit Dennett is kinda boring for ours
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago
Women's suffrage a christian movement?? What?! Oh wait I forgot Dinesh worked for Reagan ha ha continue with your BS sir
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago 2
dinesh hands out yet another arse whoopin
LCXXXSR 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LCXXXSR Stop posting regarding your own "performance" Dinesh....... it's just sad
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
@LCXXXSR He sure was loud.
DocBlasto 1 year ago
I find it quite hilarious that he mentions Doctors Without Borders - a very strictly secular organization.
The only thing funnier is that he is accusing Dennett and the rest of them of going outside of their areas of expertise, while everything that comes out of his mouth is pure garbage that is not only outside of his "expertise" (not that he has any), but outside of his comprehension.
jdaidoji 1 year ago
@WizardJim figuratively, you cannot be seriously making that argument?
cmdenton 1 year ago
Dinesh says that israelis and middle easterners are fighting over land, not something having to do with their religions. In actuality they are fighting over the land their god supposedly set aside for them within their "book". He's either an idiot, or an idiot.
SlayingMinion 1 year ago
Also, D'Souza needs to learn something about altruism and pro-social behavior among non-human primates. He seems to think that evolutionary psychology is still primarily about veneer theory and reciprocity. So, as usual, he's attacking an outdated straw man, just as he does with cosmology.
PerilocutionAZ09 1 year ago
OK, I will say I wish that Dennett were a bit more organized in his responses, but I also wish D'Souza were less loud and obnoxious and childish in presenting his own non-arguments. Let's not forget that D'Souza has failed to seriously respond to any of Dennett's points directed at him, since the beginning. ("Seriously" meaning not just by repeating them in mocking tones.) So who's to say that this pompous ass is winning? Is D'Souza entitled to having his points addressed but Dennett isn't?
PerilocutionAZ09 1 year ago
"Sam Harris, biology major, takes on Aquinas..."
FAIL.
McLarenF1God 1 year ago
His arguments are so, so very awful. This is just cringe worthy.
McLarenF1God 1 year ago
EVERYTHING evolves! Games, sports, politics, religion, species, and yes, MORALITY! The world "evolve" simply means "change over time".
superfalcon123 1 year ago
@superfalcon123 but that is not darwinian evolution. You guys like dan dennett are refering to darwinian evolution.
MrKirkr 1 year ago
@MrKirkr Darwin made the Theory of Evolution popular. I don't care if a theory is "Darwinian" or not. To me, what is important is understanding how people, plants, animals, land masses, enviroments, and ideas CHANGE OVER TIME - years, centuries, millenia, a Million years, a Billion years. And most important of all, what does the EVIDENCE say?
superfalcon123 1 year ago
dinesh's barking voice is most annoying
slovakmath 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure that the Israelis and the Palestinians are fighting over land for religious reasons. God did promise Israel to the Jews, after all.
matt22mccarthy 1 year ago
@matt22mccarthy no the british did...
ThulinMartin 1 year ago
@ThulinMartin
I was being sarcastic.
matt22mccarthy 1 year ago
"you produce 2/3 of the people who have seen UFO's on a daily basis since the beginning of time and I'll take [that argument] seriously."
Most people who think they saw a UFO don't constantly think they are seeing them, though that one experience effects them constantly. So we don't need to have 2/3 of the people in history constantly seeing UFOs, just a few punctuated moments of delusion for effect. also, we DO have 100% of people deluding themselves and making mistakes and assumptions daily.
gatogreensleeves 1 year ago
I thought the topic was "is god a man made invention", not is religion bad or not.
TheAndrewMan1000 1 year ago
'This is intellectually embarassing,' says Dinesh. How right he is.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
The Israelis and Palestinians actually fight on "who is the better prophet? Just look: Why do they want Jerusalem in the first place? The Israelis want it, because Moses took them there. The Muslims want it, because Mohammed went to heaven from there.
erlenmayr 1 year ago
The debate format really doesn't work at all.
Conversation over drinks in comfy chairs > this.
Coldwontrise 1 year ago
It's quite appalling that someone who was a fellow at Stanford could/would actually paint a really disingenuous picture of the possibility of morality in an atheistic frame. Really, it was really sad to see that. Come on. Dennett's argument and reasons are deep and complex. Mr. Mudslinging Distorter over there just asserts them to be false just because he refuses to even give a limited generous picture of what Dennett was talking about... It's so embarrassing and incensing.
ianleviste 1 year ago
I agree with PlanetBongo. Dinesh simply isn't at the level that Dennet is. I don't think he knows what a spectacle of bullshit he makes. He's good at prattling on and on...
pprimmuss 1 year ago
wow, such a nice ad hominem. gj d'souza!
Blackerer 1 year ago
this fucking ediot must know that there is a big difference between fighting for land and fighting for god's PROMISED LAND
also he didn't answer though he was asked about it two times: WHO CREATED GOD???
goe234 1 year ago
this is just astounding... a bunch of fallacies to say absolutely nothing.
"if i know i'm innocent and he produces evidence, should i accept that?"
no, you dim witted beast, the evidence would be circumstantial (at best) and it wouldn't be accepted after proper examination.
gabriel2099 1 year ago
The problem with this debate is that the arguments Dan comes with requires more brain capacity because they have to be factual and logical correct. He also faces Dinesh and actually responds directly to him absurd claims. Dinesh, on the other hand, faces the audience and preaches his religion using feelings and 4-grade argumentation. I think some people buy into that.
louisiukas 1 year ago
Haha priceless Dinesh : "I dont want this to be a mudslinging cartoon-debate" !
PaxOfMind 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza needs to go find a pulpit and talk to people who can actually believe his bullshit.
msteele79 1 year ago
omg u idiot...
YEAH they are fighting over land, but religion is the characteristic that divides them! If religion didnt exist there would be no fight cuz they would all be the same people! It is so obvious, how do you not see that?
chessfan6 1 year ago
I'm tired of scientists who specialize in one field try to use use their knowledge of that field to explain entire cosmic phenomena......ONE SIZE FITS ALL ...is just logically and reasonably unsound. Yet People like Dan Dennett, Richard Dwarkins and many other sicientist, think that they are experts in everything....including morality... wow...i'm speechless!
okellookello 1 year ago
@okellookello Are you serious? You know that same argument applies to the D'Souza camp. Unlike D'Souza, Dennett is actually formulating a cogent argument against theism based on observed facts. While, on the other hand, D'Souza relies on the volume of your speakers and tangled... well, I don't know if I want to call them this... 'arguments'.
ianleviste 1 year ago
He is constantly using this mocking tone when he strawman's Dennet.
filorps 1 year ago
"I don't want this to be in a mud slinging debate" WTF!? Why would Dinesh even have to bring that up? The only mud slinging would be done by Dinesh! The only reason he said that is because he was called out by Dennett and he knew he could not back out of his position. He did the same thing with Hitchens! Reason and science win again!
gary031183 1 year ago
Dinesh hit the nail on the head. The "new atheism" movement consists of a bunch of guys wandering outside of their area of expertise and mocking things that they do not understand. Dennett has had some interesting and intelligent observations about the mind and free will, but somehow, he assumes (along with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) that his knowledge in one field somehow maps its way onto the field of theology. It would be like if I think my philosophy degree also makes me a biologist.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
@rumblefishism Theology is predicated on the existence of god. The affirmative atheists attack that basic assumption. They thus appear to delve into theology, while they really just dismantle its unquestioned assumption.
dmtryshmtv 1 year ago
@dmtryshmtv
And biology is predicated on the existence of living things, sociology is predicated on the existence of social groups, mathematics is predicated on the existence of numbers, physics is predicated on the existence of moving bodies. I can launch attacks on these basic assumptions, but if I have never studied any of these things, then I do not see why my attacks should be taken seriously.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
@dmtryshmtv
Furthermore, theology is not predicated on the existence of God. It's predicated on the existence of religion. In theology, you study religious texts, what the tenets of various religions are, philosophical positions, and the like. The field itself does not assume that God exists, it simply presents the belief systems that are out there and professors may argue in favor of one. But you can probably find atheists who study theology as well.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
@rumblefishism It seems like you have an idealized, Dennet "teach the world religions" view of theology. In practice, it exists for every individual religion and is synonymous with apologetics. The difference between theology and the scientific fields you've mentioned is that theology contains a metaphysical assumption that is highly questionable and has not been satisfactorily addressed by theologians for centuries. Surely you have seen the bogus arguments in your philosophy classes.
dmtryshmtv 1 year ago
@dmtryshmtv
No, I don't have any subjective views on what theology ought to be. I can only tell you what it is. It is not the study of apologetics. In fact, a class on the "existence of God" probably would fall under a philosophy major moreso than a theology major. Otherwise, a typical class in a theology class may focus specifically on religious texts, exegesis, ancient theologians, etc. It does not presume that God exists, only that God belief has been pervasive throughout history.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
@dmtryshmtv
My point is that the soldiers of this new atheist movement are not really in a position to determine if the metaphysical positions of theists are justified because they have a very limited understanding of what these positions are. To figure this out, you have to *study* theology or at least philosophy. Of the new atheists, Dennett is the only one who is actually a philosopher, but he specializes in things that have nothing to do with God.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
Accepting your definition of theology, it is true that none of the new atheists are experts in the field (neither is Dinesh). But it is unsatisfying to read theologians' critiques snidely mentioning the atheists' lack of expertise in theology only to follow it up with the old Augustian "arguments" for the proposition that have long been invalidated by the philosophical community. These ad hominem derisions just seem weak when the original arguments are not refuted.
dmtryshmtv 1 year ago
@rumblefishism Tangentially, I suspect the reason for Dawkin's and Dennett's foray into this area is due to many non-expert creationists claims that overlap into their fields (evolution and consciousness/free will). The findings of those fields seem to go against most religious teachings, yet creationists don't mind their own lack of expertise there.
dmtryshmtv 1 year ago
@dmtryshmtv
I'll grant you that someone like Ray Comfort has no business discussing evolution, but Michael Behe, for example, is actually a professor of biochemistry and he advocates intelligent design. However, it is not so much the degree. It is the fact that people like Dawkins dismiss philosophy/theology as fundamentally useless and refuse to take it seriously, whereas William Dembski will spend lots of time researching evolution and approach it from a more neutral perspective.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
4:50
Wait, so neither Dinesh nor Dan wanted to Argue the proof of god, but that was the point of the debate?
DaDoctaBoom 1 year ago
Santa just got spanked like the giant elf that he is. Whooped like a red-headed (well, bald headed) stepchild.
MPaulHolmes 1 year ago
If I ever got a choice into having a conversation about philosophy, existentialism or even on completely polar opposite subjects. I would have to pick Denett, he is a far friendly man, with lots of great qualities and I get the impression that the freedom of expression and colourful discourse would be present. With Dinesh i get the impression that he will belittle you and treat you as an ignorant fool regardless.
Yarrick2k5 1 year ago
Dinesh absolutely wipes the floor with Daniel. It isn't close folks! It really isn't. Dinesh is so far above Daniel in terms of logic and reason it really makes Daniel look like a high school kid. Some of the posters on this site or so clueless and ignorant it's no wonder they think highly of Mr. Dennett. Ideology trumps facts and wisdom to the closed minded.
MrFreeLibertarian 1 year ago
@MrFreeLibertarian I felt sorry for poor Dennett.
MPaulHolmes 1 year ago
@MrFreeLibertarian Nah, he's a better speaker. If you actually listen to the points of both, Dennett is much deeper and more sophisticated in his points.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
The desire to worship is the desire to live as a fucking slave. You're welcome to this life of masochism. Just don't knock on my door.
setmedic 1 year ago
So all Dinesh can do is criticize people?
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist All you can do is criticize people. Are you simple?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
So D'Souza has backpedaled from trying to dispute Dennett's claims directly to attacking his character ("I just don't want him to be the guy doing it")? This is amaaaazing.
SkewedSciu 1 year ago 15
Hmmmm, so slavery was abolished because of our christian heritage? I seem to remember some arguments from Leviticus endorsing slavery. I also seem to remember that the Israelites were told commit genocide against the Middionites.
sfmike20 1 year ago
Hmmmm, so slavery was abolished because of our christian heritage? I seem to remember some arguments from Leviticus endorsing slavery. I also seem to remember that the Israelites were told commit genocide against the Middionites.
sfmike20 1 year ago
Now Dinesh is conflating 'evolved' with some arrogant notion of superirority.
We have not changed much in recent millenia, what has occured is the evolution of culture, institutions, economies, technology, etc.
Anyway, what is he talking about? He's rambling.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
This man Dinesh is of the most hypocritical & dishonest kind! Sick bastard is so brainwashed that he goes on to claim that all morality on this earth is a result of Christian teachings .. Retard has not heard of Hinduism Vedanta Buddism each one preaching compassion and love ..!? For other viewers I request you to look up the 'Art Of Living Foundation' > watch?v=JTFPT4hanYc
haribharadwaj1 1 year ago
Religious people kill. Atheists Kill. The only commonality is our species. That being said if we remove religion we remove the mechanism by which we gain sanction for murder and genocide and make it ok. Removing religion from power won't stop war, but it will stop 1 excuse for war and it will remove the divine sanction that makes war the moral thing to do.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine Im very ignorant, but which religion sanction war in its doctrine?
bigalla 1 year ago
@bigalla All of them, with the possible exception of Buddhism which really isn't a religion in it's early form. Why?
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
what people like this desouza guy does is they pick and choose the stuff in their religion that is good. The fact is that the bible both old and new has a lot of weird stuff in it that would be simply unacceptable to follow. Most of these religions has some really weird shit. It would not be possible to follow word for word christianity and many other religions.
youngfart40 1 year ago
What the fuck is dinesh talking about...!!!
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
Our culture evolved due to Christianity. Actually our forefathers where atheists, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote his own bible, without any mention of God or miracles. Furthermore, if we get our morality from religion then explain why all the prenatal bombings are exclusively Christian as is the KKK and the tea bagger movement.
joerussia3 1 year ago
@joerussia3
don't talk unless you know what your talking about. Thats called toxic religion, same as the rivers of blood and bodies created in atheist regimes. open your eyes.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@joerussia3
those are results of toxic religion. look at stalin, fidel castro, etc. killed millions total based on atheism. You sure didn't get your morals from atheism
1csteffen 1 year ago
Clearly Dinesh has never ever heard of The Enlightenment.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex
Read the books, enlightenment was largely a christian secularity created by the church, so was the renassaince. both of these times were the beginnings of the scientific revolution in christendom, where logic, reason and science were created by christians to revel in the glory of the creator
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen Which books would those be? As I'm an admitted book worm and everything I've read suggests the opposite.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex
1. whats so great about christianity (d'souza)
2. life after death; the evidence (d'souza)
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen So not really source material is it. Just one man's opinion, and Dinesh, as we can see from these videos, is not a smart man.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex
D'souza's position is not his own. In every one of his ideas, he cites multiple philosophies, theories, etc. His arguments is just a collection of other data. He indicts scientists and theorists from 1400 on. You could almost say that D'souza is the christian encyclopedia
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen I could, but I wouldn't. For example, if he only uses Christian sources then he is being very bias, and only attempting to strengthen a position that might be wrong.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex
he uses steven wienburg, dawkins, neitzsche, dennett, sagon, and all the leading atheist scientists to show the conspicuous indication that even atheists are starting to second guess that existence is limited to darwinism and chance.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen I don't think it is 'concpicuous' to be honest. I just don't see why the 'we are here because we are here' arguement as a positive step in verifying theisum. Besides, one of things that gets me is Dinesh says 'There is no evolutionery argument for us being on earh' and that is the case, simply because evolution is biology, planets and their formings cosmology, which is totally different. That is why I don't really consider Dinesh to be an intelligent person.
MrLemex 1 year ago
EVOLVED!!!!!..... DOESN'T MEAN BETTER!!!!!!!! It's just adaptation to a different environment. It doesn't have a destination.
I hate that assumption.
hockeyjester12 1 year ago
dinesh gets annoying everytime i see him, yells louder then he should. A COMPLETE DUMB FUCK.
Bluelincolnpark 1 year ago
Muslims and Jews fight for land, in the name of religion. So too, Hindus and Muslims, etc. DInesh, correct yourself. The fight for land etc is not on the basis of non-religious basis, thats the point. Evangelism and terrorism misuse concepts of freedom and human rights, for expansion of respective religious flocks.
paulkrist44 1 year ago
He said that Dan Dennett doesn't take religion into serious consideration? Didn't Dan just explain at the start of the debate how to rationally teach religion in schools? This already implies that religion, if taught ONLY by one's faith and denying the other faiths, is a toxic responsibility to hold and pass onto the young. This is true because of the religious "strawmen" of the world. What an idiot.
anime891 1 year ago
Dinesh is so ignorant it overwhelms me. Bottom line, Dennett is wasting his time debating irrational statures the like of Dinesh. It's very impossible to debate someone that "thinks" he knows, when in fact, very ignorant about the matter. If he would at least study some of the modern scientific fixes and findings on both theories, then I think he wouldn't be screaming so loudly as he is now, lol.
anime891 1 year ago
I like this part of the debate. Mr. D'Souza has a point about professors who specialize in one area speaking like they are authority figures in other areas. It's probably why he is winning a lot of these debates because he more well verse in these other areas and can catch the fallacies in their argument whenever they leave their field of expertise.
chezanoble 1 year ago
@chezanoble: D'Souza gives his opinions on all sorts of things without being a professor AT ALL. If he's going by the idea that you need to be a professor to speak about something, then he should discount himself immediately. Same as if his argument is that you need expertise: Dennett is NOT outside his area of expertise talking about religion and human morality, but Dinesh clearly is when he talks about the Israeli conflict being a non-religious one.
LordCustard 1 year ago
Dinesh is naive in the extreme not to realise that one of the main reasons that Israel is at war with palestine has a lot to do with the fact that God promised that land to the Jewish people.
mattygino 1 year ago
Hello, Dinesh .... "atheist bigots don't take religion seriously".
Did you not just hear Dan Dennett suggest that religion (ALL religions, not simply Christianity) should be taught to ALL children as a way of steering them away from the toxic exclusionist doctrines that are found in many religions? Ooops, sorry, I forgot that ideologues such as yourself don't have to listen to other viewpoints.
potterzebra 1 year ago
4.50, dinesh claims that he is attempting to make the case for religion to be 'taken seriously'... this he does by ranting and raving, and shamelessly misrepresenting counter-arguments... this is laughable
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
That's a good point. I'd love to see you debate Dinesh to see how you would wipe the floor with him and model for us the correct way to debate. I trust you have some very good ideas.
Entropy56 1 year ago
@Entropy56 nothing that hasnt been said better by the hitch i fear
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
once again, dinesh, quite dishonestly, takes the wrong ball and runs with it all the way to touchdown... this is his main technique. he relies on sound and fury to disguise his basic tactic, and it works... on idiots
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago 26