More votes for the Christian apologist at an American libertarian conference... I never would have seen that coming! And the majority of the public are igorant? I also never suspected that.
What kind of a universe is this... GOBLINS like Dinesh are upheld by the audiences & poignant arguments based on critique and reason from someone as tactful as Hitchens account for no applause!
it pisses me off. In EVERY single debate he says the same thing " thats what happens when you let a biologist out of the lab." As if being a biologist, by definition, means that you can't have any knowledge about anything else. Dinesh doesn't even have a PhD..... in ANYTHING and he was an English major. Only an ignorant person can make such a hypocritical and narrow minded remark.
@sandeepy007 The worst part was the terrible misquoting of Dawkins. Dawkins discussion of the peacocks tail feather is fascinating and totally misrepresented by Dinesh. I really suggest everyone read it in the greatest show on earth. And Dawkins is only speculating on some form of cosmic evolution concerning universes, which is also very interesting and completely mischaracterized by Dinesh. It really pains me to watch Dinesh and realize how extremely dishonest he is in pretty much all he says.
@genxtargetmarket I found his arguments far more convincing than Hitchens arguments. It seems to me that Hitchens arguments are based on "This is not how i would have done it if i was god, therefore there is almost certainly no god" Basically, either the universe was created by an intelligence or it was not. For me personally, i find the intelligence hypothesis much more plausable.
@atheistrocker100 Well there's your problem right there. This debate wasn't about whether or not God exists. This debate was the effectiveness of religion, it was baout whether or not religion was a positive force in the world. A point of which D'souza dodged completely by constantyl insinuating, "Well yeah religious people sometimes do bad stuff, but so do other people."
Wow, Dinesh just flat out lied right here to try in prove a point. Richard Dawkins did not say that HE thought we lived in a multiverse, he said that there are people that believe it to be a possibility and than Dawkins goes on to explain how he thinks it sounds absurd. This is the problem with religious people, they honestly have to lie and decieve in order to have a conversation or debate. This kind of lying has led more people away from religion than Hitchens will ever be able to do.
Surely I didn't just hear that. A theist criticising an argument that explains everything??? Ummm, isn't that what theism is? Hypocritical fuckwit! I want to kill D'Souza the little faggot.
Is it possible that Dinesh's small head and therefore smaller brain contribute to his dodging the issue and/or running wild like a child into the fields of irrelevant?
I some times find myself envying his vocabulary though.
D'souza is not putting out a convincing argument but obviously believers do not need much convincing :) Such as the world we live in. Unfortunately this is not something new , because some people are quite happy to let others decide for them. Intellectual process requires some hard work to be efficient and some are not up to it. And this does not bother me anymore as much as it used to because number of people who are willing take responsibility for their own actions are increasing.
its hilarious how the atheists here take a fella interested in making book sales - and knows just how to make those sales by making controversial statements laced with dramatic words like 'toad' and 'charlatan' - as a champion of freedom and intelligent.
and while mr hitchens can still stand for all things intellectually wise and good despite making a few wrong character evaluations, christians cannot stand for any moral good because they have made mistakes. which proves that christians are held to a higher standard than mr hitchens, even by mr hitchens himself.
@nazra7 Because many of the atheists work very hard at attaining education,knowledge& try to have an in-depth understanding of the subjects philosophy, history, science, top that with intellectual honesty. So when D'Souza make his points based in fallacies, and mischaracterizations of history, one is just baffled by his lack of knowledge at the most undergraduate level. For example, D'souza talks about freewill as if he didn't take philosophy 101, full of straw man & weak arguments
@esiosan "Because many of the atheists work very hard at attaining education,knowledge& try to have an in-depth understanding of the subjects philosophy, history, science, top that with intellectual honesty"
You think atheists are the only ones doing this?
"So when D'Souza make his points based in fallacies"
@esiosan "For example, D'souza talks about freewill as if he didn't take philosophy 101, full of straw man"
This statement sounds like YOU haven't taken philosophy 101. An argument about free will isn't using philosophy to attack it, its using philosophy to describe it. The only way you can be "full of straw men*" is to attack something with misconceptions. No attack, no straw men.
Plus straw men arguments isn't part of philosophy 101, its part of Logic and Critical Thinking.
@nazra7 my comment had to be shortened because of a character limit. If you fact check on Mr. D'Souza's points you'll understand why atheist think he is intellectually dishonest.
When he started talking about the Peacock's tail, I was thinking to myself "is he really going to say this... no... please... noooo!" Then he did, and I was forced to stab myself in the ears.
Its funny how all the atheists here are launching a barrage of ad hominens on D'Souza. Clearly the atheist motto: "If you can't beat them, insult them."
The intelligence of dinesh really bothers atheists. A person who believes in God can not be intelligent? The comments here prove that there are fanatical atheists more than I imagined. Atheism is just one more religion, more than one of these clever ways to make money. But it is inevitable! Jesus Christ will cross over a century, more alive than ever...............
@ElenDiana1 Recent studies show that atheists are an increasing percentage of the population. dinesh is an idiot. he evades questions routinely. he argues from analogy (which is a logical fallacy) and often is wrong. (the peacock example here, bright displays from male birds is prevalent. ex. cardinals)
Atheism is not a religion, just no god. There are no churches, no agenda other than demonstrating truth. you want to see religion for money? look at mormons, scientology, cathloic, etc.
AV people at Freedom Fest...get your sh*t together. 1) Why is this edited so jumpily?? 2) You can't properly hear CH on the last two questions and offscreen people are talking over him...what's that about? Thanks for posting.
DSouza NEVER won this debate. Even from the get go, the crowd sounded liek they favoured Dsousa from the start. Hitchens always gets a massive yell of acknowledgement. This time there were a few. You can see this was biasd.
Incredible, people voting for D'Souza out of being afraid a lightning will burn their asses. He lost the debate implying that as humans hear a little voice telling then to risk their lives for others and as that cannot be explained by natural selection, it should come from God. That's like saying "as the sky is not white, it should be black", and besides, Animals do that too.
in the beginning that statement was true. Social darwinism is responsible for eugenics and forced sterilization programs and also darwinism is a central component of the hitlerian theory for creating the master race.
How in the world did they decide Dinesh won? His arguments were asinine, illogical, inaccurate and some of them were just flat out wrong. You can't falter Hitchens' logic and reason, he wiped the floor with D'Souza every step of the way. That audience should be ashamed of themselves. I can only surmise that their collective intellect is that of a flock of sheep, ready and willing to be fleeced
It's ironic. Dinesh critised Dawkins for trying to be a historian and here he is trying to be a biologist. He really should stick to.... hang on, what does Dinesh actually excel at other than committing logical fallacies?
@d1sgustpated You have a fire and hatred in your heart for God and that is what brings you into religious newsgroups on a regular basis.You want to destroy our faith like you have destroyed your own.
Well, I wouldn't call Dinesh stupid. He's certainly intelligent and is articulating what he perceives as logic based based in his fundamental philosophy. I just find it funny that he bashes Dawkins for stretching the theory of evolution (a process with actual merit) to the multi-universe level...while he proposes the truth as being the mythology of the Bible.
"Well if animals do it...that doesn't mean there is a Darwinian explanation"??? I lolled most heartily when I heard that. So what, God gave animals altruistic tendencies for the lulz? Try reading 'The Selfish Gene', you know that book that doesn't have 'God' in the title?
Thumb this comment up if you believe Hitchens should have won.
Trying to suggest that evolution can just be used to explain things in ecology, no matter what condition we may find them in, as Mr. D'Souza did with his silly peacock analogy, is a complete perversion of sane logic. He suggests a hypothetical as a counter-example that, since it doesn't exist, has no place in the study of science. In reality the sane version of the technique he piteously attempted to use shows no counter-vailing evidence will convince the theist who believes God made it that way
1: The theory of universes popping into existence by natural selection is not Dawkin's speculation, its Lee Smolin's theory called "fecund universes" (or cosmological natural selection). It is a theory of his, unproven as of yet & is not as closely related to Darwin's theory as you misleadingly posit.
2: Darwin explaining the feathers, or lack thereof, can be explained due to a heck of a lot of other facts that would cause a bird to have (or not have feathers), how ignorant of you.
"Morality is to militate against self interest." And there you have it, full circle, at the end of the debate, Souza's primal fallacy which is driven by christian "philosophy." If a person doesn't derive pleasure from charity, he or she won't commit to it. If a person doesn't receive pleasure from a high self-esteem, they will cheat off of and steal from someone who is has more self-esteem than them. A Hitchen's point: christ practiced erroneous philosophy. Those like D'Souza lap it up.
Every genetic trait is a gamble. Thats why there are competing genes. The gene for lots of feathers is a good gene because that gene will get passed along easily (attractive mate). The gene for less feathers is a good gene because it does not attract predators (long life). D'Souza should read some books on evolution instead of just the one or two chapters that refer to it in "The God Delusion."
@SgtDICTION Exactly. The presence of showy plumage is a competition between all the evolutionary forces. Less showy may mean less vulnerable to predators but less appealing to the female. The observed plumage is thus a compromise. More importantly we can test this. We can determine how less showy birds fare in mating and how often they succumb to predation. Evolutionary theory predicts that the prevalent population represents the best solution to this conflict.
D'Souza asserts that Dawkins believes there is natural selection at work on the cosmological scale among multiple universes determining the survival of universes. Dawkins, in the God Delusion, does mention this idea. If you read that section of his book, however, you will INSTANTLY discover that Dawkins goes out of his way to clearly state he does not believe this idea to be true. Secondly, it is not even Dawkins who proposes or recommends it. To say that he does is a lie and misleading.
Just wish I could slap D'Souza in his 1 dimensional mind for his sheer ignorance and misunderstanding of science, especially because he proudly claims it.
to answer Dinesh: that little voice is called empathy. it is a product of our brain. how our brain is constructed will determine how much empathy we experience when we see the suffering of another.
neuroscience understands this and as our tools to explore our experiences advances, so will our understanding of things like empathy and why it is an advantage to our societies.
if i were a religious believer, your ignorance of what your talking about would embarrass me.
Dinesh is wrong to say that there is no natural explanation for the "still small voice" of morality which acts against individual self-interest...but he would be right to say instead that naturalism offers no *normative authority* behind that morality....
however, none of that really bears on whether god exists or not...
d'souza actually makes a point here: scientists must be concerned of the possibility of shoehorning information (also the sharpshooter fallacy). however, it's not really the scientists but the science hobbyists doing most of the shoehorning.
on a side note, dawkins has, in rare instances, said some pretty wild stuff.
I dont think that Dawkins was trying to say that in a multiverse, "universes" compete for existence. Is that what D,souza is trying to infer? My thinking is that Dawkins said that in a multiverse with "universes" with different laws of physics, that there was bound to be a "universe" like ours, with the laws of physics that support life.
D'Souza is an annoying, illogical, whining, condescending prick - I doubt that he knows as much as Dawkins regarding Evolution by Natural Selection and any other field of Science - his explanations have no supporting evidence at all. And he won?! Must be one degenerate audience.
D'Souza is an annoying, illogical, whining, condescending prick - I doubt that he knows as much as Dawkins regarding Evolution by Natural Selection and any other field of Science - his explanations have no supporting evidence at all. And he won?! Must be one degenerate audience.
@tigeruby X Come now, name calling is for five year olds. Use your God given...er Evolved intelligence, and tell us why he is all those things. Besides, what's so bad about there being a God? If there isn't, fine, no need for you to feel threatened, if so however, why would this be bad?
Wow, he is totally wrong around 3:30. Aside from the obvious quote mine that antybu pointed out, he then goes on to say no religious person would say that we should still believe in God even if he didn't exist. Ever heard of Pascal's wager?
It is impossible to truly have 'debates' in a society like ours where the populace can be fooled by any old demagogue with a few rhetorical tricks up his sleeve. Especially when those debates are about whether or not people should follow the teachings of a charismatic demagogue.
We should stop pretending that most people are rational or even care about rationality. Only then will we get anywhere with addressing the problem of these crazy religions and the cultures they are built upon.
whenever I hear a Christian talk about evolution, I just wonder if they have any capacity whatsoever to grasp complexity in any form. LIFE IS NOT SIMPLE, therefore THE PROCESS BY WHICH LIVING FORMS EVOLVE IS NOT SIMPLE. you can't help but use the word "retarded" when describing these individuals. they just don't WANT to understand it.
What a fatuous thing to say in the context of this debate. Though clearly we both find Dawkin's "metaphysical" application of evolution more compelling than D'Souza's, he is neither "retarded" nor by any means unable or unwilling to understand the theory.
If you're talking about those other nutbags for Jesus, I totally agree with what you've said. I just think that when D'Souza steps up human knowledge is ill-served by dismissing his arguments out of hand.
@TheWiseCommenter : What about the impossible odds?: The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility
D'Souza isn't ignorant when he says that evolution cannot explain altruism, he is outright dishonest. The ever-growing body of evidence for the biological origin of altruism has been explained to him, so he was willfully lying when he says evolution has "no explanation" for it.
Peacock- google "runaway sexual selection" R.A. Fisher explains it over 90 years ago! Take a basic evolutionary biology class and then just try to bash evolution!
And to those, who think D'Souza won... You have to ask the audience before the debate what their views are, not only after it. The only thing we learned is, that there were slighly more christians in the room. What a surprise in a country like America
At 8:40, religion does not explain it either. Even worse makes altruism look like self-interest, it says taht you should behave in a good way in order not to go to Hell, not to make your society better or people around you better, it is based on pure fear and terror.
Its exceedingly baffling how Christopher failed to point out that there is actually a fairly good Darwinian explanation for social altruism. I will give a brief synopsis of Dawkins explanation. Simply put, individuals are very much programmed by self-fish genes. The existence of apparently altruistic phenomena could be explained by the fact that an individual who acts on behalf of the interests of close relatives- many of who possess the same genes-
@NightmareContinues Hitchens never made that debate because like all debates where there is clearly a Christian majority and a Christian host he was not given a chance to answer the question like Souza was. It was presented to Souza and Hitchens had to talk over the Host as the host hastily wrapped things up. And the host new beforehand that there was more Christians in the crowd. Sneaky Sneaky.
This is crazy! Hitchens clearly won this debate. Anyone who understands logic would recognize the fallacies of D'S's conditional arguments. Makes me wonder who the audience is. And, once again, compassion exists because have limbic systems. If we didn't care for each other, we'd let our helpless offspring die at birth.
denish won?......i bet if they had actually given the people some sort of card that they could mark down who they thought won then counted those to actually find out i wonder if by doing that denish would have still won?
Having now watched a hand full of debates including D'Souza, I've concluded that it is in my best interests to at least lower the audio when he speaks, and at most, skim right over his drivel all together.
He's made it clear in my mind that theists are completely without, and can not produce a single argument capable of supporting their so obviously idiotic beliefs. D'Souza, you're an ignorant, smug, half-baked, vacuous, irrational, douche.
Am I the only one one watching this video that actually understood Dinesh's point with regards to the peacock?
It's like the instant you guys here the words "Christian" and "evolution" you all instantly turn off your brains and start launching ad hominem attacks.
@roflmao113 His single example was over simplifying evolution. Not every single time a bird has feathers it is trying to attract the attention of a female, not every single time it doesnt have feathers its trying to avoid being eaten by predators. In addition to the feathers thousands of other factors. This would be like me explaining the Christian bible as, "Some guy in the clouds recreated himself as a bunch of guys on the earth." It's a straw man argument because this wasn't accurate.
That's a really good point. Evolution is more about reproduction than survival. After all, what good would surviving a long time be if you never produced any offspring to pass those genes on?
D'Souza exemplifies ignorance -- his comments about the peacock don't back up his arguement, they just make him sound like a fool. He should brush up on his knowledge of the interplay between sexual and natural selection and try again.
Rom 3:23-For all have sinned & fallen short of the glory of God; Rom. 6:23-For the wages of sin is deathl but the gife of God is EVER- LASTING LIFE through Jesus Christ. our Lord. Act 3:19-"Repent you, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.; Rom 5:8- But God commendeth His Love towards us in that , while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
I have watched this entire thing (up till half way through this clip when the audio turns to shit).
I really dislike this Dinesh guy - his smug responses irritate. Anyways, that is separate and apart from the point, his rape of evolution with regards to the peacock comment is simply obfuscation. Anyone with a bit of intellect would understand that reproduction outweighs predatory concerns. It's a matter of fitness and hereditary altruism - put yourself in danger to insure your lineage.
Oh boy...I thought D'Souza was way off throughout this debate, but yeah...that comment about the Peacock tail really took the cake. He hasn't studied evolution at all and has no understanding of the concepts he's criticizing.
@laertes0420 Hilarious, I was actually waiting for a knockdown argument from D'Souza......that never came, I had the Peacock argument explained with the "Boy named Sue" Johnny Cash song years ago. Coolest Science teacher ever......yes dummy showing off is exactly the point, and if he gets eaten...he doesn't further his line does he? I can now see why he is a theist...
@laertes0420 Hilarious, I was actually waiting for a knockdown argument from D'Souza......that never came, I had the Peacock argument explained with the "Boy named Sue" Johnny Cash song years ago. Coolest Science teacher ever......yes dummy showing off is exactly the point, and if he gets eaten...he doesn't further his line does he? I can now see why he is a theist...@3:06 I'm waiting for him to say...well it's all has to be about job creation.......
Nothing? I don't smoke? Nobody can give one example where Hitchens wins. He just makes loud broad sweeping statements, whilst insulting people. He has to resort to attacking FAITH because he has no good arguments to make.
first writing in capital letters doesnt make it true...
hey i have a faith that 2+2=3, as a matter of fact some space daddy came to my sleep and confirmed it, he said he was born of a real virgin and 2+2=3 is god's word...this is faith,
you have your terminology wrong my friend...faith is believing, and between believing and KNOWING 100% you need a link called EVIDENCE
so if i believe that 2+2=5 then i dont need any evidence for it...to say i know 2+2=5 then i need evidence that obviously i can not provide
same as you, if you believe there is a higher power, you need to provide an EVIDENCE to say you KNOW there is a higher power...and no evidence of such has been provided yet
atrocities such as suicide bombing, anthrax, genital mutilation, inquisitions and crusades and you know what? I will throw in cereal killers and genocides too because I believe those are faith positions as well. They just are not supernatural or religious by nature.
Considering all of the latent evil entailed in the faith position I believe it is ones moral responsibility to change their standards of evidence for belief regardless are how comforting their faith may be.
i am surprised when you say those actions are not religious in nature...start reading about suicide bombers in palestine and lebanon and what they say before blowing themselves up...they say "god is great" in arabic, also how many christians do you know that look at this world as a burden between themselves and jesus? i know lots of christians that feel like that and say if they die tomorrow they will be happy because they will get to be with jesus sooner.
2:20 ish. "The peacocks displays feathers that attract feathers that are more likely to attract predators which will eat the peacock." - This is because evolution is gene centred not organism centred. The feathers will attract a mate as much as they will attract predators and provided the genes get even one chance to be passed to offspring then the unfortunate male peacock is just a vehicle for this process - hence the "Selfish Gene." Incidentally female peacocks who carry the young are quite..
...well camouflaged which is consistant with evolution. The genes need time to develop the new offspring inside the females body and therefore the female needs to stay alive for longer than the male. It's almost a shame Dawkins wasn't on hand to answer that one.
@Gazzar and aren't the predators evolving too. It's like war; your advantage is so only for as long as the enemy is unable to turn it to their advantage. Sounds like reality to me. Better than, "The Peacock was created to be colorful by God so that it would be more pleasing to the human eye." Christians need to go back to the Dark Ages were they came from.
Isn't it also true that a more lavish display of colors and feathers is a sign of a healthier male. Females choose the healthier males and therefore the colors and feathers intensify simply because females select those genes. And even though predators can more easily catch the male ( if that is even true, seems oversimplified to me) as long as it is offset by more stronger animals and more young it does not hurt the animals survival. Please note that I am not a biologist
Yes I think that is true as well. I read this in (appropriately enough) the "Peacocks Tail" section of "The Ancestors Tail" (by Dawkins of course) but was a while ago and I can't remember the details. I think the same argument you made is also true for tropical fish in some cases, which I think (I am not a biologist either) would be an example of convergent evolution.
@DreadsideNubune Your using the same tactics that Scientologiests use - "If you don't believe in the devil Xenu THEN YOU MUST BE A CHILD MOLESTOR, or RACIST, or MURDERER" LOL, LULZ, ...
@DreadsideNubune Admit that he's a human being with inherent strengths and weaknesses? Yes, absolutely. Instead of acting like a Bishop or Preacher who is handing out divine orders from an imaginary God - what a breathe of fresh air. Christians don't worship God, they worship the people who stand at the podium and what they do has nothing to do with the 'divine'.
D'souza is really great. Even though I admire and like Hitchens a lot, I would still rather live in D'souza's world. I think he would offer me the stick if I were drowning while Hitchens would jsut keep walking, and muttering to himself that I probably deserve it.
@Crimble67 There's no doubt he can become over intellectualized and arrogant. A definite flaw of his. Regardless though he's also very much a humanitarian. He requested that Africa receives compensation from USA for taking men as slaves which upset their economy(realistic or not - his heart was in the right place). He's voluntarily been tortured with waterboarding as protest against the abuse of prisoners at the hand of the US. He's suffered a great deal to make the lives of other people better.
Dinesh just embarrasses himself over and over in this video. Evolution can be taken to be true even if a single fossil had never been found. Why? Genetics.
IF religious ppl are altruistic (moral)...it's bcuz they fear hell & WANT heaven....that's NOT being altruistic!...it's the exact opposite!...only diference being that the benefit they seek is not in this life, but in their "afterlives"....so the religion=morality argument is a logical non-starter!......This 'reward system' of gaining points from god for your 'pious deeds' in order to qualify for a fabulous afterlife concept can be found all religions including Buddism...so WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Dinesh keeps repeating "IF we're evolved primates"...& then says he supports the theory of evolution.....I'm tempted to think that some humans never completed their evolutionary process from their less intelligent ape-like ancestor till this date, looking at how idiotic ppl like Dinesh are!
Someone please tell Dinesh that what Dawkins talks about in his book, with regards to the possibility of universes, is not evolution but the multiverse hypothesis. This is something that has not yet been proven and Dawkins never makes the claim that it has anything to do with evolution. Also the whole "universes competing with one another" is also made up by Dinesh.
this moron Dinesh is clever cuz he twists the truth and makes it sound 'scientific'. Prof. Dawkins mentioned in one of lectures that he will not debate any creationist because that sort of validates their idiotic claims in the minds of the audience.
wow. Dinesh doesn't understand evolution even to the degree that you are being taught in 7th grade in germany. At 2:40 he demonstrates that he doesn't comprehend that sexual selection and viability selection have the effect they have precisely BECAUSE they're working against each other. There's no "unscientific application of darwinism" (3:05), just a lack of understanding on D'Souzas side.
I agree completely. I was raised in Belgium, in rather fundamentalist Catholic ways, but even before starting high school, my understanding of evolution was better than Dinesh's. How can anyone be educated and so incredibly ignorant?
"My position is very simply this" - simple is right.
Dawkins offers a thought experiment and a worthy one. Many universes may have begun but unable to sustain themselves perhaps because the laws conflicted they collapsed. It's estimated that 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage - the child developing incorrectly, the pregnancy is naturally aborted. It is possible - he does not say - believe or go to hell.
Belittling the imagination of great men is nothing new - Gallileo knew it well.
animals other than humans don't do certain actions in order to help other members of their species. it's all about an individual organism passing on his or her OWN dna.
A rat will prefer to pull a lever to get a food pellet if it gets shocked, than to pull a lever to get a food pellet if this causes another rat to be shocked. (Emotional Reactions of Rats to the Pain of Others.)
Additionally crocodiles will protect not their own young, but the young of other crocodiles often at great risk.
Evolution favors general behavior, which in a population increases its reproductive success. This includes general rules to protect your species.
You can find a more detailed explanation for this kind of altruistic behavior in Richard Dawkins most famous work "the selfish gene" or you could try "the moral animal" by Robert Wright.
the audio at this event is garbage.
bionikspoon 1 week ago in playlist Hitchens vs D'Souza
This has been flagged as spam show
More votes for the Christian apologist at an American libertarian conference... I never would have seen that coming! And the majority of the public are igorant? I also never suspected that.
huwrj 1 month ago
Comment removed
huwrj 1 month ago
Comment removed
huwrj 1 month ago
Comment removed
huwrj 1 month ago
Comment removed
huwrj 1 month ago
Wow that whole part about the peacock was embarrasing. He should just stick to his usual logical fallacies.
leshark 1 month ago
What kind of a universe is this... GOBLINS like Dinesh are upheld by the audiences & poignant arguments based on critique and reason from someone as tactful as Hitchens account for no applause!
PratikShukla82 2 months ago
HAHAHAHA Atheist LOSE!!! Not a surprise
Seigu007 2 months ago
Danesh:
Welll.....I think the ummm....(slurp)....(slurp).....ssssssssss.....the um......ssssss.....(slurp).
It's like a snake, that's busy swallowing/digesting a rat, while speaking.
Domzdream 2 months ago
In other words....
(facepalm!)
does anybody else tire of this?
Domzdream 2 months ago
Woah, weird! Dinesh said something actually SMART at the very end there! Lol
macgeek2004 4 months ago
it pisses me off. In EVERY single debate he says the same thing " thats what happens when you let a biologist out of the lab." As if being a biologist, by definition, means that you can't have any knowledge about anything else. Dinesh doesn't even have a PhD..... in ANYTHING and he was an English major. Only an ignorant person can make such a hypocritical and narrow minded remark.
sandeepy007 5 months ago
@sandeepy007 The worst part was the terrible misquoting of Dawkins. Dawkins discussion of the peacocks tail feather is fascinating and totally misrepresented by Dinesh. I really suggest everyone read it in the greatest show on earth. And Dawkins is only speculating on some form of cosmic evolution concerning universes, which is also very interesting and completely mischaracterized by Dinesh. It really pains me to watch Dinesh and realize how extremely dishonest he is in pretty much all he says.
senortonyful 3 months ago
D'Souza is retarded ... or something like that.
jadeLoTuZ 6 months ago
D'Souza easily won this debate. Far more convincing than Hitchens
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100
Really? How so? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
genxtargetmarket 6 months ago
@genxtargetmarket I found his arguments far more convincing than Hitchens arguments. It seems to me that Hitchens arguments are based on "This is not how i would have done it if i was god, therefore there is almost certainly no god" Basically, either the universe was created by an intelligence or it was not. For me personally, i find the intelligence hypothesis much more plausable.
atheistrocker100 6 months ago 2
@atheistrocker100
Okay, thanks for the honest and calm reply.
genxtargetmarket 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100 Well there's your problem right there. This debate wasn't about whether or not God exists. This debate was the effectiveness of religion, it was baout whether or not religion was a positive force in the world. A point of which D'souza dodged completely by constantyl insinuating, "Well yeah religious people sometimes do bad stuff, but so do other people."
D'souza sucked really bad in this debate.
BigLundi 6 months ago
wow dinesh won the debate. HAHAHAHAHAHA, and some ppl were cheering hm. wtf is wrong with people!
Dpesh7 7 months ago 2
Wow, Dinesh just flat out lied right here to try in prove a point. Richard Dawkins did not say that HE thought we lived in a multiverse, he said that there are people that believe it to be a possibility and than Dawkins goes on to explain how he thinks it sounds absurd. This is the problem with religious people, they honestly have to lie and decieve in order to have a conversation or debate. This kind of lying has led more people away from religion than Hitchens will ever be able to do.
ThePuzzler81 8 months ago 4
Surely I didn't just hear that. A theist criticising an argument that explains everything??? Ummm, isn't that what theism is? Hypocritical fuckwit! I want to kill D'Souza the little faggot.
russellrummage 8 months ago
@russellrummage 'f_ggot'? Really? what the hell, dude. despise his odd special brand of double-talk, but leave the homophobia at the door, perhaps.
ntr10me 7 months ago 2
Who the fuck is recording this? Good god... one of the worst recordings of a debate I've heard.
igniteice 9 months ago
DINESH IS DISGUSTING! ewwwwwwww
CloverCATOREE 9 months ago 3
Dinesh makes me ashamed to be of the same species.
Ematched 9 months ago 4
What institution of complete dumbasses would give Dinesh D'Souza the victory here?
Jesus Christ Fuck.
McLarenF1God 10 months ago 6
lol wut? Explain why precisely the Selfish gene is a load of bullshit, message me with yuor reasoning please, or post here, your call.
AdamDLDixon 10 months ago
Is it possible that Dinesh's small head and therefore smaller brain contribute to his dodging the issue and/or running wild like a child into the fields of irrelevant?
I some times find myself envying his vocabulary though.
Aliof 10 months ago
This guy clearly hasn't read the selfish gene
AdamDLDixon 10 months ago
@AdamDLDixon I have. It's a load of bullshit.
BloodOfRayne 10 months ago
D'souza is not putting out a convincing argument but obviously believers do not need much convincing :) Such as the world we live in. Unfortunately this is not something new , because some people are quite happy to let others decide for them. Intellectual process requires some hard work to be efficient and some are not up to it. And this does not bother me anymore as much as it used to because number of people who are willing take responsibility for their own actions are increasing.
zissumanter 11 months ago 2
the credibility of Stanford University has become seriously questioned in my view since they harbor this simpleton d'souza
ibreakkidslegs 1 year ago
Hm. Interesting. I thought for sure Hitchens would have won over a bunch of Libertarians with the totalitarian argument... guess not in Tennessee.
ra1nb0w13 1 year ago
its hilarious how the atheists here take a fella interested in making book sales - and knows just how to make those sales by making controversial statements laced with dramatic words like 'toad' and 'charlatan' - as a champion of freedom and intelligent.
rogerchua16 1 year ago
and while mr hitchens can still stand for all things intellectually wise and good despite making a few wrong character evaluations, christians cannot stand for any moral good because they have made mistakes. which proves that christians are held to a higher standard than mr hitchens, even by mr hitchens himself.
rogerchua16 1 year ago
@nazra7 Because many of the atheists work very hard at attaining education,knowledge& try to have an in-depth understanding of the subjects philosophy, history, science, top that with intellectual honesty. So when D'Souza make his points based in fallacies, and mischaracterizations of history, one is just baffled by his lack of knowledge at the most undergraduate level. For example, D'souza talks about freewill as if he didn't take philosophy 101, full of straw man & weak arguments
esiosan 1 year ago
@esiosan "Because many of the atheists work very hard at attaining education,knowledge& try to have an in-depth understanding of the subjects philosophy, history, science, top that with intellectual honesty"
You think atheists are the only ones doing this?
"So when D'Souza make his points based in fallacies"
Which you haven't bothered to name, I know why.
"and mischaracterizations of history"
I'm laughing at that.
"one is just baffled by his lack of knowledge"
Laughing at that too.
nazra7 1 year ago
@esiosan "For example, D'souza talks about freewill as if he didn't take philosophy 101, full of straw man"
This statement sounds like YOU haven't taken philosophy 101. An argument about free will isn't using philosophy to attack it, its using philosophy to describe it. The only way you can be "full of straw men*" is to attack something with misconceptions. No attack, no straw men.
Plus straw men arguments isn't part of philosophy 101, its part of Logic and Critical Thinking.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 my comment had to be shortened because of a character limit. If you fact check on Mr. D'Souza's points you'll understand why atheist think he is intellectually dishonest.
esiosan 1 year ago
When he started talking about the Peacock's tail, I was thinking to myself "is he really going to say this... no... please... noooo!" Then he did, and I was forced to stab myself in the ears.
Thanks Dinesh. Sheesh.
Davester1988 1 year ago
Why would any one debate this JERK D'Sousa and help him sell books ?
Evolvedprimate 1 year ago
Its funny how all the atheists here are launching a barrage of ad hominens on D'Souza. Clearly the atheist motto: "If you can't beat them, insult them."
nazra7 1 year ago
Comment removed
esiosan 1 year ago
The intelligence of dinesh really bothers atheists. A person who believes in God can not be intelligent? The comments here prove that there are fanatical atheists more than I imagined. Atheism is just one more religion, more than one of these clever ways to make money. But it is inevitable! Jesus Christ will cross over a century, more alive than ever...............
ElenDiana1 1 year ago
@ElenDiana1 Recent studies show that atheists are an increasing percentage of the population. dinesh is an idiot. he evades questions routinely. he argues from analogy (which is a logical fallacy) and often is wrong. (the peacock example here, bright displays from male birds is prevalent. ex. cardinals)
Atheism is not a religion, just no god. There are no churches, no agenda other than demonstrating truth. you want to see religion for money? look at mormons, scientology, cathloic, etc.
burlapshire 1 year ago
@ElenDiana1 Do you just copy and paste this to multiple videos. I swear I read this same comment on another video.
PapaWilk 11 months ago
AV people at Freedom Fest...get your sh*t together. 1) Why is this edited so jumpily?? 2) You can't properly hear CH on the last two questions and offscreen people are talking over him...what's that about? Thanks for posting.
magicpony9 1 year ago
danis didnt win his arguments were complete bullshit
slaughtersaults 1 year ago
lol dinesh never read Nietzsche. morality IS congruent with self interest, whether slave or master.
jerk4990 1 year ago
d'Souza is a sycophantic hack who tries to make himslf look smart. Fools some people. Not me.
PikPobedy 1 year ago 2
DSouza NEVER won this debate. Even from the get go, the crowd sounded liek they favoured Dsousa from the start. Hitchens always gets a massive yell of acknowledgement. This time there were a few. You can see this was biasd.
Domzdream 1 year ago
never underestimate the power of stupid people in large group
shankz25 1 year ago 3
Incredible, people voting for D'Souza out of being afraid a lightning will burn their asses. He lost the debate implying that as humans hear a little voice telling then to risk their lives for others and as that cannot be explained by natural selection, it should come from God. That's like saying "as the sky is not white, it should be black", and besides, Animals do that too.
OneSurferCat 1 year ago
Trah like dSousa does not belong in the first world.
PikPobedy 1 year ago
Who still thinks D'Souza is a real person? He's a conspiracy by republicans to take over the world by melting everyone's brains.
JScarper 1 year ago
what garbage, "Hands up who won..." Squink around pretend like you care who has a hand up "Denish won! everyone go home"
13ravenfeather 1 year ago 2
at 0:00 look at dinesh's smiley face!
eugdog106 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in the beginning that statement was true. Social darwinism is responsible for eugenics and forced sterilization programs and also darwinism is a central component of the hitlerian theory for creating the master race.
eugdog106 1 year ago
Comment removed
eugdog106 1 year ago
How in the world did they decide Dinesh won? His arguments were asinine, illogical, inaccurate and some of them were just flat out wrong. You can't falter Hitchens' logic and reason, he wiped the floor with D'Souza every step of the way. That audience should be ashamed of themselves. I can only surmise that their collective intellect is that of a flock of sheep, ready and willing to be fleeced
fallenkingdan 1 year ago 3
It's ironic. Dinesh critised Dawkins for trying to be a historian and here he is trying to be a biologist. He really should stick to.... hang on, what does Dinesh actually excel at other than committing logical fallacies?
d1sgustpated 1 year ago 32
@d1sgustpated
Pretty sure he's accredited in theology... lol so he excels at NOTHING other than committing logical fallacies :P
VitaminTMan 1 year ago
@d1sgustpated You have a fire and hatred in your heart for God and that is what brings you into religious newsgroups on a regular basis.You want to destroy our faith like you have destroyed your own.
Seigu007 2 months ago
Wow another victory for Christ. Go figure!
9pt9 1 year ago
Well, I wouldn't call Dinesh stupid. He's certainly intelligent and is articulating what he perceives as logic based based in his fundamental philosophy. I just find it funny that he bashes Dawkins for stretching the theory of evolution (a process with actual merit) to the multi-universe level...while he proposes the truth as being the mythology of the Bible.
1006abs1006 1 year ago 2
I don't know if D'Souza is ignorant or just stupid...
cabiediger09 1 year ago
"Metaphysical Darwinism" What the fuck? Is this guy on crack?
SubstantialDisorder 1 year ago
"Well if animals do it...that doesn't mean there is a Darwinian explanation"??? I lolled most heartily when I heard that. So what, God gave animals altruistic tendencies for the lulz? Try reading 'The Selfish Gene', you know that book that doesn't have 'God' in the title?
Thumb this comment up if you believe Hitchens should have won.
LostSubsForever 1 year ago 12
@LostSubsForever youre an idiot
Seigu007 2 months ago
Trying to suggest that evolution can just be used to explain things in ecology, no matter what condition we may find them in, as Mr. D'Souza did with his silly peacock analogy, is a complete perversion of sane logic. He suggests a hypothetical as a counter-example that, since it doesn't exist, has no place in the study of science. In reality the sane version of the technique he piteously attempted to use shows no counter-vailing evidence will convince the theist who believes God made it that way
PurpleChevron 1 year ago
Stupid Atheist, trix are for kids!
Jmsadv 1 year ago
D'Souza:
1: The theory of universes popping into existence by natural selection is not Dawkin's speculation, its Lee Smolin's theory called "fecund universes" (or cosmological natural selection). It is a theory of his, unproven as of yet & is not as closely related to Darwin's theory as you misleadingly posit.
2: Darwin explaining the feathers, or lack thereof, can be explained due to a heck of a lot of other facts that would cause a bird to have (or not have feathers), how ignorant of you.
sponsoredwalk1 1 year ago
"Morality is to militate against self interest." And there you have it, full circle, at the end of the debate, Souza's primal fallacy which is driven by christian "philosophy." If a person doesn't derive pleasure from charity, he or she won't commit to it. If a person doesn't receive pleasure from a high self-esteem, they will cheat off of and steal from someone who is has more self-esteem than them. A Hitchen's point: christ practiced erroneous philosophy. Those like D'Souza lap it up.
wilyMD 1 year ago
Every genetic trait is a gamble. Thats why there are competing genes. The gene for lots of feathers is a good gene because that gene will get passed along easily (attractive mate). The gene for less feathers is a good gene because it does not attract predators (long life). D'Souza should read some books on evolution instead of just the one or two chapters that refer to it in "The God Delusion."
SgtDICTION 1 year ago
@SgtDICTION Exactly. The presence of showy plumage is a competition between all the evolutionary forces. Less showy may mean less vulnerable to predators but less appealing to the female. The observed plumage is thus a compromise. More importantly we can test this. We can determine how less showy birds fare in mating and how often they succumb to predation. Evolutionary theory predicts that the prevalent population represents the best solution to this conflict.
rraybin 1 year ago
D'Souza asserts that Dawkins believes there is natural selection at work on the cosmological scale among multiple universes determining the survival of universes. Dawkins, in the God Delusion, does mention this idea. If you read that section of his book, however, you will INSTANTLY discover that Dawkins goes out of his way to clearly state he does not believe this idea to be true. Secondly, it is not even Dawkins who proposes or recommends it. To say that he does is a lie and misleading.
steekg 1 year ago
Just wish I could slap D'Souza in his 1 dimensional mind for his sheer ignorance and misunderstanding of science, especially because he proudly claims it.
quazifnatik 1 year ago
Comment removed
mmontana 1 year ago
to answer Dinesh: that little voice is called empathy. it is a product of our brain. how our brain is constructed will determine how much empathy we experience when we see the suffering of another.
neuroscience understands this and as our tools to explore our experiences advances, so will our understanding of things like empathy and why it is an advantage to our societies.
if i were a religious believer, your ignorance of what your talking about would embarrass me.
tehKap0w 1 year ago
sound engineer fail!
tehKap0w 1 year ago 4
Dinesh is wrong to say that there is no natural explanation for the "still small voice" of morality which acts against individual self-interest...but he would be right to say instead that naturalism offers no *normative authority* behind that morality....
however, none of that really bears on whether god exists or not...
Itsnattatooma 1 year ago
give it to dinesh, hah, piffle,
DaveyH123 1 year ago
Hey Dinesh why don't you change the subject some more? He never answers the question....Damn I can't stand him.
2eelShmeal 1 year ago
The funny thing is, D'Souza comes over as a joke in this debate even without Hitchens' help.
SandraBang 1 year ago
those people are tripping balls if they thing d'souza won the day there!
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
d'souza actually makes a point here: scientists must be concerned of the possibility of shoehorning information (also the sharpshooter fallacy). however, it's not really the scientists but the science hobbyists doing most of the shoehorning.
on a side note, dawkins has, in rare instances, said some pretty wild stuff.
opaquetranslucence 1 year ago
I dont think that Dawkins was trying to say that in a multiverse, "universes" compete for existence. Is that what D,souza is trying to infer? My thinking is that Dawkins said that in a multiverse with "universes" with different laws of physics, that there was bound to be a "universe" like ours, with the laws of physics that support life.
7926645 1 year ago
watch my valentines video! ^_^
juntaon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
D'Souza is an annoying, illogical, whining, condescending prick - I doubt that he knows as much as Dawkins regarding Evolution by Natural Selection and any other field of Science - his explanations have no supporting evidence at all. And he won?! Must be one degenerate audience.
tigeruby 2 years ago
D'Souza is an annoying, illogical, whining, condescending prick - I doubt that he knows as much as Dawkins regarding Evolution by Natural Selection and any other field of Science - his explanations have no supporting evidence at all. And he won?! Must be one degenerate audience.
tigeruby 2 years ago 50
@tigeruby X Come now, name calling is for five year olds. Use your God given...er Evolved intelligence, and tell us why he is all those things. Besides, what's so bad about there being a God? If there isn't, fine, no need for you to feel threatened, if so however, why would this be bad?
sorakai 10 months ago
Dinesh, although slightly more eloquent and refined, is a bastion of propaganda and bullshit just like every so called "apologist".
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Dinesh won? Really?
rolyan3 2 years ago
Wow, he is totally wrong around 3:30. Aside from the obvious quote mine that antybu pointed out, he then goes on to say no religious person would say that we should still believe in God even if he didn't exist. Ever heard of Pascal's wager?
HerbyIsGood 2 years ago
It is impossible to truly have 'debates' in a society like ours where the populace can be fooled by any old demagogue with a few rhetorical tricks up his sleeve. Especially when those debates are about whether or not people should follow the teachings of a charismatic demagogue.
We should stop pretending that most people are rational or even care about rationality. Only then will we get anywhere with addressing the problem of these crazy religions and the cultures they are built upon.
TemporalCircuits 2 years ago
whenever I hear a Christian talk about evolution, I just wonder if they have any capacity whatsoever to grasp complexity in any form. LIFE IS NOT SIMPLE, therefore THE PROCESS BY WHICH LIVING FORMS EVOLVE IS NOT SIMPLE. you can't help but use the word "retarded" when describing these individuals. they just don't WANT to understand it.
TheWiseCommenter 2 years ago 4
@thewisecommenter
What a fatuous thing to say in the context of this debate. Though clearly we both find Dawkin's "metaphysical" application of evolution more compelling than D'Souza's, he is neither "retarded" nor by any means unable or unwilling to understand the theory.
If you're talking about those other nutbags for Jesus, I totally agree with what you've said. I just think that when D'Souza steps up human knowledge is ill-served by dismissing his arguments out of hand.
mindgrapes 2 years ago
@TheWiseCommenter : What about the impossible odds?: The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the 'simplest' bacteria could form by chance arrangement of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10450. Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 1050 is considered an impossibility
pillblooms 1 year ago
asking people who they think won the debate is so silly. a better way is to figure out how many people's minds were changed and in what direction.
TheWiseCommenter 2 years ago
jesus dinesh is a blabber mouth why doesn't hitchens speak up more?
Bellantoni 2 years ago
D'Souza isn't ignorant when he says that evolution cannot explain altruism, he is outright dishonest. The ever-growing body of evidence for the biological origin of altruism has been explained to him, so he was willfully lying when he says evolution has "no explanation" for it.
LynxChan 2 years ago
D'Souza = retard
Garcinproduction 2 years ago
NO, he is very smart, he would school you in a debate. His opinions are rubbish, but I guarantee you he has more intellectual clout than you or me.
jerryhello100 2 years ago
Well, you.
jerryhello100 2 years ago
he would school me in a debate but not in this debate . His opinions are rubbish thats that's the reason why i cal him a retard :p
he could be smart or more intellectual clout than you or me but listen to the bullshit he is telling. D'souza lost this debate. like
t3nGu666 said there are just more christians in the room.
iamthepope2 2 years ago
Peacock- google "runaway sexual selection" R.A. Fisher explains it over 90 years ago! Take a basic evolutionary biology class and then just try to bash evolution!
meatwork999 2 years ago
And to those, who think D'Souza won... You have to ask the audience before the debate what their views are, not only after it. The only thing we learned is, that there were slighly more christians in the room. What a surprise in a country like America
t3nGu666 2 years ago 4
Does D'Souza really believes in Evolution? His understand of it is as retarded as Ken Ham's....
t3nGu666 2 years ago
D'Souza says the conscience cannot be explained by reciprocal advantage. I would like to know why not.
Awesomesome 2 years ago
Luckily for reason and science, the truth is not decided by votes, as some religious dogmas are.
kamuss11 2 years ago 3
At 8:40, religion does not explain it either. Even worse makes altruism look like self-interest, it says taht you should behave in a good way in order not to go to Hell, not to make your society better or people around you better, it is based on pure fear and terror.
kamuss11 2 years ago
Its exceedingly baffling how Christopher failed to point out that there is actually a fairly good Darwinian explanation for social altruism. I will give a brief synopsis of Dawkins explanation. Simply put, individuals are very much programmed by self-fish genes. The existence of apparently altruistic phenomena could be explained by the fact that an individual who acts on behalf of the interests of close relatives- many of who possess the same genes-
NightmareContinues 2 years ago
increases the persistence of the individual- and along with the genes- into the next generation.
NightmareContinues 2 years ago
Think ant colony bitches.
zynot91210 2 years ago
Nargh? Did you know that ants are delicacy in Africa?
NightmareContinues 2 years ago
@NightmareContinues Hitchens never made that debate because like all debates where there is clearly a Christian majority and a Christian host he was not given a chance to answer the question like Souza was. It was presented to Souza and Hitchens had to talk over the Host as the host hastily wrapped things up. And the host new beforehand that there was more Christians in the crowd. Sneaky Sneaky.
Adrealist 2 years ago
D'Souza Wins! :) Hitchens got owned.
Yoyodata 2 years ago
This is crazy! Hitchens clearly won this debate. Anyone who understands logic would recognize the fallacies of D'S's conditional arguments. Makes me wonder who the audience is. And, once again, compassion exists because have limbic systems. If we didn't care for each other, we'd let our helpless offspring die at birth.
toddeklof 2 years ago
denish won?......i bet if they had actually given the people some sort of card that they could mark down who they thought won then counted those to actually find out i wonder if by doing that denish would have still won?
Duelality 2 years ago 3
Having now watched a hand full of debates including D'Souza, I've concluded that it is in my best interests to at least lower the audio when he speaks, and at most, skim right over his drivel all together.
He's made it clear in my mind that theists are completely without, and can not produce a single argument capable of supporting their so obviously idiotic beliefs. D'Souza, you're an ignorant, smug, half-baked, vacuous, irrational, douche.
Roundlay 2 years ago
Denish won ? WTF ?
Giving a drowning guy a stick can in fact be explained by Darwinism. Essentially, the person is protecting a set of similar genes to his.
I guess failed analogies, stupid arguments, unaccounted claims are immensely popular.
fishonbicycle 2 years ago
Am I the only one one watching this video that actually understood Dinesh's point with regards to the peacock?
It's like the instant you guys here the words "Christian" and "evolution" you all instantly turn off your brains and start launching ad hominem attacks.
roflmao113 2 years ago
@roflmao113 His single example was over simplifying evolution. Not every single time a bird has feathers it is trying to attract the attention of a female, not every single time it doesnt have feathers its trying to avoid being eaten by predators. In addition to the feathers thousands of other factors. This would be like me explaining the Christian bible as, "Some guy in the clouds recreated himself as a bunch of guys on the earth." It's a straw man argument because this wasn't accurate.
Adrealist 2 years ago 2
Peacock's tail - it's a show off for females saying - "I am healthy, full of testosterone" - it is not about survival, it's about reproduction
Helping other people - increasing survival of a specie + increasing chance for future help
As simple as that. D'Souza "victory" is just an example why science theories aren't be evaluated by voting.
kid29a 2 years ago 2
That's a really good point. Evolution is more about reproduction than survival. After all, what good would surviving a long time be if you never produced any offspring to pass those genes on?
HelplessVictim 2 years ago
D'Souza exemplifies ignorance -- his comments about the peacock don't back up his arguement, they just make him sound like a fool. He should brush up on his knowledge of the interplay between sexual and natural selection and try again.
sld52 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Rom 3:23-For all have sinned & fallen short of the glory of God; Rom. 6:23-For the wages of sin is deathl but the gife of God is EVER- LASTING LIFE through Jesus Christ. our Lord. Act 3:19-"Repent you, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.; Rom 5:8- But God commendeth His Love towards us in that , while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
shieldsff 2 years ago
I have watched this entire thing (up till half way through this clip when the audio turns to shit).
I really dislike this Dinesh guy - his smug responses irritate. Anyways, that is separate and apart from the point, his rape of evolution with regards to the peacock comment is simply obfuscation. Anyone with a bit of intellect would understand that reproduction outweighs predatory concerns. It's a matter of fitness and hereditary altruism - put yourself in danger to insure your lineage.
sdmac21 2 years ago
Oh boy...I thought D'Souza was way off throughout this debate, but yeah...that comment about the Peacock tail really took the cake. He hasn't studied evolution at all and has no understanding of the concepts he's criticizing.
laertes0420 2 years ago 40
@laertes0420 HAHAHA "this is called "using the same facts"" (3:00). Yes Dinesh, I do believe that is the official term.
ggaabbee11 1 year ago 5
@laertes0420 Hilarious, I was actually waiting for a knockdown argument from D'Souza......that never came, I had the Peacock argument explained with the "Boy named Sue" Johnny Cash song years ago. Coolest Science teacher ever......yes dummy showing off is exactly the point, and if he gets eaten...he doesn't further his line does he? I can now see why he is a theist...
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
@laertes0420 Hilarious, I was actually waiting for a knockdown argument from D'Souza......that never came, I had the Peacock argument explained with the "Boy named Sue" Johnny Cash song years ago. Coolest Science teacher ever......yes dummy showing off is exactly the point, and if he gets eaten...he doesn't further his line does he? I can now see why he is a theist...@3:06 I'm waiting for him to say...well it's all has to be about job creation.......
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
D'Souza's comment on the peacock was an absolutely hideous bastardization of evolutionary theory.
Just terrible.
Evolutionary theory takes in to account many factors; it is not as simple as he presents it.
Anyway, Peacocks don't run around with their tail feathers constantly displayed asking to be eaten.
Oh, and they can fly......just btw.
Such a wonderful escape mechanism allows a creature to develop traits that would normally hurt its fitness. That is why many birds look so "odd".
FellTablet 2 years ago 7
Good attempt by Hitchens but Dinesh wins on points again.
DreadsideNubune 2 years ago
what are u smoking?
navid99us 2 years ago
Nothing? I don't smoke? Nobody can give one example where Hitchens wins. He just makes loud broad sweeping statements, whilst insulting people. He has to resort to attacking FAITH because he has no good arguments to make.
DINESH WINS YET AGAIN
DreadsideNubune 2 years ago
first writing in capital letters doesnt make it true...
hey i have a faith that 2+2=3, as a matter of fact some space daddy came to my sleep and confirmed it, he said he was born of a real virgin and 2+2=3 is god's word...this is faith,
and that is why faith needs to be ridiculed.
navid99us 2 years ago
what you describe is not faith, it is idiocy. everyone knows 2+2 = 4
faith is not believing in something you just made up.
it's about believing in something you KNOW 100% to be true because you have experienced it directly
that is faith - believing in something you know to be true which you have seen with your own eyes
DreadsideNubune 2 years ago
you have your terminology wrong my friend...faith is believing, and between believing and KNOWING 100% you need a link called EVIDENCE
so if i believe that 2+2=5 then i dont need any evidence for it...to say i know 2+2=5 then i need evidence that obviously i can not provide
same as you, if you believe there is a higher power, you need to provide an EVIDENCE to say you KNOW there is a higher power...and no evidence of such has been provided yet
navid99us 2 years ago
atrocities such as suicide bombing, anthrax, genital mutilation, inquisitions and crusades and you know what? I will throw in cereal killers and genocides too because I believe those are faith positions as well. They just are not supernatural or religious by nature.
Considering all of the latent evil entailed in the faith position I believe it is ones moral responsibility to change their standards of evidence for belief regardless are how comforting their faith may be.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
i am surprised when you say those actions are not religious in nature...start reading about suicide bombers in palestine and lebanon and what they say before blowing themselves up...they say "god is great" in arabic, also how many christians do you know that look at this world as a burden between themselves and jesus? i know lots of christians that feel like that and say if they die tomorrow they will be happy because they will get to be with jesus sooner.
navid99us 2 years ago
2:20 ish. "The peacocks displays feathers that attract feathers that are more likely to attract predators which will eat the peacock." - This is because evolution is gene centred not organism centred. The feathers will attract a mate as much as they will attract predators and provided the genes get even one chance to be passed to offspring then the unfortunate male peacock is just a vehicle for this process - hence the "Selfish Gene." Incidentally female peacocks who carry the young are quite..
Gazzar 2 years ago
...well camouflaged which is consistant with evolution. The genes need time to develop the new offspring inside the females body and therefore the female needs to stay alive for longer than the male. It's almost a shame Dawkins wasn't on hand to answer that one.
Gazzar 2 years ago
@Gazzar and aren't the predators evolving too. It's like war; your advantage is so only for as long as the enemy is unable to turn it to their advantage. Sounds like reality to me. Better than, "The Peacock was created to be colorful by God so that it would be more pleasing to the human eye." Christians need to go back to the Dark Ages were they came from.
Adrealist 2 years ago
Isn't it also true that a more lavish display of colors and feathers is a sign of a healthier male. Females choose the healthier males and therefore the colors and feathers intensify simply because females select those genes. And even though predators can more easily catch the male ( if that is even true, seems oversimplified to me) as long as it is offset by more stronger animals and more young it does not hurt the animals survival. Please note that I am not a biologist
Elu112 2 years ago
Yes I think that is true as well. I read this in (appropriately enough) the "Peacocks Tail" section of "The Ancestors Tail" (by Dawkins of course) but was a while ago and I can't remember the details. I think the same argument you made is also true for tropical fish in some cases, which I think (I am not a biologist either) would be an example of convergent evolution.
Gazzar 2 years ago
D'Souza is talking shit!
bnbalenda 2 years ago 2
Yeah I wonder why you say that... maybe because of his race? Any unbiased observer would give Dinesh a clear points win.
DreadsideNubune 2 years ago
@DreadsideNubune Your using the same tactics that Scientologiests use - "If you don't believe in the devil Xenu THEN YOU MUST BE A CHILD MOLESTOR, or RACIST, or MURDERER" LOL, LULZ, ...
Shut up already.
Adrealist 2 years ago 2
so you admit it
DreadsideNubune 2 years ago
@DreadsideNubune Admit that he's a human being with inherent strengths and weaknesses? Yes, absolutely. Instead of acting like a Bishop or Preacher who is handing out divine orders from an imaginary God - what a breathe of fresh air. Christians don't worship God, they worship the people who stand at the podium and what they do has nothing to do with the 'divine'.
Adrealist 2 years ago
D'souza is really great. Even though I admire and like Hitchens a lot, I would still rather live in D'souza's world. I think he would offer me the stick if I were drowning while Hitchens would jsut keep walking, and muttering to himself that I probably deserve it.
Crimble67 2 years ago
@Crimble67 There's no doubt he can become over intellectualized and arrogant. A definite flaw of his. Regardless though he's also very much a humanitarian. He requested that Africa receives compensation from USA for taking men as slaves which upset their economy(realistic or not - his heart was in the right place). He's voluntarily been tortured with waterboarding as protest against the abuse of prisoners at the hand of the US. He's suffered a great deal to make the lives of other people better.
Adrealist 2 years ago
m theory takes it past the singularity
moondoggie1327 2 years ago
How the fuck did anybody vote for D'souza?????!!!
mannybutch2 2 years ago
Because he clearly won all the key arguments?
DreadsideNubune 2 years ago
You call that winning an argument!!!!
The paki twat came out with as much SHIT as one can handle in one lifetime!!
FUCK OFF WITH THE RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EVOLUTION EXPLAINS ALL!!!!!!!!!!
THE BIBLE HAS NO PROOF OF ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2000 YEAR OLD CRAP!!!
AGAINST THE BEST MODERN SCIENCE!!!
'gods' and people who believe are fucked up RETARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!
mannybutch2 2 years ago
People can be so stupid.
I don't think you have enough caps locks and exclamation points to even express it.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Dinesh just embarrasses himself over and over in this video. Evolution can be taken to be true even if a single fossil had never been found. Why? Genetics.
requiemdexter 2 years ago
Key work Dinesh, "speculation"
requiemdexter 2 years ago
IF religious ppl are altruistic (moral)...it's bcuz they fear hell & WANT heaven....that's NOT being altruistic!...it's the exact opposite!...only diference being that the benefit they seek is not in this life, but in their "afterlives"....so the religion=morality argument is a logical non-starter!......This 'reward system' of gaining points from god for your 'pious deeds' in order to qualify for a fabulous afterlife concept can be found all religions including Buddism...so WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
r022218 2 years ago
Dinesh keeps repeating "IF we're evolved primates"...& then says he supports the theory of evolution.....I'm tempted to think that some humans never completed their evolutionary process from their less intelligent ape-like ancestor till this date, looking at how idiotic ppl like Dinesh are!
r022218 2 years ago
Someone please tell Dinesh that what Dawkins talks about in his book, with regards to the possibility of universes, is not evolution but the multiverse hypothesis. This is something that has not yet been proven and Dawkins never makes the claim that it has anything to do with evolution. Also the whole "universes competing with one another" is also made up by Dinesh.
reanimeviewed 2 years ago
this moron Dinesh is clever cuz he twists the truth and makes it sound 'scientific'. Prof. Dawkins mentioned in one of lectures that he will not debate any creationist because that sort of validates their idiotic claims in the minds of the audience.
r022218 2 years ago
wow. Dinesh doesn't understand evolution even to the degree that you are being taught in 7th grade in germany. At 2:40 he demonstrates that he doesn't comprehend that sexual selection and viability selection have the effect they have precisely BECAUSE they're working against each other. There's no "unscientific application of darwinism" (3:05), just a lack of understanding on D'Souzas side.
DancingInChains 2 years ago
I agree completely. I was raised in Belgium, in rather fundamentalist Catholic ways, but even before starting high school, my understanding of evolution was better than Dinesh's. How can anyone be educated and so incredibly ignorant?
BartBVanBockstaele 2 years ago
"My position is very simply this" - simple is right.
Dawkins offers a thought experiment and a worthy one. Many universes may have begun but unable to sustain themselves perhaps because the laws conflicted they collapsed. It's estimated that 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage - the child developing incorrectly, the pregnancy is naturally aborted. It is possible - he does not say - believe or go to hell.
Belittling the imagination of great men is nothing new - Gallileo knew it well.
MrsPhineasT 2 years ago
Of course there is a Darwinian explanation to help a fellow human being! SURVIVAL OF YOUR OWN SPECIES!
tonytrouser 2 years ago
animals other than humans don't do certain actions in order to help other members of their species. it's all about an individual organism passing on his or her OWN dna.
kevinvolkmann 2 years ago
Factually incorrect;
A rat will prefer to pull a lever to get a food pellet if it gets shocked, than to pull a lever to get a food pellet if this causes another rat to be shocked. (Emotional Reactions of Rats to the Pain of Others.)
Additionally crocodiles will protect not their own young, but the young of other crocodiles often at great risk.
Evolution favors general behavior, which in a population increases its reproductive success. This includes general rules to protect your species.
Xorinite 2 years ago
You can find a more detailed explanation for this kind of altruistic behavior in Richard Dawkins most famous work "the selfish gene" or you could try "the moral animal" by Robert Wright.