You should repent. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
No need to apologies, it was "my" fault to allow their genes to survive. But i have every faith that your kind in general can deal with this slight mistake i made.
What a great opportunity for D'Sousa. He wins just by stepping up to the podium when his opponent is Singer. This is as if Hitchens were debating the Rev. Phelps (of the Westboro Baptist Church). It is with pure disgust that I see D'Sousa underhandedly equate Singer with "secularism."
Please accept our apologies for producing this clown.
I hope you can look into your hearts and forgive us because we have produced great thinkers like buddha in the ancient times and Chandrasekhar in recent times.
Before D'Souza even makes any statements in his OPENING STATEMENT he essentially introduces Fisher as pro-death. How underhanded and ad hominem driven is this asshole?
In my country there was a televised discussion 20 years ago about a euthanasia pill that people could get from their doctor if they felt they had enough of life - mentally that is, not just 'hopeless physical suffering' which is the criterium for euthanasia in my country now. It was a 50/50 outcome. Recently they asked the same people (the ones that are still living) the same: now they are 100% pro choice. They were being philosophical and religious at the time, but are old and wise now.
in a prechristian world, why does Mr. Dinesh only focus on the western world? What about ancient india/china/korea/japan/africa, or aboriginal and native american societies? They were without the christian notion of god, or without gods entirely, yet ideas of compassion and women's rights and greater equality still existed. In ancient india, there were also great philosophers that insisted on logic and reasoning over faith and prayer. I hope Mr. Dinesh will consider other cultures, not just west
This is just the tip of the iceberg as to what can happen if Singer's idiotic drivel is ever adopted as public policy. Search in an AP article from August 14, 2011 entitled, "Eugenics victim, son fighting together for justice." Singer's crap has been tried before by progressives in American and Germany and we all know where that lead. Millions being killed. Don't pretend to know which side of the killing process you or your family will be eventually be on if you tolerate this maniac's ideas.
why don't these guys consider values and how values work outside of western society? what about the values of ancient china, india, aztecs, mayans, or indigenous societies around the world?
Im reading these comments, as someone who actually seeks the truth and as a former atheist, it's so sad to see how many atheists take religion and distort it to make it something it's not. They will go to their deaths trying to disclaim religion. It's really depressing, that's probably why there are no theists responding, it seems like it's not even worth it...
I know i'll get alot of shit for saying this, but it had to be said.
If you respond please cite 3 things that Dsouza "lied" about.
It's not that he's lying, it's that he's wrong. He made a lot of "I take Singer to be saying..." statements, which are presumably true in that he presumably really does think that's what Singer says, but he's just wrong about a lot of the positions. Either he's a terrible reader or he didn't make any effort to read Singer's work.
@DrazharX What makes you assume D'Souza is is sincere? His intellectual gifts, to be sure, are very modest but he's not a blithering idiot, and moreover you clearly know very little of this odious little weasel's (publicly accessible) history. Thinking that D'Souza is sincere is tantamount to thinking Kissinger is sincerely convinced of the righteousness of his war crimes, or, on a more plebeian level, of thinking that pro wrestling is real.
@polymath7 Fair enough. Let's not restrict our speculation to a single cause. I suspect his comments can be traced to both deliberate duplicity and more innocuous intellectual incompetency.
@JohnLions He claimed that the universe has a beginning (he's been corrected by real physicists). He claimed that he believed God couldn't make the universe with different rules. He claimed that the universe is fine-tuned. If you think an atheist is distorting your religion, then he must not be talking directly to you about your exact religion. But I ask you, if you are a christian why would a good God create animals that suffer.
@MrFreeLibertarian lets not attempt to wallow in ambiguity here. What we define as well educated is 'access to and the successful interpretation of information' of which the academic community holds as either logically coherent or justified true belief.
So intellect may be a necessary condition of being well educated, but it is not sufficient. An intelligent person may be brainwashed and subjected to limited reasoning, so unless well educated, he shouldn't be seen with credentials.
@lanceawatt Singer's supporters are NOT well educated based on the answers I'm getting here. The interpretations of his works have not been successfully interpreted and I don't see any logical coherent argument as to why it would be OK to kill healthy newborn babies. What I see is actually a lot of brainwashed non-thinkers, who have been told hat Singer is great, so that is the filter through which they interpret his drivel. Unless of course you think killing healthy children is OK. Do You?
Healthy? Absolutely not, also on grounds of preference utilitarianism and a diminished sense of humanity that may result. Singer also does not advocate this.
Seriously disabled? If I my child would live an agonizing, short life, then I would definitely consider it. The choices we make are not always easy but we have to cherish the integrity of our decisions in a way that benefits the interests of those we love.
@lanceawatt Forget disabled and forget preference utilitarianism. Let' cut to the chase. You're playing with words by saying Singer doesn't "advocate" the killing of children as though it's apples and oranges between outright advocation of killing newborns and the suggesting that it is not immoral to do. Tell me, if it is not immoral to kill newborns because they are not human, could we eat them as well like we do veal? If not, why not?
@MrFreeLibertarian 1st. Newborns are humans, just not yet developed defining characteristics of personhood. 2nd, Singer believes causing suffering to animals is immoral, and this would include newborns. I agree with him. Do you?
3rd it IS immoral to kill a newborn unless it greatly diminishes its suffering and its interests are taken into consideration. 4th therefore utilitarianism must be part of the question because it determines the consequences of an action in a given situation.
@lanceawatt p 182, Practical Ethics: "The diff between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life...but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents." "So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents." Singer is clearly saying that it is not immoral for parents to kill a healthy child.
@MrFreeLibertarian thats right. 'One' important reason 'normally'. Not 'only' reason. This is where it is taken out of context.
If Singer assumes that there is nothing wrong with infanticide then why does he advocate preference utilitarianism (morality in regard to the preferences of those affected)? There are compelling reasons to believe infanticide is detrimental to P.U.
Either he's not being logically coherent within his own frame of argument.
@lanceawatt I am not taking him out of context. His context is clear: NORMAL, nonsentient beings have no right to life on their own. In other words, if the killing is OK with the parents, it's OK with him. This is exactly what preference utilitarianism is. Since nonsentient healthy children are not capable of having a preference, their well being is irrelevant. The only consideration is the welfare of adults. That's how he concludes that killing healthy children is not necessarily immoral.
@lanceawatt Also education and morality are two separate things. Being well educated doesn't mean you're not evil. Anyone who truly understands Peter SInger and agrees with him is just sick regardless of how many years they have studied. Peter Singer is similar to doctor Josef Mengele and other Nazi eugenicists and Singer's followers are similar to blind Nazis. I'm not saying this to be obnoxious. I'm making a legitimate comparison.
@MrFreeLibertarian lol. Comparing Peter Singer with Nazi's? Let me make a very clear distinction here. Singer's philosophy is fundamentally about enhancing the well being of conscious life. Not entirely sure what your doctor Mengele was doing in his free time but I'm guessing it's probably not on creating ways of enhancing general well being.
And to assume enhancing conscious life is not what morality is about is simply absurd. If not about our well being than what could it possibly be about?
@lanceawatt What you are saying is complete BS. His chapter called "Justifying Infanticide" says it all. Is suggesting that it is NOT immoral to kill a healthy newborn baby what you call "enhancing general well being"? Have you actually read his books? You can search Google books and actually read online "Justifying Infanticide." He is very clear that it is arguably not immoral to kill a child up until the age of 2. The fact that he also talks about other beneficial things is irrelevant.
@MrFreeLibertarian man I am not going to read a 100 page practical ethics scholarship because I've been learning his principles in many aspects of my education.
Singer is an advocate of 'preference utilitarianism' - enhancing preferences for 'sentient beings'. Is it enhancing the preferences of conscious life by killing them? Of course not.
What he does do is highlight hypocrisy in the face of killing animals for personal satisfaction through example of self awareness that of a 3 year old.
@lanceawatt 2 days ago you accused me of regurgitating other people's criticisms that took his positions "out of context " but now it's you who admits that you have not read Singer carefully or at all. Aren't you embarrassed by the hypocrisy? Apparently It is you has uncritically swallowed information about Singer spoon fed to you by someone else. Singer thinks it is not immoral to kill newborn babies. This is a fact. Do you agree with him on this or not? Answer the question.
@MrFreeLibertarian no I have studied his work carefully. Singer doesn't advocate killing without critically assessing the outcome on whether it enhances general well being.
However he says that infants can't have as strong a claim to life as humans that actually have self awareness because they are not self conscious - i.e. less conscious than a cow.
If you eat meat then your saying you accept killing more aware and conscious creatures than infants! Profound if you consider these implications.
@lanceawatt Also my Nazi comparison is accurate. Singer is simply applying to children under 2, what Hitler did to the Jews. It's simply infanticide versus genocide--each similarly justified by calling the target not human. Singer himself uses the word "infanticide" and suggests that children perhaps as old as 2 or 3 really have no right to life. Tell me how this is any different than how Hitler thought and what he did to the Jews as a result?
@MrFree our indecision and weakness due to short term thinking and not willing to make sacrifices now to save us from more suffering later is much of what singer is about... sure, it sounds like nazi stuff and weirdo lefty extremism come full circle into dictatorship sociopathology, but i think he has some unassailable logic with some of his sick stuff, or really SEEMINGLY sick stuff, that REALLY would save us suffering long term... like killing toddlers for instance...LOL, wow, thats tough!
@ExSaint1379 Search on Peter Singer infanticide. This evil man actually puts forth the idea in (Writings on an Ethical Life) that killing a newborn baby or even a child up to the age of two is no different than killing a fetus in the womb. This guy is just a sick, twisted freak.
@MrFreeLibertarian It's 30 days is the age he gives. Moral philosophers are meant to challenge the traditional view of societal morals. If you follow his reasoning it makes sense. You've only heard the criticisms of him that take him out of context. If you read Principal Ethics, it will give you a new light on what he is actually saying. He is a professor who says that we should view the consequences of our actions on thinking beings. That is his whole philosophy.
@ExSaint1379 No. You are incorrect. You have not read what he says carefully. He is clearly saying it is OK to kill children after they are born simply because they are not yet human and that they generally don't become human until about 2 tears old. What you are saying is absolute nonsense. Would it be appropriate in the sense of "challenging traditional views" to suggest eating children as well? This is evil and the fact that this man is educated is irrelevant. He's a very sick man.
@MrFreeLibertarian I have. He says very specifically that there is no moment in which they become "persons" not humans, and the moment of conception is not some miracle in which someone becomes a person. He thinks it's wrong to kill all thinking beings and that includes newborns, but in the case of severely developmentally disabled newborns infanticide is a better option than keeping them alive. I'm telling you you have only read the criticisms of him which take him out of context.
@ExSaint1379 No you are simply wrong. You cannot read the chapter entitled, "justifying Infanticide" from Practical Ethics and say that he limits his killing to the disabled. He clearly states that "no infant--disabled or not--has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time". This is not a criticism I read from somebody else. It is the man's own words. You are simply choosing to ignore them for reasons that I cannot imagine.
@MrFreeLibertarian You are right, they don't have as strong as a right to life as actually persons. That's not what you said. You claimed that he said they didn't have a right to life. There is a tremendous difference. That's slimy to say the least. When he justifies infanticide he is saying when you way the benefit to the child to the benefit of a parent. In what way is that evil? How can you justify calling that evil?
@ExSaint1379 You are simply a moron. You cannot understand simple concepts. I am done wasting my time. I'm not sure what your game is. Maybe you're a contrarian. Maybe your reading comprehension is subpar. Maybe you've just been indoctrinated. I don't know, but Singer is very clear about his beliefs, which are indefensible to a sane person. I'm done debating whether or not 2+2=5. If you really are interested in the truth, I am truly sorry that you are not capable of understanding it.
@ExSaint1379 I'll make a correction. Instead of saying no "sane" person, I'll change that to say no moral, decent person. There are plenty of sane, immoral people in the world. That's why many states have the death penalty.
i'm looking at this video for the first time,and even at the begining i notice how this guy doesn't understand what singer is talking about,he's simply twisting his words,as the most people do when they critisize singer..i'm wondering if those people simply don't get his thesis or they're consciously choosing to ignore them,without trying to understand..
@Reerrpad5515 : As long as you're rational, stick to the evidence and remain sceptical (as in : not accepting anything uncritically) there's nothing wrong with being openminded to ANY idea presented to you. The problem arises when people are irrational, ignore the evidence and/or just blindly believe whatever is presented to them. You shouldn't confuse being openminded with being gullible.
"You shouldn't confuse being openminded with being gullible." ~ OOTB
I didn't, and wouldn't. I simply disagree that with a sufficiently open mind, it is safe to conclude that Dinesh won. I insist that your mind would have to be SO open to miracles and the supernatural to accept Dinesh's arguments that your brain is no longer functioning rationally; ergo, "so open that your brain falls out."
It's not gullibility that I cite as a problem, but a faulty epistemology upon which to ground beliefs.
@Rp5515 : Dinesh won the debate in the sense that he managed to keep the mostly Christian audience satisfied with their beliefs because he gave them enough logical fallacies to soothe their minds and ignore anything Singer had to say. This is typical for this format of debate and the reason Christians like it. Regardless of how openminded you are, there is no way Dinesh remotely makes a valid point when judging him by rational standards alone... even if you believe the supernatural is possible.
@Reerrpad5515 : And that was my point. A truely openminded person would never dismiss either UFOs, ghosts, Gods or other seemingly farfetched ideas without considering the arguments for it. A critical mind, however, will analyse the arguments for each of these claims and agree that the evidence is not satisfactory for either the existence of UFOs, ghosts or Gods. Being openminded and critical is perfectly compatible. It's not a matter of being too openminded, it's a matter of not being critical.
I think my first answer wasn't fair, let me try to clarify. By "sufficiently open mind" I mean a mind willing to engage an argument, or accept a premise, that deserves engagement or acceptance, by virtue of previous experience or verifiable information. My implied response, therefore, is that it is possible to engage arguments or accept premises which do not deserve such treatment, and then end up at a truly ludicrous conclusion. It is, therefore, possible to be too open-minded.
@Reerrpad5515 : My point was that when you stay rational and stick with the evidence, there is no way to end up at a truly ludicrous conclusion, regardless of how openminded you are! Even if you're absolutely open to the idea of the Christian God, the Queen of England being a shapeshifting Reptilian or the earth being Hollow and having an entrance at each pole, the lack of evidence for either claim forces one to reject such claims until reliable evidence emerges. If you don't, you're irrational
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Take a look at Hume's discussion of miracles in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding; your answer is lurking in those pages.
You suggest we wait until evidence rolls in, but remain open to the possibility of an aberration of the natural order, while I would put such claims in the same grave as the rest of them through the ages, without any sense of my being too "closed-minded". Such a claim, if true, would bear with it sufficient evidence to overwhelm any skepticism.
@Reerrpad5515 : The problem is that our intuitive sense of what's reasonable or plausible doesn't always match reality. For example, general relativity and string theory are still considered the most plausible theories for explaining the reality we live in while both theories are extremely counterintuitive. When we reject certain ideas immediately (ie without looking into the evidence) we do so based on our intuitive sense of plausibility and is far from always a good idea.
I think you are missing the distinction between being open minded to the EVIDENCE for a proposition, and simply being open minded to a proposition. I reject propositions for which there is no evidence, especially when such propositions (like your queen of england example) go against all previous observations of what is possible. If evidence were to surface, of the sort that supports other verified facts or theories, I would change my mind.
This doesn't make me dogmatically closed-minded, it just puts me safely in the realm of intellectual skepticism. Given the myriad failed claims of that sort, and the sort that surround every religious tradition, I am confident in stating that such things did not happen (i.e. rejecting the claim). It isn't about intuition, and, for the record, String Theory is not on the same level as General Relativity. ST has not, as far as I know, made any testable predictions, while GR has made thousands.
Is it POSSIBLE that String Theory is correct? Absolutely. Is it the default position to accept is as PLAUSIBLE? Absolutely not. Replace 'String Theory' with deism, pantheism, Russell's Teapot, etc. and you start to get my point (hopefully).
It is good to be open minded when it comes to the evidence for a proposition, but it is not helpful to be open minded a priori to every random claim about events in this world. Some are simply ridiculous, and can and should be rejected outright.
@Reerrpad5515 : I agree with pretty much everything you said in each of your three comments except your last paragraph. How can you a priori decide whether or not a claim is ridiculous? A few centuries ago it seemed ridiculous to think the earth is round, but now we all know it's a fact... only because some sceptics decided to look into the evidence and found it compelling. Until you first look into the evidence either in favor or against it, no claim can be dismissed as too ridiculous !
It is common for arguments of this sort to cite things that were previously thought to be ridiculous, like the shape of the earth, and then point out how it was true. This is then the vehicle by which all manner of absurd notions are introduced as not just possible, but plausible. The problem is the myriad of OTHER claims made, to lesser and greater degrees of extravagance, which have turned out to be facetious. A simple examination of probability negates this argument.
@Reerrpad5515 : Not really. How can you differentiate the myriad of other claims from the handful of claims that are in fact true without looking into the evidence first? Only by looking at the evidence can you distinguish what IS absurd and what only SEEMS absurd.
" How can you differentiate the myriad of other claims from the handful of claims that are in fact true without looking into the evidence first?" ~ OOTB
OOTB, meet Russell's teapot. Some claims are simply ridiculous by their very nature, and do not deserve the "due consideration" you seem to be advocating.
@Reerrpad5515 : How do you distinguish what's ridiculous by its very nature and does not deserve "due consideration" from claims that ARE worth considering? That's where our opinions seem to differ. I've debated quite a few intellectuals on numerous topics and often noticed that what some considered self-evident was too ridiculous to consider for others and vice versa. There is really no objective standard to make such differentiation. There only is bias, which is subjective and unreliable.
The famous quote by David Hume regarding the virgin birth of Jesus becomes salutary here; "What is more likely, that a virgin could conceived or that a jewish minx would tell a lie?"
@Reerrpad5515 : The idea of the virgin birth of Jesus can easily be rejected because there's no evidence to support it and because there are various plausible alternate explanations (see eg. Richard Carrier) that do not contradict our understanding of the natural world, unlike the virgin birth or other fantastic claims in the Bible. All we have is unreliable eye witness testimony which wouldn't survive a cross examination in a modern day court room.
@polymath7 : The eye witnesseses of most events that ever took place in human history are now dead. Some are reliable, others have added fantastical elements to their stories and yet other testimonies are purely fictional. The Bible is no different than other historical sources that claim to contain eye witness testimony (many of them being totally fictional) and that was basically my point. I do not grant the Bible any more reliability than eg. the tales of King Arthur.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Better, but (forgive me) you obviously have a very sketchy notion of the epistemic standards upon which ancient history is based. To begin, sources must be mutually referential with (ie, mention by name ) several other disparate sources and they must largely concur with each in their accounts before they are even on the table as worthy of serious assessment.
There is nothing even loosely analogous to this in the Bible. That's why you're spot-on with King Arthur.
@polymath7 : I don't think I said anything in any of my comments that disagrees with what you're saying here and I see no reason why I should have since I agree with you completely. Maybe my statements lacked a bit of nuance, but when limited to 500 characters that's simply inevitable. Don't assume I have a poor understanding of scientific standards just because I don't nuance every little tidbit. We're talking about YouTube comments here, not academic dissertations.
It should be noted in this context that the flat-earth idea was not established by any testing, or data. It was simply the result of tradition and ignorance. The only evidence gathered on the subject called the flat-earth hypothesis into question, and nothing but appeals to ignorance supported it. In our present status of scientific understanding, knowledge hard-won by men from all times and climes, such sweeping changes to the current model are simply untenable, and rejected for cause.
It is not necessary to be "open minded" to the idea of human flight without the aid of technology, or heresy regarding miraculous occurrences that contradict the known workings of nature, etc. Once you understand what a person is claiming, if that claim is in violation of everything we know about a particular natural law, a priori rejection is the only intelligible course. This is why I distinguish between being open to EVIDENCE for a claim, and simply being open to a claim.
@Reerrpad5515 : I don't see any way to distinguish being open to evidence for a claim from being open to a claim. The only way to judge the accuracy of any claim is by looking at the evidence for it, so unless you're willing to submit to authority and accept certain claims on the basis of faith (as religious people tend to do) being open to a claim forces you to examen the evidence.
"The only way to judge the accuracy of any claim is by looking at the evidence for it"
OR, consider the implications of it's being true. Human flight without the aid of technology would conflict with gravity, relativity, biology, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, etc, etc. It is not necessary to "examine the evidence", this claim is ridiculous BY IT'S NATURE.
@Reerrpad5515 : With regards to the inability of humans to fly without the aid of technology, our knowledge of the relevant fields of science as well as the lack of any historical precedent could be considered sufficient evidence to reject the idea. I reject the idea of human flight without technology not due to lack of evidence in favor but due to sufficient evidence against it.
@R5515:No I do not. As soon as someone comes up with evidence that suggests humans can in fact fly and have flown in the past without using any technology, I will at least take a short peek at the evidence to see where there people are coming from. If that can't convince me, at least they can offer a good laugh or a psychological insight. The latter is, in fact, one of the reasons I like to watch Christians defend their primitive belief system. To me, it's both funny and psychologically relevant
@Reerrpad5515 : We can reject the idea of human flight without the use of technology ONLY because there's sufficient evidence AGAINST it. You seem to be confusing lack of evidence for a claim with evidence against a claim.
OK, then we agree that any claim that violates what we know to be true about the world can be rejected prior to "examining the evidence" IN FAVOR.
Now you suggest that there are some claims which do not have necessary contradictions with reality as we understand it. This is a claim like Bertrand Russell's teapot, in which rejection due to a simple LACK of evidence is a sound judgement. Please tell me why you're still open to the idea of Russell's orbiting teapot.
@Reerrpad5515 : As a programmer, I consider the universe equivalent to a giant quantum computer program. Naturalists suggest this computer spontaneously developed without any conscious interference. Pantheists / pandeists suggest this computer is conscious and programmed itself. Both hypotheses are unproven and rest on an implausible assumption, yet imo they're still the only two remotely plausible explanations.
"Both hypotheses are unproven and rest on an implausible assumption" ~ OOTB
I disagree that the naturalist hypothesis rests upon an "implausible" assumption. I could concede it is a counter-intuitive concept, but implausible? By what metric would you categorize it as "implausible"?
@Reerrpad5515 : How is the idea of a complex selforganising universe with complex selforganising biology generating spontaneously without any purpose or directing force plausible?
I noticed you did not mention the pantheist/pandeist hypothesis as plausible. Could you explain why you regard this as less plausible? All it adds to the universe is one or more levels of consciousness.
"...spontaneously without any purpose or directing force..." ~ OOTB
Since you put it that way... seriously, though, who has claimed this? Are you suggesting no CONSCIOUS force? Or NO force. No one suggested that there is NO force, i.e. no source or explanation. The claim is that there is no CONSCIOUS source or explanation. Still not seeing how this is implausible.
"I noticed you did not mention...[blah blah]" ~ OOTB
I didn't say "less plausible"; 'not mentioning' =/= rejecting.
"Compassin is a value that came into the world because of christianity." Does this man have no self respect? Christanity borrows most of its theological system from Judaism. It is accurate to call compassion a judeo-christian value, however dinesh's statment is obviously untrue.
Massive historical distortions here. Slavery was ubiquitous in christian countries for a very long time. Somtimes Dinesh comes off as historicall ignorant (highly biased as well).
@goethethegreat Well his time frame is off (severely so) but slavery became pretty rare in Western Europe between the 11th and 16th century (which is the the historical period in which Christian Europe came into it's own) . The Feudal system made it largely unnecessary,
"slavery became pretty rare in Western Europe between the 11th and 16th century (which is the the historical period in which Christian Europe came into it's own)" ~ CF
Yes, and the puritans broke away from the church in the latter half of this time period, colonized the east coast of the Americas, and slavery "came into it's own" again among those pious settlers with fresh recruits from the African continent.
Christianity "came into it's own" in 4th ce. Rome, shortly before that empire fell.
D'Souza begins with an ad hominem attack. Classic strategy of an angry man with the weaker position.
I also love his historical argument. Delightfully cherry-picking facts to support his argument when it is clear that Christianity in no way reduced the amount of barbarism in the world. Need evidence? Just look at the Crusades, serfdom (motivated by the great chain of being), the Inquisition etc. Absolutely brutal, just like pagan practices.
looking at the comments here leads me to two conclusions: 1) there are some stupidass bigoted blind atheist on YT and 2) apparently the smart people don't comment LOL.
It's hard to respect a man that doesn't value life. Especially the life of a person that hasn't had a chance to experience it (28 day old babies). Essentially because of people like himself (Peter) with such extreme views if every country were secularized how could people come to conclusions on any laws at all? I feel that we would experience another series of civil wars fought now over who should make morals. Either way we are all screwed lol.
You can't find logical inconsistency with his arguments therefore you are goind ad hom on him?Wow...simply wow...I'm an atheists but there is no denying he won this debate(which doesn't make him right by the way,fallacy called pleeding to authority)
Dinesh D'Souza again chooses a dishonest approach. Attack his opponent with a personal smear campaign then spout lies about how Christianity stopped slavery. He then claims that Christians are morally superior to the baby killing atheists and how the Bible invented democracy. He always uses tired old debunked arguments. I consider that intellectual dishonesty.
I LOVE IT!! All of the opponents of what Dinesh has to say (for the most part, I'd say 90%) are merely champions of making insults. -Says MUCH to YOUR beliefs!
Lovely description of Euthanasia Dinesh.... WTF? Who hands these people credibility? Who puts them in the same room as Singer, Fry, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett etc...
Whoever said Dinesh was a dirty debater was being lenient. Waste of space.
Prohibition against the deliberate killing of innocents is an "Immanation" of Christianity? Christian morality? Compassion came into the world because of Christianity? Is D'Souza completely mentally challenged? Those things all pre-date Christianity - buddhists taught compassion before 400 BCE -- I guess this is how you debate when you have no actual facts to support your position
@ComprehendingChaos : Maybe he did that and decided it would be better to completely misrepresent Singer's views because that would make it easier to make his point. Don't expect intellectual honesty from Christians defending their delusions.
@ComprehendingChaos its a debate tactic. he's appealing to emotion, i can't think of a debate where the opponent of a view BIASLY introduces it before the other debater has a chance to talk, haha this guy was like 'this guy is EVIL but wait lets stop to think about what we said he's not evil just the product of secularism' oh boy. glad someone else caught this guys utter irrational assumptions, sigh language games.
@ComprehendingChaos All critics of Singer misrepresent his views. Plenty of people have called him the most dangerous man alive. A soft spoken professor that says we should consider the consequences of our actions on thinking beings is definitely not the most dangerous man in the world.
That the American Republicans and right-wing is intellectually bankrupt is manifestly obvious in its having to rely on corporate lapdogs like D'souza - this fast-talking juvenile is there to fill the vacuum.
@newfoundart Umm, "intellectually bankrupt?" So taking the life of the unborn isn't "killing," it's actually "choice?" People who steal into this country without permission aren't "illegal," they're "undocumented?" The folks who killed thousands on 911 weren't "terrorists," they were actually, "freedom fighters?" -Unaccountable stats aren't lies, THEY'RE SAVED OR CREATED?? ...sigh
@newfoundart Not even Hitchens himself would make a claim like this. Infact if you ever seen one of Dinesh's book, Hitchens wrote a comment on the back, complimenting Dinesh as a great debator.
@fabs038 Haha! Nice semantics. As though there is no racism against people from Central Asia. Dumbass. Racists like you base their hatred on appearance, not traits that are carried in DNA. So drop the charade. Reagan was senile, but with senility, he operated better than Obamanation, and Bubba Clinton. Poverty is the worst under Obummer than any president on record, including Reagan.
@fabs038 Haha. you lose. Unfortunately, my post had way more intellectual merit than yours. You ignorant racist. You just got your ass kicked by a Christian, ignoramus!!
@fabs038 Haha! Now you know what it is like to be a Tea Partier!! Welcome to the pain, Mr Racist. Your intellectual opposition to the pro-life stance is clearly a coverup for the fact that you can't stand people of other races. Just like conservative opposition to socialism and universal healthcare are actually racism in disguise.
The best deconstruction of Reagan Token Darkey ... urrr ... I mean, Dinesh D'Souza's value as an "intellectual" (or lack thereof), can be found in Joan Didion's 'Political Fictions.'
Dissapointed in Dinesh D'souza. I mean, i was going to support singer anyway, but i must say that D'souza seems to be a a bit of a moron... poor show, and he needs to do more research on singer's writings.
DISTORT D'TRUTHA
novalis157 3 days ago
some really good stuff here
thejameskan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Put an end to all of the guilt that you hold inside. Start life over with the slate wiped clean.
Cut and paste URL into browser address bar:
beginarelationship.blogspot.com
paularenas26 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You should repent. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
paularenas26 2 weeks ago
Dear world.
No need to apologies, it was "my" fault to allow their genes to survive. But i have every faith that your kind in general can deal with this slight mistake i made.
Sorry & Thank you
Nature
BadYahtzee 1 month ago
Listen to this snake smear Singer!
Fjordgnu 1 month ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer
What a great opportunity for D'Sousa. He wins just by stepping up to the podium when his opponent is Singer. This is as if Hitchens were debating the Rev. Phelps (of the Westboro Baptist Church). It is with pure disgust that I see D'Sousa underhandedly equate Singer with "secularism."
skat1140 1 month ago
Dear India,
You think you need be sorry? I have to apologise for Ray Comfort.
Kind regards,
New Zealand.
Knight2e5 1 month ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer 3
@Knight2e5 I feel your pain. I actually thought the banana man was from USA.
nsugathadasa 3 weeks ago
Dear World,
Please accept our apologies for producing this clown.
I hope you can look into your hearts and forgive us because we have produced great thinkers like buddha in the ancient times and Chandrasekhar in recent times.
Sorry and thank you,
India.
nsugathadasa 1 month ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer 20
@nsugathadasa He was brought up in America, no? And his thinking, I don't think, reflects any traditional darshanas, nor nastika.
gyniest 1 week ago
Before D'Souza even makes any statements in his OPENING STATEMENT he essentially introduces Fisher as pro-death. How underhanded and ad hominem driven is this asshole?
TheGerogero 1 month ago
In my country there was a televised discussion 20 years ago about a euthanasia pill that people could get from their doctor if they felt they had enough of life - mentally that is, not just 'hopeless physical suffering' which is the criterium for euthanasia in my country now. It was a 50/50 outcome. Recently they asked the same people (the ones that are still living) the same: now they are 100% pro choice. They were being philosophical and religious at the time, but are old and wise now.
whauffend 3 months ago
in a prechristian world, why does Mr. Dinesh only focus on the western world? What about ancient india/china/korea/japan/africa, or aboriginal and native american societies? They were without the christian notion of god, or without gods entirely, yet ideas of compassion and women's rights and greater equality still existed. In ancient india, there were also great philosophers that insisted on logic and reasoning over faith and prayer. I hope Mr. Dinesh will consider other cultures, not just west
risingsun08107 5 months ago
This is just the tip of the iceberg as to what can happen if Singer's idiotic drivel is ever adopted as public policy. Search in an AP article from August 14, 2011 entitled, "Eugenics victim, son fighting together for justice." Singer's crap has been tried before by progressives in American and Germany and we all know where that lead. Millions being killed. Don't pretend to know which side of the killing process you or your family will be eventually be on if you tolerate this maniac's ideas.
MrFreeLibertarian 5 months ago
why don't these guys consider values and how values work outside of western society? what about the values of ancient china, india, aztecs, mayans, or indigenous societies around the world?
risingsun08107 6 months ago
Dsouza ,is hard to listen too:(
spinlessbastard1 6 months ago
Im reading these comments, as someone who actually seeks the truth and as a former atheist, it's so sad to see how many atheists take religion and distort it to make it something it's not. They will go to their deaths trying to disclaim religion. It's really depressing, that's probably why there are no theists responding, it seems like it's not even worth it...
I know i'll get alot of shit for saying this, but it had to be said.
If you respond please cite 3 things that Dsouza "lied" about.
JohnLions 8 months ago
Comment removed
DamLazyFuk 8 months ago
@JohnLionsAs a former Christian, it disturbs me...
Two can play that game, dipshit. Nobody buys your mentally deficient drivel.
DamLazyFuk 8 months ago
It's not that he's lying, it's that he's wrong. He made a lot of "I take Singer to be saying..." statements, which are presumably true in that he presumably really does think that's what Singer says, but he's just wrong about a lot of the positions. Either he's a terrible reader or he didn't make any effort to read Singer's work.
DrazharX 8 months ago
@DrazharX What makes you assume D'Souza is is sincere? His intellectual gifts, to be sure, are very modest but he's not a blithering idiot, and moreover you clearly know very little of this odious little weasel's (publicly accessible) history. Thinking that D'Souza is sincere is tantamount to thinking Kissinger is sincerely convinced of the righteousness of his war crimes, or, on a more plebeian level, of thinking that pro wrestling is real.
polymath7 7 months ago
@polymath7 Fair enough. Let's not restrict our speculation to a single cause. I suspect his comments can be traced to both deliberate duplicity and more innocuous intellectual incompetency.
DrazharX 7 months ago
@JohnLions He claimed that the universe has a beginning (he's been corrected by real physicists). He claimed that he believed God couldn't make the universe with different rules. He claimed that the universe is fine-tuned. If you think an atheist is distorting your religion, then he must not be talking directly to you about your exact religion. But I ask you, if you are a christian why would a good God create animals that suffer.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
Comment removed
JohnLions 8 months ago
There can't be a God. Not possible. God would not allow fails like D'Souza if He loved us. ^.^
LivelyPickl 9 months ago
Peter Singer is basically evil incarnate.
MrFreeLibertarian 10 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian many well educated people basically wouldn't agree with you.
lanceawatt 10 months ago 13
@lanceawatt Yes but the the intelligent ones do! Being "well educated" and intelligent are two very different things, but I'm sure you know that...
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian lets not attempt to wallow in ambiguity here. What we define as well educated is 'access to and the successful interpretation of information' of which the academic community holds as either logically coherent or justified true belief.
So intellect may be a necessary condition of being well educated, but it is not sufficient. An intelligent person may be brainwashed and subjected to limited reasoning, so unless well educated, he shouldn't be seen with credentials.
lanceawatt 6 months ago
@lanceawatt Singer's supporters are NOT well educated based on the answers I'm getting here. The interpretations of his works have not been successfully interpreted and I don't see any logical coherent argument as to why it would be OK to kill healthy newborn babies. What I see is actually a lot of brainwashed non-thinkers, who have been told hat Singer is great, so that is the filter through which they interpret his drivel. Unless of course you think killing healthy children is OK. Do You?
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian your question on whether it is OK to kill infants.
Healthy? Absolutely not, also on grounds of preference utilitarianism and a diminished sense of humanity that may result. Singer also does not advocate this.
Seriously disabled? If I my child would live an agonizing, short life, then I would definitely consider it. The choices we make are not always easy but we have to cherish the integrity of our decisions in a way that benefits the interests of those we love.
lanceawatt 6 months ago
@lanceawatt Forget disabled and forget preference utilitarianism. Let' cut to the chase. You're playing with words by saying Singer doesn't "advocate" the killing of children as though it's apples and oranges between outright advocation of killing newborns and the suggesting that it is not immoral to do. Tell me, if it is not immoral to kill newborns because they are not human, could we eat them as well like we do veal? If not, why not?
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian 1st. Newborns are humans, just not yet developed defining characteristics of personhood. 2nd, Singer believes causing suffering to animals is immoral, and this would include newborns. I agree with him. Do you?
3rd it IS immoral to kill a newborn unless it greatly diminishes its suffering and its interests are taken into consideration. 4th therefore utilitarianism must be part of the question because it determines the consequences of an action in a given situation.
lanceawatt 6 months ago
@lanceawatt p 182, Practical Ethics: "The diff between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life...but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents." "So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents." Singer is clearly saying that it is not immoral for parents to kill a healthy child.
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian thats right. 'One' important reason 'normally'. Not 'only' reason. This is where it is taken out of context.
If Singer assumes that there is nothing wrong with infanticide then why does he advocate preference utilitarianism (morality in regard to the preferences of those affected)? There are compelling reasons to believe infanticide is detrimental to P.U.
Either he's not being logically coherent within his own frame of argument.
Or you are taking his argument out of context.
lanceawatt 6 months ago
@lanceawatt I am not taking him out of context. His context is clear: NORMAL, nonsentient beings have no right to life on their own. In other words, if the killing is OK with the parents, it's OK with him. This is exactly what preference utilitarianism is. Since nonsentient healthy children are not capable of having a preference, their well being is irrelevant. The only consideration is the welfare of adults. That's how he concludes that killing healthy children is not necessarily immoral.
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@lanceawatt Also education and morality are two separate things. Being well educated doesn't mean you're not evil. Anyone who truly understands Peter SInger and agrees with him is just sick regardless of how many years they have studied. Peter Singer is similar to doctor Josef Mengele and other Nazi eugenicists and Singer's followers are similar to blind Nazis. I'm not saying this to be obnoxious. I'm making a legitimate comparison.
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian lol. Comparing Peter Singer with Nazi's? Let me make a very clear distinction here. Singer's philosophy is fundamentally about enhancing the well being of conscious life. Not entirely sure what your doctor Mengele was doing in his free time but I'm guessing it's probably not on creating ways of enhancing general well being.
And to assume enhancing conscious life is not what morality is about is simply absurd. If not about our well being than what could it possibly be about?
lanceawatt 6 months ago
@lanceawatt What you are saying is complete BS. His chapter called "Justifying Infanticide" says it all. Is suggesting that it is NOT immoral to kill a healthy newborn baby what you call "enhancing general well being"? Have you actually read his books? You can search Google books and actually read online "Justifying Infanticide." He is very clear that it is arguably not immoral to kill a child up until the age of 2. The fact that he also talks about other beneficial things is irrelevant.
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian man I am not going to read a 100 page practical ethics scholarship because I've been learning his principles in many aspects of my education.
Singer is an advocate of 'preference utilitarianism' - enhancing preferences for 'sentient beings'. Is it enhancing the preferences of conscious life by killing them? Of course not.
What he does do is highlight hypocrisy in the face of killing animals for personal satisfaction through example of self awareness that of a 3 year old.
lanceawatt 6 months ago
@lanceawatt 2 days ago you accused me of regurgitating other people's criticisms that took his positions "out of context " but now it's you who admits that you have not read Singer carefully or at all. Aren't you embarrassed by the hypocrisy? Apparently It is you has uncritically swallowed information about Singer spoon fed to you by someone else. Singer thinks it is not immoral to kill newborn babies. This is a fact. Do you agree with him on this or not? Answer the question.
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian no I have studied his work carefully. Singer doesn't advocate killing without critically assessing the outcome on whether it enhances general well being.
However he says that infants can't have as strong a claim to life as humans that actually have self awareness because they are not self conscious - i.e. less conscious than a cow.
If you eat meat then your saying you accept killing more aware and conscious creatures than infants! Profound if you consider these implications.
lanceawatt 6 months ago
Comment removed
lanceawatt 6 months ago
@lanceawatt Also my Nazi comparison is accurate. Singer is simply applying to children under 2, what Hitler did to the Jews. It's simply infanticide versus genocide--each similarly justified by calling the target not human. Singer himself uses the word "infanticide" and suggests that children perhaps as old as 2 or 3 really have no right to life. Tell me how this is any different than how Hitler thought and what he did to the Jews as a result?
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@lanceawatt Education does not bring wisdom.
bandiit17 2 months ago
@bandiit17 but to not educate oneself will hinder wisdom.
lanceawatt 2 months ago
@MrFree our indecision and weakness due to short term thinking and not willing to make sacrifices now to save us from more suffering later is much of what singer is about... sure, it sounds like nazi stuff and weirdo lefty extremism come full circle into dictatorship sociopathology, but i think he has some unassailable logic with some of his sick stuff, or really SEEMINGLY sick stuff, that REALLY would save us suffering long term... like killing toddlers for instance...LOL, wow, thats tough!
glorp896 9 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian How so? What about him is evil?
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 Search on Peter Singer infanticide. This evil man actually puts forth the idea in (Writings on an Ethical Life) that killing a newborn baby or even a child up to the age of two is no different than killing a fetus in the womb. This guy is just a sick, twisted freak.
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian It's 30 days is the age he gives. Moral philosophers are meant to challenge the traditional view of societal morals. If you follow his reasoning it makes sense. You've only heard the criticisms of him that take him out of context. If you read Principal Ethics, it will give you a new light on what he is actually saying. He is a professor who says that we should view the consequences of our actions on thinking beings. That is his whole philosophy.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 No. You are incorrect. You have not read what he says carefully. He is clearly saying it is OK to kill children after they are born simply because they are not yet human and that they generally don't become human until about 2 tears old. What you are saying is absolute nonsense. Would it be appropriate in the sense of "challenging traditional views" to suggest eating children as well? This is evil and the fact that this man is educated is irrelevant. He's a very sick man.
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian I have. He says very specifically that there is no moment in which they become "persons" not humans, and the moment of conception is not some miracle in which someone becomes a person. He thinks it's wrong to kill all thinking beings and that includes newborns, but in the case of severely developmentally disabled newborns infanticide is a better option than keeping them alive. I'm telling you you have only read the criticisms of him which take him out of context.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 No you are simply wrong. You cannot read the chapter entitled, "justifying Infanticide" from Practical Ethics and say that he limits his killing to the disabled. He clearly states that "no infant--disabled or not--has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time". This is not a criticism I read from somebody else. It is the man's own words. You are simply choosing to ignore them for reasons that I cannot imagine.
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian You are right, they don't have as strong as a right to life as actually persons. That's not what you said. You claimed that he said they didn't have a right to life. There is a tremendous difference. That's slimy to say the least. When he justifies infanticide he is saying when you way the benefit to the child to the benefit of a parent. In what way is that evil? How can you justify calling that evil?
ExSaint1379 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 You are simply a moron. You cannot understand simple concepts. I am done wasting my time. I'm not sure what your game is. Maybe you're a contrarian. Maybe your reading comprehension is subpar. Maybe you've just been indoctrinated. I don't know, but Singer is very clear about his beliefs, which are indefensible to a sane person. I'm done debating whether or not 2+2=5. If you really are interested in the truth, I am truly sorry that you are not capable of understanding it.
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
@ExSaint1379 I'll make a correction. Instead of saying no "sane" person, I'll change that to say no moral, decent person. There are plenty of sane, immoral people in the world. That's why many states have the death penalty.
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrFreeLibertarian 6 months ago
What a dickhead, D'Souza is - launching into a blantant attempt to turn the audience against his opponent before his opponent says a word.
macroman52 11 months ago
Out of all the religious debaters D'souza is probably the slimiest
TheOmegajuice 11 months ago
i'm looking at this video for the first time,and even at the begining i notice how this guy doesn't understand what singer is talking about,he's simply twisting his words,as the most people do when they critisize singer..i'm wondering if those people simply don't get his thesis or they're consciously choosing to ignore them,without trying to understand..
billyjane22 11 months ago
It's so amazing how you atheists can't admit defeat. Even when it's as clear as this. Dinesh=3 - Dennett, Singer, Hitchens=0
Anyone with an open mind can clearly see that Dinesh won those 3 debates.
BTW, I'm not religious. I just see things for how they are...
buitrami 11 months ago
@buitrami "Anyone with an open mind can clearly see that Dinesh won those 3 debates."
It is possible to be so open-minded that your brain falls out....
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : As long as you're rational, stick to the evidence and remain sceptical (as in : not accepting anything uncritically) there's nothing wrong with being openminded to ANY idea presented to you. The problem arises when people are irrational, ignore the evidence and/or just blindly believe whatever is presented to them. You shouldn't confuse being openminded with being gullible.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
"You shouldn't confuse being openminded with being gullible." ~ OOTB
I didn't, and wouldn't. I simply disagree that with a sufficiently open mind, it is safe to conclude that Dinesh won. I insist that your mind would have to be SO open to miracles and the supernatural to accept Dinesh's arguments that your brain is no longer functioning rationally; ergo, "so open that your brain falls out."
It's not gullibility that I cite as a problem, but a faulty epistemology upon which to ground beliefs.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Rp5515 : Dinesh won the debate in the sense that he managed to keep the mostly Christian audience satisfied with their beliefs because he gave them enough logical fallacies to soothe their minds and ignore anything Singer had to say. This is typical for this format of debate and the reason Christians like it. Regardless of how openminded you are, there is no way Dinesh remotely makes a valid point when judging him by rational standards alone... even if you believe the supernatural is possible.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : And that was my point. A truely openminded person would never dismiss either UFOs, ghosts, Gods or other seemingly farfetched ideas without considering the arguments for it. A critical mind, however, will analyse the arguments for each of these claims and agree that the evidence is not satisfactory for either the existence of UFOs, ghosts or Gods. Being openminded and critical is perfectly compatible. It's not a matter of being too openminded, it's a matter of not being critical.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"A truely openminded person would never dismiss [stuff] without considering the arguments for it." ~ OOBT
"I didn't, and wouldn't. I simply disagree that with a sufficiently open mind, it is safe to conclude that Dinesh won" ~ RP
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
I think my first answer wasn't fair, let me try to clarify. By "sufficiently open mind" I mean a mind willing to engage an argument, or accept a premise, that deserves engagement or acceptance, by virtue of previous experience or verifiable information. My implied response, therefore, is that it is possible to engage arguments or accept premises which do not deserve such treatment, and then end up at a truly ludicrous conclusion. It is, therefore, possible to be too open-minded.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : My point was that when you stay rational and stick with the evidence, there is no way to end up at a truly ludicrous conclusion, regardless of how openminded you are! Even if you're absolutely open to the idea of the Christian God, the Queen of England being a shapeshifting Reptilian or the earth being Hollow and having an entrance at each pole, the lack of evidence for either claim forces one to reject such claims until reliable evidence emerges. If you don't, you're irrational
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Take a look at Hume's discussion of miracles in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding; your answer is lurking in those pages.
You suggest we wait until evidence rolls in, but remain open to the possibility of an aberration of the natural order, while I would put such claims in the same grave as the rest of them through the ages, without any sense of my being too "closed-minded". Such a claim, if true, would bear with it sufficient evidence to overwhelm any skepticism.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : The problem is that our intuitive sense of what's reasonable or plausible doesn't always match reality. For example, general relativity and string theory are still considered the most plausible theories for explaining the reality we live in while both theories are extremely counterintuitive. When we reject certain ideas immediately (ie without looking into the evidence) we do so based on our intuitive sense of plausibility and is far from always a good idea.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
I think you are missing the distinction between being open minded to the EVIDENCE for a proposition, and simply being open minded to a proposition. I reject propositions for which there is no evidence, especially when such propositions (like your queen of england example) go against all previous observations of what is possible. If evidence were to surface, of the sort that supports other verified facts or theories, I would change my mind.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
This doesn't make me dogmatically closed-minded, it just puts me safely in the realm of intellectual skepticism. Given the myriad failed claims of that sort, and the sort that surround every religious tradition, I am confident in stating that such things did not happen (i.e. rejecting the claim). It isn't about intuition, and, for the record, String Theory is not on the same level as General Relativity. ST has not, as far as I know, made any testable predictions, while GR has made thousands.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
Is it POSSIBLE that String Theory is correct? Absolutely. Is it the default position to accept is as PLAUSIBLE? Absolutely not. Replace 'String Theory' with deism, pantheism, Russell's Teapot, etc. and you start to get my point (hopefully).
It is good to be open minded when it comes to the evidence for a proposition, but it is not helpful to be open minded a priori to every random claim about events in this world. Some are simply ridiculous, and can and should be rejected outright.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : I agree with pretty much everything you said in each of your three comments except your last paragraph. How can you a priori decide whether or not a claim is ridiculous? A few centuries ago it seemed ridiculous to think the earth is round, but now we all know it's a fact... only because some sceptics decided to look into the evidence and found it compelling. Until you first look into the evidence either in favor or against it, no claim can be dismissed as too ridiculous !
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
It is common for arguments of this sort to cite things that were previously thought to be ridiculous, like the shape of the earth, and then point out how it was true. This is then the vehicle by which all manner of absurd notions are introduced as not just possible, but plausible. The problem is the myriad of OTHER claims made, to lesser and greater degrees of extravagance, which have turned out to be facetious. A simple examination of probability negates this argument.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : Not really. How can you differentiate the myriad of other claims from the handful of claims that are in fact true without looking into the evidence first? Only by looking at the evidence can you distinguish what IS absurd and what only SEEMS absurd.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
" How can you differentiate the myriad of other claims from the handful of claims that are in fact true without looking into the evidence first?" ~ OOTB
OOTB, meet Russell's teapot. Some claims are simply ridiculous by their very nature, and do not deserve the "due consideration" you seem to be advocating.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : How do you distinguish what's ridiculous by its very nature and does not deserve "due consideration" from claims that ARE worth considering? That's where our opinions seem to differ. I've debated quite a few intellectuals on numerous topics and often noticed that what some considered self-evident was too ridiculous to consider for others and vice versa. There is really no objective standard to make such differentiation. There only is bias, which is subjective and unreliable.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
The famous quote by David Hume regarding the virgin birth of Jesus becomes salutary here; "What is more likely, that a virgin could conceived or that a jewish minx would tell a lie?"
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : The idea of the virgin birth of Jesus can easily be rejected because there's no evidence to support it and because there are various plausible alternate explanations (see eg. Richard Carrier) that do not contradict our understanding of the natural world, unlike the virgin birth or other fantastic claims in the Bible. All we have is unreliable eye witness testimony which wouldn't survive a cross examination in a modern day court room.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker "All we have is unreliable eye witness testimony..."
We don't even have that, or anything *remotely* like it.
Eyewitnesses breathe, and have eyes.
You're being far, far too generous. It baffles me that so many atheists casually, unwittingly make this utterly extraneous concession.
This is NOT a subtle distinction.
polymath7 7 months ago
@polymath7 : The eye witnesseses of most events that ever took place in human history are now dead. Some are reliable, others have added fantastical elements to their stories and yet other testimonies are purely fictional. The Bible is no different than other historical sources that claim to contain eye witness testimony (many of them being totally fictional) and that was basically my point. I do not grant the Bible any more reliability than eg. the tales of King Arthur.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 7 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Better, but (forgive me) you obviously have a very sketchy notion of the epistemic standards upon which ancient history is based. To begin, sources must be mutually referential with (ie, mention by name ) several other disparate sources and they must largely concur with each in their accounts before they are even on the table as worthy of serious assessment.
There is nothing even loosely analogous to this in the Bible. That's why you're spot-on with King Arthur.
polymath7 7 months ago
@polymath7 : I don't think I said anything in any of my comments that disagrees with what you're saying here and I see no reason why I should have since I agree with you completely. Maybe my statements lacked a bit of nuance, but when limited to 500 characters that's simply inevitable. Don't assume I have a poor understanding of scientific standards just because I don't nuance every little tidbit. We're talking about YouTube comments here, not academic dissertations.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 7 months ago
It should be noted in this context that the flat-earth idea was not established by any testing, or data. It was simply the result of tradition and ignorance. The only evidence gathered on the subject called the flat-earth hypothesis into question, and nothing but appeals to ignorance supported it. In our present status of scientific understanding, knowledge hard-won by men from all times and climes, such sweeping changes to the current model are simply untenable, and rejected for cause.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
It is not necessary to be "open minded" to the idea of human flight without the aid of technology, or heresy regarding miraculous occurrences that contradict the known workings of nature, etc. Once you understand what a person is claiming, if that claim is in violation of everything we know about a particular natural law, a priori rejection is the only intelligible course. This is why I distinguish between being open to EVIDENCE for a claim, and simply being open to a claim.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : I don't see any way to distinguish being open to evidence for a claim from being open to a claim. The only way to judge the accuracy of any claim is by looking at the evidence for it, so unless you're willing to submit to authority and accept certain claims on the basis of faith (as religious people tend to do) being open to a claim forces you to examen the evidence.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
"The only way to judge the accuracy of any claim is by looking at the evidence for it"
OR, consider the implications of it's being true. Human flight without the aid of technology would conflict with gravity, relativity, biology, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, etc, etc. It is not necessary to "examine the evidence", this claim is ridiculous BY IT'S NATURE.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : With regards to the inability of humans to fly without the aid of technology, our knowledge of the relevant fields of science as well as the lack of any historical precedent could be considered sufficient evidence to reject the idea. I reject the idea of human flight without technology not due to lack of evidence in favor but due to sufficient evidence against it.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
"I reject the idea of human flight without technology not due to lack of evidence in favor but due to sufficient evidence against it." ~ OOTB
Which is precisely my point. You reject it prior to examine the evidence because of the nature of the claim. We appear to have reached agreement.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@R5515:No I do not. As soon as someone comes up with evidence that suggests humans can in fact fly and have flown in the past without using any technology, I will at least take a short peek at the evidence to see where there people are coming from. If that can't convince me, at least they can offer a good laugh or a psychological insight. The latter is, in fact, one of the reasons I like to watch Christians defend their primitive belief system. To me, it's both funny and psychologically relevant
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
"As soon as someone comes up with evidence..." ~ OOTB
"This is why I distinguish between being open to EVIDENCE for a claim, and simply being open to a claim." ~ RP
Prior to them presenting evidence for human flight WOtAoT, is this a claim we can safely and intelligently reject?
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : We can reject the idea of human flight without the use of technology ONLY because there's sufficient evidence AGAINST it. You seem to be confusing lack of evidence for a claim with evidence against a claim.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
OK, then we agree that any claim that violates what we know to be true about the world can be rejected prior to "examining the evidence" IN FAVOR.
Now you suggest that there are some claims which do not have necessary contradictions with reality as we understand it. This is a claim like Bertrand Russell's teapot, in which rejection due to a simple LACK of evidence is a sound judgement. Please tell me why you're still open to the idea of Russell's orbiting teapot.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : As a programmer, I consider the universe equivalent to a giant quantum computer program. Naturalists suggest this computer spontaneously developed without any conscious interference. Pantheists / pandeists suggest this computer is conscious and programmed itself. Both hypotheses are unproven and rest on an implausible assumption, yet imo they're still the only two remotely plausible explanations.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
"Both hypotheses are unproven and rest on an implausible assumption" ~ OOTB
I disagree that the naturalist hypothesis rests upon an "implausible" assumption. I could concede it is a counter-intuitive concept, but implausible? By what metric would you categorize it as "implausible"?
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Reerrpad5515 : How is the idea of a complex selforganising universe with complex selforganising biology generating spontaneously without any purpose or directing force plausible?
I noticed you did not mention the pantheist/pandeist hypothesis as plausible. Could you explain why you regard this as less plausible? All it adds to the universe is one or more levels of consciousness.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"...spontaneously without any purpose or directing force..." ~ OOTB
Since you put it that way... seriously, though, who has claimed this? Are you suggesting no CONSCIOUS force? Or NO force. No one suggested that there is NO force, i.e. no source or explanation. The claim is that there is no CONSCIOUS source or explanation. Still not seeing how this is implausible.
"I noticed you did not mention...[blah blah]" ~ OOTB
I didn't say "less plausible"; 'not mentioning' =/= rejecting.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@buitrami
Wrong. Dinesh loses. Point out one single argument he makes that wins over Singer. Just one.
msteele79 11 months ago
LOL @ the concept of morality coming from Christianity.
msteele79 1 year ago
@msteele79
it is the concept of OUR morality coming from Christianity, all societies have SOME morality.
Califacience 11 months ago
@Califacience
Unjustified assertion.
msteele79 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@msteele79
insubstantial thinker.
Califacience 11 months ago
"Compassin is a value that came into the world because of christianity." Does this man have no self respect? Christanity borrows most of its theological system from Judaism. It is accurate to call compassion a judeo-christian value, however dinesh's statment is obviously untrue.
goethethegreat 1 year ago
Massive historical distortions here. Slavery was ubiquitous in christian countries for a very long time. Somtimes Dinesh comes off as historicall ignorant (highly biased as well).
goethethegreat 1 year ago
@goethethegreat Well his time frame is off (severely so) but slavery became pretty rare in Western Europe between the 11th and 16th century (which is the the historical period in which Christian Europe came into it's own) . The Feudal system made it largely unnecessary,
Califacience 11 months ago
"slavery became pretty rare in Western Europe between the 11th and 16th century (which is the the historical period in which Christian Europe came into it's own)" ~ CF
Yes, and the puritans broke away from the church in the latter half of this time period, colonized the east coast of the Americas, and slavery "came into it's own" again among those pious settlers with fresh recruits from the African continent.
Christianity "came into it's own" in 4th ce. Rome, shortly before that empire fell.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@Califacience The idea is that slavery was considered to be fine in christian-run/influenced countries for quite a bit of history .
goethethegreat 11 months ago
D'Souza begins with an ad hominem attack. Classic strategy of an angry man with the weaker position.
I also love his historical argument. Delightfully cherry-picking facts to support his argument when it is clear that Christianity in no way reduced the amount of barbarism in the world. Need evidence? Just look at the Crusades, serfdom (motivated by the great chain of being), the Inquisition etc. Absolutely brutal, just like pagan practices.
TheOverworker 1 year ago
Comment removed
horsie111 1 year ago
wait a minute: I'm 2:30 into this debate and I find out that Singer believes in the killing of infants up to 28 days? ....
.....dayum! you atheists on here are some .SERIOUSLY DUMB FUCKS to ride D'Souze and gloss over Singer.
blindness causes such things i suppose.
EastofForever 1 year ago
looking at the comments here leads me to two conclusions: 1) there are some stupidass bigoted blind atheist on YT and 2) apparently the smart people don't comment LOL.
EastofForever 1 year ago
It's hard to respect a man that doesn't value life. Especially the life of a person that hasn't had a chance to experience it (28 day old babies). Essentially because of people like himself (Peter) with such extreme views if every country were secularized how could people come to conclusions on any laws at all? I feel that we would experience another series of civil wars fought now over who should make morals. Either way we are all screwed lol.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
Comment removed
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
Fantastic!
Love,
TheAngel . com
HowDareWe 1 year ago
by far the dumbest Indian i have ever seen !!!
ps. i have seen some really smart Indians when i was an undergrad.
but this piece of shit .... whyy did we ever give him citizenzhip ?
maybe, just shows how broken our borders are !!!
sonicbreaker00 1 year ago
@sonicbreaker00
You can't find logical inconsistency with his arguments therefore you are goind ad hom on him?Wow...simply wow...I'm an atheists but there is no denying he won this debate(which doesn't make him right by the way,fallacy called pleeding to authority)
MeetYourMeaker 1 year ago
Dinesh is a foolish child and shows here great lows. A rat has a better clam to life than this fool.
snubface 1 year ago
"Euthanasia which is the practice of killing people that are old" -- Give me a fucking break.
RyanRedd 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza again chooses a dishonest approach. Attack his opponent with a personal smear campaign then spout lies about how Christianity stopped slavery. He then claims that Christians are morally superior to the baby killing atheists and how the Bible invented democracy. He always uses tired old debunked arguments. I consider that intellectual dishonesty.
kaduisaui 1 year ago
is he serious?.. is this debate a shit flinging match?
lukeism2 1 year ago
what is the title of the debate?
jackseneca 1 year ago
good clip !
interesting too - deepla impressed !!
interested in doing a clip together over distance ?
look oldvi.com
write to info@oldvi.com
ok ?
I surely write back !
I joined you - join me as well ?
Cheers Oldvi
OldviSinger 1 year ago
I turn the AC down to 58 rather than 78. Do you know why? Because I CAN!!!!
I AM AN AMERICAN BADASS!!!!!!~
mizzoulibertarian 1 year ago
I LOVE IT!! All of the opponents of what Dinesh has to say (for the most part, I'd say 90%) are merely champions of making insults. -Says MUCH to YOUR beliefs!
BarzOnTheWindow1 1 year ago
Lovely description of Euthanasia Dinesh.... WTF? Who hands these people credibility? Who puts them in the same room as Singer, Fry, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett etc...
Whoever said Dinesh was a dirty debater was being lenient. Waste of space.
TheDazmatron 1 year ago 2
Prohibition against the deliberate killing of innocents is an "Immanation" of Christianity? Christian morality? Compassion came into the world because of Christianity? Is D'Souza completely mentally challenged? Those things all pre-date Christianity - buddhists taught compassion before 400 BCE -- I guess this is how you debate when you have no actual facts to support your position
SirDarkStar 1 year ago
dinesh d'souza is an impressively idiotic idealogue
robertjohnson1337 1 year ago 4
Dinesh could at least glance over Peter Singer's Wikipedia page before spending nine minutes misrepresenting his views.
ComprehendingChaos 1 year ago 23
@ComprehendingChaos : Maybe he did that and decided it would be better to completely misrepresent Singer's views because that would make it easier to make his point. Don't expect intellectual honesty from Christians defending their delusions.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
@ComprehendingChaos its a debate tactic. he's appealing to emotion, i can't think of a debate where the opponent of a view BIASLY introduces it before the other debater has a chance to talk, haha this guy was like 'this guy is EVIL but wait lets stop to think about what we said he's not evil just the product of secularism' oh boy. glad someone else caught this guys utter irrational assumptions, sigh language games.
4296743 6 months ago
@ComprehendingChaos All critics of Singer misrepresent his views. Plenty of people have called him the most dangerous man alive. A soft spoken professor that says we should consider the consequences of our actions on thinking beings is definitely not the most dangerous man in the world.
ExSaint1379 6 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer
Fuck me, it's annoying when Dinesh tries to patent and claim all good moral principles for Christianity.
DogBoots77 1 year ago
Dinesh is RAD!
redlinegw 1 year ago
That the American Republicans and right-wing is intellectually bankrupt is manifestly obvious in its having to rely on corporate lapdogs like D'souza - this fast-talking juvenile is there to fill the vacuum.
newfoundart 1 year ago
@newfoundart Umm, "intellectually bankrupt?" So taking the life of the unborn isn't "killing," it's actually "choice?" People who steal into this country without permission aren't "illegal," they're "undocumented?" The folks who killed thousands on 911 weren't "terrorists," they were actually, "freedom fighters?" -Unaccountable stats aren't lies, THEY'RE SAVED OR CREATED?? ...sigh
BarzOnTheWindow1 1 year ago
@newfoundart Not even Hitchens himself would make a claim like this. Infact if you ever seen one of Dinesh's book, Hitchens wrote a comment on the back, complimenting Dinesh as a great debator.
opivy07 1 year ago 2
@opivy07 it's on the back of his book "Life After Death, The Evidence", Hitchens gave praise to a theist. i couldn't believe my eyes.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@opivy07 sarcasm
manonthemount 1 year ago
@fabs038
"What is it with the US and retarded Republican presidents?"
LOL!!
bapyou 1 year ago
@fabs038 All right, mr racist. We'll leave it at that.
RonaldReaganRocks1 1 year ago
@fabs038 Haha! Nice semantics. As though there is no racism against people from Central Asia. Dumbass. Racists like you base their hatred on appearance, not traits that are carried in DNA. So drop the charade. Reagan was senile, but with senility, he operated better than Obamanation, and Bubba Clinton. Poverty is the worst under Obummer than any president on record, including Reagan.
RonaldReaganRocks1 1 year ago
@fabs038 Haha. you lose. Unfortunately, my post had way more intellectual merit than yours. You ignorant racist. You just got your ass kicked by a Christian, ignoramus!!
RonaldReaganRocks1 1 year ago
@fabs038 Haha! Now you know what it is like to be a Tea Partier!! Welcome to the pain, Mr Racist. Your intellectual opposition to the pro-life stance is clearly a coverup for the fact that you can't stand people of other races. Just like conservative opposition to socialism and universal healthcare are actually racism in disguise.
RonaldReaganRocks1 1 year ago
@fabs038 You racist.
RonaldReaganRocks1 1 year ago
Dinesh is quite the dirty debater...
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago 18
Is it possible to dislike someone merely for their greasy side parting haircut?
THEHARMONIKZ 1 year ago 2
The best deconstruction of Reagan Token Darkey ... urrr ... I mean, Dinesh D'Souza's value as an "intellectual" (or lack thereof), can be found in Joan Didion's 'Political Fictions.'
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou "Darkey?" You are a racist. I am a Reaganite. and I would never use that word.
RonaldReaganRocks1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonaldReaganRocks1
"I am a Reaganite. and I would never use that word (darkey)."
... in public. Maybe.
Have you read Joan Didion's 'Political Fictions'? It contains the best criticism of D'Souza's so-called biography of Reagan extant.
bapyou 1 year ago
So much abstraction from primates! Wonderful.
endunamis 1 year ago
wow!! "christian morality forbids the killing of innocents..".?
his definition o inocent: everyone who worships the same god as me in the exact the same way a do
man what a prick...
Theropsienne 1 year ago
It's disgusting how Dinesh attempts to discredit his opponent before even discussing the topic at hand.
rolyan3 1 year ago 4
D'Souza has this uniquely priggish way about him. I would have a hard time believing him even if I believed him.
m0nkey13 1 year ago 4
Well, the very reason he is bringing up these nasty views of Singer is to show the logical consequences of atheism. Not ad hom at all.
Ace91939 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza sucks
includao 1 year ago
@includao Wow...quite the intellect you are.
CarlFargman 1 year ago
It physically hurts to hear d'souza speack.
His full "argument" is attacking singer personally, quotemining, semantic fallacy, and the rape of logic thought.
D'Souza should pay them.
But im deeply impressed that he doesn't just shout "infidel infidel!"
Would have been much shorter, and at leat it would have been logically coherent
diekerze 1 year ago 2
dinesh rocks!
srb00 1 year ago
D'Souza is an intellectual lightweight, always has been. Kudos for attempting to debate those who he is obviously inferior to though.
modernity2001 1 year ago
Dissapointed in Dinesh D'souza. I mean, i was going to support singer anyway, but i must say that D'souza seems to be a a bit of a moron... poor show, and he needs to do more research on singer's writings.
gits4eva 1 year ago
WTF this guy is an asshole
this isn't a debate this is just an insult fest
planeshaperman 1 year ago
Dinesh D"Souza is great! Im an atheist, but, D'Souza is awesome!
agriakorn 1 year ago
@agriakorn totally i strongly agree!
eugdog106 1 year ago
Thank you Lord for the master, Dinesh. He will keep shutting up some "intellectuals"... God bless everybody!
Kalakanis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can't stand how Dinesh refers to morality as christian morality rather than simply as human morality.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago