Even if you are on one side or the other, it should be very revealing that in debates like this; one side is crystal clear about the things they do know and let's you know about the things they don't know - while the other side is fuzzy about everything and as soon as they are "cornered" pulls out a completely different subject.
This kind of behaviour in it's self should be enough to judge, even if you haven't read all the arguments or have the education to critically judge what is being said.
@fjoo The thing is, depending on which side one is on, they may project that the one who is being 'cornered' and is pulling out 'irrelevant rhetoric' would be, by default, the side that one isn't on. As an atheist, I felt that Singer was being perfectly clear in his points and D'Souza dodged as many questions as possible. But christians might say, "No no, D'SOUZA is the clear one, Singer pulls out irrelevant Rhetoric!"
D'Souza: "Haven't you watched the nature channel?" and the audience sniggers! I do so pity those HALF-WIT BILE GOBBLERS... Not only is that rebuttal vacuous, Fisher dismantles it in no time at all. Also shows D'Souza's inability to participate in sound argumentation.
You have got to give it to Dinesh, no matter how dishonest and how preposterous he sounds, he keeps on arguing. He gets on his feet right away no matter how often he is KO.
I am going to accept Jesus as my savior simply to encourage Dinesh to keep on making a fool out of himself. He is making an argument, the logic behind it notwithstanding.
Oh, Jesus. D'Souza, truly, is one of the worst, more infuriating, fallacious idiots with academic pedantry that I have EVER seen or heard. So poor. Really, really poor as a debater. It's almost impossible to actually call this a debate. Singer is doing it alone.
You just can't have a meaningful discussion about religion and involving apologists in debates is like inviting a shark in your bathtub. Constructive debates are panels of two to six non-religious experts who speak, debate and take ample time to answer questions from the public. Those audience members who start reciting the bible and ask holy questions should be treated like we treat neofascist audience members: turn down their mike and explain to them that they are at the wrong meeting.
Is Dinesh deliberately intellectually bankrupt or does he actually think his arguments work? He is so fallacious its hard to believe he is being honest.
Dinesh is really getting on my nerves with his favorite "atheists have Christianity to thank for their moral values"-argument (a universal favorite of christian apologetics). He always relies heavily on the notion that evolution can't have produced altriustic tendencies. I wish that someone could clearly explain to him that this is simply wrong. I've seen him debate Hitchens and Singer and neither really attacked him on this. Someone call Dawkins, or Harris.
I am inclined to agree with you, politicians and men like Hitler will say and do anything to get in power. However Hitler never strayed from his methodologies and tactics once in power. So if what i feel like what your hinting at, that Hitler used Christian support to achieve his goals then turned his back on it in favor of a atheistic approach to power thus making Germany a atheist state, I feel you are either misunderstanding the argument or just tragically mislead. Germany was Christian.
@Drgamedood Yes I am well aware that Hitler was by no means a atheist (as one myself I am glad he isn't) What i was talking about was a argument i had with another person here that, as far as i could tell, was claiming that Hitler hid the fact he was atheist, and that since he was atheist Germany was, I tried to assert his personal beliefs matters little if the populace supported him as a christian, they made Germany christian by their support of his christian justified rhetoric.
@mexijs true. even if hitler was an atheist, the atrocities were carried out by the german christian population. in fact, nearly all germans were protestants or catholics during hitler's reign.
@Drgamedood Yes! justifying the action as christian makes it christian! ( IF of course your claim is supported by the full faith and compliance of the christian population that follows you at-large, in this case Germany) Personally i agree with you, Hitler was never atheist. claiming that Germany was a Atheist state is is foolish, and i suspect if was asked the German Nazis of the time they would be quite angry at the suggestion.
@Drgamedood Anyone can claim to be christian if they want. Living the life of a christian and following the "rules" of said religion is another thing. Most Italian mobsters especially in the past were church going Catholics. Did the murders they committed have anything to do with the church they decided to attend?
i think singers arguments are much better as well. but you can´t point out that dsouzas arguments are fallacious by they dsouzas arguments are fallacious...
Love the fallacies that can cme out of Denish. Still I laughed a lot with my friend trying to count and place the "Uhms" Denish constantly said as a response to not retorting fast enough.
I love how at 0:50 Peter looks like he's deciding whether or not to use his intellectual power to smite the frightend Dinesh's poor arguments, or be merciful and let him move on to the next question. It seems Dinesh was spared and allowed to continue making a fool out of himself.
This dinesh moron still doesn't get it, he still cannot prove that god exists and he cant answer peters questions. He just goes around and around, doesn't know when to throw in the towel...pathetic. These christians are scary their going to fu#$%^ up the world.
At 6.00 minutes D'Souza confirms his religion is based on fear of death. It is merely consolation for those that cannot face reality. Peter Singer is (I would suggest) not the person to debate this. but I urge everyone to consider his take on ethics, especially regarding animal rights.
Haha! I laughed out loud when he really inadequately TRIED to answer Singers question about why animals suffers! I can't believe that he actually got away with it! Did he really think that the audience were so stupid that he could pass that unnoticeably!?
Loved that smile on Singers face when Dinesh ''answered'' his question, it just gleamed of ''You just failed''.
Watch Hitchens vs. D'Souza to see a rough teabagging. It might make you feel better to see the slippery semi-logic exposed properly. D'Souza's rhetorical, ad-hominem attacks and questions, mockery and 'isn't it obvious?' tone of voice get wearing but Hitchens at least allows himself to return the favour
Debate over. Singer say at the end God is at least as possible as his unobservable universes. So glad we have that squared away. Now on to world hunger.
Atheists pontificate on the larger pattern of human suffering, rejecting in the process the Christian view they have not really understood in the first place. Dinesh is hitting a key point here.
So, let me get this straight. Gates and Buffet are products are products of a Christian society, and we should thank Christianity for that concept and charity. Yet Hitler and Stalin are to blamed totally on atheism. Because obviously, fascism is soooo different from religion.
@rolyan3 It is worth noting that Hitlers Nazi Germany is by no means Atheist, in fact Hitler often cloaked his actions in christian justification. There is no evidence that Nazi Germany was atheist, well it might have as much evidence as a Holocaust deniers have to prove their madness, any intellectually honest person should realize its bull.
@varoshah I say "cloaked" because I would like to think that the vitriol he spewed forth was by no means truly a good representation of christian ideals (I have known many honestly good christian poeple) but even if it was "cloaked" christian rhetoric, It was still the German Christian population that not only bought it, but supported it fully and completely. It matters little if it was "cloaked" or not if Christians accepted and supported it. Even if Hitler wasn't christian, his Germany was.
There is not one physicist on the planet who will say that he understands how the Universe got started, but D'Souza has the hubris to say that he knows.
Athiest - in a nut shell Arrogant self righteous and soulless
If you ask me its easier for one to say "there is no god" and I will do what I want than it is to say "there is a god and i will be held accountable for how I lived my life.
Read the comments on this page. They are all saying that Dinesh is so flawed in his reasoning and constantly being fallacious. And yet only one attempts at giving an example, and it wasnt a very good one. Atheists seem to be recruiting a lot of morons who cant back up what they say, only repeat word for word what is told to them by smarter atheists.
lmao. D'souza is rubbish. I hope that he doesn't get paid for this tripe. Most animals suffer because of other animals? What does he want. All the carnivores to become vegetarians? What a nitwit.
He should take a walk around a few lab's that experiment on animals. Then he may widen his narrow world view and get a clue.
I've met drunks in pubs who debate better than this buffoon D'Souza. Looking through youtube I've seen him in various debates. Why? Is he dirt-cheap or does he just get a stiffy by being screwed over by everyone he's put up against?
Singer: ...Did you want me to respond to that, or ask another question first?
D'souza: Well, let me take my turn, and then you can have yours!
Audience: Hee hee hee hee hee!!! Stupid atheist doesn't wanna play by the rules!
I am in danger of proving Dinesh's point about atheists, because I want to take a claw hammer to the face of every giggling idiot in that audience. (And Dinesh's, but that goes without saying.)
@ReaderDan I agree with you. I think Singer routs D'Sousa, and D'Sousa, at times, too, despite what people write on this board here. Both had their moments. But in general both did not impress.
Singer's treatment of the so called poblem of evil and suffering is quite sophomoric. Dinesh, although not the most rigorous of philosophers, clearly has the upper hand here.
D'Souza keeps blindly asserting that compassion does not "belong in a Darwinian universe" which is wrong and any evolutionary biologist will tell you that it is explicitly a part of Natural Selection..
Just check out "The battle at Kruger" here on YouTube to see compassion and solidarity in nature.
@MrAvenged Apologists are paid to be ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest and dodgy/vague/avoiding and redefine things or disassociate themselves from certain concept of their specific faith brought up by the opposition, in order to defend THEIR specific beliefs, which might not correspond completely to the beliefs of others who adhere to the same faith (e.g.: christianity). A good example of that would the recent afterlife debate between Hitchens, Harris Vs. Wolpe, Artson.
@MrAvenged that is what enoys me with Dinesh. Notice how he never answers a question. I wonder if he relizes this when he watches his own debates and read the comments. Maybe he has god so for up his ass that he doesn't even bother to even try to reason rational or say well I can't answer that question.. I am an atheist, I make mistakes, but I have enough integrity to prevent me from making claims I can't possibly proof.
@MrAvenged No one cares what they mean to you, your presuppositional, narrow minded and prejudice opinion doesn't really serve any purpose other than to make like-minded individuals feel comforted in their ignorance. Before the search for truth, before ANY search for truth, have an open mind.
I'm ashamed, as an atheist, that the vast majority of atheists are extremely arrogant, ignorant, angry and rude. Have the decency to take D'Souza and those like him seriously.
Christians have an idea of a heaven that's without suffering and perfect. Why not, if god is omniscient, benevolent, and omnipotent, just create that to begin with. This is the answer to Dinesh's question of what such a world would look like.
I think we should all question the logic of a story of an all knowing, all powerful god who creates faulty humans and them blames them for his own shortcomings.
He created this world perfect, even man, but He also didn't want to control us to love him, or make us robots so to say, so he gave us free-will. It's not His fault that we didn't want to listen to one particular rule from him, which is not to eat from the tree. Any other tree would have been fine, but we messed up, so we sinned. But for our own problem, He came down and let himself die (his son) for us. We're undeserving, but he loves us when we don't even love him. That's sad.
So you're saying that God created humans knowing full well we would disobey him? Or are you saying God isn't omnicient and had no idea this would happen? You either worship a god who knowingly permits suffering, or you worship a god limited in both knowledge and power. Why even worship such a god?
Let me ask you something, then. Yes, there is suffering in the world, but why did Jesus Christ have to suffer? He wasn't guilty and never did anything wrong. People thought he blasphemed God (because He claimed to be God, which He was). You know what's ironic? Psalm 22:14 states, "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels."
I am not Christian, but from what I understand, JC was actually GOD, who came to earth as a man and suffer for all of mankind's debt/sins. So therefore, all man has to do after jesus's death was to accept him and them they can go to heaven, etc
Isaiah 52:14, "As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men." Not only was Jesus wearing the Crown of Thorns, beard being plucked out, pierce in His side, being nailed to a Cross, back extremely beaten beyond belief, all of His bones out of joint -- being marred more than anyone -- He has suffered more than we can imagine. Today, someone may get into a wreck and die; burned alive;
head chopped off; it still won't compare to what Jesus Christ suffered. So yes, people do suffer because of sin, but it will never be as bad as what Jesus Christ went through. More than that, He suffered psychological and spiritual dismay in the Garden of Gethsemane; this caused His blood vessels in His face to burst. This wasn't caused by the physical pain that he went through; it was brought upon by the loss of contact with His father, as He knew no sin and became sin for us!
ake a second to look at your hands and realize what you can do with those; what you're capable of! It will show how inhumane you and I are. We can torture animals, make fun of kids for how they look, we are sickening and undeserving. Scourging Jesus Christ only represents how natural we are; and with Jesus Christs' unconditional love and willingness decided to say, "I will go through all this trouble for you; for the men that killed me.
Please, am I not doing enough? I love you so much, you can kill me, but please accept me!" Romans 5:7-8 says, "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." His blood is on our bodies, and we don't even want to take a shower.
He knew exactly what was going to happen, so He did something about it and sacrificed himself.
So this is why I worship such a God, because He loves me more than what I can imagine. He has done more things for me than I'll even understand, and He's changed my life and lead me to become an upcoming youth pastor. I hope you remember that, His blood is on our bodies, and we don't even want to take a shower. It's pitiful.
So what you're saying is that we're created sick and commanded to be well. It's like punishing a child with no legs for not being able to run a race. It's just ridiculous. I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously.
What makes you assume they are being punished? You can't take me seriously? You don't even want to acknowledge my comments. You don't have to take me seriously, that is okay, I know my truth.
We're all born with original sin, we're all born guilty, we're all born deserving of punishment. This is God's design. How could it be otherwise? He created the world and everything in it, including our free will. He created a system into which we can perpetually be found guilty. Born sick commanded to be well.
We inherited sin; it wasn't God's design. God's design, which is making the world perfect, we just ruined it. Read Genesis 3. "We're all born deserving of punishment." -- Jesus Christ (who was God in flesh) decided to take that punishment for us! That's the point of the Gospel (other than the Resurrection) which is the key most point of Christianity.
But it was God's design--by definition. Everything in this world is designed by God. Including us, including the free will God forces us to have. He created the world and left it in charge of two naked teenagers. Is this intelligent design? Even I could have figured out this would go wrong. You're saying God didn't see this one coming?
if you bring a child into a world of suffering and say that nothing justifies suffering you've perpetuated something that you've spoken out against which makes you a liar and a hypocrite.
it doesn't matter what you accept, it matters what is real. you brought a child into this world knowing the suffering that is in it. thus, if you are to hold God responsible for their fate you are also in line for the responsibility of their suffering.
if there is no God then all things are permissible. - dostoyevsky
what that means is that the suffering inflicted on your child has no meaning since we are just a random cosmic accident.
so the pedophile murderer is no more evil than you are for loving your child that he might hurt and you are no more good than he is... you just see the world differently.
disease and death are a product of mankind's decision to put ourselves above Him. he could've just destroyed us and didn't have to offer redemption... but he chose to offer redemption out of love.
ALL of which are built on the premise that God owes you something when the reality of the matter is that we use the very life he gives us to commit treason against him.
we are not victims, we are criminals.
you want God to owe you something just as most religious people do but the truth is that God didn't have to offer us a means by which to be saved which is exactly why he's so darn great... mercy in spite of the fact that we deserve only his wrath.
really? who taught your kids to use violence instinctively to get what they want? *i want what i want now so biting or whatever is my first way to try and get it* maybe you let them watch violent stuff. that doesn't explain why every parent that only lets their kids watch stuff like dora the exporer has a kid that instinctively chooses violence FIRST and has to be taught patience and restraint.
if you think your kids are angels right out of the box you're either crazy or a horrible parent.
I think you need to go back to simple and mature discussions, and leave my parenting skills and my kids out of this. You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. You have rather immature remarks, which show that you don't have experience or possess any real knowledge on the subject yet. Also, you should stop talking about your "invisible friend" as a matter of fact... it makes you sound a little "out there", to say the least... I'm done with this. Have a good life nevertheless.
If Eve was deceived, then she did not decide to put herself above God, silly. She couldn't make that decision because she was deceived! By nature of being deceived, a person does not realize they are deceived and therefore does not realize what they are doing. If a person realizes what they are doing, they are not deceived. So, if Adam and Eve knew they were placing themselves above God, they were not deceived.
LMAO "atheism from the gaps" Hey Dinesh, at least scientists are trying to figure out how the world and the universe works rather than just saying who care's god did it.
What I love about these debates is that you would think the atheist would have science and historical facts and would be the more rational and not emotional. but in all dineshes debates hes the one thats more rational and scintific and the athiest is the more emotional. What about the suffereing wa wa wa. lol
@archcon3 i wouldnt call it an argument from emotion because it actually is a serious problem for the christian god. if god lets evil happen then god is at least not the christian one.
dinesh always jumps to emotion too. when it comes to compassion etc. and thats not a logical problem for atheists.
so Dinesh...Christianity offers at least an EXPLANATION for suffering. And what is the explanation? "It's God's will". Well, thanks for that. That's very profound. Where do I sign up for this?
Also, to completely avoid the issue of God and the responsibility of suffering, Dinesh backtracks and tries to claim that to even be disgusted at the suffering in the world one necessarily has to have a presumption of what is good and what is bad (i.e. "christian ideals").
But if one follows the thought, we either accept that God decides good and bad (which is ultimately not objective) or that good is good in itself. If suffering is INHERENTLY and OBJECTIVELY bad, why does God allow it?
Did I hear this correctly? The Atheist Peter Singer said "it's a possibility that the god that you believe has existed". I think the debate can end there, right?
um, you're watching the same video, right? Dinesh is a hack, and he attempts to stuff his debates full of enough logical fallacy that the other person's eyes will roll back in their head.
D'souza is a complete moron. He won't answer the goddamn question. Peter Singer says "why would there be suffering outside of human "free will" if there is a morally perfect god" and Dinesh jumps away and refuses to answer it.
The problem with the atheist and christian argument, would probably that the atheist group feels like their being abused by the Christians, but when they try to defend, retaliate, they don't even attempt to view the other sides point of view. They quote the stuff, but they don't try to believe it.
Good and Evil is beyond the limited view we have as a human beings who's lifetime is short.
Is God letting death happen evil? Maybe to us, but to him, it might be necessary, who knows. Not us.
This is the useful and scientific way of gaining knowledge. How do you test an idea? By seeing where it can go wrong, as Karl Popper would say, by testing its falsifiability. It's thinking in this kind of way that's allowed humanity to progress not by trying to believe any old concoction of ancient misguided thoughts.
And by second law of thermodynamics, energy quality is always being degraded. So this universe can't have always existed unless something outside of it at intervals renews it so to speak. Well that is a God like figure is it not. Singer avoids this by saying another universe outside it possibly created our universe. Well that is just as hypothetical as God is it not? In the end it can't be proven either way.
On another note, Hitchens would have ripped that audience to pieces ...
Biola _University_, that's scary..
fjoo 1 month ago
Even if you are on one side or the other, it should be very revealing that in debates like this; one side is crystal clear about the things they do know and let's you know about the things they don't know - while the other side is fuzzy about everything and as soon as they are "cornered" pulls out a completely different subject.
This kind of behaviour in it's self should be enough to judge, even if you haven't read all the arguments or have the education to critically judge what is being said.
fjoo 1 month ago
@fjoo The thing is, depending on which side one is on, they may project that the one who is being 'cornered' and is pulling out 'irrelevant rhetoric' would be, by default, the side that one isn't on. As an atheist, I felt that Singer was being perfectly clear in his points and D'Souza dodged as many questions as possible. But christians might say, "No no, D'SOUZA is the clear one, Singer pulls out irrelevant Rhetoric!"
BigLundi 1 month ago
Atheists are angry and lame
Nwidmann 1 month ago
D'Souza: "Haven't you watched the nature channel?" and the audience sniggers! I do so pity those HALF-WIT BILE GOBBLERS... Not only is that rebuttal vacuous, Fisher dismantles it in no time at all. Also shows D'Souza's inability to participate in sound argumentation.
TheGerogero 1 month ago 2
So he dismisses terrestrial suffering as a moot point given some grand divine scheme. WELL WHAT ABOUT HELL YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!!
TheGerogero 1 month ago
I love Dinesh, the way he uses words so much more vaguely than a philosopher usually does and avoid each question he gets. Fantastic!!
firestarr07 1 month ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer
You have got to give it to Dinesh, no matter how dishonest and how preposterous he sounds, he keeps on arguing. He gets on his feet right away no matter how often he is KO.
I am going to accept Jesus as my savior simply to encourage Dinesh to keep on making a fool out of himself. He is making an argument, the logic behind it notwithstanding.
Aliof 2 months ago 2
Oh, Jesus. D'Souza, truly, is one of the worst, more infuriating, fallacious idiots with academic pedantry that I have EVER seen or heard. So poor. Really, really poor as a debater. It's almost impossible to actually call this a debate. Singer is doing it alone.
NoExistenteCaballero 2 months ago
You just can't have a meaningful discussion about religion and involving apologists in debates is like inviting a shark in your bathtub. Constructive debates are panels of two to six non-religious experts who speak, debate and take ample time to answer questions from the public. Those audience members who start reciting the bible and ask holy questions should be treated like we treat neofascist audience members: turn down their mike and explain to them that they are at the wrong meeting.
whauffend 3 months ago
I think you can see Singer thinking "Just how hard should I come down on his confused thinking? How cruel would it be?"
macroman52 3 months ago
D'Souza is nothing but a polished turd. No one can present half-truths and unwarranted assumptions as easily as a theist apologist.
GiantSandles 4 months ago 2
D'Souza is really embarrassing himself in this part of the debate. Easy points for SInger at this point.
LightningKnee 4 months ago
Is Dinesh deliberately intellectually bankrupt or does he actually think his arguments work? He is so fallacious its hard to believe he is being honest.
MrTechFox 5 months ago 2
Dinesh is really getting on my nerves with his favorite "atheists have Christianity to thank for their moral values"-argument (a universal favorite of christian apologetics). He always relies heavily on the notion that evolution can't have produced altriustic tendencies. I wish that someone could clearly explain to him that this is simply wrong. I've seen him debate Hitchens and Singer and neither really attacked him on this. Someone call Dawkins, or Harris.
andreasdrg 5 months ago 2
What the fuck how many times is this delerious christian going to avoid the problem of evil? Dodge dodge dodge!!! He won't fucking answer.
Roenazarrek 6 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer
I am inclined to agree with you, politicians and men like Hitler will say and do anything to get in power. However Hitler never strayed from his methodologies and tactics once in power. So if what i feel like what your hinting at, that Hitler used Christian support to achieve his goals then turned his back on it in favor of a atheistic approach to power thus making Germany a atheist state, I feel you are either misunderstanding the argument or just tragically mislead. Germany was Christian.
mexijs 7 months ago
@mexijs Even in his private notes, we see hitler denouncing atheism and maintaining his belief in a creator. He was by no means an atheist.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood Yes I am well aware that Hitler was by no means a atheist (as one myself I am glad he isn't) What i was talking about was a argument i had with another person here that, as far as i could tell, was claiming that Hitler hid the fact he was atheist, and that since he was atheist Germany was, I tried to assert his personal beliefs matters little if the populace supported him as a christian, they made Germany christian by their support of his christian justified rhetoric.
mexijs 6 months ago
@mexijs true. even if hitler was an atheist, the atrocities were carried out by the german christian population. in fact, nearly all germans were protestants or catholics during hitler's reign.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood Yes! justifying the action as christian makes it christian! ( IF of course your claim is supported by the full faith and compliance of the christian population that follows you at-large, in this case Germany) Personally i agree with you, Hitler was never atheist. claiming that Germany was a Atheist state is is foolish, and i suspect if was asked the German Nazis of the time they would be quite angry at the suggestion.
mexijs 6 months ago
@mexijs Yeah, the Nazis were christian just like Micheal Corleone was Catholic.
mbranco24 5 months ago
@Drgamedood Anyone can claim to be christian if they want. Living the life of a christian and following the "rules" of said religion is another thing. Most Italian mobsters especially in the past were church going Catholics. Did the murders they committed have anything to do with the church they decided to attend?
mbranco24 5 months ago
How does D'Souza get to debate intelligent people?
adehmark 7 months ago
Lol, you got to feel bad for Dinesh – very intelligent, very articulate, but just profoundly mislead and deceived.
MarvelsofaLifetime 8 months ago
Singer's absolutely brilliant in this segment.
DamLazyFuk 8 months ago
he's not the brightest is he... bless him ;)
rmpsrevision 9 months ago
oh snap Snuzzy...
ComputerScience54 9 months ago
Dinesh should really just be stopped from embarrassing himself like this. I've never seen anyone so painfully skirt a very direct question.
dpowens 9 months ago 3
NO POINTS FOR YOU
XZohar123 9 months ago
9:17 D'souza got pwned!!!
jessc1979 9 months ago 4
Give Dinesh a break guys. If you had to defend a view as preposterous as the existence of god I highly doubt you can do any better...
Liaomiao 10 months ago 11
@Liaomiao Well.... Dinesh could keep his mouth shut during the whole debate... that's better! :)
jessc1979 9 months ago
i think singers arguments are much better as well. but you can´t point out that dsouzas arguments are fallacious by they dsouzas arguments are fallacious...
Isnogood1 10 months ago
Love the fallacies that can cme out of Denish. Still I laughed a lot with my friend trying to count and place the "Uhms" Denish constantly said as a response to not retorting fast enough.
darlun0 11 months ago
Dinesh is so rude.
LowleyUK 11 months ago 4
"No extra points for you."
and he shut up real quick after that.
TheAtheistKate 1 year ago
@TheAtheistKate actually laughed so hard at that part, amazing.
idreamtofflight 11 months ago
Mr. D'Souza is being intellectually dishonest in this debate.
esiosan 1 year ago
great job, Dinesh!
kaunaskas 1 year ago
I love how at 0:50 Peter looks like he's deciding whether or not to use his intellectual power to smite the frightend Dinesh's poor arguments, or be merciful and let him move on to the next question. It seems Dinesh was spared and allowed to continue making a fool out of himself.
AnotherMasterMind 1 year ago
ha...Dsouza is a clown.....he is not even intelligent enough to argue with Peter......lmao
u1sewa 1 year ago
This dinesh moron still doesn't get it, he still cannot prove that god exists and he cant answer peters questions. He just goes around and around, doesn't know when to throw in the towel...pathetic. These christians are scary their going to fu#$%^ up the world.
youngfart40 1 year ago
At 6.00 minutes D'Souza confirms his religion is based on fear of death. It is merely consolation for those that cannot face reality. Peter Singer is (I would suggest) not the person to debate this. but I urge everyone to consider his take on ethics, especially regarding animal rights.
timrice666 1 year ago
Haha! I laughed out loud when he really inadequately TRIED to answer Singers question about why animals suffers! I can't believe that he actually got away with it! Did he really think that the audience were so stupid that he could pass that unnoticeably!?
Loved that smile on Singers face when Dinesh ''answered'' his question, it just gleamed of ''You just failed''.
festsj 1 year ago
At 9:31, Dinesh wishes he was somewhere else.
ComprehendingChaos 1 year ago
Peter Singer gives me an intellectual erection.
ShikaNinja 1 year ago 16
Dinesh is a strange man. Can he believe what he spouts?
pprimmuss 1 year ago
Watch Hitchens vs. D'Souza to see a rough teabagging. It might make you feel better to see the slippery semi-logic exposed properly. D'Souza's rhetorical, ad-hominem attacks and questions, mockery and 'isn't it obvious?' tone of voice get wearing but Hitchens at least allows himself to return the favour
asdashopperrr 1 year ago
Concerning the discussion of philanthropy and the uber-wealthy:
Why is it that no one ever questions why we live in a society that requires philanthropy in the first place?
bapyou 1 year ago
@Kimbell175113 "I'm mystified by D'Souza. Is he knowingly slippery and fallacious because that strategy works ... ?"
___
One of the best deconstructions of D'Souza's circular self-referential views appeared in Joan Didion's book 'Political Fictions.'
bapyou 1 year ago
Debate over. Singer say at the end God is at least as possible as his unobservable universes. So glad we have that squared away. Now on to world hunger.
endunamis 1 year ago
"Do you watch the nature channel?"
endunamis 1 year ago
Atheists pontificate on the larger pattern of human suffering, rejecting in the process the Christian view they have not really understood in the first place. Dinesh is hitting a key point here.
endunamis 1 year ago
So, let me get this straight. Gates and Buffet are products are products of a Christian society, and we should thank Christianity for that concept and charity. Yet Hitler and Stalin are to blamed totally on atheism. Because obviously, fascism is soooo different from religion.
Fascism is a religion with a god that exists.
rolyan3 1 year ago
@rolyan3 It is worth noting that Hitlers Nazi Germany is by no means Atheist, in fact Hitler often cloaked his actions in christian justification. There is no evidence that Nazi Germany was atheist, well it might have as much evidence as a Holocaust deniers have to prove their madness, any intellectually honest person should realize its bull.
mexijs 8 months ago
@mexijs
cloaked....key word....
varoshah 7 months ago
@varoshah I say "cloaked" because I would like to think that the vitriol he spewed forth was by no means truly a good representation of christian ideals (I have known many honestly good christian poeple) but even if it was "cloaked" christian rhetoric, It was still the German Christian population that not only bought it, but supported it fully and completely. It matters little if it was "cloaked" or not if Christians accepted and supported it. Even if Hitler wasn't christian, his Germany was.
mexijs 7 months ago
@mexijs
politicians will say and do anything to get the support of the masses...once in power, things changed.
varoshah 7 months ago
There is not one physicist on the planet who will say that he understands how the Universe got started, but D'Souza has the hubris to say that he knows.
m0nkey13 1 year ago
Ohhh snap! Atheism of the gaps!
He flipped the scriptz on 'em!
how not clever of him.
ballersack 1 year ago
Athiest - in a nut shell Arrogant self righteous and soulless
If you ask me its easier for one to say "there is no god" and I will do what I want than it is to say "there is a god and i will be held accountable for how I lived my life.
PAGoldenglovechamp06 1 year ago
Hearing D'Souza talk about "vague speculations" made me laugh really hard ^^
diekerze 1 year ago
Read the comments on this page. They are all saying that Dinesh is so flawed in his reasoning and constantly being fallacious. And yet only one attempts at giving an example, and it wasnt a very good one. Atheists seem to be recruiting a lot of morons who cant back up what they say, only repeat word for word what is told to them by smarter atheists.
ZakBrownrigg123 1 year ago
Singer's kangaroo point was awesome and kicked D'Souza squarely in the ass.
Triploblast1 1 year ago
D'Souza is nonsensical. He says atheists have christian morlity. WRONG!
That morality is christian ONLY IF god really exists and Dinesh says ''God must exist because we have morality!''
In another words he's trying to point out the existence of god by saying that morals are what they would be like IF god existed. Circular logic.
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
peter singer ftw
ericfeinberg28 1 year ago
Comment removed
FutureHyperion 1 year ago
lmao. D'souza is rubbish. I hope that he doesn't get paid for this tripe. Most animals suffer because of other animals? What does he want. All the carnivores to become vegetarians? What a nitwit.
He should take a walk around a few lab's that experiment on animals. Then he may widen his narrow world view and get a clue.
Moron.
Skenzed 1 year ago
does anyone else find quite ironic how dinesh just accused singer of a strawman?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
I've met drunks in pubs who debate better than this buffoon D'Souza. Looking through youtube I've seen him in various debates. Why? Is he dirt-cheap or does he just get a stiffy by being screwed over by everyone he's put up against?
ikkoikki 1 year ago 2
Dinesh, the moron!!!
amit111978 1 year ago
Singer: ...Did you want me to respond to that, or ask another question first?
D'souza: Well, let me take my turn, and then you can have yours!
Audience: Hee hee hee hee hee!!! Stupid atheist doesn't wanna play by the rules!
I am in danger of proving Dinesh's point about atheists, because I want to take a claw hammer to the face of every giggling idiot in that audience. (And Dinesh's, but that goes without saying.)
skotoseme 1 year ago
With D'Souza's logic, I'm waiting for him to eventually claim "Christianity invented the internet."
6678 1 year ago
D'Souza is the living example of the Dunning and Kruger effect - incompetent and oblivious to his incompetence.
mutomeister 1 year ago
Both of their arguments are somewhat feeble, considering their credentials.
Dinesh had some interesting points, so did Singer but neither "blew my mind".
God bless,
-Dan
ReaderDan 1 year ago
@ReaderDan I agree with you. I think Singer routs D'Sousa, and D'Sousa, at times, too, despite what people write on this board here. Both had their moments. But in general both did not impress.
UseAsDirected100 1 year ago
Dinesh asking Singer if he's watched the nature channel is like Beavis asking the Pope if he's read the bible.
hymnofashes 1 year ago 2
he was trying to make the point that animals dont act morally.
eugdog106 1 year ago
If Buffet can be claimed for Christ despite not being one, then why not say Stalin was the product of Russian Orthodox Christianity, you dickhole?
hymnofashes 1 year ago
@hymnofashes lol
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Singer's treatment of the so called poblem of evil and suffering is quite sophomoric. Dinesh, although not the most rigorous of philosophers, clearly has the upper hand here.
lourak 1 year ago
As a deist I am getting more and more annoyed at D'Souza as progress further into this.
dansnikolayevich 1 year ago
@dansnikolayevich Im an atheist but thank you for not blindly agreeing with this man. He is annoying.
DRoooPHILTH 1 year ago
Dinesh has the substance of ectoplasm. Slimy & indicating the presense of something ominous.
gextvedde 1 year ago
4:20 Dinesh makes a fool of himself!
NinjaMatie 1 year ago
D'Souza keeps blindly asserting that compassion does not "belong in a Darwinian universe" which is wrong and any evolutionary biologist will tell you that it is explicitly a part of Natural Selection..
Just check out "The battle at Kruger" here on YouTube to see compassion and solidarity in nature.
FreeInquisition 1 year ago
Although, come to think about it, it is arguably different. Suffering on earth is inescapable, while our eternal domain is chosen by us.
TrophyBass12 2 years ago
Excellent.
TrophyBass12 2 years ago
I swear Dinesh beats around the bush so much its impossible to follow his arguments.
Christian apologetics freak me out. They are well.. to me a fallacy!
MrAvenged 2 years ago 29
@MrAvenged
D'Souza is a speech writer not an apologist, philosopher or theologian.
dansnikolayevich 1 year ago
@dansnikolayevich in this cases he's speaking from an apologist P.O.V
MrAvenged 1 year ago
@MrAvenged Dinesh is quite easy to follow, you just have to get smarter and pay better attention - not necessary to thank me
mollkatles 1 year ago
@mollkatles No, he is definitely beating round the bush talking shit.
MrAvenged 1 year ago
@MrAvenged dinesh is not the greatest for apologetics and seems to have more fallacies....take a look at ravi zacharius
nwsaboy 1 year ago
@MrAvenged Apologists are paid to be ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest and dodgy/vague/avoiding and redefine things or disassociate themselves from certain concept of their specific faith brought up by the opposition, in order to defend THEIR specific beliefs, which might not correspond completely to the beliefs of others who adhere to the same faith (e.g.: christianity). A good example of that would the recent afterlife debate between Hitchens, Harris Vs. Wolpe, Artson.
MattHunX 11 months ago
@MrAvenged that is what enoys me with Dinesh. Notice how he never answers a question. I wonder if he relizes this when he watches his own debates and read the comments. Maybe he has god so for up his ass that he doesn't even bother to even try to reason rational or say well I can't answer that question.. I am an atheist, I make mistakes, but I have enough integrity to prevent me from making claims I can't possibly proof.
Jerrez 6 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer
@MrAvenged The VAST majority of people on either side of this argument will believe the other side is beating around the bush.
mbranco24 5 months ago
@MrAvenged No one cares what they mean to you, your presuppositional, narrow minded and prejudice opinion doesn't really serve any purpose other than to make like-minded individuals feel comforted in their ignorance. Before the search for truth, before ANY search for truth, have an open mind.
I'm ashamed, as an atheist, that the vast majority of atheists are extremely arrogant, ignorant, angry and rude. Have the decency to take D'Souza and those like him seriously.
BlueTusk1 5 months ago
Peter just said that there's a possibility of a god... and he's arguing for atheism?
happysappy21 2 years ago
Christians have an idea of a heaven that's without suffering and perfect. Why not, if god is omniscient, benevolent, and omnipotent, just create that to begin with. This is the answer to Dinesh's question of what such a world would look like.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
@ivanmikhailov
God did create that -- He created this world perfect, but we are the ones that ruined it.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
I think we should all question the logic of a story of an all knowing, all powerful god who creates faulty humans and them blames them for his own shortcomings.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
@ivanmikhailov
He created this world perfect, even man, but He also didn't want to control us to love him, or make us robots so to say, so he gave us free-will. It's not His fault that we didn't want to listen to one particular rule from him, which is not to eat from the tree. Any other tree would have been fine, but we messed up, so we sinned. But for our own problem, He came down and let himself die (his son) for us. We're undeserving, but he loves us when we don't even love him. That's sad.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
So you're saying that God created humans knowing full well we would disobey him? Or are you saying God isn't omnicient and had no idea this would happen? You either worship a god who knowingly permits suffering, or you worship a god limited in both knowledge and power. Why even worship such a god?
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
@ivanmikhailov
Let me ask you something, then. Yes, there is suffering in the world, but why did Jesus Christ have to suffer? He wasn't guilty and never did anything wrong. People thought he blasphemed God (because He claimed to be God, which He was). You know what's ironic? Psalm 22:14 states, "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels."
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
I am not Christian, but from what I understand, JC was actually GOD, who came to earth as a man and suffer for all of mankind's debt/sins. So therefore, all man has to do after jesus's death was to accept him and them they can go to heaven, etc
d2eux 2 years ago
@d2eux
Yes, you are right, sir (:
Jesus Christ was God -- Hebrews 10 says that Jesus Christ was the last sacrifice, all we have to do is call upon Him to save us, (:
Romans 10:13, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
you are right. what you said is completely obvious common sense.
eugdog106 1 year ago
haha. sounds ridiculous
jjonson099 1 year ago
@ivanmikhailov
Isaiah 52:14, "As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men." Not only was Jesus wearing the Crown of Thorns, beard being plucked out, pierce in His side, being nailed to a Cross, back extremely beaten beyond belief, all of His bones out of joint -- being marred more than anyone -- He has suffered more than we can imagine. Today, someone may get into a wreck and die; burned alive;
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
@ivanmikhailov
head chopped off; it still won't compare to what Jesus Christ suffered. So yes, people do suffer because of sin, but it will never be as bad as what Jesus Christ went through. More than that, He suffered psychological and spiritual dismay in the Garden of Gethsemane; this caused His blood vessels in His face to burst. This wasn't caused by the physical pain that he went through; it was brought upon by the loss of contact with His father, as He knew no sin and became sin for us!
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
@ivanmikhailov
ake a second to look at your hands and realize what you can do with those; what you're capable of! It will show how inhumane you and I are. We can torture animals, make fun of kids for how they look, we are sickening and undeserving. Scourging Jesus Christ only represents how natural we are; and with Jesus Christs' unconditional love and willingness decided to say, "I will go through all this trouble for you; for the men that killed me.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
@ivanmikhailov
Please, am I not doing enough? I love you so much, you can kill me, but please accept me!" Romans 5:7-8 says, "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." His blood is on our bodies, and we don't even want to take a shower.
He knew exactly what was going to happen, so He did something about it and sacrificed himself.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
@ivanmikhailov
So this is why I worship such a God, because He loves me more than what I can imagine. He has done more things for me than I'll even understand, and He's changed my life and lead me to become an upcoming youth pastor. I hope you remember that, His blood is on our bodies, and we don't even want to take a shower. It's pitiful.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
So what you're saying is that we're created sick and commanded to be well. It's like punishing a child with no legs for not being able to run a race. It's just ridiculous. I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
@ivanmikhailov
What makes you assume they are being punished? You can't take me seriously? You don't even want to acknowledge my comments. You don't have to take me seriously, that is okay, I know my truth.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
We're all born with original sin, we're all born guilty, we're all born deserving of punishment. This is God's design. How could it be otherwise? He created the world and everything in it, including our free will. He created a system into which we can perpetually be found guilty. Born sick commanded to be well.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
@ivanmikhailov
We inherited sin; it wasn't God's design. God's design, which is making the world perfect, we just ruined it. Read Genesis 3. "We're all born deserving of punishment." -- Jesus Christ (who was God in flesh) decided to take that punishment for us! That's the point of the Gospel (other than the Resurrection) which is the key most point of Christianity.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
But it was God's design--by definition. Everything in this world is designed by God. Including us, including the free will God forces us to have. He created the world and left it in charge of two naked teenagers. Is this intelligent design? Even I could have figured out this would go wrong. You're saying God didn't see this one coming?
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
@ivanmikhailov
Yes, we're all born deserving punishment, but who took the punishment for us? Jesus Christ, that's right. Read all my last comments.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"God did create that -- He created this world perfect, but we are the ones that ruined it. "
I thought the devil did it according to christians
d2eux 2 years ago
Appealing to salvation to respond to the problem of evil is circular.
Why does D'Souza believe in God? Because he believes in God. Childish...
simonmckimify 2 years ago
Comment removed
bersa888 2 years ago
@bersa888 so dont bring any into this world else you are guilty of all crimes against them.
anonazero 2 years ago
Comment removed
bersa888 2 years ago
if you bring a child into a world of suffering and say that nothing justifies suffering you've perpetuated something that you've spoken out against which makes you a liar and a hypocrite.
anonazero 2 years ago
Comment removed
bersa888 2 years ago
it doesn't matter what you accept, it matters what is real. you brought a child into this world knowing the suffering that is in it. thus, if you are to hold God responsible for their fate you are also in line for the responsibility of their suffering.
if the creator is at fault so are the parents.
anonazero 2 years ago
Comment removed
bersa888 2 years ago
if there is no God then all things are permissible. - dostoyevsky
what that means is that the suffering inflicted on your child has no meaning since we are just a random cosmic accident.
so the pedophile murderer is no more evil than you are for loving your child that he might hurt and you are no more good than he is... you just see the world differently.
...but something inside you knows thats a lie.
anonazero 2 years ago
Comment removed
bersa888 2 years ago
disease and death are a product of mankind's decision to put ourselves above Him. he could've just destroyed us and didn't have to offer redemption... but he chose to offer redemption out of love.
anonazero 2 years ago
Comment removed
bersa888 2 years ago
ALL of which are built on the premise that God owes you something when the reality of the matter is that we use the very life he gives us to commit treason against him.
we are not victims, we are criminals.
you want God to owe you something just as most religious people do but the truth is that God didn't have to offer us a means by which to be saved which is exactly why he's so darn great... mercy in spite of the fact that we deserve only his wrath.
anonazero 2 years ago
Comment removed
bersa888 2 years ago
really? who taught your kids to use violence instinctively to get what they want? *i want what i want now so biting or whatever is my first way to try and get it* maybe you let them watch violent stuff. that doesn't explain why every parent that only lets their kids watch stuff like dora the exporer has a kid that instinctively chooses violence FIRST and has to be taught patience and restraint.
if you think your kids are angels right out of the box you're either crazy or a horrible parent.
anonazero 2 years ago
I think you need to go back to simple and mature discussions, and leave my parenting skills and my kids out of this. You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. You have rather immature remarks, which show that you don't have experience or possess any real knowledge on the subject yet. Also, you should stop talking about your "invisible friend" as a matter of fact... it makes you sound a little "out there", to say the least... I'm done with this. Have a good life nevertheless.
bersa888 2 years ago
which means you think your kids can do no wrong and require no discipline from the baby factory.
i know exactly what im talking about and context clues say a lot.
anonazero 2 years ago
If Eve was deceived, then she did not decide to put herself above God, silly. She couldn't make that decision because she was deceived! By nature of being deceived, a person does not realize they are deceived and therefore does not realize what they are doing. If a person realizes what they are doing, they are not deceived. So, if Adam and Eve knew they were placing themselves above God, they were not deceived.
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
they knew what not to do and rationalized doing it.
if i convince you to kill someone or rob a bank am i going to jail or are you? exactly.
anonazero 2 years ago
Sado-maso, eh?
pikechris1 2 years ago
no.
anonazero 2 years ago
Well, maybe not applying full mental capacity then?
pikechris1 2 years ago
incorrect. i am guilty of much. under thinking is not one of my crimes :)
anonazero 2 years ago
Incorrect, Ive never "accused" you of any "crimes"... ;-)
pikechris1 2 years ago
Comment removed
bersa888 2 years ago
this idea of the west giving away wealth in th west is simple we have the wealth.
RAMSEY1987 2 years ago
Dinesh must be awesome at arts and crafts building such strawmen. I wish I could see his scarecrows on his farm.
alizee2010 2 years ago
LMAO "atheism from the gaps" Hey Dinesh, at least scientists are trying to figure out how the world and the universe works rather than just saying who care's god did it.
ctownsoul 2 years ago
Dinesh does a lot better on the rebuttal section.
RorySPQR 2 years ago
What I love about these debates is that you would think the atheist would have science and historical facts and would be the more rational and not emotional. but in all dineshes debates hes the one thats more rational and scintific and the athiest is the more emotional. What about the suffereing wa wa wa. lol
archcon3 2 years ago
@archcon3 i wouldnt call it an argument from emotion because it actually is a serious problem for the christian god. if god lets evil happen then god is at least not the christian one.
dinesh always jumps to emotion too. when it comes to compassion etc. and thats not a logical problem for atheists.
jmsimpson11 2 years ago
omg....DINESH, my new hero of evading questions..
i wonder if he talks like this to his wife at home when asked to take out the trash...
toneshun 2 years ago
so Dinesh...Christianity offers at least an EXPLANATION for suffering. And what is the explanation? "It's God's will". Well, thanks for that. That's very profound. Where do I sign up for this?
BillKiernan 2 years ago
if there is eternal salvation? why care about suffering in the here and now? why should a christian give anything?
luketc500 2 years ago
Also, to completely avoid the issue of God and the responsibility of suffering, Dinesh backtracks and tries to claim that to even be disgusted at the suffering in the world one necessarily has to have a presumption of what is good and what is bad (i.e. "christian ideals").
But if one follows the thought, we either accept that God decides good and bad (which is ultimately not objective) or that good is good in itself. If suffering is INHERENTLY and OBJECTIVELY bad, why does God allow it?
BuBBaGump014 2 years ago
my thoughts exactly. his responses are dumbfounding. he'd make a great politician.
BillKiernan 2 years ago
Carrying on from part 5...
...when Dinesh is speaking unprovoked he speaks of the Christian God and claims that all that is moral has come from this God.
When Peter asks a simple yes or no question:
"Is it not true that the Christian God you are arguing for in both existence and divine power is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving"
Dinesh retreats into hypothetical Deism thus losing the foundation for his entire argument.
BuBBaGump014 2 years ago
Oh, Dinesh. So very desperately clinging to your fairy tales.
FSMhasRisen 2 years ago 3
Dinesh doesn't value honesty. Anyone who can say what he just said HAS NO CONSCIENCE. He's a complete liar. Disgusting.
niginit 2 years ago 6
IN YOUR UNIVERSE DINESH!!!
In the Christian Universe animals dying of starvation doesn't make sense!
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Did I hear this correctly? The Atheist Peter Singer said "it's a possibility that the god that you believe has existed". I think the debate can end there, right?
happysappy21 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The only thing Singer says that makes any sense is @ 2:28.
YesYou123333 2 years ago
um, you're watching the same video, right? Dinesh is a hack, and he attempts to stuff his debates full of enough logical fallacy that the other person's eyes will roll back in their head.
philthycoder 2 years ago 5
You betray your intelligence by saying something like that.
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Singer's winning hands down, and he's doing well, but I think D'Souza has said enough to where Singer could really bury him.
hrmIwonder 2 years ago 5
D'souza is a complete moron. He won't answer the goddamn question. Peter Singer says "why would there be suffering outside of human "free will" if there is a morally perfect god" and Dinesh jumps away and refuses to answer it.
araless 2 years ago 12
Oh dear d'souza thinks that the big bang was the creation of matter.
Jacko38 2 years ago 6
The problem with the atheist and christian argument, would probably that the atheist group feels like their being abused by the Christians, but when they try to defend, retaliate, they don't even attempt to view the other sides point of view. They quote the stuff, but they don't try to believe it.
Good and Evil is beyond the limited view we have as a human beings who's lifetime is short.
Is God letting death happen evil? Maybe to us, but to him, it might be necessary, who knows. Not us.
aCrzyJya 2 years ago
This is the useful and scientific way of gaining knowledge. How do you test an idea? By seeing where it can go wrong, as Karl Popper would say, by testing its falsifiability. It's thinking in this kind of way that's allowed humanity to progress not by trying to believe any old concoction of ancient misguided thoughts.
mrwhite692000 2 years ago
? Thanks for agreeing with me. I believe you misunderstood my point in my simple rhetoric, but it's all good friend.
aCrzyJya 2 years ago
Ah, my mistake. Hard to hear the tone of voice in text!
mrwhite692000 2 years ago
Hahah, it's understood. It happens to me all the time.
aCrzyJya 2 years ago
And by second law of thermodynamics, energy quality is always being degraded. So this universe can't have always existed unless something outside of it at intervals renews it so to speak. Well that is a God like figure is it not. Singer avoids this by saying another universe outside it possibly created our universe. Well that is just as hypothetical as God is it not? In the end it can't be proven either way.
umrmecheman 2 years ago