What a dishonest prick. Dinesh I mean lol. Even if you disagree with Peter Singer, at least he doesn't create false caricatures of his opponent's views.
D'Souza's mosquito-ish slurs on Singer's integrity, "ducked", "smuggled", etc., in contrast to Singer's dignified and consistently respectful treatment of D'Souza, illustrate the tremendous boon to the character and intellect of subscribing to the precepts of Christianity.
The fact that they need to give away prices and have "jerry springer action" to get people to come see this debate at a "University" should say everything you need to know about the university..
Yes! First time I've seen the atheist debator make the case that there is an evolutionary basis for empathy and compassion (which is the case) because this totally invalidates claims that Darwinism is incompatible with cooperation. And I hate that these debates centre on Darwinism because any scientist will tell you it's REDUCTIONIST to describe human behaviour solely based on Darwinism. It's a CHEAP TRICK for people like D'Souza.
Imagine this: You have been accused and you are about to be burned at the stake. Would you rather have Singer or D'Souza as your inquisition judge? Don't you love how pure Singer thinks and don't you fear how ugly D'Souza misuses his reasoning faculties? The church and its morality (where ever that morality came from) didn't care for the suffering of the heretics they burned at the stake. They reasoned like D'Souza, not like Singer.
Hey, take the Theology in Ethics class! Converge88 the atheist deserves credit for finding a way to argue that takes no work or critical thinking for yourself. Just say, "Take a class" or better, "get an M. Div degree!"
No mention of the fact that "Evolutionary Psychology" is a convenient and controversial field made up to address weaknesses in the Evolution argument. But that would actually require critical thinking.
2:42 If in saving your children, the genes make its way into the next generation, wouldn't helping a stranger accomplish the same thing since all humans are over 99% genetically the same and pretty much the same genes would be propagated if save my children vs. helping a stranger.
@callofduty497 If you did that, all atheists would agree with you, but that has no relevance to what humans value nor how humans choose to organize their societies. The big problem is this : How on earth would we define anything as "good" if it's unrelated to human interests? Values presuppose valuers. Humans are valuers and their values are therefore dictated by the range of phenomena we call human activities/-nature. It is simply a contradiction to claim it can have another source.
@callofduty497 It should be clear that giving an apple to a starving child is a non-issue if you're wealthy. However, giving all your money to the poor is not a non-issue. Sawing off a child's finger would be blatantly absurd in that light. First, nobody would imagine that this could benefit the child. Second, we can imagine all kinds of reprisals directed at us from others if we were to be discovered.
At best you could argue that actions regarded as bad by humans have no cosmic significance.
@callofduty497 "The drastically different moral values behind these two actions are - or, at least, should be - irrelevant under Singer's atheistic scope which denies the existence of morality."
Absolutely not. Because the reason for helping people is not simply that there's no reason not to. The core reason is that we identify with others and can imagine how we'd suffer in their situation. You completely missed that part. The part about "no reason not to" is that there is a tradeoff involved.
Dinesh has an astonishing narrow and uninformed view of the evolution of compassion. He's treating this more like a game of chess than a discussion, but he's losing anyway.
What peter says in the begining here is what dinesh and other religious people are not capable of seeing. If dinesh REALLY thinks that people only "care" for others because of religion, then he is the most delusional person on the planet, or he is trying to achieve something else, which only he knows what it is exactly.
Giving your seat to an old lady on the bus DOES give you something: the satisfaction of having done what you think is right. If you didn't think that giving the old lady the seat was the right thing to do, you wouldn't have given it to her.
Hell yeah, Peter Singer... thank you. How can we have objective morality in a godless universe?
Because we can have and give REASONS. Christ, D'Souza really takes a diminished view of our capacity to reason and is so ready to paint atheists as lacking reasons to act morally...
I know a lot of religious people who do things because they are commanded to by their imaginary god. Not because they are truly compassionate towards me or others. They even end up fighting with other people of the same religion. D'Souza is so full of shit, and it fucking pisses me off that he evaded so many questions. BTW, Peter Singer did a great job.
@metal87power well, considering your obviously limited powers of reasoning, then maybe you do have a sense of self-interest like that of a dog or cow. The point is that the more a being evolves, the better-able it is to deny itself instant gratification to secure for itself a long-term existence, or the long-term existence of the species as a whole. Though I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, this would seem to be the biological basis of altruism.
Those so called "unselfish" acts that are performed by christians. I don't suppose that they have anything to do with buying a place in the heavenly hereafter by any chance?
If Hitler had believed in God, he'd have killed less people. Because see, God gives you a limit to the number of people you can kill. <------Dinesh's favorite argument in a nutshell.
@omnissient And D'Souza is very well read.. He knows this isn't the case, still he uses it as an argument. - He's dishonest in half of what he says and should not be invited back until he learns to defend his views honestly.
@bonfirejovi I think this is a bad example, Can you provide one Christian that has done this on the Sabbath? I cannot think of one example. But I think your point is that it is in the Bible, so Christians must do everything that is in it, but this is not entirely true. Some laws were for specific people in specific situations. While other laws apply universally.
@CapsHockey100 i never said that christians did do that but they likely did in the early days. however that is irrelevant nonetheless and is pretty lame strawman.
im attacking your objective morality which is the bible which you seem to cherry pick. if the context reveals the purpose and intent then it is subjective because everyone can draw a different inference on what the purpose and intent is from the context.
That is a good point. Paul discusses this when he talks about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Some people do not feel guilty for doing it while others do feel guilty. This is the subjective aspect where our conscience guides us. But we can check our inferences with other verses from Scripture.
The more I've watched this debate the more I've come to hate D'Souza's constant disengenuous bullshit. He keeps making accusations about Singers ethic's without, it seems, the faintest idea about what Singer actually says. Also he's got a fucking cheek saying Singer picks & chooses. Every Christian picks & chooses their morality from the Bible.
Im a theist, so my bias should be with DSousa. However, I think Singer won the debate by far, even if his arguments were not exceptionally strong.
Its as if DSousa was trying to put forth a William James-esque pragmatist argument for theism, only he failed to eliminate other religious possibilities first.
Dinesh, you're a tool. Poor analogies!! What about my dog?? Why do I want to protect her and keep her alive? Does god or the bible give me a reason? NO!!! The answer is that empathy and human solidarity give me all the reasons I need. She helps me and our family feel happy and loved, it is that simple. No god or tribal hatreds are needed!
P.Singer is amazing with his answers, and I do believe that there can be a selfish reason behind helping an old lady on the bus, or giving blood...they are good deeds that makes US feel good about ourselves. These are GOOD deeds in our mind and with the consequence -- it feel right, it feels good. Is this really an unselfish deed?
Very well put. However, as a passionate human being, one might feel ashamed to assert that we're always self-fish even though our logic coerces us towards the other spectrum.
I'd like to add, that through examining relevent literature to theism, science and religion, and utilizing reason, much that I'd held dear had been evaporated as corresponding knowledge trivializes or even demonize these ideas. This includes, obviously, the denouncement of god, contempt towards religion, marginalization of love, and my adherence and faith to Marxist societies. One can truly see the superiority of religion's appeal and nurturing of emotions, in terms of the survival of the meme.
I think this is just misunderstanding the word "selfish". Selfish means pleasing ourselvs at the expense of others, or with a harmful disregard to their wellbeing. If helping people is selfish, everything is selfish. In a sense, our own happiness is always our motivator, but this is not selfishness in the traditional sense.
Technically God is an indefensible argument. You can't prove an epiphenomenon and you can't disprove one. He did, though, summon Steven Hawking's explanation that the universe is teetering on a knife's edge, which makes it appear as though it were finely tuned by a designer. Francis Collins used the same argument in The Language of God, and it's one of the very few "reasonable" arguments for a designer. I'm using reasonable loosely here.
The Universe is the way it is. It is not "designed" to be nurturing tos entient life. There is no evidence that our solar system is crawling with extraterrestrial life. There is no evidence that life exists anywhere but Earth (although the possibility exists and maybe probable). How does this indicate a Universe that is fine tuned for life?
Again, we are compassionate because our species is hardwired for survival--our species--more so than us as individual organisms. Although we may like to deny the reality of death, our cells survive by passing genetic information from organism to organism. So, our instinct is for the survival of our species, of others, rather than just ourselves. Remember, the ancestor of a bee was a loner. As they've evolved, they became the collective an individual member will sacrifice its life for.
Why did Singer skip the obvious, "have you ever actually read the bible?". Since there's good and horrific things found in the bible, and we've been cherry picking it since it was compiled. This shows that human morality has evolved in spite of religion, not because of it.
Both answers miss the obvious! We are compassionate, like many mammals, because we have a limbic system, which, among other things, causes us to care for our offspring so our species can survive. Compassion is a survival mechanism. Otherwise we'd leave our infants at birth, like reptiles.
many atheist philosophers have tried to put the question to religious traditions... scientific disciplines, such as astronomy, could not progress until religious assumptions were overthrown. I don't think D'Souza was too far off in his assessment of Singer. Since it seems to me atheism is very likely true, he's paying Singer quite the compliment as I see it.
Magarmach09, I read ur reply to someone who blamed the bible 4 our societal ills and the language was not needed. I have replied to u and u I on a few ocassions now and u have much intellect. that is rare. prove ur point with that. I know u can do it
So your opinion is that before the bible was written morality didn't exist? As I write this I know responding to you in beneath my intellect but what the fuck I will do it anyway. Morality is a culturally evolved and evolving aspect humans which has some biological basis. Stalin and Mao are also both men does that mean all men are tyrants? You could make a better case for that since dictators have always been men. I promise I will read the bible if you promise to read something beside that.
Morality has NOTHING to do with the Bible or Religion.
Religionists were the first ones to canonize morality and write it down, but they did not create it.
Much of the original Hebrew scriptures were written by bigotted and savage bronze age men that promoted and condoned murder, genocide, abuse of slaves, abortion, child molestation and misogony toward women all to justify their own inhumanities by claiming to be doing the will of God
In the Bible, Jesus walked around in simple robes and had no material wealth. That's what Christianity SHOULD be today. How can the people who claim moral authority, take no serious action when..."In a world where there is so much to do, there must be something for me to do."
I don't know how Christians do it. He stands up there in his fancy suit and I'm sure he has a vast wealth, but doesn't it say in the Bible, it is better to give than to receive. Why would you hold yourself to those standards when, well you can't? Why does he need those suits when there are others who have no clothing at all? I do not believe in God, but I believe a lot of christian morals can be good, but only when followed to the point. I do not see how you can...sort of, be christian.
Oh God, D'Souza. Two words: Evolutionary Psychology. Take a fucking course. You sound like a fool when you say there is no Darwinian reason to empathize and help others.
@Converge88 To be fair, I don't think Singer effectively argued this point. Also, Darwin never argued that evolution only leads to useful and more advanced traits.
@Converge88 I think he knows the Darwinian reasoning to for empathizing and helping others people. He is saying that he does not believe there is any "good" Darwinian reasoning for these things. He is giving his opinions here! This is a debate. Anyone can give reasons or explanations for anything. Its a matter of getting others to believe these explanations. I can give reason that you are just saying foolish things on youtube to get other fools to give you thumbs up.
Both men are incredibly bright. It seems both theists and atheists pursue ultimate truth, and have a notion that there is a single underlying principle that explains all things.
I believe we understand more of this underlying truth as time goes on, but will never master it. For mastering this truth would unlock the power to manipulate every aspect of the universe, and our finite minds are too meager to comprehend this infinite truth. Even the pursuit of this knowledge is vanity.
Singer and D'Souza are speaking about morality from a culture that is imbued by Christian concepts of morality. Singer says that people who don't believe in God still want to do good things, and D'Souza responds by pointing out that Singer wants to do good things because he has been ethically impacted by Christianity. Morality by peer pressure.
Standing up for an old lady in the bus doesn't improve your evolutionary potential directly. But this kind of compassion does make the society YOU live in more liveable and thus there's indeed an indirect value in helping each other out and not ripping each other off. Morality is simply evolution's answer to the tragedy of the commons.
The burden of proof is not on the atheists- it is on the theists. Where is the evidence that Allah doesn't exist? Where is the evidence that the boogie man or flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist? On another subject raised in the video above- it simply FEELS good to help strangers. There could be many biologic reasons- cooperation in a social network leads to increased "fitness" of the members of the group as more can be accomplished by cooperating humans than humans working alone.
Singer states that Christians don't want to debate the existence of God and just rely on faith. Where is the evidence that God doesn't exist? Prove it!! Atheists must have faith to believe in something they have no evidence for. The question posed by the guy in the yellow T-shirt infers that you beleive what you are taught and come to the discussion with certain biases. That's where D'souza's observation of the millions killed by atheist regeims is so relevant. Atheism kills.
As Singer stated in his opening statement, it is difficult to prove there is no supernatural being or force that we can not observe or be aware of physically, but the proof that the biblical god does not exist is abundant. The likelihood that there is one sentient omniscient and omnipotent being that we can describe and depict so intricately, is not only very low, but almost to the level of the impossible. Lastly, atheism does not kill, immoralities kills, which originates from irrationality.
I can't help but point out that, if D'Souza says that Jefferson had to talk about God as the source of rights because of the Declaration of Independence, he's wrong. Jefferson never mentioned the Creator or Providence in the version of the Declaration which he penned.
All those bits about the Creator were added later by committee.
First of all, it is only an assumption that morality is instilled in us through divine providednce. We all know that humans are naturally selective about morality. That is why a vast majority of people won't assist a person when he/she is experiencing police brutality. And maybe one just does moral things such as giving blood or a seat on the bus to get some recognition. My point is, THE CONCEPT OF GOD WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO EXPLICATE MORALITY !!!!!!!!
Lighter skin: contradict himself? "I believe that we live in the same universe, that there is a truth between us" -- "It is a cop-out for Xians to simply say that they believe"
I love how the only genuine philosophical question posed to these people (3:22)"stumped" them and made everyone in the room feel the tension of how contingent this absurd theism/atheism debate...Also, D'souza overlooks the philosophical pragmatist movement in the states that was not Truth based but value based and makes plenty of room for practical morality...oh well I guess I wish there was more genuine philosophical thought amongst these thinkers
We are not alone roaming a wasteland, we merge in groups and compassion is necessary for a survival of the group. respect towards our elders...etc...they are the ones who pass on the knowledge and are therefore subject to respect and compassion. Without it the trive or group would not survive. As groups grow and merge that same idea is propagated and it grows. It's a survival instinct under harsh conditions. There is no need for a deity to accomplish this....
...are usually agreed upon by society in retrospect. "Well, that wasn't a very good idea was it?" There is a bell curve of various responses to a given situation in which empathy or a complete lack of it migh result and it is largely individual. To create a society we give up a small part of individuality because society has experimented and continues to experiment with different 'morals' that will give us different results and thus the experience to determine 'universal' morality.
...to be pleasurable so it is a end (no pun intended) unto itself. So why do they engage in this activity if it cannot allow them to reproduce/self-perpetuate? They are genetically different. It doesn't make them any more wrong than someone who was born w/a particular hair color or w/a congenital defect of some sort, it just IS. So we do have an explination for where, getting back to the main point, our morals come from. Aside from that fact societies evolve as well and 'morals'....
...evolutionary shadow. It also explains how such things as oral sex and sodomy occur. We have evolved obviously for sex/sex acts to be pleasurable (in their concentual context) but the prime impetus behind it is still the desire to self-perpetuate. So why do some still engage in these activities? They are still wrestling w/this evolutionary shadow. Homosexuals obviously engage in an activity that cannot result in procreation/self perpetuation but for whatever reason they find it....
The far better answer to the question of the source of empathy IS a result of our tendency to self-perpetuate. The very first 'social contract' was that one human promised not to kill another and the other reciprocated. I'm sure it did not take too long to figure out they had a better shot at survival and thus perpetuating themselves to enter into cooperative agreements which extrapolates outward to civilizations evolving as well. We lived in much smaller groups & still wrestle w/this....
If you think you get nothing out of it dinesh for helping a stranger then i hope YOU never lose your faith as you are clearly an immoral person who would be a completly awful member of society if you didnt beleive in your invisible friend.
D'souza also simply doesn't understand how reciprocal help from tribesmates/packmates as humans were evolving could be a beneficial trait that is still part of our genes/psyche even though we live in a world that is much, much larger than a tribe. Quite simply: he doesn't really think that hard or isn't that knowledgeable about evolution. Moth to a flame, penny to a stranger.
most of us are not resolutely selfish, in the narrowest sense of the term. Our selfishness extends to those with whom we are morally identified: to friends and family, to coworkers and teammates,and—if we are in an expansive mood—to humans and animals
in general.Our entanglements
with people close to us erode simple self-interest.
on the issue of compassion, this amazing video has an interesting twist to Dinesh' argument that compassion is a core Christian principle rather than a by-product of evolution
watch?v=QkEex37su3s
Surely this must have been a Christian leopard, so much compassion could not be found in an atheist leopard.
In this part it becomes very obvious that D'Souza is not so much interested in an open discussion but rather spouting his preformulated agenda: demonising the perceived amorality of atheism. It is particularly disrespectful of him to use a question by a visitor to take the time to do that. He seems so full of himself that he doesn't come across very likable.
@ticobassie I think D"Souza was spouting a pre-programed agenda in response to that question because he didn't know what the question was. It becomes painfully clear that he had no clue what the question meant and his lack of intellect is all the more evident.
Comapassion is a product of motor neurons, which fire when we see people doing things that we also do. We react in fear and anger when we are hurt, others also react in fear and anger when they are hurt. We do not like pain, we see that others do not either. We are therefore capable of abstracting from common experience the conclusion that pain in general is not a good thing.
We do not have to be commanded by religion to experience compassion; it is a natural byproduct of our brains.
Compassion towards strangers and altruism is a by-product of our compassion to close relatives and members of our immediate community, which DOES have undeniable darwinian value. Dawkins makes this point very well in many of his books...
Wtf? he says singer "isnt following his atheism all the way through" what a willfully ignorant comment. as if all atheist have to fit in with his warped view of us to count as atheists. we think to get our morals instead of being told by some ancient book and we definitely don't think like he assumes. his hate of anything unchristian and ignorance of what he argues against mean i cant take any of his few apparently rational arguments seriously because i know the bias they were formed by.
D'Souza sat there and listened to Singer's 'Atheism' throught-out the debate. He was comparing him to his own theory and his judgment was that Singer wasn't following how he described his 'Atheism'
At 3:50, D'Souza starts answering a question, but as Singer says, he doesn't. But if anything, D'Souza can only see it as atheism vs Christianity, ignoring the hundreds of different belief systems!
Darwinian evolution through natural selection DOES explain compassion for strangers. Humans evolved in relatively small groups (communities of around 100 or so members). So helping ANYONE in the group around you helps the group. In our much larger societies we still express the same morality towards people around us - who are now more likely to be 'strangers' - it's a type of misfiring of the instinct. So there IS a Darwinian explanation, and the instinct keeps getting expressed.
But wait, there's more! To take D'Souza's own example: You give your seat on the bus to a poor old lady. She may not scratch your back in return, but your display of altruistic behaviour is noted by the pretty girl at the back of the bus. She gives you her number, and after A LONG COURTSHIP WITHOUT PREMARITAL SEX you marry and conceive a child. Bam! Your genes live on!
No, helping the elderly or small children would be altruistic. But being the mighty warrior (or sports star) or catching the buffalo to feed the group would be the instinctual behaviour to attract the girls. And boy does it work!
I think you missed my point. Overt displays of altruism can (and are in the animal world) be taken as a sign of Plentitude ("I have enough resources I can give some away!"), Strength ("I am so strong I'll stand guard and watch for baddies!") - qualities that would make one an appealing mating partner - by the pretty girl at the back of the bus. Whats the two most attractive features of a man? A fat wallet, and big muscles!
Sorry liam511, my use of "joke" wasn't the right term. If anything, I should have said "ridicule". It's hard to take D'Souza seriously when he uses such poor arguments. But a worse issue is that he, like Craig, are not simply attacking atheism but defending a single theist position - Christian (and even then there are dozens of Christian sects!).
Or a slight twist, the 'men want to marry the mother' type mentality. Where men want to find a partner that will take care of them, and look for this altruistic behavior in a female, hoping she will be just as altruistic to them. It also works both ways, of females wanting a male that will take care of them.
I love the way that D'Souza claims that atheists want to get rid of the sanctity of human life, as if theists want to preserve it. Last time I checked, theists were quite willing to negate the sanctity of the lives of many humans. Bush, the most religious President we've had since probably Carter, has had no compunction against sending American soldiers to Iraq to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Where's the sanctity of human life there? Where's the "turning of the other cheek"?
Dinesh constantly turned away from Singers argument from suffering. After a few stupid evasions he finally thought up some stupid argument about the atheist conception of the universe. Luckily Dineshes heavenly universe cannot be observed!
I can admit that both of them made some interesting points, can you? I think your obvious bias is clouding your ability to see any points made by Dinesh. I would say that peter is evading some of dinesh's points.
I would love to see Denish explain the following. Put two 4-5 year olds in a room, make the other child cry. And you will almost certainly see that the other child also starts crying.
What is your point? I think singer needs to explai this more that dinesh. I think dinesh has already attempted to explain these causes whether you agree with it or not.
What the heck are you talking about? I made no comments in regard to compassion of strangers. I could respond to your comments, some of which is pure conjecture on your part, but i really don't have the energy right now/
clesshawn, I gave a 2 line reply to your reply to ggp1983. My other comment was a comment on the video. I didn't put it as a reply to you. Your welcome to comment on my comment - but you don't seem up to it.
clesshawn thinks that a Darwinian explanation for compassion, and how it might applied to strangers, is 'conjecture'. Maybe wants to use his Christian God as an explanation. Or is it the Jewish God, or the Muslim God. Trouble is, is this God or Gods a coherent concept? Even D'Souza says we have to base things on what we 'know'. Well, which God is it? And do we 'know' that any particular God exists?
There is a very good reason why we would care about it dinesh (2mins). We want to promote a society where this kind of action is performed. You give your seat to the old woman (2:50) because you want to live in a society where that kind of things happens. The next person getting a seat might be your mum, granny, cousin, sick child. Of course you want to promote the type of action that will promote the kind of society where your loved ones benefit from this action. Is it really so complex?
I absolutely agree with you. I was very disappointed in Hitchens' performance against D'Souza but Singer more than makes up for it here. He clearly wins this debate and D'Souza appears shaken.
i really dont think dinesh beat hitchens, hitchens phoned in his arguments in that debate and still came out on top. i really think hitchnes was too soft on this twerp.
a more satisfying debate is between d'souza and barker at harvard.
I'm no evolutionary biologist, but even I can see that D'Souza hasn't the slightest clue about the subject. Either that, or he is deliberately misrepresenting it to what he hopes is a gullible audience in order to get them to believe him.
I have watched a number of these D'Souza debates He deliberately makes the same lies over and over in different debates. It doesn't take much to convince the choir but he also does it to deliberately upset his opponents
He debates the top athiests. Why are they not being highly critical on his understanding of evolution? Why is this apparent ignorance on his part not being exploited by the champions of athiesm?
But it is very clear that D'Souza is at the very least not "up to date" with science. He seems to "win" arguments by making a very poor caricature of his opponent's views, then ridiculing them and getting cheap laughs from the audience.
Fair enough. I would love to see him debate a real evolutionist who will destroy him and exploit his stupidity.
For the record, evolution is not social darwinism right? Instead it is about having alot of variation of genes out there so that the species has a greater chance of survival right?
i tend to think that overall, dinesh is genuinly ignorant on the topic of biology. but im sure hes mixing in a bit of his own spin when he gets the chance.
D'souza seems incapable of answering questions without leaning on his much repeated lines of thought. e.g. the question Mr Nautica asks is answered with lines ive heard him say over an over. Perhaps this is why he comes off as never answering questions. He's parroting himself now.
Does anyone else notice how Dinesh always slying slips in these accusations that Singer is "ducking" arguments? That he intentionally does this is borderline sleazy.
Dinesh can't keep claiming that everything atheists claim is merely a mash-up of christian ideals, if that were the case then christianity could be claimed as an amalgam of paganism, egyptian god stories, greek and roman god stories and judaism, which of course it is. By that standard, all christian values are mere corruption of the religious traditions it consumed over time, which i suppose it is
I think that the only people who earn the derogatory names uttered deserve them... Othewise I believe that both debaters made good points. Whether you agree with them or not, should not lead to such utterances. I don't agree with everything either, but I don't feel the need to become a radical (which most atheists who utter themselves in such insulting manners, determine to be the threat of theism) in my expressions and call as a result all atheists names... THAT is pathetic!
Dinesh always makes the same argument, and it's always WRONG.
Genetic protection, Dawrin-style, is NOT just family protection, it's SPECIES protection; the altruism toward another human being exists for the perpetuation of the SPECIES.
D'souza is a consummate bullshit artist, a maker of strawmen.
dinesh stop with the christianity created morals argument. do u seriously believe that the rest of the world lived in abject immorality until say 300-400 years ago it reached the entire world.. what a crock of shit.
dinesh's argument about people only doing good to those who share their genes is fundamentally flawed. its very obvious (to any thinking person) that human beings, though unrelated by blood, still share over 99.99% of their genetic material
The compassion and elementary morality seems to have important survival values that may outperform the often cruel and ruthless natural selection observed in animal kingdom. So the good things too have evolutionary origin. So where is the contradiction? As long as we are able to survive and evolve as a species it does not matter what route the evolution takes. May be a complete picture of Darwin's theory of evolution is yet to be unfold.
What a dishonest prick. Dinesh I mean lol. Even if you disagree with Peter Singer, at least he doesn't create false caricatures of his opponent's views.
Darthmaio 6 days ago
D'Souza's mosquito-ish slurs on Singer's integrity, "ducked", "smuggled", etc., in contrast to Singer's dignified and consistently respectful treatment of D'Souza, illustrate the tremendous boon to the character and intellect of subscribing to the precepts of Christianity.
Hypatiarhetoric 2 weeks ago
brilliant guy D'Souza
TheBiblesword 2 weeks ago
The fact that they need to give away prices and have "jerry springer action" to get people to come see this debate at a "University" should say everything you need to know about the university..
fjoo 1 month ago
Yes! First time I've seen the atheist debator make the case that there is an evolutionary basis for empathy and compassion (which is the case) because this totally invalidates claims that Darwinism is incompatible with cooperation. And I hate that these debates centre on Darwinism because any scientist will tell you it's REDUCTIONIST to describe human behaviour solely based on Darwinism. It's a CHEAP TRICK for people like D'Souza.
TheGerogero 1 month ago
Imagine this: You have been accused and you are about to be burned at the stake. Would you rather have Singer or D'Souza as your inquisition judge? Don't you love how pure Singer thinks and don't you fear how ugly D'Souza misuses his reasoning faculties? The church and its morality (where ever that morality came from) didn't care for the suffering of the heretics they burned at the stake. They reasoned like D'Souza, not like Singer.
whauffend 3 months ago
Hey, take the Theology in Ethics class! Converge88 the atheist deserves credit for finding a way to argue that takes no work or critical thinking for yourself. Just say, "Take a class" or better, "get an M. Div degree!"
No mention of the fact that "Evolutionary Psychology" is a convenient and controversial field made up to address weaknesses in the Evolution argument. But that would actually require critical thinking.
nehemiahboaz 4 months ago
You do get something out of giving up your seat on a bus Mr. Dinesh . . . it makes you feel good, and that's enough.
risingsun08107 5 months ago
What about Peter Singer's compassion for animals? Why would he have evolved that? Are animals going to contribute to Peter Singer's genetic legacy?
THEtylerjones 5 months ago
Hey, thank you for posting all of these clips. They're great.
PulpPractical 7 months ago
Holy fuck, D'souza is ignorant of the relationship between evolution and social psychology.
rumraket38 8 months ago
2:42 If in saving your children, the genes make its way into the next generation, wouldn't helping a stranger accomplish the same thing since all humans are over 99% genetically the same and pretty much the same genes would be propagated if save my children vs. helping a stranger.
jessc1979 9 months ago
haha!! William Laine Craig at 0:31! on the left of the screen when the guy is asking the question. lol
ArthurCorp1 10 months ago 2
@ArthurCorp1 You got good eyes!!
jessc1979 9 months ago
D'Souza didn't come to debate the existence of God, but to show that Peter Singer is an evil guy.
macroman52 11 months ago
Dinesh: "No God no rights". What a fucking idiot.
liquid636 11 months ago
@liquid636 Can you refute that? Or are you just going to hurl insults around?
lonehunter65 5 months ago
@callofduty497 If you did that, all atheists would agree with you, but that has no relevance to what humans value nor how humans choose to organize their societies. The big problem is this : How on earth would we define anything as "good" if it's unrelated to human interests? Values presuppose valuers. Humans are valuers and their values are therefore dictated by the range of phenomena we call human activities/-nature. It is simply a contradiction to claim it can have another source.
Gnomefro 11 months ago
@callofduty497 It should be clear that giving an apple to a starving child is a non-issue if you're wealthy. However, giving all your money to the poor is not a non-issue. Sawing off a child's finger would be blatantly absurd in that light. First, nobody would imagine that this could benefit the child. Second, we can imagine all kinds of reprisals directed at us from others if we were to be discovered.
At best you could argue that actions regarded as bad by humans have no cosmic significance.
Gnomefro 11 months ago
@callofduty497 "The drastically different moral values behind these two actions are - or, at least, should be - irrelevant under Singer's atheistic scope which denies the existence of morality."
Absolutely not. Because the reason for helping people is not simply that there's no reason not to. The core reason is that we identify with others and can imagine how we'd suffer in their situation. You completely missed that part. The part about "no reason not to" is that there is a tradeoff involved.
Gnomefro 11 months ago
The guy in the yellow shirt asked him a question he wouldn't answer and D'Souza tucked tail and ran.
msteele79 11 months ago
Dinesh has an astonishing narrow and uninformed view of the evolution of compassion. He's treating this more like a game of chess than a discussion, but he's losing anyway.
AnotherMasterMind 1 year ago 2
Christianity doesn't explain why we would care about each other either...?
Existentialisht 1 year ago
if god does not exist why is there Evil?
joeztoo123 1 year ago
What peter says in the begining here is what dinesh and other religious people are not capable of seeing. If dinesh REALLY thinks that people only "care" for others because of religion, then he is the most delusional person on the planet, or he is trying to achieve something else, which only he knows what it is exactly.
youngfart40 1 year ago
Giving your seat to an old lady on the bus DOES give you something: the satisfaction of having done what you think is right. If you didn't think that giving the old lady the seat was the right thing to do, you wouldn't have given it to her.
junior9403 1 year ago
technically d'souzajust smuggled this 'extar' element in there at 2:15 HIMSELF!
Talk about a bloody strawman.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
A goose will protect a wolf if the wolf chirps. This explains altruism.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
People are atheist for moral reasons not intelectual ones!
redlinegw 1 year ago
@redlinegw You mean theists need a list to refer to, so they won't steal and murder?
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
@Brainbuster1000 Nah, God has written his laws on everyones heart.
redlinegw 1 year ago
Hell yeah, Peter Singer... thank you. How can we have objective morality in a godless universe?
Because we can have and give REASONS. Christ, D'Souza really takes a diminished view of our capacity to reason and is so ready to paint atheists as lacking reasons to act morally...
ianleviste 1 year ago
I know a lot of religious people who do things because they are commanded to by their imaginary god. Not because they are truly compassionate towards me or others. They even end up fighting with other people of the same religion. D'Souza is so full of shit, and it fucking pisses me off that he evaded so many questions. BTW, Peter Singer did a great job.
raby760 1 year ago
a christian value: redistributing the wealth to those that have less <== Dinesh basically saying that "socialism is a christian idea!"
he had a hard time debating peter singer and i think that's awesome.
gabriel2099 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Totally bullshit, interest of dog or cow IS NOT the same like my own. .... Atheism is a metaphysical error.
metal87power 1 year ago
Totally bullshit, interest of dog or cow IS NOT the same like my own. .... Atheism is a metaphical error.
metal87power 1 year ago
@metal87power well, considering your obviously limited powers of reasoning, then maybe you do have a sense of self-interest like that of a dog or cow. The point is that the more a being evolves, the better-able it is to deny itself instant gratification to secure for itself a long-term existence, or the long-term existence of the species as a whole. Though I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, this would seem to be the biological basis of altruism.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
Totally bullshit, interest of dog or cow IS NOT the same like my own.
metal87power 1 year ago
Those so called "unselfish" acts that are performed by christians. I don't suppose that they have anything to do with buying a place in the heavenly hereafter by any chance?
Skenzed 1 year ago
If Hitler had believed in God, he'd have killed less people. Because see, God gives you a limit to the number of people you can kill. <------Dinesh's favorite argument in a nutshell.
rpcarnell 1 year ago
"Nietzsche hated the idea of compassion". D'Souza == complete retard
omnissient 1 year ago 6
@omnissient And D'Souza is very well read.. He knows this isn't the case, still he uses it as an argument. - He's dishonest in half of what he says and should not be invited back until he learns to defend his views honestly.
fjoo 1 month ago
dinesh is the actually the one picking and choosing the christian values. so dinesh do you support stoning someone on the sabbath?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi I think this is a bad example, Can you provide one Christian that has done this on the Sabbath? I cannot think of one example. But I think your point is that it is in the Bible, so Christians must do everything that is in it, but this is not entirely true. Some laws were for specific people in specific situations. While other laws apply universally.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 how do you which laws are specific and which are universal? yes i was referring to the bible i.e. your objectively moral guidebook.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi So thats a no on the Sabbath question?
The context reveals the purpose and intent.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 i never said that christians did do that but they likely did in the early days. however that is irrelevant nonetheless and is pretty lame strawman.
im attacking your objective morality which is the bible which you seem to cherry pick. if the context reveals the purpose and intent then it is subjective because everyone can draw a different inference on what the purpose and intent is from the context.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Fair enough.
That is a good point. Paul discusses this when he talks about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Some people do not feel guilty for doing it while others do feel guilty. This is the subjective aspect where our conscience guides us. But we can check our inferences with other verses from Scripture.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
Dinesh cheap shot master.
markthenicholson 1 year ago
from 4:00, it's just white noise, skip to 5:57.
bangooisgood 1 year ago
why is dinesh such a whiny bitch
existence88 1 year ago
The more I've watched this debate the more I've come to hate D'Souza's constant disengenuous bullshit. He keeps making accusations about Singers ethic's without, it seems, the faintest idea about what Singer actually says. Also he's got a fucking cheek saying Singer picks & chooses. Every Christian picks & chooses their morality from the Bible.
gextvedde 1 year ago 2
Dinesh irritates me so much - such a manipulative religious douche
@5:40 he's talking about how Peter picks and chooses...what being assertive and using what works discarding what does not work is ...what...evil?
this black and white thinking...all or nothing - that Christianity brings into this world is quite annoying
numbersabcdefg 2 years ago 18
Im a theist, so my bias should be with DSousa. However, I think Singer won the debate by far, even if his arguments were not exceptionally strong.
Its as if DSousa was trying to put forth a William James-esque pragmatist argument for theism, only he failed to eliminate other religious possibilities first.
enarchay 2 years ago 3
Dinesh, you're a tool. Poor analogies!! What about my dog?? Why do I want to protect her and keep her alive? Does god or the bible give me a reason? NO!!! The answer is that empathy and human solidarity give me all the reasons I need. She helps me and our family feel happy and loved, it is that simple. No god or tribal hatreds are needed!
dwolfcoach 2 years ago
I disagree Nor because there is nothing to gain from such selfless acts.
RorySPQR 2 years ago
It is an amazing thought , the concept evolution applied to behaviour. Mind blowing
NorAnn87 2 years ago 3
P.Singer is amazing with his answers, and I do believe that there can be a selfish reason behind helping an old lady on the bus, or giving blood...they are good deeds that makes US feel good about ourselves. These are GOOD deeds in our mind and with the consequence -- it feel right, it feels good. Is this really an unselfish deed?
NorAnn87 2 years ago
Very well put. However, as a passionate human being, one might feel ashamed to assert that we're always self-fish even though our logic coerces us towards the other spectrum.
NightmareContinues 2 years ago
I'd like to add, that through examining relevent literature to theism, science and religion, and utilizing reason, much that I'd held dear had been evaporated as corresponding knowledge trivializes or even demonize these ideas. This includes, obviously, the denouncement of god, contempt towards religion, marginalization of love, and my adherence and faith to Marxist societies. One can truly see the superiority of religion's appeal and nurturing of emotions, in terms of the survival of the meme.
NightmareContinues 2 years ago
I think this is just misunderstanding the word "selfish". Selfish means pleasing ourselvs at the expense of others, or with a harmful disregard to their wellbeing. If helping people is selfish, everything is selfish. In a sense, our own happiness is always our motivator, but this is not selfishness in the traditional sense.
TrophyBass12 2 years ago
The fact that we can trace these actions to evolutionary origins does not demean the acts at all, in my opinion
tommyk77 1 year ago 4
the questioner is wrong, d'souza gives NO evidence for a god, ever, in his talk. period.
BillKiernan 2 years ago 2
Technically God is an indefensible argument. You can't prove an epiphenomenon and you can't disprove one. He did, though, summon Steven Hawking's explanation that the universe is teetering on a knife's edge, which makes it appear as though it were finely tuned by a designer. Francis Collins used the same argument in The Language of God, and it's one of the very few "reasonable" arguments for a designer. I'm using reasonable loosely here.
SonicBoyster 2 years ago
good point, i had forgotten that segment.
BillKiernan 2 years ago
The Universe is the way it is. It is not "designed" to be nurturing tos entient life. There is no evidence that our solar system is crawling with extraterrestrial life. There is no evidence that life exists anywhere but Earth (although the possibility exists and maybe probable). How does this indicate a Universe that is fine tuned for life?
Dchellberg 2 years ago 4
Again, we are compassionate because our species is hardwired for survival--our species--more so than us as individual organisms. Although we may like to deny the reality of death, our cells survive by passing genetic information from organism to organism. So, our instinct is for the survival of our species, of others, rather than just ourselves. Remember, the ancestor of a bee was a loner. As they've evolved, they became the collective an individual member will sacrifice its life for.
toddeklof 2 years ago
Why did Singer skip the obvious, "have you ever actually read the bible?". Since there's good and horrific things found in the bible, and we've been cherry picking it since it was compiled. This shows that human morality has evolved in spite of religion, not because of it.
hrmIwonder 2 years ago 3
Both answers miss the obvious! We are compassionate, like many mammals, because we have a limbic system, which, among other things, causes us to care for our offspring so our species can survive. Compassion is a survival mechanism. Otherwise we'd leave our infants at birth, like reptiles.
toddeklof 2 years ago
But why do people sometimes go so far out of their way, even to their deaths, to be compassionate?
Spectralancer 2 years ago
Morality ceased to exist until the Bible was canonized. Isthat what is being proposed by this person.
vroika 2 years ago
4:14
Wow d'souza doesn't even know what atheism is.
Jacko38 2 years ago 2
many atheist philosophers have tried to put the question to religious traditions... scientific disciplines, such as astronomy, could not progress until religious assumptions were overthrown. I don't think D'Souza was too far off in his assessment of Singer. Since it seems to me atheism is very likely true, he's paying Singer quite the compliment as I see it.
VeiledHeathen 2 years ago
Singer got 2 questions in a row.
dealerovski82 2 years ago
WOW. D'Souza doesn't understand Nietszche either.
The bible gives human no rights. It dictates shit.
Mjhavok 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hahahahah this was funny Dsouza kicked the shit out of skippy the bush kangaroo
eurobuster 2 years ago
Good point.
Idiot.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
you are a piece of shit bastard
bible is responsible for morality in this world
stalin,mao killed millions and they are atheist.
so shut up your mouth you atheist ass of stalin
read bible
Magarmach09 2 years ago
Magarmach09, I read ur reply to someone who blamed the bible 4 our societal ills and the language was not needed. I have replied to u and u I on a few ocassions now and u have much intellect. that is rare. prove ur point with that. I know u can do it
genious4real 2 years ago
So your opinion is that before the bible was written morality didn't exist? As I write this I know responding to you in beneath my intellect but what the fuck I will do it anyway. Morality is a culturally evolved and evolving aspect humans which has some biological basis. Stalin and Mao are also both men does that mean all men are tyrants? You could make a better case for that since dictators have always been men. I promise I will read the bible if you promise to read something beside that.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Morality has NOTHING to do with the Bible or Religion.
Religionists were the first ones to canonize morality and write it down, but they did not create it.
Much of the original Hebrew scriptures were written by bigotted and savage bronze age men that promoted and condoned murder, genocide, abuse of slaves, abortion, child molestation and misogony toward women all to justify their own inhumanities by claiming to be doing the will of God
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
In the Bible, Jesus walked around in simple robes and had no material wealth. That's what Christianity SHOULD be today. How can the people who claim moral authority, take no serious action when..."In a world where there is so much to do, there must be something for me to do."
chrisakqj10 2 years ago
I don't know how Christians do it. He stands up there in his fancy suit and I'm sure he has a vast wealth, but doesn't it say in the Bible, it is better to give than to receive. Why would you hold yourself to those standards when, well you can't? Why does he need those suits when there are others who have no clothing at all? I do not believe in God, but I believe a lot of christian morals can be good, but only when followed to the point. I do not see how you can...sort of, be christian.
chrisakqj10 2 years ago
Oh God, D'Souza. Two words: Evolutionary Psychology. Take a fucking course. You sound like a fool when you say there is no Darwinian reason to empathize and help others.
Converge88 2 years ago 46
@Converge88
I know right, i wish more people had even a vague understanding of Evolutionary Psychology, or even Psychology at all for that matter!
All they know is the stereotypes attached to mental illnesses and the image of the therapist who nods and asks why in an armchair from movies.
moyga 2 years ago
@Converge88 To be fair, I don't think Singer effectively argued this point. Also, Darwin never argued that evolution only leads to useful and more advanced traits.
iceddante 7 months ago
@Converge88 I think he knows the Darwinian reasoning to for empathizing and helping others people. He is saying that he does not believe there is any "good" Darwinian reasoning for these things. He is giving his opinions here! This is a debate. Anyone can give reasons or explanations for anything. Its a matter of getting others to believe these explanations. I can give reason that you are just saying foolish things on youtube to get other fools to give you thumbs up.
mbranco24 5 months ago
@Converge88 D'Souza thinks that genes have brains and make you think "I need to save the two gene-bags they call 'kids'. What a misrepresentation.
whauffend 3 months ago
Both men are incredibly bright. It seems both theists and atheists pursue ultimate truth, and have a notion that there is a single underlying principle that explains all things.
I believe we understand more of this underlying truth as time goes on, but will never master it. For mastering this truth would unlock the power to manipulate every aspect of the universe, and our finite minds are too meager to comprehend this infinite truth. Even the pursuit of this knowledge is vanity.
redpoint5 2 years ago
Singer and D'Souza are speaking about morality from a culture that is imbued by Christian concepts of morality. Singer says that people who don't believe in God still want to do good things, and D'Souza responds by pointing out that Singer wants to do good things because he has been ethically impacted by Christianity. Morality by peer pressure.
jmterwil 2 years ago
Standing up for an old lady in the bus doesn't improve your evolutionary potential directly. But this kind of compassion does make the society YOU live in more liveable and thus there's indeed an indirect value in helping each other out and not ripping each other off. Morality is simply evolution's answer to the tragedy of the commons.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
You nailed it.
rooley 2 years ago
It makes you wonder whether D'Souza would only stand up for an old lady in the bus because he thinks that would appeal to God.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
Exactly! D'souza always says "but if god doesnt exist, then I could do and act however I want...and personally I'm an asshole"
WizardsStaff 2 years ago 2
very funny
AMuscleInTheDark 2 years ago
The burden of proof is not on the atheists- it is on the theists. Where is the evidence that Allah doesn't exist? Where is the evidence that the boogie man or flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist? On another subject raised in the video above- it simply FEELS good to help strangers. There could be many biologic reasons- cooperation in a social network leads to increased "fitness" of the members of the group as more can be accomplished by cooperating humans than humans working alone.
simon2279 2 years ago
Singer states that Christians don't want to debate the existence of God and just rely on faith. Where is the evidence that God doesn't exist? Prove it!! Atheists must have faith to believe in something they have no evidence for. The question posed by the guy in the yellow T-shirt infers that you beleive what you are taught and come to the discussion with certain biases. That's where D'souza's observation of the millions killed by atheist regeims is so relevant. Atheism kills.
tmstockton3926 2 years ago
As Singer stated in his opening statement, it is difficult to prove there is no supernatural being or force that we can not observe or be aware of physically, but the proof that the biblical god does not exist is abundant. The likelihood that there is one sentient omniscient and omnipotent being that we can describe and depict so intricately, is not only very low, but almost to the level of the impossible. Lastly, atheism does not kill, immoralities kills, which originates from irrationality.
koalasarekool 2 years ago
I can't help but point out that, if D'Souza says that Jefferson had to talk about God as the source of rights because of the Declaration of Independence, he's wrong. Jefferson never mentioned the Creator or Providence in the version of the Declaration which he penned.
All those bits about the Creator were added later by committee.
BobTheViking24 3 years ago
First of all, it is only an assumption that morality is instilled in us through divine providednce. We all know that humans are naturally selective about morality. That is why a vast majority of people won't assist a person when he/she is experiencing police brutality. And maybe one just does moral things such as giving blood or a seat on the bus to get some recognition. My point is, THE CONCEPT OF GOD WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO EXPLICATE MORALITY !!!!!!!!
akamola 3 years ago 2
Nautica!
Darker skin: ignore the question
Lighter skin: contradict himself? "I believe that we live in the same universe, that there is a truth between us" -- "It is a cop-out for Xians to simply say that they believe"
catchme2wenty2 3 years ago
so the fact that people give up their seats on a bus for old woman proves there is a god?
try harder d souza
eddieindahouse 3 years ago
how great is it that you completely ignore the argument to site a piece of an example
bmdmaal 3 years ago
Dinesh must will himself to not think deeply.
JosephOD 3 years ago
I love how the only genuine philosophical question posed to these people (3:22)"stumped" them and made everyone in the room feel the tension of how contingent this absurd theism/atheism debate...Also, D'souza overlooks the philosophical pragmatist movement in the states that was not Truth based but value based and makes plenty of room for practical morality...oh well I guess I wish there was more genuine philosophical thought amongst these thinkers
FreethinkingFun 3 years ago
We are not alone roaming a wasteland, we merge in groups and compassion is necessary for a survival of the group. respect towards our elders...etc...they are the ones who pass on the knowledge and are therefore subject to respect and compassion. Without it the trive or group would not survive. As groups grow and merge that same idea is propagated and it grows. It's a survival instinct under harsh conditions. There is no need for a deity to accomplish this....
xylogblue 3 years ago
We're compassionate towards strangers because we would like compassion. And we simply don't want to feel like hypocrites.
superfisto 3 years ago
...are usually agreed upon by society in retrospect. "Well, that wasn't a very good idea was it?" There is a bell curve of various responses to a given situation in which empathy or a complete lack of it migh result and it is largely individual. To create a society we give up a small part of individuality because society has experimented and continues to experiment with different 'morals' that will give us different results and thus the experience to determine 'universal' morality.
rationalskeptic7718 3 years ago
...to be pleasurable so it is a end (no pun intended) unto itself. So why do they engage in this activity if it cannot allow them to reproduce/self-perpetuate? They are genetically different. It doesn't make them any more wrong than someone who was born w/a particular hair color or w/a congenital defect of some sort, it just IS. So we do have an explination for where, getting back to the main point, our morals come from. Aside from that fact societies evolve as well and 'morals'....
rationalskeptic7718 3 years ago
...evolutionary shadow. It also explains how such things as oral sex and sodomy occur. We have evolved obviously for sex/sex acts to be pleasurable (in their concentual context) but the prime impetus behind it is still the desire to self-perpetuate. So why do some still engage in these activities? They are still wrestling w/this evolutionary shadow. Homosexuals obviously engage in an activity that cannot result in procreation/self perpetuation but for whatever reason they find it....
rationalskeptic7718 3 years ago
The far better answer to the question of the source of empathy IS a result of our tendency to self-perpetuate. The very first 'social contract' was that one human promised not to kill another and the other reciprocated. I'm sure it did not take too long to figure out they had a better shot at survival and thus perpetuating themselves to enter into cooperative agreements which extrapolates outward to civilizations evolving as well. We lived in much smaller groups & still wrestle w/this....
rationalskeptic7718 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A great man! Singer, that is.
If you like this kind of thing, check out the amazing new Czech film - highly praised by Dr. Singer himself - called COMING SOON.
Highly recommended!
iloveUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 3 years ago
human strangers share many of your genes too
hopokuk 3 years ago
D'Souza is just a name dropper. He paraphrases Nietzsche over and over and always gets it wrong.
bandgeek5804 3 years ago 3
dinesh should read some Jonathan Glover.he might learn something
talicohen 3 years ago
2:55
If you think you get nothing out of it dinesh for helping a stranger then i hope YOU never lose your faith as you are clearly an immoral person who would be a completly awful member of society if you didnt beleive in your invisible friend.
irishmauddib 3 years ago 2
D'souza also simply doesn't understand how reciprocal help from tribesmates/packmates as humans were evolving could be a beneficial trait that is still part of our genes/psyche even though we live in a world that is much, much larger than a tribe. Quite simply: he doesn't really think that hard or isn't that knowledgeable about evolution. Moth to a flame, penny to a stranger.
darliben 3 years ago 3
most of us are not resolutely selfish, in the narrowest sense of the term. Our selfishness extends to those with whom we are morally identified: to friends and family, to coworkers and teammates,and—if we are in an expansive mood—to humans and animals
in general.Our entanglements
with people close to us erode simple self-interest.
talicohen 3 years ago
on the issue of compassion, this amazing video has an interesting twist to Dinesh' argument that compassion is a core Christian principle rather than a by-product of evolution
watch?v=QkEex37su3s
Surely this must have been a Christian leopard, so much compassion could not be found in an atheist leopard.
ticobassie 3 years ago 3
In this part it becomes very obvious that D'Souza is not so much interested in an open discussion but rather spouting his preformulated agenda: demonising the perceived amorality of atheism. It is particularly disrespectful of him to use a question by a visitor to take the time to do that. He seems so full of himself that he doesn't come across very likable.
ticobassie 3 years ago 20
@ticobassie Ya lets stop trying to find the truth and he should just keep his fucking mouth shut. I dont think so.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
@ticobassie I think D"Souza was spouting a pre-programed agenda in response to that question because he didn't know what the question was. It becomes painfully clear that he had no clue what the question meant and his lack of intellect is all the more evident.
TheAtheistKate 1 year ago
Comapassion is a product of motor neurons, which fire when we see people doing things that we also do. We react in fear and anger when we are hurt, others also react in fear and anger when they are hurt. We do not like pain, we see that others do not either. We are therefore capable of abstracting from common experience the conclusion that pain in general is not a good thing.
We do not have to be commanded by religion to experience compassion; it is a natural byproduct of our brains.
pirbird14 3 years ago
The reason for our morality is Smith's "invisible hand", whereby an individual pursuing his own self-interest also promotes the good of his society.
Onetimerule 3 years ago
Compassion towards strangers and altruism is a by-product of our compassion to close relatives and members of our immediate community, which DOES have undeniable darwinian value. Dawkins makes this point very well in many of his books...
laurentius82 3 years ago 5
Wtf? he says singer "isnt following his atheism all the way through" what a willfully ignorant comment. as if all atheist have to fit in with his warped view of us to count as atheists. we think to get our morals instead of being told by some ancient book and we definitely don't think like he assumes. his hate of anything unchristian and ignorance of what he argues against mean i cant take any of his few apparently rational arguments seriously because i know the bias they were formed by.
bigsmart 3 years ago 2
D'Souza sat there and listened to Singer's 'Atheism' throught-out the debate. He was comparing him to his own theory and his judgment was that Singer wasn't following how he described his 'Atheism'
ubermensch34 3 years ago
At 3:50, D'Souza starts answering a question, but as Singer says, he doesn't. But if anything, D'Souza can only see it as atheism vs Christianity, ignoring the hundreds of different belief systems!
dbes02 3 years ago
Darwinian evolution through natural selection DOES explain compassion for strangers. Humans evolved in relatively small groups (communities of around 100 or so members). So helping ANYONE in the group around you helps the group. In our much larger societies we still express the same morality towards people around us - who are now more likely to be 'strangers' - it's a type of misfiring of the instinct. So there IS a Darwinian explanation, and the instinct keeps getting expressed.
dbes02 3 years ago 2
yes, very interesting argument. Thanks
MetaphysicsAddict 3 years ago
But wait, there's more! To take D'Souza's own example: You give your seat on the bus to a poor old lady. She may not scratch your back in return, but your display of altruistic behaviour is noted by the pretty girl at the back of the bus. She gives you her number, and after A LONG COURTSHIP WITHOUT PREMARITAL SEX you marry and conceive a child. Bam! Your genes live on!
liam511 3 years ago
No, helping the elderly or small children would be altruistic. But being the mighty warrior (or sports star) or catching the buffalo to feed the group would be the instinctual behaviour to attract the girls. And boy does it work!
dbes02 3 years ago
I think you missed my point. Overt displays of altruism can (and are in the animal world) be taken as a sign of Plentitude ("I have enough resources I can give some away!"), Strength ("I am so strong I'll stand guard and watch for baddies!") - qualities that would make one an appealing mating partner - by the pretty girl at the back of the bus. Whats the two most attractive features of a man? A fat wallet, and big muscles!
liam511 3 years ago
I was sort of continuing your "joke", but yes, your scenario would be plausible (especially if the elderly lady was the girl's mother).
dbes02 3 years ago
Sorry liam511, my use of "joke" wasn't the right term. If anything, I should have said "ridicule". It's hard to take D'Souza seriously when he uses such poor arguments. But a worse issue is that he, like Craig, are not simply attacking atheism but defending a single theist position - Christian (and even then there are dozens of Christian sects!).
dbes02 3 years ago
Or a slight twist, the 'men want to marry the mother' type mentality. Where men want to find a partner that will take care of them, and look for this altruistic behavior in a female, hoping she will be just as altruistic to them. It also works both ways, of females wanting a male that will take care of them.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
I'm quite sure that's William Lane Craig sitting back in his seat at :32.
horsie111 3 years ago
I love the way that D'Souza claims that atheists want to get rid of the sanctity of human life, as if theists want to preserve it. Last time I checked, theists were quite willing to negate the sanctity of the lives of many humans. Bush, the most religious President we've had since probably Carter, has had no compunction against sending American soldiers to Iraq to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Where's the sanctity of human life there? Where's the "turning of the other cheek"?
bricology 3 years ago
"Dinesh won the debate against Hitchens..."
No, he didn't.
VictorPross 3 years ago 5
Dinesh constantly turned away from Singers argument from suffering. After a few stupid evasions he finally thought up some stupid argument about the atheist conception of the universe. Luckily Dineshes heavenly universe cannot be observed!
soursourapples 3 years ago
I can admit that both of them made some interesting points, can you? I think your obvious bias is clouding your ability to see any points made by Dinesh. I would say that peter is evading some of dinesh's points.
clesshawn 3 years ago
Maybe you could point these out to me.
soursourapples 3 years ago
no?
soursourapples 3 years ago
What did Singer evade?
MichaelDavisISTC 3 years ago
"What did Singer evade?" -
Please, ... enlighten everyone.
detlevi 3 years ago
Enlighten everyone about what?
I was asking what Singer evaded, because I didn't observe him evading anything.
MichaelDavisISTC 3 years ago
I would love to see Denish explain the following. Put two 4-5 year olds in a room, make the other child cry. And you will almost certainly see that the other child also starts crying.
ggp1983 3 years ago
What is your point? I think singer needs to explai this more that dinesh. I think dinesh has already attempted to explain these causes whether you agree with it or not.
clesshawn 3 years ago
clesshawn, you need to study a bit more cognitive psychology, and learn about mirror neurons. Empathy is built into the structure of the brain.
dbes02 3 years ago
What the heck are you talking about? I made no comments in regard to compassion of strangers. I could respond to your comments, some of which is pure conjecture on your part, but i really don't have the energy right now/
clesshawn 3 years ago
clesshawn, I gave a 2 line reply to your reply to ggp1983. My other comment was a comment on the video. I didn't put it as a reply to you. Your welcome to comment on my comment - but you don't seem up to it.
dbes02 3 years ago 2
clesshawn thinks that a Darwinian explanation for compassion, and how it might applied to strangers, is 'conjecture'. Maybe wants to use his Christian God as an explanation. Or is it the Jewish God, or the Muslim God. Trouble is, is this God or Gods a coherent concept? Even D'Souza says we have to base things on what we 'know'. Well, which God is it? And do we 'know' that any particular God exists?
dbes02 3 years ago 2
There is a very good reason why we would care about it dinesh (2mins). We want to promote a society where this kind of action is performed. You give your seat to the old woman (2:50) because you want to live in a society where that kind of things happens. The next person getting a seat might be your mum, granny, cousin, sick child. Of course you want to promote the type of action that will promote the kind of society where your loved ones benefit from this action. Is it really so complex?
irishmauddib 3 years ago 2
Jesus Christ, Dinesh, actually read the authors you cite.
Nietzsche said that his "overman" would be a Julius Ceaser with the soul of christ.
Compassion motivated by resentment he hated, not compassion.
Stay away from science AND philosophy Dinesh.
4ourthofjuly 3 years ago
Dinesh won the debate against Hitchens (IMHO), but Singer destroyed Dinesh.
Davor000 3 years ago
I absolutely agree with you. I was very disappointed in Hitchens' performance against D'Souza but Singer more than makes up for it here. He clearly wins this debate and D'Souza appears shaken.
yobculture 3 years ago 2
i really dont think dinesh beat hitchens, hitchens phoned in his arguments in that debate and still came out on top. i really think hitchnes was too soft on this twerp.
a more satisfying debate is between d'souza and barker at harvard.
spacecowboy95 3 years ago
I'm no evolutionary biologist, but even I can see that D'Souza hasn't the slightest clue about the subject. Either that, or he is deliberately misrepresenting it to what he hopes is a gullible audience in order to get them to believe him.
bujin1977 3 years ago 2
bujin1977 - gullible audience
I have watched a number of these D'Souza debates He deliberately makes the same lies over and over in different debates. It doesn't take much to convince the choir but he also does it to deliberately upset his opponents
AuShawster 3 years ago
Bujin1977,
He debates the top athiests. Why are they not being highly critical on his understanding of evolution? Why is this apparent ignorance on his part not being exploited by the champions of athiesm?
hypermonkey24 3 years ago
That's something you'd have to ask them.
But it is very clear that D'Souza is at the very least not "up to date" with science. He seems to "win" arguments by making a very poor caricature of his opponent's views, then ridiculing them and getting cheap laughs from the audience.
bujin1977 3 years ago
Fair enough. I would love to see him debate a real evolutionist who will destroy him and exploit his stupidity.
For the record, evolution is not social darwinism right? Instead it is about having alot of variation of genes out there so that the species has a greater chance of survival right?
hypermonkey24 3 years ago
i tend to think that overall, dinesh is genuinly ignorant on the topic of biology. but im sure hes mixing in a bit of his own spin when he gets the chance.
spacecowboy95 3 years ago
D'souza seems incapable of answering questions without leaning on his much repeated lines of thought. e.g. the question Mr Nautica asks is answered with lines ive heard him say over an over. Perhaps this is why he comes off as never answering questions. He's parroting himself now.
comatose603 3 years ago
Does anyone else notice how Dinesh always slying slips in these accusations that Singer is "ducking" arguments? That he intentionally does this is borderline sleazy.
beeeefstew 3 years ago 2
Dinesh can't keep claiming that everything atheists claim is merely a mash-up of christian ideals, if that were the case then christianity could be claimed as an amalgam of paganism, egyptian god stories, greek and roman god stories and judaism, which of course it is. By that standard, all christian values are mere corruption of the religious traditions it consumed over time, which i suppose it is
DandeB88 3 years ago 4
Dinesh probably thinks Christianity invented the wheel.
RoryCalhone 3 years ago 8
I think that the only people who earn the derogatory names uttered deserve them... Othewise I believe that both debaters made good points. Whether you agree with them or not, should not lead to such utterances. I don't agree with everything either, but I don't feel the need to become a radical (which most atheists who utter themselves in such insulting manners, determine to be the threat of theism) in my expressions and call as a result all atheists names... THAT is pathetic!
ericdt7 3 years ago
Dinesh always makes the same argument, and it's always WRONG.
Genetic protection, Dawrin-style, is NOT just family protection, it's SPECIES protection; the altruism toward another human being exists for the perpetuation of the SPECIES.
D'souza is a consummate bullshit artist, a maker of strawmen.
BionicDance 3 years ago 2
dinesh stop with the christianity created morals argument. do u seriously believe that the rest of the world lived in abject immorality until say 300-400 years ago it reached the entire world.. what a crock of shit.
rahulagrawal1487 3 years ago 2
dinesh's argument about people only doing good to those who share their genes is fundamentally flawed. its very obvious (to any thinking person) that human beings, though unrelated by blood, still share over 99.99% of their genetic material
rahulagrawal1487 3 years ago 2
The compassion and elementary morality seems to have important survival values that may outperform the often cruel and ruthless natural selection observed in animal kingdom. So the good things too have evolutionary origin. So where is the contradiction? As long as we are able to survive and evolve as a species it does not matter what route the evolution takes. May be a complete picture of Darwin's theory of evolution is yet to be unfold.
gitu1 3 years ago