For all those critiquing Dinesh's "shouting", why aren't you critiquing Dennett's stammering? "uh uh uh...well..uh..our universe COULD be one of many ..uh..."'
Come on people, let's focus on the arguments of the debate.
What is with the "car" analogy? Seriously! Does Dinesh understand the difference between making a car and a star emitting all the elements that led to the existence of organisms on earth. I think Dennet is right on the spot when he comments that Dinesh seems to be misunderstanding very basic principles of scientific observations, hypotheses, and theories.
I can't stand his tone make him stop, now I understand why many smart people are diagnosed as dyslexic at a young age, because of teachers like Dinesh, I've had trouble following every single thought he has tried to project. Yet, everything is clear when Dennett, or Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Harris speak... I must be crazy, Dinesh D'Souza because you can yell and scream you must be right
Idiot. Compare your experiences with as many people as possible, as many times as possible. When there is no change, you can say empirically that we all experience the same nature, and that's as close as we'll get.
So god becomes the default answer to everything! D'Souza is no different from a Neandertal that understands so little that it had to default to the supernatural. Consciousness is merely the firing of neurons--which can be examined scientifically and is being examined. As Dennett points out, we can report, read and write!!! D'Souza does that stupid design argument all over again. Doesn't he know anything other than Thomistic scholasticism??
Oh, well it's true that Dinesh does tend to equivocate a lot, but I think he just gets fired up a little. I have the same impulse when I get defensive and feel I'm not getting my point across.
If you are Athiest, no matter how good a creationist argues, it's still preaching. However, religious views aside, in terms of just debating, I feel like Dinesh won by a mile. Dennett stutters and trips up over half his rebuttals.
Dinnesh is the only guy who had anything to say and he said it very well. David Chalmers in his study of attempts to reduce consciousness to matter have in fact completely failed. Electrons aren't 'about' anythng and neither is acid. No pun intended.
“…we would really be ignoramuses if we just said, ‘Well, the universe is just there!’ Imagine if you use that explanation for other things: ‘The crater, it’s just there!…it doesn’t need a cause.’ Well it does need a cause, and if you’re going to posit a cause the most reasonable cause is to posit an intelligent designer that made it that way…who has always just been there and doesn’t need a cause.”
It amuses me to no end to listen to so many atheists denigrate D'Souza for the strident tone he takes with his opponents. I agree that it is distasteful. (He shows better form in other debates - here I think he is feeling the fact that he is probably the only theist in the room and he is under the spotlight. Not everyone handles such a situation with poise.) However, what about... Hitchens? That's *habitually* smug contempt. Atheists commenting on his debates do not seem to mind that, however.
@dvc5797 It's funny all the atheists bitching about Dinesh's "style" aka passion can't mount any argument based on the SUBSTANTIVE PORTION of what he said. As I learned way back when in law school - when you can't argue the facts, argue the law, and when the law doesn't favor you either, argue bullshit. Attacking Dinesh's style is bullshit.
@tonestar100 Yeah. I could understand a little bitching here and there about tone but the fact that so many have chosen to focus on that rather than the content of the arguments suggests to me that they either don't really know what the arguments were about or they don't know how to rebut them. There have been a few good counterarguments in the commentary but much of what I have read is predicated on misunderstandings (or deliberate distortions) of the actual argument. That's pretty standard.
Q Definition - God as completely outside the human realm of testing is too easy of an answer
A 1 Our entire experience of the world comes through our consciousness, which is an irreducible starting point of all experience 2:10
A 2 The slip in what you just said is in saying that 'consciousness is irreducible' 2:50 thanks to our developed scientific world view 3:00 of course we need our own experience to do that 3:10 we can understand what makes us tick 3:23 nothing irreducible about it
Q Definition - God as completely outside the human realm of testing is too easy of an answer
A 1 Our entire experience of the world comes through our consciousness, which is an irreducible starting point of all experience 2:10
A 2 The slip in what you just said is in saying that 'consciousness is irreducible' 2:50 thanks to our developed scientific world view 3:00 of course we need our own experience to do that 3:10 we can understand what makes us tick 3:23 nothing irreducible about it
Q Definition - God as completely outside the human realm of testing is too easy of an answer 0:32
A 1 Our entire experience of the world comes through our consciousness, which is an irreducible starting point of all experience 2:10
A 2 The slip in what you just said is in saying that 'consciousness is irreducible' 2:50 thanks to our developed scientific world view 3:00 of course we need our own experience to do that 3:10 we can understand what makes us tick 3:23 nothing irreducible about it
Trusting your five senses is a faith position comparable to belief in something that cannot be corroborated by your five senses? What a surprise, D'Souza's equivocating again.
Dinesh is mostly is helpless. Dennett, on the other hand, plays a senseless game - one cannot oppose religion to science. Dinesh pleads for absolute truth - religion, and Dennett is speaking about conditional reflections, models, of reality – science. On the other hand, Religion is an ideology to which one can oppose another ideology, for example Secular Humanism. Same mistake make others three of the “Four Horsemen”.
Dinesh says we would be ignoramases if we did not give an explanation of the universe and so asserts, on the basis of ignorance, 'God did it.' The man is an ignoramas, par excellence.
His point is that God explains those aspects of humanity far better than science could ever hope to. Further, that to mock or discount someone's belief in God is plain ignorant since there is in fact evidence that God COULD exist. And to respond to well over half the comments below...screw perfect decorum...so what if you don't like the tone of his voice. If you listen to his exact verbiage, you notice NONE of it is judgmental.
I think his entire point has to do with the explanation of human characteristics that are not quantifiable. He segregates the human experience into basically two categories. The first being quantifiable (science, evolution, ect...) the second being non-quantifiable (human emotion, the concept of right vs. wrong, ect...) D'Sousa main point is quite simple and it's incredible to read these comments and see how people react.
and I hate how I have to turn down my speakers when he talks, and how shrill and obnoxious he is
and most of all I hate how irrational he is, and how he invents characteristics for God in order to explain what we as a species do not yet understand. He's no better than the Greeks inventing Zeus to explain lightning, except now he does it under the guise of answering more abstract questions.
Dinesh is a fool to start talking crap about consciousness in the presence of Dennett. Dennett is one of the world leaders in the field of consciousness, and it shows.
I completely disagree. An intelligent person absolutely cannot watch this video and think that Dennett is even close to D'Zouza in intellect. By comparison Dennett is relatively dumb! This is obvious. Nothing that he says is intelligent or even relevant to the debate. He is in WAY over his head. It is kind of sad really....
i think that what you conclude as dumb, i would conclude as: he's trying that as many people as possible understand his points ! He is not using difficult words or is making huge analogies that are hard to follow (at least for me) ! He is just trying to be a good teacher, he breaks down complicated points to points which are easier to follow and thus it's easier to agree with his point or not !
I think it's quite strange that you call him dumb... just don't agree with him !
Dennett proclaims the irreducibility of consciousness as "preposterous"....yet science has no idea what it is, where it comes from, or even where it houses itself in the brain. Consciousness is immaterial in its very essence, and requires no physical means for explanation. So if you don't know what it is, where it comes from, or whatever, how can you make an authoritative claim that it is reducible?
Dinesh is soooo dumb! he says that it's preposterous to say that the Universe is "just there" in the same way it makes no sense to say that the actress, the crater, etc. is "just there", and yet if you ask him what's the explanation for God's existence he'll essentially say that God is "just there" i.e. He doen't need an explanation! what a retard..
@HerrVonManstein I don't care whos side your on, but you have no right to call Dinesh or Denette dumb. This debate is a sophisticated one and both these individuals have spent years studying it. All of them have read hundreds more books on the topic than you have and have spent thousands more hours studying the topic than you have. And then comes HerrVonManstein, waltzing onto youtube, and boldly claiming, "blah blah Dinesh is soooo dumb!"
"Consciousness is irreducible" then he disagrees by giving two examples of why it is irreducible: "consciousness is where we all start with our own experience" and "we can pool the experiences of others--of course we need our own experience to do that." The word "irreducible" means that below that point, we cannot make judgments about reality.
I feel sorry for the guy, but he did it to himself.
1:00 What an unbelievably dishonorable cop-out from D'Souza...if he is going to fall back on pure subjectivism we may as well rename the debate "Does Dinesh D'Souza exist?" And by the way Dinesh, even thought we can't "see" emotion, we can see the signs of it in the form of another's behavior, their brain state, and hormonal/chemical reactions.
@iamheasyouaremeandwe And if he wants to fall back on the cop out of subjectivity, where does he get the ground to stand on in order to make such extraordinary supernatural claims?
The world you experience is through your senses and you have no proof that it corresponds to the real world. conscoussness is an irreducible starting point of experience. And that proves that the flying spaghetti monster is buttf4cked by the invisible pink unicorn (with its horn).
Its not like my conscioussness is screaming "God exists" and i just deny it due to science. God istn even defined. The definition keeps changing. First define what it is and how it can be tested.
Wow, horrible screaming from Dinesh and all these analogies. Analogies,by the way, are within the internal universe in that singularity, as Dinesh pointed out, and yet, he uses analogies to describe his fallacies about the existence of God. How can he use analogies that we can depict for ourselves, to try and explain God? Something of which he said, that God, works outside of the singularity. Failure.
@spwebb7771 Umm, exactly right. So, to try and depict God through analogies will never work due to the simple fact that God cannot be explained through our universal perspective of common sense. No one knows how God works.
@tracethetree Dinesh is more skilled at applying to the audience. This does not make him right. Actually I find that it's similar for the "Intelligent Design" (aka Creationist) movement: They are also VERY skilled at convincing (confusing?) the (uneducated) audience, and emply various tactics to make the impression that "they have won".
This is because they cannot REALLY WIN. Real debates are decided by reason, not by impressive speeches.
@HerrVonManstein Without taking sides, you have to be a neophyte to formal debates to not know that Dennett just got owned although that has more to do with the fact that Dinesh probably had experience with formal competitive debating somewhere : /
@HerrVonManstein ...Dinesh is only fast in rhetoric... that's all. I can't believe he even used another misrepresentation of evolution parallel with the "molecules-assembling-and-forming-a-boeing747" analogy. This is so old school ridiculous apologetics.
@DDAY44j - um no. Dinesh won the debate because his arguments, though loud at times, were more well reasoned, cogent, and persuasively stated. What any of that has to do with some tv talk show host I guess is meaningful to you alone
@mollkatles if you've ever seen the O'Reilly Factor you'd understand the reference. Mr. O'Reilly also appears to believe that shouting the loudest makes him right.
@monk54321 what dennett lost was precious time in his life wasted in this debate with this blathering mental patient. what d'souza lost was the debate and all his credibility. and possibly his mind.
wow some of the kids attending look like they wanna be somewhere els.. And here I am looking at the whole thing on a small screen and crap sound on youtube.
The questions Dinesh posed to the audience in effect would prove the guy asking is actually god. If we are all a result of his conciousness then he is indeed god. Im sure any "good" Christian would consider that a fallacy. Hence agreeing his external senses are reliable in their view and hence if his senses indicate no god its safe for him to presume, with a high degree of probability, there is very likely NO god.
@shilohwillcome Dinesh D'souza is a fraud who has never answered one single question directly or honestly. He dances around the ring of topics like a prizefighter who doesn't want to be hit. He avoids every question and instead flips the questioning on to the questioner without ever entertaining the question itself. His logic is full of assumptions and he never admits he doesn't know something. He is nauseatingly long winded. I've never seen someone take so much time to say nothing at all.
First, It's hard to answer questions that framed rhetorically as the answers are assumed in the question and are made to make a point rather than a real question.
Second, there is nothing unreasonable with having assumptions in logic, all reasoning has an assumption.
Why don't you tell me an example of his poor reasoning?
@shilohwillcome@shilohwillcome Ok for 1 he assumes God is outside space and time. He has no basis on which to claim that. No fact to support it. Yet he makes the claim to try and have his God yet protect HIm from scientific scrutiny by claiming that "well, God is OUTSIDE of space and time so His existence cant be tested...bla bla bla.." Where does he get this notion? Is it in the bible? No. Did God speak Dinesh and tell him this? No. Dinesh made it up just like he does all his arguments.
@mollkatles I love it...My advise....be smarter.. don't you mean my advice? You dummy....You tell me to be smarter? How about learning how to spell prior to criticizing others? Here's a little hint...advise is the verb and advice is the noun..
Now you wanna start over? Perhaps you lack the capacity? I got something dangling right here you can internalize you filthy troll...
@2eelShmeal Tell me where, when and what kind of experience you have with academic debates. Dennet got creamed in this debate, it's not even close and you should feel pretty silly for not even being able to flow a formal debate.
@melonbarmonster Not being able to flow a formal debate? D'Souza brings up fallacies, false arguments and PREACHES the entire time. He didn't answer anything. He didn't bring up any new or original points. He's hard to even listen to. If I wanted to hear a sermon I'd go to church.
@rjc34 Did you even go to college? There are academic debating circuits all over the US. I suggest you look them up and take some intro philosophy classes. You're oblivious beyond belief.
@melonbarmonster Shut the fuck up, prick. I'm sitting on my University campus right now. And coincidentally enough I'm doing an honors major in philosophy, specializing in religious studies.
I suggest you get your self some manner and an education first (and then maybe take a serious look at your superstitions beliefs). Anyone who thinks D'Souza did more than preach and spout incoherent arguments during this debate is deluded beyond belief.
@rjc34 LOL. Unfortunately for you, the fact that there are academic debate circuits nationwide and that anyone with any shed of experience in debating knows that Dennett got creamed in this debate is FACT. I suggest you take an into logical reasoning class before you embark on your "honors major". LOL. Better yet go join a debate team if your garbage school has one and learn basic debating. Your obvious cluelessness is downright comical.
@melonbarmonster Wow, I bet your epeen feels absolutely huge and throbbing right now, eh? Logical reasoning? IF you had any idea what you were talking about you would see through the cloud of fallacies and false reasoning employed by D'Souza during his preaching to the audience. Or perhaps you're just blinded by your religion, which I wouldn't doubt.
@melonbarmonster I will concede however if you're judging the winner based purely on audience reaction, the yes, D'Souza probably won the audience over with his passioned preaching.
If you're going to talk about logical reasoning however, and judge the debates based on the strength of their arguments the clear winner by a country mile is Dennett. His presentation style and rhetoric are cold, clear and logical, he does not appeal to the emotions of his audience.
@Fike2308 No, having an invalid position invalidates his position. This was supposed to be a debate, not 'listen to D'Souza preach, then Dennett counter as many lies as he could'.
"No detective work is necessary - it doesn't need a cause!"
Sure, but just substituting god ("It just happened because god did it") doesn't constitute detective work. It's the same as the former, just giving the undefined cause a personification.
Also I wish Dinesh would stop using that condescending tone.
haha.. look at Dennet during D'souza's "reasoning" at around 6:27. - It must be painfull to be so clear minded and having to listen to that junk logic. It even hurts my ears, I can't even imagine how he feels. ;D
He didn't answer the question at all. The student didn't admit that consciousness is a "being" or a "him" as God as D'Souza just defined it (more like shouted it).
his analogy the car being the universe is just stupid...the car is already man made...it cant be used as an analogy about the universe coming to existence...the fact is he assumes that he knows before he truly knows and can experiment about it...
B. ...., each religion saying "its" god is the true one, or its "saviour", "messiah", or "prophet' alone is the genuine, the rest bogus, etc. Such religious extremism is a sure recipe for the next nuke war, perhaps even within our lifetime.
It is sickening to hear D'souza boasting that half of S Korean population has been christianized. what is the point he is driving home?Buddhism is not a religion ?It helped the civilization in the entire region comprising Asia,particularly China,Japan and Korea, flourish. People's poverty and ignorance are exploited to exchange material incentives for conversion. Whether you are religious or not, professing faith in a God or not has nothing to do with that. That is what emerges from the debate.
The proposal of Dr Daniel Dennett to include religion, including I guess, God debate,morality and ethics, should emphasise the need for everyone to stick to each one's religion in which one happens to be borne. This demands that the so-called "proselytising religions" should henceforth stop their evangelical and conversion activities since God's love cannot be propagated and sustained through inter-religious denigrations and violences, ... >> B
2. It is nice that Christian church too has started using these truths by proposing a new interpretation of some of the biblical statements. If such common science-religion plank can be more vigorously pursued by all religions, the seeming conflict bet.science and religion visavis God can be reduced. With that, perhaps the new force of terrorism caused by religious fanaticisms also can come down, to carry forward evolution so man can notch higher knots on the evolutionary ladder.
Prof Dennett quite relevantly refers to the philosophical concept of consciousness being investigated in contemporary science, as well as what we now recognize as the evolution. These are quite a commonplace knowledge which an average Hindu understands since both these are "taught" much like the parables of the Christian Bible, through Puraanas which are the popular story-telling method of the wisdom of the Vedas, the oldest of extant works of religi,n and religious philosophy in the world.
I'll take D'Souza's passion over Dennett's snivelling, stammering, awkward diatribe within which he deems it completely necessary to snort, make a self-satisfying giggle that doesn't even resemble a laugh at his own lame attempt at intellectual humor and perpetually smack his lips at full volume any day of the week. ;-)
Sorry boys & girls, I give up now. I planned to look at part 13 and 14 as well, but Souza give me the little push I needed. Perhaps he can preach in these mega-churches in the USA. He has got the skills, no doubt about that.
It's amazing to see how brains evolve, and in fact shrink a lot, in just one hour!
Dinesh's shouting and moronic arguements are arrogant bigoted and ignorant. STFU seriously you absolute tool. Its all nonsense shear nonsense. About 80% of what he says are just what University people in the UK call waffle. Fluff. IE Nonsense to make what he is saying longer more important.
Not only that it sounds like something a british politician would say almost completely indirect. Evasive and answering a question with another question as if that is an answer.
Dinesh we may not be 100% sure of reality but Blindfold a man and give him say a block of wood, he can feel its shape and say it is a cube he can smell it and say it is wood, he can hit on the table and litsen to the sound. he could even bite it and taste it. He can do this with myriads of everyday things including people it is quite dishonest to compare that to our 'experience' of god.
D'souza is very skillfil at evading answering the questions. Like comparing Doestoevskys' novel to creation
D'Souza is really bad at actually answering a question in context to his own benefit. It's getting kind of annoying.
cerickNY 2 weeks ago
Dennet barrly has to say anything, Dinesh destroys his own arguments.
GonnabeUSNSEAL 2 months ago in playlist dan dennett
For all those critiquing Dinesh's "shouting", why aren't you critiquing Dennett's stammering? "uh uh uh...well..uh..our universe COULD be one of many ..uh..."'
Come on people, let's focus on the arguments of the debate.
Peace.
dwheel39 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 "For all those critiquing Dinesh's "shouting", why aren't you critiquing Dennett's stammering?"
Probably because one is a manipulating rhetorical technique designed to induce emotional responses and the other is not.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
We cannot know anything for certain, so lets believe in the christian god. Yeah right!
EquinoxIV 2 months ago
Heh, D'Souza invokes Godwin's Law and Pascal's Wager in the same debate... How can he still expect to be taken seriously?
pyrocubed 3 months ago
Dennet is an absolute embarrassment to atheism....the most inarticulate debater I've heard in awhile.
santisevenX 4 months ago
@santisevenX ...Most educated people note that Dennett is possibly the most intelligent of all of the 4 horsemen.
ll admit he can put you to sleep sometimes, but the fact remains that he's...extreemy impressive in his works, and lectures.
BigLundi 3 months ago
What is with the "car" analogy? Seriously! Does Dinesh understand the difference between making a car and a star emitting all the elements that led to the existence of organisms on earth. I think Dennet is right on the spot when he comments that Dinesh seems to be misunderstanding very basic principles of scientific observations, hypotheses, and theories.
secularmorality24 5 months ago
....why does he keep yelling at everyone?..why?..
AneTix101 5 months ago
I can't stand his tone make him stop, now I understand why many smart people are diagnosed as dyslexic at a young age, because of teachers like Dinesh, I've had trouble following every single thought he has tried to project. Yet, everything is clear when Dennett, or Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Harris speak... I must be crazy, Dinesh D'Souza because you can yell and scream you must be right
xd3monchildx 6 months ago
6:50 -- Cars aren't alive, and Watchmaker is long-since debunked, even for when this video came out. Dinesh is such a ridiculous, shouting child.
Llynok 8 months ago
1:20 -- Yes.
Idiot. Compare your experiences with as many people as possible, as many times as possible. When there is no change, you can say empirically that we all experience the same nature, and that's as close as we'll get.
Llynok 8 months ago
Thank you for posting this, tothesource1.
writersblock26 8 months ago
So god becomes the default answer to everything! D'Souza is no different from a Neandertal that understands so little that it had to default to the supernatural. Consciousness is merely the firing of neurons--which can be examined scientifically and is being examined. As Dennett points out, we can report, read and write!!! D'Souza does that stupid design argument all over again. Doesn't he know anything other than Thomistic scholasticism??
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
Dinesh D'Souza is king of overboard hyperboles, false analogies and misrepresentation.
JasperNagtzaam 9 months ago 3
Why does D'Souza shout all the time? I think the answer is obvious.
macroman52 10 months ago 8
@macroman52
So does Bart Ehrman... so what's your point?
meangreen4321 2 weeks ago
@meangreen4321 My point I think is that Dinesh shouts when he knows his argument is weak.
macroman52 2 weeks ago
@macroman52
Oh, well it's true that Dinesh does tend to equivocate a lot, but I think he just gets fired up a little. I have the same impulse when I get defensive and feel I'm not getting my point across.
meangreen4321 2 weeks ago
I prefer listening to the audiences much more than the Doctor's annoying voice
good2freelance 10 months ago
Does anyone else find Dinesh's mocking fake voice he uses to present strawman arguments real fucking annoying?
JustOneEarth 10 months ago 2
If you are Athiest, no matter how good a creationist argues, it's still preaching. However, religious views aside, in terms of just debating, I feel like Dinesh won by a mile. Dennett stutters and trips up over half his rebuttals.
MabiSayo 11 months ago
dude his analogies suck balls
janjust 11 months ago
Dan Dennet is not a good debater, like Hitch and Dawkins. But, he is a great writer
srikargottipati 1 year ago 2
Dinnesh is the only guy who had anything to say and he said it very well. David Chalmers in his study of attempts to reduce consciousness to matter have in fact completely failed. Electrons aren't 'about' anythng and neither is acid. No pun intended.
Youdamana 1 year ago
hmm, this is what I heard at 7:30…
“…we would really be ignoramuses if we just said, ‘Well, the universe is just there!’ Imagine if you use that explanation for other things: ‘The crater, it’s just there!…it doesn’t need a cause.’ Well it does need a cause, and if you’re going to posit a cause the most reasonable cause is to posit an intelligent designer that made it that way…who has always just been there and doesn’t need a cause.”
...
WorkOverTime 1 year ago
It amuses me to no end to listen to so many atheists denigrate D'Souza for the strident tone he takes with his opponents. I agree that it is distasteful. (He shows better form in other debates - here I think he is feeling the fact that he is probably the only theist in the room and he is under the spotlight. Not everyone handles such a situation with poise.) However, what about... Hitchens? That's *habitually* smug contempt. Atheists commenting on his debates do not seem to mind that, however.
dvc5797 1 year ago
@dvc5797 Hitchens doesn't talk bullshit.
Mitza77Yorkster 1 year ago
@dvc5797 It's funny all the atheists bitching about Dinesh's "style" aka passion can't mount any argument based on the SUBSTANTIVE PORTION of what he said. As I learned way back when in law school - when you can't argue the facts, argue the law, and when the law doesn't favor you either, argue bullshit. Attacking Dinesh's style is bullshit.
tonestar100 1 year ago
@tonestar100 Yeah. I could understand a little bitching here and there about tone but the fact that so many have chosen to focus on that rather than the content of the arguments suggests to me that they either don't really know what the arguments were about or they don't know how to rebut them. There have been a few good counterarguments in the commentary but much of what I have read is predicated on misunderstandings (or deliberate distortions) of the actual argument. That's pretty standard.
dvc5797 1 year ago
@dvc5797 Agreed.
tonestar100 1 year ago
@tonestar100 - I totally agree that attacking his style is bullshit. You hit the nail square on the head sir.
Fike2308 1 year ago
Dinesh ripped the first student apart.
dvc5797 1 year ago
@dvc5797 He also gave the funny-man with lap-top the New York beatdown for being a homo smart-ass.
tonestar100 1 year ago
@tonestar100 LOL! Love it.
dvc5797 1 year ago
'I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY BIG MAN WITH A BEARD HANDIN OUT STUFF!" lol hi-larious. He could also make a career as a comedian.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
Here is why intelligent design didn't happen. If there was/is this smart dude called God, then D'Souza would not have been created !
sonicbreaker00 1 year ago
@ 7:40 than where did God come from?????
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Q Definition - God as completely outside the human realm of testing is too easy of an answer
A 1 Our entire experience of the world comes through our consciousness, which is an irreducible starting point of all experience 2:10
A 2 The slip in what you just said is in saying that 'consciousness is irreducible' 2:50 thanks to our developed scientific world view 3:00 of course we need our own experience to do that 3:10 we can understand what makes us tick 3:23 nothing irreducible about it
aerycksmusic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Q Definition - God as completely outside the human realm of testing is too easy of an answer
A 1 Our entire experience of the world comes through our consciousness, which is an irreducible starting point of all experience 2:10
A 2 The slip in what you just said is in saying that 'consciousness is irreducible' 2:50 thanks to our developed scientific world view 3:00 of course we need our own experience to do that 3:10 we can understand what makes us tick 3:23 nothing irreducible about it
aerycksmusic 1 year ago
Comment removed
aerycksmusic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Q Definition - God as completely outside the human realm of testing is too easy of an answer 0:32
A 1 Our entire experience of the world comes through our consciousness, which is an irreducible starting point of all experience 2:10
A 2 The slip in what you just said is in saying that 'consciousness is irreducible' 2:50 thanks to our developed scientific world view 3:00 of course we need our own experience to do that 3:10 we can understand what makes us tick 3:23 nothing irreducible about it
aerycksmusic 1 year ago
Comment removed
aerycksmusic 1 year ago
Dennett facepalms at 6:07...
timothyccs13 1 year ago
Youtube need volume normalization for people who are too stupid/rotten to talk logically and truthfully...
bugogorac 1 year ago
Trusting your five senses is a faith position comparable to belief in something that cannot be corroborated by your five senses? What a surprise, D'Souza's equivocating again.
PerilocutionAZ09 1 year ago
stop BARKING Dinesh D'Souza
Shaghayegh11 1 year ago
Dinesh is mostly is helpless. Dennett, on the other hand, plays a senseless game - one cannot oppose religion to science. Dinesh pleads for absolute truth - religion, and Dennett is speaking about conditional reflections, models, of reality – science. On the other hand, Religion is an ideology to which one can oppose another ideology, for example Secular Humanism. Same mistake make others three of the “Four Horsemen”.
jimnn2009 1 year ago
Dennett's head is about to explode after listening to Dinesh' retarded logic.
fjoo 1 year ago
Dinesh says we would be ignoramases if we did not give an explanation of the universe and so asserts, on the basis of ignorance, 'God did it.' The man is an ignoramas, par excellence.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
His point is that God explains those aspects of humanity far better than science could ever hope to. Further, that to mock or discount someone's belief in God is plain ignorant since there is in fact evidence that God COULD exist. And to respond to well over half the comments below...screw perfect decorum...so what if you don't like the tone of his voice. If you listen to his exact verbiage, you notice NONE of it is judgmental.
Subliime59 1 year ago
I think his entire point has to do with the explanation of human characteristics that are not quantifiable. He segregates the human experience into basically two categories. The first being quantifiable (science, evolution, ect...) the second being non-quantifiable (human emotion, the concept of right vs. wrong, ect...) D'Sousa main point is quite simple and it's incredible to read these comments and see how people react.
Subliime59 1 year ago
I wonder if Dinesh could prove that his own experience of the question asked ACTUALLY CORRESPONDS with the question out there.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
I love how Dan calmly stays seated while answering questions, yet Dinesh stands up immediately and starts yelling at and mocking every question(er).
jazzisbetterthanall 1 year ago
god im sick of analogies
TheDavid2222 1 year ago 24
@TheDavid2222 His analogies are like a drill going through the ears.
preemptivestrike20 8 months ago
You know what's REALLY annoying? Your hatred for D'Souza..
metal87power 1 year ago
@metal87power i wouldn't dislike dinesh so much if he wouldn't be such a fraud..
carryall69 1 year ago
I hate that stupid mocking voice d'souza does
and I hate how I have to turn down my speakers when he talks, and how shrill and obnoxious he is
and most of all I hate how irrational he is, and how he invents characteristics for God in order to explain what we as a species do not yet understand. He's no better than the Greeks inventing Zeus to explain lightning, except now he does it under the guise of answering more abstract questions.
bossmonkeykj 1 year ago
Dinesh is a fool to start talking crap about consciousness in the presence of Dennett. Dennett is one of the world leaders in the field of consciousness, and it shows.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
D'Souza is incapable of answering a question.
msteele79 1 year ago
I can't get over his mocking tone when he presents the other side in strawman-form
Its like fingernails on a chalkboard
filorps 1 year ago 2
I completely disagree. An intelligent person absolutely cannot watch this video and think that Dennett is even close to D'Zouza in intellect. By comparison Dennett is relatively dumb! This is obvious. Nothing that he says is intelligent or even relevant to the debate. He is in WAY over his head. It is kind of sad really....
MrFreeLibertarian 1 year ago
@MrFreeLibertarian
i think that what you conclude as dumb, i would conclude as: he's trying that as many people as possible understand his points ! He is not using difficult words or is making huge analogies that are hard to follow (at least for me) ! He is just trying to be a good teacher, he breaks down complicated points to points which are easier to follow and thus it's easier to agree with his point or not !
I think it's quite strange that you call him dumb... just don't agree with him !
MeAreTrees 1 year ago 3
@MrFreeLibertarian Nah, D'souza is a better speaker. Dennett is one of the best minds of modern times, just not a very good public speaker.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
Dennett proclaims the irreducibility of consciousness as "preposterous"....yet science has no idea what it is, where it comes from, or even where it houses itself in the brain. Consciousness is immaterial in its very essence, and requires no physical means for explanation. So if you don't know what it is, where it comes from, or whatever, how can you make an authoritative claim that it is reducible?
Answer: You can't.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
Dinesh is soooo dumb! he says that it's preposterous to say that the Universe is "just there" in the same way it makes no sense to say that the actress, the crater, etc. is "just there", and yet if you ask him what's the explanation for God's existence he'll essentially say that God is "just there" i.e. He doen't need an explanation! what a retard..
HerrVonManstein 1 year ago 3
@HerrVonManstein I don't care whos side your on, but you have no right to call Dinesh or Denette dumb. This debate is a sophisticated one and both these individuals have spent years studying it. All of them have read hundreds more books on the topic than you have and have spent thousands more hours studying the topic than you have. And then comes HerrVonManstein, waltzing onto youtube, and boldly claiming, "blah blah Dinesh is soooo dumb!"
zamedo1 1 year ago
"Consciousness is irreducible" then he disagrees by giving two examples of why it is irreducible: "consciousness is where we all start with our own experience" and "we can pool the experiences of others--of course we need our own experience to do that." The word "irreducible" means that below that point, we cannot make judgments about reality.
I feel sorry for the guy, but he did it to himself.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
He is such an angry little man. Getting all screamo at someone who is just putting forth a position. >_<
SkewedSciu 1 year ago
1:00 What an unbelievably dishonorable cop-out from D'Souza...if he is going to fall back on pure subjectivism we may as well rename the debate "Does Dinesh D'Souza exist?" And by the way Dinesh, even thought we can't "see" emotion, we can see the signs of it in the form of another's behavior, their brain state, and hormonal/chemical reactions.
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 year ago
@iamheasyouaremeandwe And if he wants to fall back on the cop out of subjectivity, where does he get the ground to stand on in order to make such extraordinary supernatural claims?
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 year ago
0:55
The world you experience is through your senses and you have no proof that it corresponds to the real world. conscoussness is an irreducible starting point of experience. And that proves that the flying spaghetti monster is buttf4cked by the invisible pink unicorn (with its horn).
Its not like my conscioussness is screaming "God exists" and i just deny it due to science. God istn even defined. The definition keeps changing. First define what it is and how it can be tested.
omnissient 1 year ago 2
Dinesh is reminding me of the song Speical Ed by Stephen Lynch.
MrLemex 1 year ago 2
@MrLemex totally...
LuigiPeach 1 year ago
I want more stories from Santa.
ArtariusRex 1 year ago
@ArtariusRex I want more presents.
yamborghini3 1 year ago
Wow, horrible screaming from Dinesh and all these analogies. Analogies,by the way, are within the internal universe in that singularity, as Dinesh pointed out, and yet, he uses analogies to describe his fallacies about the existence of God. How can he use analogies that we can depict for ourselves, to try and explain God? Something of which he said, that God, works outside of the singularity. Failure.
anime891 1 year ago 2
@anime891 because we are in this singular universe, so we can only understand anaolgies from this universe right...
spwebb7771 1 year ago
@spwebb7771 Umm, exactly right. So, to try and depict God through analogies will never work due to the simple fact that God cannot be explained through our universal perspective of common sense. No one knows how God works.
anime891 1 year ago
Dinesh clearly won the debate but he really needs to improve his question-answering skills
tracethetree 1 year ago
@tracethetree
I'll agree with that. I think he needs to have a more systematic and organized phrasing of his answers.
v01741r31 1 year ago
@tracethetree Dinesh is more skilled at applying to the audience. This does not make him right. Actually I find that it's similar for the "Intelligent Design" (aka Creationist) movement: They are also VERY skilled at convincing (confusing?) the (uneducated) audience, and emply various tactics to make the impression that "they have won".
This is because they cannot REALLY WIN. Real debates are decided by reason, not by impressive speeches.
bullpup1337 1 year ago
@tracethetree "Dinesh clearly won the debate " hahahahah man, you're nuts
HerrVonManstein 1 year ago 14
@HerrVonManstein Without taking sides, you have to be a neophyte to formal debates to not know that Dennett just got owned although that has more to do with the fact that Dinesh probably had experience with formal competitive debating somewhere : /
melonbarmonster 1 year ago
@HerrVonManstein ...Dinesh is only fast in rhetoric... that's all. I can't believe he even used another misrepresentation of evolution parallel with the "molecules-assembling-and-forming-a-boeing747" analogy. This is so old school ridiculous apologetics.
cre599 11 months ago 2
@tracethetree if you think dinesh won this debate you must be completely deaf.
doaftheloaf 6 months ago
Dennett lost.
monk54321 1 year ago
@monk54321 Why? You think D'Souza won because he yelled the loudest? Who are you, Bill O'Reilly?
DDAY44j 1 year ago
@DDAY44j - um no. Dinesh won the debate because his arguments, though loud at times, were more well reasoned, cogent, and persuasively stated. What any of that has to do with some tv talk show host I guess is meaningful to you alone
mollkatles 1 year ago
@mollkatles if you've ever seen the O'Reilly Factor you'd understand the reference. Mr. O'Reilly also appears to believe that shouting the loudest makes him right.
DDAY44j 1 year ago 2
@monk54321 what dennett lost was precious time in his life wasted in this debate with this blathering mental patient. what d'souza lost was the debate and all his credibility. and possibly his mind.
doaftheloaf 6 months ago
I wonder if Dennett tries to look like his hero Darwin, I think that's a bit odd.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
D'Souza may not have a better argument, but it's a louder argument.
lanemik 2 years ago 3
wow some of the kids attending look like they wanna be somewhere els.. And here I am looking at the whole thing on a small screen and crap sound on youtube.
dealerovski82 2 years ago 4
The questions Dinesh posed to the audience in effect would prove the guy asking is actually god. If we are all a result of his conciousness then he is indeed god. Im sure any "good" Christian would consider that a fallacy. Hence agreeing his external senses are reliable in their view and hence if his senses indicate no god its safe for him to presume, with a high degree of probability, there is very likely NO god.
daeamarth 2 years ago
@daeamarth your definition of god is not the same a D'souza's
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
I'm waiting for a debate like this, for one of the debatee's to start up a brew-hah and get into a UFC fight, lol.
It would be hard to control emotions during these things.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
No less evident than a "multiverse".
spootyrat 2 years ago
Hey Dinesh..... Yelling and hollering does not validate your position. TOOL
2eelShmeal 2 years ago 8
@2eelShmeal no, his argument does.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
@shilohwillcome Dinesh D'souza is a fraud who has never answered one single question directly or honestly. He dances around the ring of topics like a prizefighter who doesn't want to be hit. He avoids every question and instead flips the questioning on to the questioner without ever entertaining the question itself. His logic is full of assumptions and he never admits he doesn't know something. He is nauseatingly long winded. I've never seen someone take so much time to say nothing at all.
2eelShmeal 2 years ago 3
First, It's hard to answer questions that framed rhetorically as the answers are assumed in the question and are made to make a point rather than a real question.
Second, there is nothing unreasonable with having assumptions in logic, all reasoning has an assumption.
Why don't you tell me an example of his poor reasoning?
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
@shilohwillcome @shilohwillcome Ok for 1 he assumes God is outside space and time. He has no basis on which to claim that. No fact to support it. Yet he makes the claim to try and have his God yet protect HIm from scientific scrutiny by claiming that "well, God is OUTSIDE of space and time so His existence cant be tested...bla bla bla.." Where does he get this notion? Is it in the bible? No. Did God speak Dinesh and tell him this? No. Dinesh made it up just like he does all his arguments.
2eelShmeal 1 year ago
@2eelShmeal You say he has no basis outside
of space and time, i'm not sure if he believes this
(I think he is a classical apologist) but there are many philosophical arguments
of this form, this shouldn't be a problem. The
concept 2+2+=4 is an example.
Where did he get the notion God is outside of
space and time? It seems to be a logical conclusion
from propositions in the Bible.
shilohwillcome 1 year ago
@2eelShmeal - I've got news for you, Dinesh does answer questions, perhaps you lack the capacity to grasp and internalize those answers?
my advise, be smarter
mollkatles 1 year ago
@mollkatles I love it...My advise....be smarter.. don't you mean my advice? You dummy....You tell me to be smarter? How about learning how to spell prior to criticizing others? Here's a little hint...advise is the verb and advice is the noun..
Now you wanna start over? Perhaps you lack the capacity? I got something dangling right here you can internalize you filthy troll...
2eelShmeal 1 year ago
@2eelShmeal Dinesh is definitely of the "geek" mold and socially awkward but he's just wiped the floor with Dennett in this debate. LOL.
melonbarmonster 1 year ago
@melonbarmonster PWAAAHAHAHAHHAAAAHHAAHAHAA!!!! Oh man,..... you're such a kidder...lolololololol
2eelShmeal 1 year ago
@2eelShmeal Tell me where, when and what kind of experience you have with academic debates. Dennet got creamed in this debate, it's not even close and you should feel pretty silly for not even being able to flow a formal debate.
melonbarmonster 1 year ago
@melonbarmonster I agree that Dennett lost this debate.
Fike2308 1 year ago
@melonbarmonster Not being able to flow a formal debate? D'Souza brings up fallacies, false arguments and PREACHES the entire time. He didn't answer anything. He didn't bring up any new or original points. He's hard to even listen to. If I wanted to hear a sermon I'd go to church.
rjc34 11 months ago
@rjc34 Did you even go to college? There are academic debating circuits all over the US. I suggest you look them up and take some intro philosophy classes. You're oblivious beyond belief.
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
@melonbarmonster Shut the fuck up, prick. I'm sitting on my University campus right now. And coincidentally enough I'm doing an honors major in philosophy, specializing in religious studies.
I suggest you get your self some manner and an education first (and then maybe take a serious look at your superstitions beliefs). Anyone who thinks D'Souza did more than preach and spout incoherent arguments during this debate is deluded beyond belief.
rjc34 11 months ago
@rjc34 LOL. Unfortunately for you, the fact that there are academic debate circuits nationwide and that anyone with any shed of experience in debating knows that Dennett got creamed in this debate is FACT. I suggest you take an into logical reasoning class before you embark on your "honors major". LOL. Better yet go join a debate team if your garbage school has one and learn basic debating. Your obvious cluelessness is downright comical.
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
@melonbarmonster Wow, I bet your epeen feels absolutely huge and throbbing right now, eh? Logical reasoning? IF you had any idea what you were talking about you would see through the cloud of fallacies and false reasoning employed by D'Souza during his preaching to the audience. Or perhaps you're just blinded by your religion, which I wouldn't doubt.
rjc34 11 months ago
@melonbarmonster I will concede however if you're judging the winner based purely on audience reaction, the yes, D'Souza probably won the audience over with his passioned preaching.
If you're going to talk about logical reasoning however, and judge the debates based on the strength of their arguments the clear winner by a country mile is Dennett. His presentation style and rhetoric are cold, clear and logical, he does not appeal to the emotions of his audience.
rjc34 11 months ago
@2eelShmeal Calling him TOOL does not invalidate his position.
Fike2308 1 year ago
@Fike2308 No, having an invalid position invalidates his position. This was supposed to be a debate, not 'listen to D'Souza preach, then Dennett counter as many lies as he could'.
rjc34 11 months ago
"No detective work is necessary - it doesn't need a cause!"
Sure, but just substituting god ("It just happened because god did it") doesn't constitute detective work. It's the same as the former, just giving the undefined cause a personification.
Also I wish Dinesh would stop using that condescending tone.
Matfei1990 2 years ago
We all judge out of our own playbook don't we.
spootyrat 2 years ago
Some people can't wrap their head around the paradoxical "fore-known but not for-ordained" concept
copperblade 2 years ago
What an idiot ...
spiminator 2 years ago
here here
CamAtheist 2 years ago
No matter how much his points suck, no matter how irritating his voice sounds, got to admit that Dinesh is an excellent debater.
lttmorning123 2 years ago
haha.. look at Dennet during D'souza's "reasoning" at around 6:27. - It must be painfull to be so clear minded and having to listen to that junk logic. It even hurts my ears, I can't even imagine how he feels. ;D
fjoo 2 years ago
He didn't answer the question at all. The student didn't admit that consciousness is a "being" or a "him" as God as D'Souza just defined it (more like shouted it).
gyniest 2 years ago
his analogy the car being the universe is just stupid...the car is already man made...it cant be used as an analogy about the universe coming to existence...the fact is he assumes that he knows before he truly knows and can experiment about it...
aargut 2 years ago
6:27 face palm lmao
ibreakkidslegs 2 years ago
B. ...., each religion saying "its" god is the true one, or its "saviour", "messiah", or "prophet' alone is the genuine, the rest bogus, etc. Such religious extremism is a sure recipe for the next nuke war, perhaps even within our lifetime.
MarjorieBakre 2 years ago
Your predictions are backed up by the Bible. Is that where you got it from?
YesYou123333 2 years ago
If you ask Islamists, they too will say it is backed by the Koran, etc.
MarjorieBakre 2 years ago
Uh...Hello! Anybody home?
Christianity came before Islam.
YesYou123333 2 years ago
It is sickening to hear D'souza boasting that half of S Korean population has been christianized. what is the point he is driving home?Buddhism is not a religion ?It helped the civilization in the entire region comprising Asia,particularly China,Japan and Korea, flourish. People's poverty and ignorance are exploited to exchange material incentives for conversion. Whether you are religious or not, professing faith in a God or not has nothing to do with that. That is what emerges from the debate.
bmkaruppan 2 years ago 2
The proposal of Dr Daniel Dennett to include religion, including I guess, God debate,morality and ethics, should emphasise the need for everyone to stick to each one's religion in which one happens to be borne. This demands that the so-called "proselytising religions" should henceforth stop their evangelical and conversion activities since God's love cannot be propagated and sustained through inter-religious denigrations and violences, ... >> B
MarjorieBakre 2 years ago
2. It is nice that Christian church too has started using these truths by proposing a new interpretation of some of the biblical statements. If such common science-religion plank can be more vigorously pursued by all religions, the seeming conflict bet.science and religion visavis God can be reduced. With that, perhaps the new force of terrorism caused by religious fanaticisms also can come down, to carry forward evolution so man can notch higher knots on the evolutionary ladder.
paulkrist44 2 years ago
Prof Dennett quite relevantly refers to the philosophical concept of consciousness being investigated in contemporary science, as well as what we now recognize as the evolution. These are quite a commonplace knowledge which an average Hindu understands since both these are "taught" much like the parables of the Christian Bible, through Puraanas which are the popular story-telling method of the wisdom of the Vedas, the oldest of extant works of religi,n and religious philosophy in the world.
paulkrist44 2 years ago
Futures leaders of USA, use your power to stop fanatic people please.
callac 2 years ago
wanting people to be forced to stop their beliefs is worse than any "fanatic", but it seem you are a bit fanatic yourself.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
Stop with reason, not with witch hunting. =P
callac 2 years ago
Sounds like a fanatical claim to me.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
Our childrens gonna compare those who demand irational things one day. Let see what them will decide.
callac 2 years ago
lol fine
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
Conscienceness is physical. PROOF OF LIFE in others and ourselves is available.
scottaplummer 2 years ago
Comment removed
scottaplummer 2 years ago
Something cannot come from nothing. So there must have been a creator. Right?
So you're telling me there is no way that energy/matter could just exist forever? Right.
(Take it one step further)
So God couldn't exist forever like you said he did.
stemcgolf 2 years ago
shut up de'souza
azzy314159 2 years ago 15
what's with all the hate?
shilohwillcome 2 years ago
I hate the way D'Souza starts yelling when he starts talking.
saiochi 2 years ago 20
@saiochi
I'll take D'Souza's passion over Dennett's snivelling, stammering, awkward diatribe within which he deems it completely necessary to snort, make a self-satisfying giggle that doesn't even resemble a laugh at his own lame attempt at intellectual humor and perpetually smack his lips at full volume any day of the week. ;-)
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@saiochi i was about to say the same thing.
Regardless of what he says or the arguments he brings, or whether you agree or disagree, his yelling is really annoying.
ComeLeVent 1 year ago
@saiochi He seems either to be in fight or flight mode, or lying to himself.
LewisMKster 1 year ago
HAHA, you can Daniel cringe when Dinesh starts talking about intelligent design.
MakeshiftEstablished 2 years ago 4
Did he just use Paley's argument (watchmaker analogy) or am I imagining things?
ThaGMan51 2 years ago 4
So he's gone back to Descartes' idealism with "I think therefore I am." That doesn't help at all.
ThaGMan51 2 years ago
Sorry boys & girls, I give up now. I planned to look at part 13 and 14 as well, but Souza give me the little push I needed. Perhaps he can preach in these mega-churches in the USA. He has got the skills, no doubt about that.
It's amazing to see how brains evolve, and in fact shrink a lot, in just one hour!
peterwesselink 2 years ago 3
Dinesh's shouting and moronic arguements are arrogant bigoted and ignorant. STFU seriously you absolute tool. Its all nonsense shear nonsense. About 80% of what he says are just what University people in the UK call waffle. Fluff. IE Nonsense to make what he is saying longer more important.
Not only that it sounds like something a british politician would say almost completely indirect. Evasive and answering a question with another question as if that is an answer.
GET A GRIP
youjutsusha 2 years ago 3
Wow, his car=universe argument shows what an ignorant dumbass this guy really is.
SmoothPinkWater 2 years ago 4
Dinesh we may not be 100% sure of reality but Blindfold a man and give him say a block of wood, he can feel its shape and say it is a cube he can smell it and say it is wood, he can hit on the table and litsen to the sound. he could even bite it and taste it. He can do this with myriads of everyday things including people it is quite dishonest to compare that to our 'experience' of god.
D'souza is very skillfil at evading answering the questions. Like comparing Doestoevskys' novel to creation
leonore35 2 years ago 2
LITTLE MAN! STOP YELLING AT ME!!!
StarscreamsGhost1986 2 years ago 2
Dinesh a.k.a. Mr. Analogy
hendu1747 2 years ago 7
Nice observation :)
Hitchinian 2 years ago
Dinesh a.k.a. Mr. Poor Analogy
nemirn 2 years ago 4
Exactly!
hendu1747 2 years ago
Dinesh really should ask people questions more often so he can answer them for the people he's asking.
amensure 2 years ago 2
Denish is the only debater proves rational facts in this debate!!!!!!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!! Go for it Denish!!!!!!
I am an atheist and now I am convinced with Denish that there is really a creator!
Oh God! please forgive me being once an unbelieve