Humility is one of the more prominently proclaimed virtues in Christian tradition, but it is not just Christian virtue. It is widely seen as a virtue in many philosophical traditions. E.g. in Buddhism, it is equivalent to a concern of how to be liberated from the sufferings of life. Confucius said "humility is the solid foundation of all the virtues." Kant's view it as "that meta-attitude that constitutes the moral agent's proper perspective on himself as ... a rational agent".
The majority of the SS who carried out the final solution were practicing, God-believing, church-attending Catholics just like Dinesh D'Souza. And the Catholic church didn't excommunicate any of them. The only Nazi the Catholic church excommunicated was Goebbels. And they only excommunicated him because he married a Protestant. (Credit for this info: Christopher Hitchens)
Stalin was religious? the god was himself? oh boy...come on, Dennett, that was quite desperate. Face your own belief history and stop lying to us and to yourself.
@dwheel39 Take the recently deceased Kim Jong Il as an example. Research the miracles he performed after he died. Dennet's point is valid. If a dictator wants to control another group one way to do it is to get the populous to believe that the leader is a demi-god.
@sashang0" If a dictator wants to control another group one way to do it is to get the populous to believe that the leader is a demi-god."
Then i suppose you can also label Elvis, The Beatles, Lady Ga Ga, Justin Beiber and Kim Kardahsian as "demi-gods" since they each have their own cult following. This is ridiculous. Out of desperation Dennett takes it upon himself to redefine his atheistic dictators as "religious"..not going to work.
@dwheel39 The bigger point is that dogma was what drove stalin, not atheism. You cannot derive anything, good or bad from a non-belief. People take actions on what they believe, not what they don't believe. The issue is unquestioning dogma, whether it comes in the form of religion or not.
@shuffenhauser RE:You cannot derive anything, good or bad from a non-belief."
Agreed. But atheistic beliefs are not made in a vacuum and are hardly neutral. Atheism is based on positive beliefs such as Naturalism or Materialism. Some also hold to "scientism" (the belief that unless verified by science, it's not true) .
These are NOT non-beliefs then in any way. The dogma by dictators is based on a Darwinian view of man and the philosophical assumptions of naturalism.
@dwheel39 You don't derive any of that from atheism. Those are beliefs unto themselves. The veiw that the natural world is all there is, is a belief that I think is a valid one and yes you can derive certain things from that. None of what stalin did or proposed had anything to do with the theory of natural selection. There is nothing in that theory that states anything remotely like what stalin did. Stalins dogma was a perverse political idealogy and had nothing to do with naturalism.
@shuffenhauser RE:Still, naturalism says nothing at all about what one should do."
I never said it did. I'm saying that the belief system reflects one's view of man. If you see man as a just an accidental by product of atomic collision, then anything goes. If a man has power and chooses to enslave a nation, why not? the idea that we are all created equal is a Christian belief. So you would have to ditch that if you were consistent in your beliefs. Nature shows we are NOT equal.
@shuffenhauser RE:Stalins dogma was a perverse political idealogy and had nothing to do with naturalism."
Naturalism is a worldview which carries with it, a view of man. We all have a view of ourselves. We are created in the image of God, we are One with the universe, we ARE god, we are from aliens, or we are the accidental byproduct of random mutations and are nothing more than a speck of dust sitting on a larger speck of dust. It's this latter view of man that leads to the political tyranny.
@dwheel39 The latter view that you speak of is a misrepresentation of evolution. I suggest you actually understand what the theory says before talking about it. But even if we took your misrepresentation at face value, you still can't get from your misrepresentation of evolution to any ideology, good or bad. Show me how you can get from, evolution is true, therefor political tyranny, where's the gap to connect those dots.
@dwheel39 "It's this latter view of man that leads to the political tyranny."
Surely you are joking. Theocracies everywhere make a mockery of that view. Including Christian theocracies in the dark ages. In fact, naturalism has nothing to say about politics. Try it: "We are a product of random mutations, therefore I should oppress you".
@dwheel39 It just doesn't work. Our motivations do not come from descriptions of reality, they come from human nature and our beliefs about how we best can accomplish goals and what are meaningful goals. For theists, at least in Christianity and Islam, this will involve reaching the goal of heaven and avoiding the catastrophe of hell.
@dwheel39 That motivation is so powerful, because the disasters and rewards are infinite - that they can justify any action and any amount of oppression. What's a little oppression and beating if you can save millions of humans from torture by threatening them into submission to God? *There* you have a basis and a motivation for totalitarian ideas.
@dwheel39 Of course you can create totalitarian ideas also without gods, but they do not follow from naturalism and certainly not from the fact that you don't believe in gods. They do seem to follow from theism though. Medieval Europe was a disaster area in that respect.
@dwheel39 (Or rather, follows from monotheisms that include punishments and rewards) In the US, it was solely the inability of a single religion to accomplish dominance that prevented theocracy. By way of the hatred between religions, causing them to agree that it was better that government was secular than risk teaching of evil opposing doctrine.
@shuffenhauser without God, man makes himself out to be his own god or worships nature or man-made things in it's place. It all comes down to worldviews.
@dwheel39 I'll repeat, What drove stalin was not his atheism, but rather his unquestioning dogma towards his political views. And likewise, what drives religions to do horrible things are their unquestioning dogma towards their religion, so, in a way stalin was religious, his religion just didn't entail a supernatural deity.
@shuffenhauser RE:What drove stalin was not his atheism, but rather his unquestioning dogma towards his political views"
And one can argue that those political views are based on a particular philosophy or view of man (such as Darwinism). They are simply living it out consistently..survival of the fittest, right? We are nothing more than animals so people can be treated and even owned as such. No human dignity or value.
@dwheel39 No, one can't argue that. Survival of the fittest has to do with nature, not when one imposses what they deem to be fit, thats called artificial selection, not NATURAL selection. Nature decides who or what is fit to survive. We are animals, but I don't see the relevence in that. Stalin was incorrectly applying what he may of thought was darwinian, But If he truly wanted to apply natural selection he should have left everything alone and let nature dictate what happens.
@shuffenhauser RE:Nature decides who or what is fit to survive."
How is that statement even logical when we are talking about blind, mindless, purposeless processes? Who or what is "deciding"?
It's very revealing that even the most militant atheists such as Dawkins cannot help but personify nature as if there is some purpose driving a species to survive and reproduce. Why do you think this is? Explain.
@dwheel39 I'm using the phrase deciding, not as if nature decides anything, but in nature the fit tend to survive(btw survival of the fittest is not an accurate representation of natural selection, but I'll go along with it anyways). Species that are better adapted for survival will live to pass their genes on, thats all we're talking about.
@dwheel39 "Stalin was religious? the god was himself? oh boy...come on, Dennett, that was quite desperate."
So you see no similarity with the claims of Jesus being divine and threatening people with hell if they didn't accept his authority? Or Mohammed's claims of speaking for Allah? The entire point had to do with setting up totalitarian regimes based on unquestioning acceptance of dogma.
One of the virtues of atheism is that it does not necessitate dogma.
@Nekronaut321 The nazis were killing in the name of bread! Germans do eat lots of bread and they were killing many people, so they must have been killing in the name of bread.
Dan.Dennett. comes back stammering and studdering after Dinesh D'Souza's brilliant rebuttal. Dennett never did recover from being beaten with the TRUTH...LOL.
How's this guy Dinesh even doing this debate.. How's this possible.. I am completely flabbergasted.. He's giving me a headache with his shouting too..
I'd fire/demote the people in charge of recording this debate. They screwed up big time with the audio. Shame on them. I wouldn't let them handle such a event again!
Dinesh specifically said he did not consider the Big Bang to be a "proof" of God, and then Dennett comes back and says "For Dinesh, this (the big bang) is proof of God's existence" Who's caricaturing who's views here?
@mas03 Watch Dr. Lawrence Krauss the physicist's lecture, "A Universe from Nothing" on YouTube. Yes, it's possible for "something" to come from "nothing."
@mas03 It's "then," not "than." You know what's illogical? Believing in a deity who created the world in six days and had to rest on the seventh despite being all powerful. All you've shown is that you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears than examine the facts carefully and dispassionately.
@nyscholartist You're changing the subject. You believe that something can come from Nothing. How? I dont know. I believe in a God i never said anything about creation in 6 days and resting on the 7th, where did you get that from? I dont care how God created things. You still have to explain how something can come from nothing.
@mas03 There was never "nothing." The Big Bang, as far as we know, was the result of a quantum fluctuation that already acted on pre-existing matter. It is generally no longer believed that space and time necessarily began at the same moment. Now you may ask, where did that pre-existing matter come from? This is something science is still exploring and it's difficult to secure decisive answers right now. But it is surely illogical to say, "We don't know yet therefore a god did it."
@mas03 And if you're so interested in asking where it all came from, then why not ask where the hell God came from? Theists believe that God possesses the persona and character that He has--omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.--because "that's just the way He is." If they can say that, then why can't atheists say that the universe possesses certain physical laws because "that's just the way it is."
@mas03 There is no more compelling reason to believe that a god started the whole thing than there is to believe in multiverses of which one possible universe produces one exactly like our own. None whatever. Besides, even if one could demonstrate that God created the universe, that would only establish the truth of deism, not theism. There would still be no evidence that this God cares about His creation, answers prayers, or intervenes in the natural world.
@mas03 It should be obvious from the unimaginably cruel suffering in this world owing to natural evil (i.e. tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, illnesses, droughts, floods, etc.), both for humans and for non-human animals, that if there is a God, He is not loving or caring and doesn't give a damn about His creation.
@nyscholartist Evil in the world does not disprove the existence of God. We are just not in the position to conclude that the evil in the world that God allows is not for a purpose. Since we DONT KNOW why God allows earthquakes and tsunamis that kill thousands of people we CANT conclude that he doesnt care or that he is an evil god. You cant jump to that conclusion. What you are saying is "The world ought to be this way, nd since it isent this way therefore that disproves God" nd thats incorrect
@mas03 Wow. That's one of the more desperate apologetical lines of thinking. "Even the most horrific evil doesn't disprove the idea of a good God." At one level, this is the whole problem with theism. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. And, surely, the strength of any argument resides partly in its falsifiability, not its unfalsifiability. Secondly, all you're saying is that "it's all part of God's wonderful plan" and "God works in mysterious ways" which are cop outs, not explanations.
@nyscholartist All im saying you cant say there isent a God because there is evil in the world. You're saying how God should be, and what he should and shouldnt do, and we arent in the position to conclude that. You're saying if there is a God than there shouldnt evil, but order for us to know what Good is we have to know what Bad is. You cant call a line straight unless youve seen a crooked one.
@mas03 That's nonsense. Yes, we can think of innumerable ways in which God could have created a better world. All you're doing is adverting to the inscrutable, unquestionable wisdom of God which we puny humans can never fathom. It's a clever tactic, but not one which will work on those who reflect critically. As for integrative, constructive pain, it can be useful in terms of building character.
@mas03 But the suffering of humans and animals because of natural evil in this world goes far beyond any kind of constructive, character-building pain, say, the sort you have to experience at the gym in order to develop muscle and become stronger. When children in Africa are eaten alive by hyaenas, when a father loses his wife and four children in a massive earthquake and no one to turn to for help, when babies are born with harlequin ichthyosis, we're dealing with extreme pain and suffering.
@mas03 And just saying "We can't understand God's wonderful plan all the time" simply won't do. You're welcome to believe it if you like, but don't go around telling people that God is loving and merciful and then expect them to take you seriously.
@nyscholartist Why cant I say that God is loving? This is the moral values that we have. If God was evil we wouldnt feel good by doing good to others we would feel good by doing evil to others because God created us in his own image. But this is a different topic
@lancethrustworthy This is where you are wrong. For the sake of argument I know you are agreeing that God exits, and by definition god is ALL good and ALL knowing. So whatever God decides to do IS RIGHT. Just because from the outside looking in we dont see the good that DOES NOT Conclude that what he did was WRONG.
@lancethrustworthy Your argument is full of holes much like your contention that the moon is made of swiss cheese. Pathetic atheist fool, you need to try a little harder if you want to run with the big dogs.
@Seigu007 Nothing like a cryptic statement which sounds like a threat but has no substance whatever. You think you have a compelling argument for Yahweh's existence? Let's hear them. Let's hear how obvious the existence of this deity is in your reply.
@nyscholartist Typical atheist kook. You clearly hate God, and hate all Christians, and the fact is that you are a scared believer, and nothing more. The logic in which you use to post is a little more than a veritable wasteland.
@Seigu007 I do find the deity of the Bible and the Qur'an to be execrable, yes. But since he doesn't exist, there's no use in hating anything except the idea of him. I don't hate all Christians and, I'm sorry, but it's difficult to remain "neutral" after reading a book as immoral as the Bible. If you have something in my logic to point out as being a "veritable wasteland," then be specific. Ad hominem attacks do not constitute an argument.
@nyscholartist You hate God ,and that’s what drives you here. Why aren’t you over on the flying spaghetti monster forum tirading againg them? I’ll tell you why,it’s because you are what’s called a “scared believer”. A hypocrite that wears the mark on his sleeve like an open wound. The only person you’re kidding here is yourself.
@Seigu007 More name-calling I see. If I'm really a believer, then why would I be hating God? Your accusation makes no sense. I'm not on a forum about the flying spaghetti monster because no one believes in it. People do, however, believe in Yahweh/Allah and some of these people are suffering and denying themselves happiness because of that belief. I was one of these people years ago. And I'd like to help those who have doubts to rid themselves of the absurdity of religion. It's not clear how ...
@Seigu007 any of that makes me a believer (I don't believe) or scared (I would think it noble and courageous to tell people to confront irrational dogma and orthodoxy in the name of freedom). And anyway, scared of what? Hell? In which I don't believe? Again, you're not making any sense at all.
@nyscholartist If im not making any sense its because you seem to have been conditioned with a dogmatic acceptance of an athiestic worldview and a desire to attack anything that doesn’t bend over backwards to conform to it. You’re just another paper tiger that wouldn’t know real science from a horses ass.
@Seigu007 Okay, you clearly have no idea how to construct an argument and think that the more expletives you use the more convincing you'll be. And you think I'm the angry one. I was once a theist. I am now an atheist. I provided specific reasons why I feel obliged to criticise the monotheisms. You never addressed them. As for "real science," it makes a mockery of your religion, so it's not clear why you think invoking it helps your case.
@nyscholartist You’re either dumber than I thought you were ,or your’e trolling this forum with brainless answers like this. I’ve merely demonsrtated that you believe in a system with no evidence, and have made it your religion.A system with not a shred of truth to support it, and that is why Darwinism and Darwin (The apostate preacher with no degree) will be dead in 10 years at best. You’re only going to get eaten alive in here with your lying tongue.
@Seigu007 Let's see. You're unable to spell properly, you can't make an argument, you think that shouting and using expletives will make what you have to say more persuasive. Atheism is not a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps isn't a hobby. It is the lack of belief in God. Plain and simple. Darwinism isn't going anywhere, I'm sorry to tell you. The evidence for evolution is excellent. And we have all of the vestigial organs and anatomical flaws to prove it.
@nyscholartist So I see that just like the other predictable God-Haters that you parrot, you take bits and snippets of whole sentences from myself, and draw them out of context just to prove to everyone just what a pathetic howler monkey/parrot you actually are when you are losing a debate.
@nyscholartist Being calm does nothing in the defence of your claims. By the time I’m done with you, your rusty metal is going to end up even more rusty than before with more than just a hint of structural fracturing.
@Seigu007 Dude, you're frustrated. And your English sucks. Get laid or something. You're in the U.A.E.? Plenty of hot girls in Dubai. Or, if you're so religious, go pray. Threatening people with "structural fracturing" is just retarded. Oh and not threatening at all.
@nyscholartist typical atheist fool, thus far you’ve given me nothing but emotions as your form of logic and you need to try a little harder if you want to run with the big dogs. You’re like a one armed man trying to climb a rope.
@Seigu007 Hahaha. This coming from a douche who uses name-calling and expletives in every single one of his posts to get his point across. You're deluded and, it seems, frustrated. Just get laid, have some hookah, go to 360 bar and get trashed, etc. Do you drink alcohol? Just enjoy life. There is no crazy daddy in the sky who will punish you for having fun. Fuck religion. You don't need it. Vive la liberte.
@nyscholartist this is the method you dishonest God-Haters use.You try to belittle Christians and you make completely unscientific statements, as if they are indisputable fact.You think that by making the claims you do and telling people that they don’t understand science, that you can intimidate them. The reality is, you’re just a pretender, who is more ignorant of science, than most and you try to cover it up, with your slams.
@Seigu007 we say: ahh we dont know but here is the evidence. the evidence doesnt proove anything that cant be proven. you say. ahh it cant be disproven therefore it is true.......
@nyscholartist All this conjecture is just a diversion from your inability to support your suppositions. I won, end of story. Now come in here and honor your master.
@Seigu007 For example, based on what we know about the world on the basis of natural science now, women were not created from men's ribs, snakes do not talk and tempt, and pork is not unclean for consumption or touching. So much for real science supporting a Judaeo-Christian worldview.
@nyscholartist Thanks for the comment God-Hater but I have a nasty surprise for you.
The day that you can prove that there isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence, logic, reason or rational arguement for the non-existence of God,the day any anti-theistic God hater such as yourself can provide one, I’d be *delighted* to hear it. :-)
Now go back to your hole and don’t return. No one likes you. No one will ever like you. You are destined to be alone and miserable…FOREVER.
@Seigu007 It's "argument, not "arguement," genius. We don't need an argument for the non-existence of God. We need only to point out that the arguments FOR his existence fail and that there is no compelling evidence for his existence. The absence of evidence IS the evidence of absence. We don't need to prove that unicorns and sky fairies definitely do not exist. We need only to point out that there is no persuasive reason to believe that they do. And that is sufficient. You've got it backwards.
@nyscholartist You’re a fool and this is the best you can do when you can’t win an argument. My errors are due to distraction, yours is straight out stupidity. I’ll ask you what your degree is in. I’m sure you got it from a good university that you dont want to mention. Come on, tell us. Your credibility is already suffering.
@Seigu007 I'm sure you'll respond to this with some other ridiculous ad hominem about how I will be a God-hating loner and scared believer FOREVER and will pay dearly for my "evil ways" and "lying tongue." It's difficult to take you seriously. Like I said, the smart ones in this forum can see past the logical fallacies which you deploy in each set of remarks. Payce.
@nyscholartist what, thats it? are you just another post and run troll? Why has evolution never been observed in any laboratory yet touted as observable fact when it’s never been observed happening in the past nor is it being observed happening today? Im waiting for your answer.
@nyscholartist Seriously, think about it, why are you even here attacking something that you don’t believe in? I’ll tell you why, and that;s because you are what’s coined a “scared believer.”You take a positive position therefore you are not neutral, and the practical atheist that you claim you are.
@Seigu007 Au contraire, my dear, I am here to help people who are misguided. Some of these people, like me, would probably be far better off without the absurdities of the monotheistic religions in their lives. By the same token, one could accuse you of being a scared believer who believes only because he is afraid of going to hell if he doesn't. Now, if you say that I can't claim to read your mind, then what makes you think that you can read mine? I assure you that I'm an atheist.
@nyscholartist Dear unaverage and lying Joe, though you have no education and are here simply because you hate God and would like to destroy theists is sadly telling. You are weak….very weak indeed and have no idea that your emotions do not substitute as science or fact. You are a bullshitting anti-theist and nothing less.
@mas03 If you came to an abandoned home with seven children with no one to look after them, who had distended stomachs as they slowly starved, who were sick with anemia and diarrhea, who were constantly crying in pain and fear, and who were regularly terrorised by the local wildlife which threatened to kill them, and someone said "their father isn't here with them, but he loves them dearly, and he's very merciful," would you believe that person?
@mas03 No, you wouldn't. If anything, you would think that their father is callous, cruel, and sadistic for allowing all of that to happen. Yet people believe that God is loving and merciful when there's hardly any evidence of love and mercy in the world around us. We live in a universe that is intent on preventing and destroying life every which way imaginable. It's nice to believe in a daddy in the sky who cares for us, but the evidence doesn't support such a belief. Period.
The comment seemed to have vanished now, but someone replied to something I said with something like, 'most moral concepts throughout history have been founded in transcendent decree.' But their being based on something transcendent doesn't mean something transcendent actually exists. I can easily put a sign on my house that says that I have a security system...even if I don't. So my basis for why you shouldn't break into my house is that I have an alarm. But I don't, and it's still effective.
It's entirely incoherent to say that the murders of atheistic regimes have been done 'in the name of atheism.' A person who burns a witch because the Bible decries 'suffering a witch to live' is acting on a religiously-based compulsion. How can there be an atheistic compulsion to kill? The non-existence of God *compels* killing somehow? It's a screwball concept.
Pol Pot, Stalin, didn't kill in the "name of atheism", Atheism is not an ideology or an excuse. People kill in the name of religion because they are sparked by their set of ideals, etc. Sure, an Atheist may kill someone, but that is out of his own volition, reason, not because he wants to spread and impose atheism.
According to Wikipedia, "Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942)[1][2] is an American philosopher, writer and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science", while D'Souza is an English Major. I don't want to put English majors down, but Dennett clearly has academia on his side.
I agree that D'Souza is unnecessarily loud. However, at least he is concise, fast, and doesn't stammer, hum, and haw like Dennett (who I respect as an intellectual and a writer) does a lot in this debate.
What I feel is that Christian Apologist DSUZA deliberately was rude to Dennett. This is why Dennnett said in the begining 'humility is christian virtue'. This is what Dennett did not appreciate, christian RUDENESS and ARROGANCE.
I can feel that Dennett was REPULSED by Christian SHRIEKING. This is what DENNETT could NOT outclass DSUZA in. Shouting is NOT his game.
I am NOT an atheist. But DSUZA needs to learn some manners. He was a bit too arrogant.
Dennet says "the big bang, for Dinesh, this is proof of gods existence."
Dinesh clearly stated, there is no "proof" for gods existence, he was saying how a universe with a beginning could "suggest" a creator. Why do atheists always worm their way out of this point by saying, "thats not proof for god". No its not proof, but it does make the god hypothesis a whole lot more likely than it would be in an infinite universe.
Also Dennett says we couldn't exist in any other universe. His whole stand point would require a hypothesis such as the multiverse. There is as much scientific evidence for a multiverse as there is for a god. So how is Dennetts position more plausible?
Dennett looks lost in space, and got clowned in this debate....D'Souza clearly outclasses this asshole who is sticking up for the asshole atheists of society
@TimelessApologist Wow..I think if D'Souza farted in a matter that supported a christian view, you'd be on your knees sniffing it like a dog sniffs another dog's ass. If only christians like yourself had the slightest clue how you appear to non-christians, you might not constantly say things that make you all seem like spoiled children with a total disconnect to reality. Mind boggling.
It's religion that incites to commiting a crime. Either directly (like in Koran), or by claiming some people are 'evil' or 'sinners', which statistically means someone who believes it will try to persecute them in the name of fighting the evil. Atheism doesn't call people who disagree with it 'evil', and thus doesn't incite persecution of them.
@sautterron And Darwinian/naturalist thinking logically leads one to believe that there are simply those who don't deserve to live and that morality is relative, don't use an argument that can be turned around on you.
Dennett beautifully skewers D'Souza's lack of understanding of science D'Souza knows so little physics and even less biology. The problem is that he may not even know when he has his concepts wrong. Dennett is entirely correct that dictators are often so narcissistic that they set themselves up as gods--what they do is NOT in the name of atheism. D'Souza can't debate physics b/c he knows nothing about it. If god is something and not nothing it must be caused. What caused god? or gods?
"God cannot create himself either" Did Dennett actually say that? Does he understand the law of causality? I amazed that high profile atheists actually use this line...
@globescape Do you understand the law of causality? What does the law of causality have to do with his argument? It is a completely reasonable question in my opinion
@hardinmichael1981 Well, the problem is defining god. You may define a deistic god or a theistic god. But problem about debate between atheists and theists..Atheists generally attack theistic concept of god while theists defend a deistic concept of god.
D'Souza has to have a leap of faith with something that's *real* like the universe just as a man has to have a leap of faith when proposing marriage to his *real* partner. If someone proposed to someone whom he nor anyone else had any proof existed - we would think they were nuts. Welcome to the world of religious blind faith.
I don't think D'souza realizes Stalin and Hitler did not commit their crimes in the name of atheism. Dennett had a fairly good point when he brought up the regimes and the cults both Hitler and Stalin were involved in and how they resemble a religion.
@hardinmichael1981 And as everyone knows, Hitler could be taken at his word. Read Hitler's Table Talk. He was an occultist, hated the Judeo-Christian G-d and believed in Eugenics as a genuine means for enhancing society. A complete monster who admitted he was anything but religious in any recognizable Christian sense.
@WowThisWasntTaken Dinesh, Stalin and Hitler are all birds of a feather. They all demonize(d) their opponents with no regards to facts and preach hatred towards anyone of a different opinion.
D'Souza uses the age old apologist of throwing out dozens and dozens of straw men, half-truths and falsehoods in order to throw the other debater on the defensive to counter all of the lies. It's a time wasting tactic, and definitely not an honest one.
Because Stalin thought of himself as a god, that makes him a religious person! This guy ought to do standup! This seriously funny stuff. The really amusing thing to me is that he's not trying to be funny! I think your average high school kid could probably do about as good a job as Mr. Dennett as doing here...
@MrFreeLibertarian Stalin didn't do what he did because of atheism, that's like saying he did it because of his moustache. He was a paranoid fanatic who killed whoever he felt threatened by. And yes, he had a cult of personality and a god complex, just like all fanatical dictators.
"God can't create himself" and other scientific factoids! Man you really need 5 doctoral degrees in science to keep up with Mr. Dennett. The science is undeniable! lmao. Is this guy really one of the best and brightest of the atheists?
Dannet never debated a real theist on an intellectual level and he floundering. LOL. THis happens with these type of debates since 'atheists' are usually busy arguing with clown 'theists' like Kirt Cameron and Al Sharpton.
God can't create himself either? This is ridiculous. The cosmological arguments are not based on some naive empiricist notion. Vilenkin showed that the universe is finite. Finite things don't create themselves. So the quintessential atheist monster is a theist?! Is Dennett stoned? If everything is just physical , then what agency do we have for free will, Dennett is very lame.
Who knows someone who does something in the "name of unbelief?" It's like saying if I committed a crime I did it in the name of unbelief in flying unicorns! hahaha. All hail FSM and his noodely appendage.
Yay Dennett is back on the podium and we get to listen to someone of intellect for a while. :D
Oh poor Dennett he is still recovering from the shock of Dinesh's stupidity, no wonder he is lost for words, when someone says something stupid enough you just don't know what to say....
@kairobinson Listen to someone of intellect? Loss of words from the stupidity of what Dinesh said? Give me a break. 1. Dennett was having difficulty making complete sentences and actually making a point long before Dinesh spoke. He may be an intelligent author but his intellect is not showing up in this debate. He makes George W Bush look like Einstein. 2. Dinesh made very intelligent, logical, and easily understandable points. Please tell me what you think Dinesh said that was so stupid.
@rugermeister380 - "If religious people need to account for religious crimes the same should apply to Atheists" This is wrong because religion is an ideology, people who share it need to acknowledge damage done in its name. Atheism is not an ideology it is a lack of one. Nazis need to account for the damage done by the third reich but antinazis do not need to account for the crimes done by communists.Dennet is a humanist, not a nazi so does not need to account for the holocaust.
@melonbarmonster No it is not. It is a lack of an ideology. Communism is an ideology that is Atheistic as is Humansim/Elightenmentism. These two things are not the same ideology; they are fundamentally different. To say that everyone not a theist is linked by that lack of belief only shows your overwhelming ignorance.
@kairobinson You don't want it to be an ideology but existence of atheism as an ideology and its place in 20th century history as well as modern atheist states like North Korea is an empirical fact : /
@melonbarmonster No it isn't. I have stated the case and made good arguments that what your saying is simply not true and your response each time is to restate your opinion. Saying that something is the case doesn't make it true so until you come out with a reasonable argument I am not going to justify any further comments with a reply.
@kairobinson LOL. Atheist ideology in 20th century and modern atheist regimes isn't empirical fact???? LOL. That's not an opinion. Open the Communist Manifesto and go read a history book on what happened to cleric and religions from Western Communist obliteration of Christianity to Vietnamese, CHinese and North Korean massacres of Confucist, Buddhist clerics, texts and other priceless treasures. You're an idiot. You've probably never even met a communist atheist. Go to North Korea and ask
@melonbarmonster By claiming that Atheism is an ideology what you are saying is that the is only a semantic difference if any between Humanism and Communism. Humanism is the best hope for the future of mankind, Communism is one of the most vile totalitarian Ideologies man has invented. These two are NOT one and the same, they are simply NOT the same ideology. Both rejecting Theism is not enough to make them the same thing. Just like you rejecting Communism does not make you a Nazi.
@kairobinson You are a moron. We're talking about atheism and the historical and empirical FACT that all the communist crackpots who have killed MILLIONS upone MILLIONS were atheists. Whether these atheists prescribed to other ideologies is irrelevant to the discussion. They were atheists and killed people who rejected atheism. That's a FACT. Stop being retarded and spare yourself some intellectual dignity.
@melonbarmonster You are a moron. We're talking about religion and the historical and empirical FACT that all the religious crackpots who have killed MILLIONS upon MILLIONS were religious. Whether these religious people subscribed to other ideologies is irrelevant to the discussion. They were religious and killed people who rejected their religion. That's a FACT. Stop being retarded and spare yourself some intellectual dignity.
@melonbarmonster Well in North Korea where the Dear Leader is a God-figure to whom you praise for everything you have and is rumoured to poses many powers including the ability to control the weather dispute being dead I suppose the punishment is rather high for following a different religion to the state imposed Juche.
@kairobinson I've met and spoken to North Koreans. They're all atheists. Dear Leader is a despot in the mold of Stalin, Mao Pol Pot as Castro... all ATHEISTS.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sounds to me like Dennett got his degree from a junior college...What a horrible opponent for a brilliant mind like Dinesh. Go back to school Dennett! LOL
So D'Souza has no idea how the universe was created, but he assumes it was done by a "thing" and this thing is God by definition. Not only does this give no information at all about the nature of God, it basically reduces God to a label or synonym for "I don't know" or "undiscovered science". If they would have presented this definition from the start, they could have skipped the debate and just agreed that God is a vague, meaningless and useless metaphor for the Unknowable.
Is it just me or does Dinesh sound like Stephen Colbert?
kidpresentable 11 hours ago
Dear Dan, Please do not go into debates with this stupid guy.
nsugathadasa 2 weeks ago
Humility is one of the more prominently proclaimed virtues in Christian tradition, but it is not just Christian virtue. It is widely seen as a virtue in many philosophical traditions. E.g. in Buddhism, it is equivalent to a concern of how to be liberated from the sufferings of life. Confucius said "humility is the solid foundation of all the virtues." Kant's view it as "that meta-attitude that constitutes the moral agent's proper perspective on himself as ... a rational agent".
KanchoKomancho 2 weeks ago
The majority of the SS who carried out the final solution were practicing, God-believing, church-attending Catholics just like Dinesh D'Souza. And the Catholic church didn't excommunicate any of them. The only Nazi the Catholic church excommunicated was Goebbels. And they only excommunicated him because he married a Protestant. (Credit for this info: Christopher Hitchens)
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Stalin was religious? the god was himself? oh boy...come on, Dennett, that was quite desperate. Face your own belief history and stop lying to us and to yourself.
dwheel39 4 weeks ago 2
@dwheel39 Take the recently deceased Kim Jong Il as an example. Research the miracles he performed after he died. Dennet's point is valid. If a dictator wants to control another group one way to do it is to get the populous to believe that the leader is a demi-god.
sashang0 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sashang0" If a dictator wants to control another group one way to do it is to get the populous to believe that the leader is a demi-god."
Then i suppose you can also label Elvis, The Beatles, Lady Ga Ga, Justin Beiber and Kim Kardahsian as "demi-gods" since they each have their own cult following. This is ridiculous. Out of desperation Dennett takes it upon himself to redefine his atheistic dictators as "religious"..not going to work.
dwheel39 3 weeks ago
@dwheel39 The bigger point is that dogma was what drove stalin, not atheism. You cannot derive anything, good or bad from a non-belief. People take actions on what they believe, not what they don't believe. The issue is unquestioning dogma, whether it comes in the form of religion or not.
shuffenhauser 2 weeks ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett
@shuffenhauser RE:You cannot derive anything, good or bad from a non-belief."
Agreed. But atheistic beliefs are not made in a vacuum and are hardly neutral. Atheism is based on positive beliefs such as Naturalism or Materialism. Some also hold to "scientism" (the belief that unless verified by science, it's not true) .
These are NOT non-beliefs then in any way. The dogma by dictators is based on a Darwinian view of man and the philosophical assumptions of naturalism.
dwheel39 2 weeks ago
@dwheel39 You don't derive any of that from atheism. Those are beliefs unto themselves. The veiw that the natural world is all there is, is a belief that I think is a valid one and yes you can derive certain things from that. None of what stalin did or proposed had anything to do with the theory of natural selection. There is nothing in that theory that states anything remotely like what stalin did. Stalins dogma was a perverse political idealogy and had nothing to do with naturalism.
shuffenhauser 1 week ago
@shuffenhauser RE:None of what stalin did or proposed had anything to do with the theory of natural selection"
I said Naturalism, not natural selection.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 Still, naturalism says nothing at all about what one should do.
shuffenhauser 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shuffenhauser RE:Still, naturalism says nothing at all about what one should do."
I never said it did. I'm saying that the belief system reflects one's view of man. If you see man as a just an accidental by product of atomic collision, then anything goes. If a man has power and chooses to enslave a nation, why not? the idea that we are all created equal is a Christian belief. So you would have to ditch that if you were consistent in your beliefs. Nature shows we are NOT equal.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@shuffenhauser RE:Stalins dogma was a perverse political idealogy and had nothing to do with naturalism."
Naturalism is a worldview which carries with it, a view of man. We all have a view of ourselves. We are created in the image of God, we are One with the universe, we ARE god, we are from aliens, or we are the accidental byproduct of random mutations and are nothing more than a speck of dust sitting on a larger speck of dust. It's this latter view of man that leads to the political tyranny.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 The latter view that you speak of is a misrepresentation of evolution. I suggest you actually understand what the theory says before talking about it. But even if we took your misrepresentation at face value, you still can't get from your misrepresentation of evolution to any ideology, good or bad. Show me how you can get from, evolution is true, therefor political tyranny, where's the gap to connect those dots.
shuffenhauser 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 "It's this latter view of man that leads to the political tyranny."
Surely you are joking. Theocracies everywhere make a mockery of that view. Including Christian theocracies in the dark ages. In fact, naturalism has nothing to say about politics. Try it: "We are a product of random mutations, therefore I should oppress you".
Gnomefro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 It just doesn't work. Our motivations do not come from descriptions of reality, they come from human nature and our beliefs about how we best can accomplish goals and what are meaningful goals. For theists, at least in Christianity and Islam, this will involve reaching the goal of heaven and avoiding the catastrophe of hell.
Gnomefro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 That motivation is so powerful, because the disasters and rewards are infinite - that they can justify any action and any amount of oppression. What's a little oppression and beating if you can save millions of humans from torture by threatening them into submission to God? *There* you have a basis and a motivation for totalitarian ideas.
Gnomefro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 Of course you can create totalitarian ideas also without gods, but they do not follow from naturalism and certainly not from the fact that you don't believe in gods. They do seem to follow from theism though. Medieval Europe was a disaster area in that respect.
Gnomefro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 (Or rather, follows from monotheisms that include punishments and rewards) In the US, it was solely the inability of a single religion to accomplish dominance that prevented theocracy. By way of the hatred between religions, causing them to agree that it was better that government was secular than risk teaching of evil opposing doctrine.
Gnomefro 1 week ago
@shuffenhauser without God, man makes himself out to be his own god or worships nature or man-made things in it's place. It all comes down to worldviews.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 No, thats incorrect. I don't believe in a deity and I certainly don't think I'm a deity. So, we can throw that idea out.
shuffenhauser 1 week ago
@dwheel39 I'll repeat, What drove stalin was not his atheism, but rather his unquestioning dogma towards his political views. And likewise, what drives religions to do horrible things are their unquestioning dogma towards their religion, so, in a way stalin was religious, his religion just didn't entail a supernatural deity.
shuffenhauser 2 weeks ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett
@shuffenhauser RE:What drove stalin was not his atheism, but rather his unquestioning dogma towards his political views"
And one can argue that those political views are based on a particular philosophy or view of man (such as Darwinism). They are simply living it out consistently..survival of the fittest, right? We are nothing more than animals so people can be treated and even owned as such. No human dignity or value.
dwheel39 2 weeks ago
@dwheel39 No, one can't argue that. Survival of the fittest has to do with nature, not when one imposses what they deem to be fit, thats called artificial selection, not NATURAL selection. Nature decides who or what is fit to survive. We are animals, but I don't see the relevence in that. Stalin was incorrectly applying what he may of thought was darwinian, But If he truly wanted to apply natural selection he should have left everything alone and let nature dictate what happens.
shuffenhauser 1 week ago
@shuffenhauser RE:Nature decides who or what is fit to survive."
How is that statement even logical when we are talking about blind, mindless, purposeless processes? Who or what is "deciding"?
It's very revealing that even the most militant atheists such as Dawkins cannot help but personify nature as if there is some purpose driving a species to survive and reproduce. Why do you think this is? Explain.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 I'm using the phrase deciding, not as if nature decides anything, but in nature the fit tend to survive(btw survival of the fittest is not an accurate representation of natural selection, but I'll go along with it anyways). Species that are better adapted for survival will live to pass their genes on, thats all we're talking about.
shuffenhauser 1 week ago
@shuffenhauser RE:Species that are better adapted for survival will live to pass their genes on, thats all we're talking about."
Okay, i don't have any problem with that.
dwheel39 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 "Stalin was religious? the god was himself? oh boy...come on, Dennett, that was quite desperate."
So you see no similarity with the claims of Jesus being divine and threatening people with hell if they didn't accept his authority? Or Mohammed's claims of speaking for Allah? The entire point had to do with setting up totalitarian regimes based on unquestioning acceptance of dogma.
One of the virtues of atheism is that it does not necessitate dogma.
Gnomefro 1 week ago
we kill in the name of "?".......
Nekronaut321 1 month ago
@Nekronaut321 The nazis were killing in the name of bread! Germans do eat lots of bread and they were killing many people, so they must have been killing in the name of bread.
EquinoxIV 1 month ago
Dan.Dennett. comes back stammering and studdering after Dinesh D'Souza's brilliant rebuttal. Dennett never did recover from being beaten with the TRUTH...LOL.
johnspartan98 1 month ago in playlist More videos from tothesource1
How's this guy Dinesh even doing this debate.. How's this possible.. I am completely flabbergasted.. He's giving me a headache with his shouting too..
tamburarasa 1 month ago
Daniel Dennett got eaten alive
Seigu007 2 months ago
I'd fire/demote the people in charge of recording this debate. They screwed up big time with the audio. Shame on them. I wouldn't let them handle such a event again!
lancethrustworthy 2 months ago
Comment removed
temurkhawaja 3 months ago
Dinesh specifically said he did not consider the Big Bang to be a "proof" of God, and then Dennett comes back and says "For Dinesh, this (the big bang) is proof of God's existence" Who's caricaturing who's views here?
giantsrock99 3 months ago
Well, this was round 7, it was all Dinesh. If he keeps it up, he´ll have an outright knockout victory before round 12.
Very clear, well supported arguments, perhaps better than most debaters.
ruffomaldito 4 months ago
Only human being can be conscious of God.
No animal or including chimps have ever thought of God let alone beard growing chimps' descendant.
mrbignoise1 4 months ago
@mrbignoise1 ...and you draw that thought from what basis?
santisevenX 3 months ago
@mrbignoise1 It takes all of about 5 seconds to realize that a dog is closer to "God" than most humans. Just look at one.
ballerine11 3 months ago
when deniel got back on, turn the volume back on
74gore 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WoW this Santa Claus guy is an idiot..He's saying the universe came to existence from nothing and by nothing....FROM NOTHING, NOTHING COMES
mas03 4 months ago
WoW this Santa Claus guy is an idiot..He's saying the universe came to existence from nothing and by nothing....FROM NOTHING, NOTHING COMES
mas03 4 months ago
@mas03 Watch Dr. Lawrence Krauss the physicist's lecture, "A Universe from Nothing" on YouTube. Yes, it's possible for "something" to come from "nothing."
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@nyscholartist Than that physicist is an idiot too. Thats not logically possibly I dont care who says it.
mas03 3 months ago
@mas03 It's "then," not "than." You know what's illogical? Believing in a deity who created the world in six days and had to rest on the seventh despite being all powerful. All you've shown is that you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears than examine the facts carefully and dispassionately.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@nyscholartist You're changing the subject. You believe that something can come from Nothing. How? I dont know. I believe in a God i never said anything about creation in 6 days and resting on the 7th, where did you get that from? I dont care how God created things. You still have to explain how something can come from nothing.
mas03 3 months ago
@mas03 There was never "nothing." The Big Bang, as far as we know, was the result of a quantum fluctuation that already acted on pre-existing matter. It is generally no longer believed that space and time necessarily began at the same moment. Now you may ask, where did that pre-existing matter come from? This is something science is still exploring and it's difficult to secure decisive answers right now. But it is surely illogical to say, "We don't know yet therefore a god did it."
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@mas03 And if you're so interested in asking where it all came from, then why not ask where the hell God came from? Theists believe that God possesses the persona and character that He has--omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.--because "that's just the way He is." If they can say that, then why can't atheists say that the universe possesses certain physical laws because "that's just the way it is."
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@mas03 There is no more compelling reason to believe that a god started the whole thing than there is to believe in multiverses of which one possible universe produces one exactly like our own. None whatever. Besides, even if one could demonstrate that God created the universe, that would only establish the truth of deism, not theism. There would still be no evidence that this God cares about His creation, answers prayers, or intervenes in the natural world.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@mas03 It should be obvious from the unimaginably cruel suffering in this world owing to natural evil (i.e. tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, illnesses, droughts, floods, etc.), both for humans and for non-human animals, that if there is a God, He is not loving or caring and doesn't give a damn about His creation.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@nyscholartist Evil in the world does not disprove the existence of God. We are just not in the position to conclude that the evil in the world that God allows is not for a purpose. Since we DONT KNOW why God allows earthquakes and tsunamis that kill thousands of people we CANT conclude that he doesnt care or that he is an evil god. You cant jump to that conclusion. What you are saying is "The world ought to be this way, nd since it isent this way therefore that disproves God" nd thats incorrect
mas03 3 months ago
@mas03 Wow. That's one of the more desperate apologetical lines of thinking. "Even the most horrific evil doesn't disprove the idea of a good God." At one level, this is the whole problem with theism. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. And, surely, the strength of any argument resides partly in its falsifiability, not its unfalsifiability. Secondly, all you're saying is that "it's all part of God's wonderful plan" and "God works in mysterious ways" which are cop outs, not explanations.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@nyscholartist All im saying you cant say there isent a God because there is evil in the world. You're saying how God should be, and what he should and shouldnt do, and we arent in the position to conclude that. You're saying if there is a God than there shouldnt evil, but order for us to know what Good is we have to know what Bad is. You cant call a line straight unless youve seen a crooked one.
mas03 3 months ago
@mas03 That's nonsense. Yes, we can think of innumerable ways in which God could have created a better world. All you're doing is adverting to the inscrutable, unquestionable wisdom of God which we puny humans can never fathom. It's a clever tactic, but not one which will work on those who reflect critically. As for integrative, constructive pain, it can be useful in terms of building character.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@mas03 But the suffering of humans and animals because of natural evil in this world goes far beyond any kind of constructive, character-building pain, say, the sort you have to experience at the gym in order to develop muscle and become stronger. When children in Africa are eaten alive by hyaenas, when a father loses his wife and four children in a massive earthquake and no one to turn to for help, when babies are born with harlequin ichthyosis, we're dealing with extreme pain and suffering.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@mas03 And just saying "We can't understand God's wonderful plan all the time" simply won't do. You're welcome to believe it if you like, but don't go around telling people that God is loving and merciful and then expect them to take you seriously.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@nyscholartist Why cant I say that God is loving? This is the moral values that we have. If God was evil we wouldnt feel good by doing good to others we would feel good by doing evil to others because God created us in his own image. But this is a different topic
mas03 3 months ago
@mas03 Why SURE you can say that 'god' is loving....as long as you also say that 'god' is a lying murderer.
The bible quite clearly shows that the so called 'god' of the bible was a sick, psychopathic manipulator and slaughterer of millions.
Remember the tale involving the first born of Egypt. No sane human or 'love incarnate' god would do that.
Yeah, 'god' might be omniscient, but it's also omnivorous.
There is, thankfully, no 'god'. Our lives would be living nightmares 24/7 if there were.
lancethrustworthy 2 months ago
@lancethrustworthy This is where you are wrong. For the sake of argument I know you are agreeing that God exits, and by definition god is ALL good and ALL knowing. So whatever God decides to do IS RIGHT. Just because from the outside looking in we dont see the good that DOES NOT Conclude that what he did was WRONG.
mas03 2 months ago
@mas03 Seriously, what's the more likely explanation: that god killed innocent children out of infinite love, or that the Abrahamic god is wrong.
DBSpenser 2 months ago
@lancethrustworthy Your argument is full of holes much like your contention that the moon is made of swiss cheese. Pathetic atheist fool, you need to try a little harder if you want to run with the big dogs.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@nyscholartist A bit of advice: Come up with a better way to disguise your evasions. You are being way too obvious in your replies.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 Nothing like a cryptic statement which sounds like a threat but has no substance whatever. You think you have a compelling argument for Yahweh's existence? Let's hear them. Let's hear how obvious the existence of this deity is in your reply.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@nyscholartist Typical atheist kook. You clearly hate God, and hate all Christians, and the fact is that you are a scared believer, and nothing more. The logic in which you use to post is a little more than a veritable wasteland.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 I do find the deity of the Bible and the Qur'an to be execrable, yes. But since he doesn't exist, there's no use in hating anything except the idea of him. I don't hate all Christians and, I'm sorry, but it's difficult to remain "neutral" after reading a book as immoral as the Bible. If you have something in my logic to point out as being a "veritable wasteland," then be specific. Ad hominem attacks do not constitute an argument.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@nyscholartist You hate God ,and that’s what drives you here. Why aren’t you over on the flying spaghetti monster forum tirading againg them? I’ll tell you why,it’s because you are what’s called a “scared believer”. A hypocrite that wears the mark on his sleeve like an open wound. The only person you’re kidding here is yourself.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 More name-calling I see. If I'm really a believer, then why would I be hating God? Your accusation makes no sense. I'm not on a forum about the flying spaghetti monster because no one believes in it. People do, however, believe in Yahweh/Allah and some of these people are suffering and denying themselves happiness because of that belief. I was one of these people years ago. And I'd like to help those who have doubts to rid themselves of the absurdity of religion. It's not clear how ...
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@Seigu007 any of that makes me a believer (I don't believe) or scared (I would think it noble and courageous to tell people to confront irrational dogma and orthodoxy in the name of freedom). And anyway, scared of what? Hell? In which I don't believe? Again, you're not making any sense at all.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@nyscholartist If im not making any sense its because you seem to have been conditioned with a dogmatic acceptance of an athiestic worldview and a desire to attack anything that doesn’t bend over backwards to conform to it. You’re just another paper tiger that wouldn’t know real science from a horses ass.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 Okay, you clearly have no idea how to construct an argument and think that the more expletives you use the more convincing you'll be. And you think I'm the angry one. I was once a theist. I am now an atheist. I provided specific reasons why I feel obliged to criticise the monotheisms. You never addressed them. As for "real science," it makes a mockery of your religion, so it's not clear why you think invoking it helps your case.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@nyscholartist You’re either dumber than I thought you were ,or your’e trolling this forum with brainless answers like this. I’ve merely demonsrtated that you believe in a system with no evidence, and have made it your religion.A system with not a shred of truth to support it, and that is why Darwinism and Darwin (The apostate preacher with no degree) will be dead in 10 years at best. You’re only going to get eaten alive in here with your lying tongue.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 Let's see. You're unable to spell properly, you can't make an argument, you think that shouting and using expletives will make what you have to say more persuasive. Atheism is not a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps isn't a hobby. It is the lack of belief in God. Plain and simple. Darwinism isn't going anywhere, I'm sorry to tell you. The evidence for evolution is excellent. And we have all of the vestigial organs and anatomical flaws to prove it.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@nyscholartist So I see that just like the other predictable God-Haters that you parrot, you take bits and snippets of whole sentences from myself, and draw them out of context just to prove to everyone just what a pathetic howler monkey/parrot you actually are when you are losing a debate.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 ::Yawn::
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@nyscholartist Being calm does nothing in the defence of your claims. By the time I’m done with you, your rusty metal is going to end up even more rusty than before with more than just a hint of structural fracturing.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 Dude, you're frustrated. And your English sucks. Get laid or something. You're in the U.A.E.? Plenty of hot girls in Dubai. Or, if you're so religious, go pray. Threatening people with "structural fracturing" is just retarded. Oh and not threatening at all.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@nyscholartist typical atheist fool, thus far you’ve given me nothing but emotions as your form of logic and you need to try a little harder if you want to run with the big dogs. You’re like a one armed man trying to climb a rope.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 Hahaha. This coming from a douche who uses name-calling and expletives in every single one of his posts to get his point across. You're deluded and, it seems, frustrated. Just get laid, have some hookah, go to 360 bar and get trashed, etc. Do you drink alcohol? Just enjoy life. There is no crazy daddy in the sky who will punish you for having fun. Fuck religion. You don't need it. Vive la liberte.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@nyscholartist this is the method you dishonest God-Haters use.You try to belittle Christians and you make completely unscientific statements, as if they are indisputable fact.You think that by making the claims you do and telling people that they don’t understand science, that you can intimidate them. The reality is, you’re just a pretender, who is more ignorant of science, than most and you try to cover it up, with your slams.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 we say: ahh we dont know but here is the evidence. the evidence doesnt proove anything that cant be proven. you say. ahh it cant be disproven therefore it is true.......
Nekronaut321 1 month ago
@nyscholartist All this conjecture is just a diversion from your inability to support your suppositions. I won, end of story. Now come in here and honor your master.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 For example, based on what we know about the world on the basis of natural science now, women were not created from men's ribs, snakes do not talk and tempt, and pork is not unclean for consumption or touching. So much for real science supporting a Judaeo-Christian worldview.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@nyscholartist Thanks for the comment God-Hater but I have a nasty surprise for you.
The day that you can prove that there isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence, logic, reason or rational arguement for the non-existence of God,the day any anti-theistic God hater such as yourself can provide one, I’d be *delighted* to hear it. :-)
Now go back to your hole and don’t return. No one likes you. No one will ever like you. You are destined to be alone and miserable…FOREVER.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 It's "argument, not "arguement," genius. We don't need an argument for the non-existence of God. We need only to point out that the arguments FOR his existence fail and that there is no compelling evidence for his existence. The absence of evidence IS the evidence of absence. We don't need to prove that unicorns and sky fairies definitely do not exist. We need only to point out that there is no persuasive reason to believe that they do. And that is sufficient. You've got it backwards.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nyscholartist You’re a fool and this is the best you can do when you can’t win an argument. My errors are due to distraction, yours is straight out stupidity. I’ll ask you what your degree is in. I’m sure you got it from a good university that you dont want to mention. Come on, tell us. Your credibility is already suffering.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 I'm sure you'll respond to this with some other ridiculous ad hominem about how I will be a God-hating loner and scared believer FOREVER and will pay dearly for my "evil ways" and "lying tongue." It's difficult to take you seriously. Like I said, the smart ones in this forum can see past the logical fallacies which you deploy in each set of remarks. Payce.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nyscholartist what, thats it? are you just another post and run troll? Why has evolution never been observed in any laboratory yet touted as observable fact when it’s never been observed happening in the past nor is it being observed happening today? Im waiting for your answer.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@nyscholartist Seriously, think about it, why are you even here attacking something that you don’t believe in? I’ll tell you why, and that;s because you are what’s coined a “scared believer.”You take a positive position therefore you are not neutral, and the practical atheist that you claim you are.
You are a pretender.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@Seigu007 Au contraire, my dear, I am here to help people who are misguided. Some of these people, like me, would probably be far better off without the absurdities of the monotheistic religions in their lives. By the same token, one could accuse you of being a scared believer who believes only because he is afraid of going to hell if he doesn't. Now, if you say that I can't claim to read your mind, then what makes you think that you can read mine? I assure you that I'm an atheist.
nyscholartist 2 months ago
@nyscholartist Dear unaverage and lying Joe, though you have no education and are here simply because you hate God and would like to destroy theists is sadly telling. You are weak….very weak indeed and have no idea that your emotions do not substitute as science or fact. You are a bullshitting anti-theist and nothing less.
Seigu007 2 months ago
@mas03 If you came to an abandoned home with seven children with no one to look after them, who had distended stomachs as they slowly starved, who were sick with anemia and diarrhea, who were constantly crying in pain and fear, and who were regularly terrorised by the local wildlife which threatened to kill them, and someone said "their father isn't here with them, but he loves them dearly, and he's very merciful," would you believe that person?
nyscholartist 3 months ago
@mas03 No, you wouldn't. If anything, you would think that their father is callous, cruel, and sadistic for allowing all of that to happen. Yet people believe that God is loving and merciful when there's hardly any evidence of love and mercy in the world around us. We live in a universe that is intent on preventing and destroying life every which way imaginable. It's nice to believe in a daddy in the sky who cares for us, but the evidence doesn't support such a belief. Period.
nyscholartist 3 months ago
Comment removed
mas03 4 months ago
Really, the cosmological argument? That has been disproven soooooo many times!
FellowshipPictures 4 months ago
The comment seemed to have vanished now, but someone replied to something I said with something like, 'most moral concepts throughout history have been founded in transcendent decree.' But their being based on something transcendent doesn't mean something transcendent actually exists. I can easily put a sign on my house that says that I have a security system...even if I don't. So my basis for why you shouldn't break into my house is that I have an alarm. But I don't, and it's still effective.
multard 5 months ago
Wow, Dennett's scattered, pointless, and random, argument seems to lack a sober trajectory.
Snotra 5 months ago
Comment removed
Snotra 5 months ago
It's entirely incoherent to say that the murders of atheistic regimes have been done 'in the name of atheism.' A person who burns a witch because the Bible decries 'suffering a witch to live' is acting on a religiously-based compulsion. How can there be an atheistic compulsion to kill? The non-existence of God *compels* killing somehow? It's a screwball concept.
multard 5 months ago
Comment removed
jetblackphotography 5 months ago
I do not know since when and how the mass murders in recent history were done in the name of "atheism"
SEEANDPEA 5 months ago
Pol Pot, Stalin, didn't kill in the "name of atheism", Atheism is not an ideology or an excuse. People kill in the name of religion because they are sparked by their set of ideals, etc. Sure, an Atheist may kill someone, but that is out of his own volition, reason, not because he wants to spread and impose atheism.
Sayaannnnn 5 months ago
According to Wikipedia, "Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942)[1][2] is an American philosopher, writer and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science", while D'Souza is an English Major. I don't want to put English majors down, but Dennett clearly has academia on his side.
Sayaannnnn 5 months ago
@superkid695
I agree that D'Souza is unnecessarily loud. However, at least he is concise, fast, and doesn't stammer, hum, and haw like Dennett (who I respect as an intellectual and a writer) does a lot in this debate.
stevenhorr 6 months ago
D'Souza is better debater, he's more polished and has his points all worked out.
Hank8841 6 months ago
What I feel is that Christian Apologist DSUZA deliberately was rude to Dennett. This is why Dennnett said in the begining 'humility is christian virtue'. This is what Dennett did not appreciate, christian RUDENESS and ARROGANCE.
I can feel that Dennett was REPULSED by Christian SHRIEKING. This is what DENNETT could NOT outclass DSUZA in. Shouting is NOT his game.
I am NOT an atheist. But DSUZA needs to learn some manners. He was a bit too arrogant.
JennaSmith987 6 months ago
No question who the better debater is. And it isn't Dennett.
stevenhorr 6 months ago
@stevenhorr Only if "better debater" is defined as the ruder, louder, less logical participent.
MrCHJames 6 months ago
Dennet says "the big bang, for Dinesh, this is proof of gods existence."
Dinesh clearly stated, there is no "proof" for gods existence, he was saying how a universe with a beginning could "suggest" a creator. Why do atheists always worm their way out of this point by saying, "thats not proof for god". No its not proof, but it does make the god hypothesis a whole lot more likely than it would be in an infinite universe.
atheistrocker100 6 months ago 2
Also Dennett says we couldn't exist in any other universe. His whole stand point would require a hypothesis such as the multiverse. There is as much scientific evidence for a multiverse as there is for a god. So how is Dennetts position more plausible?
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100
Actually the issue is more:
Is the big bang evidence of a universe
or is it evidence of the creator.
Use occam's razor. Voila.
MrCHJames 6 months ago
@MrCHJames Im not quite sure i understand what your saying? How does Occam's razor come into this?
atheistrocker100 6 months ago
@atheistrocker100
The theory requiring the least entities:
God created the universe through unexplained supernatural means.
or
The universe came into being through natural means.
We know the material and natural exist, the first statement requires the addition of two more unkown and unprovable entities.
MrCHJames 6 months ago
Dennett looks lost in space, and got clowned in this debate....D'Souza clearly outclasses this asshole who is sticking up for the asshole atheists of society
TimelessApologist 6 months ago
@TimelessApologist Wow..I think if D'Souza farted in a matter that supported a christian view, you'd be on your knees sniffing it like a dog sniffs another dog's ass. If only christians like yourself had the slightest clue how you appear to non-christians, you might not constantly say things that make you all seem like spoiled children with a total disconnect to reality. Mind boggling.
gigisdad 4 months ago
It's religion that incites to commiting a crime. Either directly (like in Koran), or by claiming some people are 'evil' or 'sinners', which statistically means someone who believes it will try to persecute them in the name of fighting the evil. Atheism doesn't call people who disagree with it 'evil', and thus doesn't incite persecution of them.
sautterron 7 months ago
@sautterron And Darwinian/naturalist thinking logically leads one to believe that there are simply those who don't deserve to live and that morality is relative, don't use an argument that can be turned around on you.
philosophizer149 7 months ago
Thank you for posting this, tothesource1.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Thank you for posting this, tothesource1.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Dennett beautifully skewers D'Souza's lack of understanding of science D'Souza knows so little physics and even less biology. The problem is that he may not even know when he has his concepts wrong. Dennett is entirely correct that dictators are often so narcissistic that they set themselves up as gods--what they do is NOT in the name of atheism. D'Souza can't debate physics b/c he knows nothing about it. If god is something and not nothing it must be caused. What caused god? or gods?
BrentGrainger2000 7 months ago
I'm worried that Dinesh quoted St Augustine. I like my philosophers to be human. Augustine was a hippo.
gamesbok 7 months ago
"God cannot create himself either" Did Dennett actually say that? Does he understand the law of causality? I amazed that high profile atheists actually use this line...
globescape 7 months ago
@globescape Do you understand the law of causality? What does the law of causality have to do with his argument? It is a completely reasonable question in my opinion
bicyclette91 7 months ago
The only take-home lesson for me: I'm off to read breaking the spell... Dennett's got a lot for me to learn and I like his way of thinking.
shumbusgumbuli 8 months ago
He's pulling out Pascal's Wager and the Cosmological Argument? F*ck's sake.
lmgoose 8 months ago
why do you have to call the thing that caused the universe "god"?
why not just call it "the thing that caused the universe"?
watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM
hardinmichael1981 8 months ago
@hardinmichael1981 Well, the problem is defining god. You may define a deistic god or a theistic god. But problem about debate between atheists and theists..Atheists generally attack theistic concept of god while theists defend a deistic concept of god.
kemalcs 8 months ago
he did not answered Dann questions, just ignored them
soth3d 9 months ago
D'Souza has to have a leap of faith with something that's *real* like the universe just as a man has to have a leap of faith when proposing marriage to his *real* partner. If someone proposed to someone whom he nor anyone else had any proof existed - we would think they were nuts. Welcome to the world of religious blind faith.
TheFabdulla 9 months ago
I don't think D'souza realizes Stalin and Hitler did not commit their crimes in the name of atheism. Dennett had a fairly good point when he brought up the regimes and the cults both Hitler and Stalin were involved in and how they resemble a religion.
WowThisWasntTaken 9 months ago
@WowThisWasntTaken Hitler even SAID he was religious... like ALL the TIME!
hardinmichael1981 8 months ago
@hardinmichael1981 And as everyone knows, Hitler could be taken at his word. Read Hitler's Table Talk. He was an occultist, hated the Judeo-Christian G-d and believed in Eugenics as a genuine means for enhancing society. A complete monster who admitted he was anything but religious in any recognizable Christian sense.
NilDesperandum777 8 months ago
@WowThisWasntTaken Dinesh, Stalin and Hitler are all birds of a feather. They all demonize(d) their opponents with no regards to facts and preach hatred towards anyone of a different opinion.
onlylettersand0to9 8 months ago
Dinesh speaks the Truth.
divawriter 9 months ago
rjc34 - so true. That's exactly what I get from watching this clown d'souza.
nystrom 10 months ago
D'Souza uses the age old apologist of throwing out dozens and dozens of straw men, half-truths and falsehoods in order to throw the other debater on the defensive to counter all of the lies. It's a time wasting tactic, and definitely not an honest one.
rjc34 10 months ago 2
Because Stalin thought of himself as a god, that makes him a religious person! This guy ought to do standup! This seriously funny stuff. The really amusing thing to me is that he's not trying to be funny! I think your average high school kid could probably do about as good a job as Mr. Dennett as doing here...
MrFreeLibertarian 10 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian Stalin didn't do what he did because of atheism, that's like saying he did it because of his moustache. He was a paranoid fanatic who killed whoever he felt threatened by. And yes, he had a cult of personality and a god complex, just like all fanatical dictators.
rjc34 10 months ago 2
@MrFreeLibertarian It's professor dennett. There's a reason he is and you aren't.
dlmc1989 9 months ago
"God can't create himself" and other scientific factoids! Man you really need 5 doctoral degrees in science to keep up with Mr. Dennett. The science is undeniable! lmao. Is this guy really one of the best and brightest of the atheists?
MrFreeLibertarian 10 months ago
If an atheist like Stalin had killed half of humanity ; would that make religion true?
fidenful 10 months ago
@melonbarmonster I know some koreans that are religous? how do you get your conclusions? I spoke to some asians once therefore all asians.....
shandcunt 10 months ago
Dinesh OWNS Santa Claus.
Fike2308 10 months ago
Dannet never debated a real theist on an intellectual level and he floundering. LOL. THis happens with these type of debates since 'atheists' are usually busy arguing with clown 'theists' like Kirt Cameron and Al Sharpton.
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
God can't create himself either? This is ridiculous. The cosmological arguments are not based on some naive empiricist notion. Vilenkin showed that the universe is finite. Finite things don't create themselves. So the quintessential atheist monster is a theist?! Is Dennett stoned? If everything is just physical , then what agency do we have for free will, Dennett is very lame.
Youdamana 11 months ago
Who knows someone who does something in the "name of unbelief?" It's like saying if I committed a crime I did it in the name of unbelief in flying unicorns! hahaha. All hail FSM and his noodely appendage.
Airmanf7 11 months ago
2:20. Dennett confirms D'Souza's point that you have to believe in something because we don't know either way.
rugermeister380 11 months ago
Yay Dennett is back on the podium and we get to listen to someone of intellect for a while. :D
Oh poor Dennett he is still recovering from the shock of Dinesh's stupidity, no wonder he is lost for words, when someone says something stupid enough you just don't know what to say....
kairobinson 11 months ago
@kairobinson Listen to someone of intellect? Loss of words from the stupidity of what Dinesh said? Give me a break. 1. Dennett was having difficulty making complete sentences and actually making a point long before Dinesh spoke. He may be an intelligent author but his intellect is not showing up in this debate. He makes George W Bush look like Einstein. 2. Dinesh made very intelligent, logical, and easily understandable points. Please tell me what you think Dinesh said that was so stupid.
rugermeister380 11 months ago
@rugermeister380 - "If religious people need to account for religious crimes the same should apply to Atheists" This is wrong because religion is an ideology, people who share it need to acknowledge damage done in its name. Atheism is not an ideology it is a lack of one. Nazis need to account for the damage done by the third reich but antinazis do not need to account for the crimes done by communists.Dennet is a humanist, not a nazi so does not need to account for the holocaust.
kairobinson 11 months ago
@kairobinson atheism is also an ideology.
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
@melonbarmonster No it is not. It is a lack of an ideology. Communism is an ideology that is Atheistic as is Humansim/Elightenmentism. These two things are not the same ideology; they are fundamentally different. To say that everyone not a theist is linked by that lack of belief only shows your overwhelming ignorance.
kairobinson 11 months ago
@kairobinson You don't want it to be an ideology but existence of atheism as an ideology and its place in 20th century history as well as modern atheist states like North Korea is an empirical fact : /
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
@melonbarmonster No it isn't. I have stated the case and made good arguments that what your saying is simply not true and your response each time is to restate your opinion. Saying that something is the case doesn't make it true so until you come out with a reasonable argument I am not going to justify any further comments with a reply.
kairobinson 11 months ago
@kairobinson LOL. Atheist ideology in 20th century and modern atheist regimes isn't empirical fact???? LOL. That's not an opinion. Open the Communist Manifesto and go read a history book on what happened to cleric and religions from Western Communist obliteration of Christianity to Vietnamese, CHinese and North Korean massacres of Confucist, Buddhist clerics, texts and other priceless treasures. You're an idiot. You've probably never even met a communist atheist. Go to North Korea and ask
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
@melonbarmonster By claiming that Atheism is an ideology what you are saying is that the is only a semantic difference if any between Humanism and Communism. Humanism is the best hope for the future of mankind, Communism is one of the most vile totalitarian Ideologies man has invented. These two are NOT one and the same, they are simply NOT the same ideology. Both rejecting Theism is not enough to make them the same thing. Just like you rejecting Communism does not make you a Nazi.
kairobinson 11 months ago
@kairobinson You are a moron. We're talking about atheism and the historical and empirical FACT that all the communist crackpots who have killed MILLIONS upone MILLIONS were atheists. Whether these atheists prescribed to other ideologies is irrelevant to the discussion. They were atheists and killed people who rejected atheism. That's a FACT. Stop being retarded and spare yourself some intellectual dignity.
melonbarmonster 10 months ago
@melonbarmonster You are a moron. We're talking about religion and the historical and empirical FACT that all the religious crackpots who have killed MILLIONS upon MILLIONS were religious. Whether these religious people subscribed to other ideologies is irrelevant to the discussion. They were religious and killed people who rejected their religion. That's a FACT. Stop being retarded and spare yourself some intellectual dignity.
jamesharrel 10 months ago
...what happens when you are caught with religious items or profess a belief in anything besides atheism.
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
@melonbarmonster Well in North Korea where the Dear Leader is a God-figure to whom you praise for everything you have and is rumoured to poses many powers including the ability to control the weather dispute being dead I suppose the punishment is rather high for following a different religion to the state imposed Juche.
kairobinson 11 months ago
@kairobinson I've met and spoken to North Koreans. They're all atheists. Dear Leader is a despot in the mold of Stalin, Mao Pol Pot as Castro... all ATHEISTS.
melonbarmonster 10 months ago
Yay Dennett is back on the podium and we get to listen to someone of intellect for a while. :D
kairobinson 11 months ago
D'Souza Absolute Win this Debate! Daniel...."uh, so many points to talk", but he can't talk....he can't talk....
PecaniAnna 11 months ago
D'Souza Absolute Win this Debate!
PecaniAnna 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sounds to me like Dennett got his degree from a junior college...What a horrible opponent for a brilliant mind like Dinesh. Go back to school Dennett! LOL
buitrami 11 months ago
hurry up and say something.......what a staller ....
IrnBruDude000 11 months ago
So D'Souza has no idea how the universe was created, but he assumes it was done by a "thing" and this thing is God by definition. Not only does this give no information at all about the nature of God, it basically reduces God to a label or synonym for "I don't know" or "undiscovered science". If they would have presented this definition from the start, they could have skipped the debate and just agreed that God is a vague, meaningless and useless metaphor for the Unknowable.
LanceWisteria 1 year ago