D'esouza talks of "rhetorical excess" then continues to spew rhetorical diarrhea of the mouth to which the likes of a 6-yeah old seeing through his red herring metaphors.
"large numbers of Indians rushing to Christianity ... why?" Well certain numbers of any ignorant poor peoples I believe can be bribed by much needed help/handouts. The question of why there has to be a bribe involved to help those to get them to "believe"... I don't know.
The guy from Tonga asked a question about cannibalism. Where cannibalism does exist, it usually takes place as part of a religious ritual. I'm surprised that Hitchens didn't make that point.
dinesh is such a hyprocrite.. says hitchens is making rethorical arguments only... well dinesh is a like a tape with prerecorded answers to everything and really pushes the limits in terms of rethorical abuse
Regarding the last point around 9:10, why doesn't DSouza do extreme sports? He would get into heaven way faster. But he will come up with a reason to not kill himself, and that's thanks to evolution.
Dinesh is pretty rational when he speaks... yet most people here don't acknowledges this. Stop writing hateful comments and listen to the debate while pondering the questions.
Dinesh is a fucking clown. It is clear that Hell was made up because people entertained REVENGE FANTASIES over those who had died---and because it was a useful method for insuring obedience.
As for wish fulfillment not helping evolutionarily, it is true that it has a huge evolutionary cost. However, over a smaller time horizon it could increase confidence, decrease anxiety---which could all prove to be benefits. It is a well-known element of courtship that confidence is half of game.
Dinesh is a fucking clown. It is clear that Hell was made up because people entertained REVENGE FANTASIES over those who had died---and because it was a useful method for insuring obedience.
I haven't seen this debate in so long but, re-watching it, fucking Dinesh is so petty. It pisses me off LOL and I usually get, exclusively as well, humor out of these people. Craig, Hovind, all of them. Dinesh though, I guess because he does have some intellectual capacity and is obviously a mentally competent person it gets to me that so many people clap and think his points are anything but what I said above, fucking petty points. Every single one of them. LET'S GO REASON clapclapclapclapclap!
The question the man from Tonga asked really shed a proper light upon each debator. The man is obviously a kind, humble, respectful person...who asked Hitchens the question with a smile and body language saturated in loving respect. Hitchens then goes into his lowly, negative drowl with contempt written on every square inch of his face, and never answered the question. Dinesh addressed him respectfully and gave a heartfelt answer - maybe not the right one - but at least he was respectful.
D'Souza IS A LIAR AND A MORON , I HAVE NOTHING GOOD TO ABOUT HIM , LOL, NEW VALUES, KILLING , PERSECUTING , JUDGING, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD , GREAT VALUES HEY.
at 8:01 D'Souza says "I can totally see why, in a wish-fulfillment world, we would invent heaven...I don't think I would have made up hell."
That's pathetically disingenuous. How could he possibly not know that the threat of hell is such an effective component of religious sales pitches. If it weren't, an atheist wouldn't have to constantly listen to that "What if you're wrong" crap. Try selling your religion without it and see how often you close the sale.
Also, it should be pointed out that the whole point of Buddha's teaching (500 years before Jesus) was compassion, even for enemies, and in so doing he explicitly rejected the Indian caste system AND SLAVERY. Slavery was never rejected by Jesus, and was explicitly endorsed by St Paul.
Dinesh's rabbit story only points out a big contradiction in religious thinking. If people believe paradise awaits them after death, then why DO they care about death? Why bother saying 'life is sacred'? Why care about hospitals, life insurance, starvation, disaster prevention, genocidal dictatorships, etc. etc.? When the extremist looks into the camera and says 'we love death more than the infidel loves life', why don't ALL religious people agree with him? (Now who can't justify morality??)
"We would invent heaven. Heaven is cool. But I wouldn't make up hell..." Why would wish fulfillment inventors of religion come up with that? Well, why not create a realm where your enemies go? Why not create the image of a torture chamber where people who do not adhere to your beliefs must struggle through eternity? Maybe that's not how the hell concept was created, but is it too hard to imagine that people would wish their enemies be smite forever even after death?
@bacchusreborn two things; the first and most important, don't be so sensitive, you sound hysterical in your previous message. Due to your hyper-sensitivity you missed his point, emotion clouded your perspicacity, listen again in a controlled state of mind and you will easily see where you erred.
that's it, important life lesson, free of charge, and no need to thank me either
hell would have been created by the so called religious inventors because it is wish fulfillment towards having their enemies will suffer duh. It is the opposite of wish fulfillment and that heaven is reward. Reward and punishment thats all.
So the Indians in the lower cast, saw a better deal. Christianity bullied alot of societies to become indoctrinated, become christian or you die... hmmm. What would you chose.
dinesh is an accident - had the genes of his ancestors not sucked up to the portuguese out of fear of DEATH (a very natural impulse) he would not be alive to debate..those that opposed the portuguese died at their hands.
I think both debaters are extremely intelligent, but Dinesh, although a lot of people on these forums apparently disagree with him, won this debate (in my opinion, I'm not here to argue), and I'm also not saying this because I'm a strong follower of Christ. Just in this debate, though (excluding the other ones), he has made some rational refutes to Christopher Hitchens (as well as Chris has to him), but Dinesh has laid it more strongly against Christ. Plus, Dinesh is freaking hilarious, lol.
Mr. Hitchins DESTROYED Mr. D'Souza. I don't know what you were watching, although you're a strong follower of Christ (imagine that), but Mr. D'Souza doesn't have any ground to stand on whatsoever.
the idea of hell was invented by man to force them to an obeidiance by sacring them ans so was the eye of god that watch you everything you do and the he knows everything you thing it is a mind control in a distance by fear,some need a psychology lecture on that subject like d souza surly would benifit on it
Besides, the sheer arrogance D'Souza demonstrates when he accuses Dawkins of historical ignorance is hypocritical. Has he never heard of the Code of Hammurabi (1790 years before Christ), Nesilim, and many more Babylonian to cite from ONE culture alone. Moses allegedly receives the 10 commandments 1400 years before Christ. This man, in the words of George Carlin, and at the risk of being visceral, should have a cock put in his mouth.
in all fairness.. i think Dinesh is the better debater. His wit and arguing style just outshine Hitchens' unarguable brilliance. Nonetheless, Hitchens is a VERY articulate person. However, the audience these debates target (College students) are much more fond and entertained and built up by D souza's speaking style.
Of course. Prosecutorial debating is a far more convincing technique, because it abuses of the opposing orator to legitimize, or validate if you will, the argumentatively lacking cause. It is not a debate of fact, it is a parade of discrediting argumentation that pretends to validate one's position by the disqualifying the opposing orator. There is a certain "unChirstian-like" malice emanating from Dinesh in order to defeat Hitchens. Making this behavior evident to the audience is called for.
"Wish thinkers" made up hell because if there is one thing that is "the opium of the people," it's fear. Let's not fool ourselves here. The men who wrote the bible had, at the time they were etching it out, not yet been dead. So, even if heaven did/does exist (it doesn't), they had no good way of describing what it would actually be like. It's hard to get people to wish for something they can't picture. So then what? How about creating a horrifying alternative? And there you have it, my friends.
Unbelievable. That's the problem. Why would an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god choose to spread his message in this way? That he would plant the seed of that message in, as Hitchens calls it, "an illiterate sliver of the Middle East" (by the way, it's clear that the writers of the bible had no concept of a world outside of this region) and then have PEOPLE spread it from there. Why would he not just peel back the sky and say, "Hey everybody, listen up - here's the deal." Nonsense.
If one of evil life turn in his thought Straightly to Me, count him amidst the good; He hath the highway chosen; he shall grow Righteous ere long; he shall attain that peace Which changes not. Thou Prince of India! Be certain none can perish, trusting Me! O Prithâs Son! whoso will turn to Me, Though they be born from the very womb of Sin, Woman or man; sprung of the Vaisya caste Or lowly disregarded Sudra, all Plant foot upon the highest path; how then The holy Brahmans and My Royal Saints?
Listening to D'Souza prattle on about how thankful he is that his ancestors were violently forced to convert by the Portuguese missionaries is downright surreal. I don't know a whole lot of Native Americans who speak that highly of their ancestors' oppressers. Or for that matter, African Americans who speak so glowingly of their great great grandparents' "owners."
What the fuck was with the rabbit analogy? How is that congruent with any of the conditions of human life? Perhaps if there was another rabbit on the sidelines who had a dislike for the one being chased by the lion, and the intelligence to manufacture an ideology that would get old mate eaten...lol...
Why invent Hell? To get people to believe in Heaven!
If there was no Hell, and atheists just supposedly went back to Earth after they were dead, or went to some other place like Earth, I'd take that ANY DAY over Heaven.
I can't think of a more boring, horrible thing than eternity groveling at the feet of an intoxicated vagabond.
Yeah, it's not. He's trying to compare human reason to rabbits dicking around in the woods as if the two were similar. It's a shitty analogy and he knows it.
Besides, making up Hell wouldn't *create* Hell in real life. It would exist only on paper. So the analogy is doubly asinine given that, Hell wouldn't exist, and the rabbits choice would get him devoured by the lion.
It's amazing how these people don't realize how full of shit he is.
Dinesh is good at debating (I.E. riling the base like a politician), but many of his points are based on lies. No, Christian nations are NOT the most charitable, the morals he praises as Christian do NOT stem from Christianity, the Christians were NOT the primary anti-slavery advocates, so on and so forth. He claims to rely on evidence and reason, but he merely hijacks some of their language; he doesn't use their principles or findings.
Very dishonest Dinesh,. tsk tsk, all too Christian-like.
The height of Christian arrogance is to think that all morality comes from them and that life owes them more than it gives them. I get sick of listening to Christians talk about how accepting Christ grants you eternal life. So while they "tolerate" you, in the back of their mind they're having a laugh at you and filling themselves with a sense of importance. Doesn't alter the fact existence vanishes in death - it's not bad, it's nothing. It's not a journey we all take - it's a fate we all meet.
@athlete117 Point taken about Christian arrogance, but if you admire Hitchens then surely you know that he, too, rails against many aspects of our ("meager") existence and if anything uses it as a philosophical supporting argument against the existence of a god. I think wanting more out of life than what it "gives [you]" is not a Christian tendency, just a human one.
D'Souza propones christian morals as being good. That does in no way prove his argument about the existence itself, merely that Christ was a man with some good ideas. Yes, thats a big deal, but divine? No. Does it require belief to agree with the morals? No.
I heard D'Souza once say "how can you explain how we existed on the planet for tens of thousands of years, perhaps as many as 200,000, before we even invented the wheel. Someone would have to conclude a supernatural entity breathed life into this homo sapien you speak of".
And the whole audience applauded.
So call off the research, call off anthropology and archeology: magic man done it.
You don't have to be christian to promote equality and let's look at this point.
CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT PROMOTE EQUALITY !!! Women were supressed, gays persecuted, other religions slaughtered, atheists and anyone who questioned it persecuted.
And christianity is just plagarism of judaism.
Why haven't we gotten rid of it? Because people have some insane notion that its useful.
i think D'Souza's most idiotic comment was when he said why would christians invent hell. They invented hell to scare a bunch of ignorant morons who believed in witch craft so they could control them.
Humans have all kinds of wishes Dinesh..one of them - and one of the deeper ones is to have all wrongs avenged. Hell is not for you - it is for your enemies. All a Xtian needs to do is repent...and as anyone whose ever felt guilty about anything repenting is EASY almost natural...it is most often the consequence in non sociopaths the direct result of seeing the harm you have caused in the pain of another human...Hell is for your enemies.
D'Souza's arguments should be countered outright, as they occur, in the debate. Hitchens has a tendency to quote his book and use sayings he has performed many times before. While this can be useful, he should have countered the arguments outright. D'Souza uses half bakes theories frosted with impressive rhetoric. Hitchens is smart enough to see through this, but he should start by explaining why D'Souza is wrong, then he should go in for the kill with his spot on reasoning.
D'souza makes a incorrect assertion of Judaism being of the tribe and not universalistic. Chosen is poorly translated, Chosen in hebrew is a verb, only, not a noun. When used by a noun it is a corruption of the original intention. Judaism is based around doing good things because they are good for you in the present, and has little interest in expressing what this means for the afterlife. So the job of the chosen is to spread "good deeds" message without a real interest in converting people.
Hell slowly evolved. It was not anywhere in the religion at first. Hell is the tool used to force the status quo. It is to keep people in check and scare people into conversion.
Hell has been around a long time, it just has been recycled and reformatted into different media. In the form of tartarus for the ancient greeks and aralu of the sumerians. Christianity didn't conceive the idea of hell originally, it was something very involved with polytheism and later took its hold on momotheism. So it's growth hasnt been linear and the concept has taken hold in mnay different religious forms.
I love Hitchens and I am an atheist, but in this debate he reeaaally takes his time to prove a point. Not one of his best debates by date.
And to be completely honest, D'Souza brings forth a couple of ok-arguments, and I think that is much more than many of the other christians that have hopelessly tried to prove Hitchens wrong before.
I agree for the most part. Hitchens wasn't as sharp as usual, but D'Souza was all over the place. The cross-examination part was especially sloppy for both of them; it wasn't a good format.
Hitchens is not a very good debater at all. I've commented on many of his debates here on YouTube, you can probably find me ranting about why he isn't lol. I've only ever seen ONE debate, one which was against D'Souza, that he did well. He did so well in that debate, that D'Souza was getting noticeably angry, frustrated and changed the topic many times
My favorite theist was actually David Wolpe. He sounded sincere in what he said. Unlike this manipulative scum.
Hitchens make some amazing points, some that are self-evident.
D'souza is a very good debater, no one will deny this, not even Hitchens - as he states early in this debate. D'souza will gloss over entire points - Hitchens's comment on Hitler. D'souza just seems like he is in denial.
hahah. D'Souza ends by proving why religion is dangerous. because we end up like a rabbit who leaps into a lion's mouth. (i.e. suicide bombers, etc.) What an idiot.
All D'Souza is proving is that Christianity is slightly better than pure Cannibalism. haha. But given the choice we have now between Rationalism and Faith-based religions like Christianity, I choose rationality. Christianity though a step up from barbarism, is still by far insufficient in terms of logic and morality.
D'Souzas rabbit is simplistically able think about death and life after death, but gives no signs the all too human and significant ability to DOUBLEthink, which means, to hold simultaneously contradictory assumptions such as saying that the Christian god is one but is at the same time three (without any change at all in the essence of the meaning of god in both cases).
If the rabbit really had a psyche similar to that of humans, both following thoughts could be perfectly concilated in its mind: the thought that life has a definitive end so that survival instincts would find no obstacles to powerfully arising, and the opposing thought that death is not the end because there is an almighty creator who grants a post-mortem paradise to the faithful.
#3 The religious rabbit in this situation would sure instinctively fear death, but on the other hand would feel reassured by the faith that a supreme being wants him to live on and would be helping him out. God will help me! And with His help Ill succeed. With the grace of God, like David defeated Goliath! Reassured, the rabbit would gather more psychological strength and have better chances of escaping.
For practical purposes the promise of heaven is often eclipsed, sometimes even by means of tenets of faith such as the supreme being wants his creatures struggling hard in the world, never surrendering to death, suicide is cowardice, gods wont let suicides get away with it and will send them to the underworld.
As far as social reassurance and control go, religious belief and mainly religious doublethinking could reallly help humans evolutionarily; it is in the general case, as Pinker claimed (and DSouza misquoted ), that religious belief does not necessarily help evolutionary process.
Yes, I would agree that he is a good charasmatic speaker/preacher (though not debater). But you don't notice his bad debating, because he covers it up by masturbating the crowd and employing a miriad of fallacies to appeal to the very worst in the audience. I don't think they are soothed by it, I think they are fooled by it.
D'Souza is being misleading about Dante, Michaelangelo, Shakespeare, etc. These people were courtiers. Their patrons were royalty, nobility, and clergy (often, all three were the same). The church offered these men the chances to create grand works. They didn't do it out of piety.
Oh, and Dante's Inferno is a reaction to christianity, not an affirmation of it.
That rabbit is a perfect example of my stepmother who said, if she happened to have a gun and had a chance to save her and her daughters life, would she use it. She said "no, it's in god's hands at that point" because she felt safe for going to heaven. I told her "thank god your not my mom"
Religion or believing God is not a survival mechanism, or a side effect of society. Atheism is every bit as much based on faith (belief in something not proven). And the common atheist explanation for everything ("I don't know why the universe exists, I just know it isn't God") is simply not logical.
No, science and religion looks at existence and things like morality through a more plausible and factual way, meaning it actually tries to find out...why...instead of just saying, it's a gift from God, God did it, don't be foolish my friend, science actually tries to explain things through a realistic way.
BTw.. your magic stapler issue i believe i addressed. And will say again it is equally laughable for some one to believe that as it is for them to believe an equally dumb idea like there exists a magic egg from which all energy, life, matter came from. (big bang theory)
You both don't have and iota of proof to defend your positions.
you are both equally clueless about what you speak.
As such, atheists are no more believable than believers of any faith
I dont know why you are bothering with this explanation.
You are more or less stating what i have been saying all this time. Both Religion and Atheism are based on theoretical ideas than no one can prove of disprove for that matter.
You both dont have evidence! Can you grasp that simple concept!
What then gives you the right to challenge any one else's similarly unsubstantiated beliefs?
If you really believe that the Bible is just a book of fiction and mythology YOU give me proof that the Bible is not historically reliable. It seems to me that you are the one believing in mythology, sorry. There is no ancient, document, none, that has the documentary support that the Bible has! Not to mention the archaeology, the other historical witnesses, secondary resources etc. extra-biblical
This whole discussion is seriously beyond you. You need to find some books and educate yourself on the issues before bringing up dead arguments that neither true atheists nor creationists even waste their time on any more.
Do you even realize that no one here has mentioned the bible but you? Who cares what the bible says? for all you know i am a bhuddist, or muslim, or hindu? why do you keep bringing up the phony bible argument?
If thats the conclusion you falsely came to, I will be honest, i dont really blame you. It would be best you tell yourself that I conceded. You have a serious misunderstand of facts, cant even make a coherent argument and honestly dont even have a clue about what you are talking about.
It would be best for you to pretend you won. No one will hold that against it. I fully understand how ignorance among atheists works.
You bring up the Bible as the most historically accurate record and then you refuse to refute my point, changing the subject. A sign of a beaten man clutching at straws.
Now you have descended into out right pathetic lying (not that i expected anything different looking at your last post)
NO WHERE DID I BRING THE BIBLE OR EVEN MENTION IT. MATTER OF FACT ALL MY LAST RESPONSES HAVE BEEN QUESTIONING WHY YOU BROUGHT IT UP AND WHO THE HELL IS TALKING ABOUT IT.
You are either dillusional or a rather pathetic liar who will tell silly lies even if any one can look at all my comments and see that i have not brought up the bible or talk about it once!
And just so that we are clear, i am neither an advocate for atheism or religion. Rather i prefer to argue the merits of the case and point out the outrageous hypocrisy espoused by atheists who demand proof and evidence yet they offer neither.
Ps..After you concede on the wish fulfillment issue please feel free to post whatever "FACTS" there are that support atheism, that i have apparently ignored.
I did read your post and i did you see where you specifically stated that religion was created to control people (a point which i challenged by asking you to explain the twisted illogical statement that apparently hell was created because "people cant ignore eternal damnation"
From that point on, you leapt on some other argument and failed to respond to that.
If you responded to it, i missed and and still cant find it. Please elaborate because i am not the kind who likes to move off a debate issue to another one without closing out the first argument.
I am the troll? Correct me if i am wrong you are the pathetic twat who runs around correcting bogus inconsequential errs in people's arguments, while making a complete bloody fool of himself in the process then getting pissed off because some one had the nerve to point out his childish antics!
sorry dumbass. i will stay here and drive in that that point over and over again!
Hey asshole.. please tell me again the correct way to spell cespit! lol
One of the dumbest arguments I have heard. How are you going to control people without inventing something horrible, such as hell? You couldn't. Thats the purpose of hell, and thats the purpose of religion - control
Actually your response pretty much says that you are the one who lacks the ability to understand the argument that has been dumbed down for even the most simple minded to comprehend (see example of rabbit)
You completely misunderstood the question and ultimately failed to grasp the answer from even Hitchens himself the atheist on the panel who doesnt even make this argument you have falsely infused in here.
Because if some one takes your argument on its face value, you are more or less saying that some where along the evolutionary process there exist ed some yet unamed cabal of conspirators that planted the idea of hell in people's DNA so as to achieve "control"
Because somewhere along the evolutionary process, people looked for an explanation to things they didn't understand, such as thunder etc. They started believing in many Gods, then one God, which gave rise to the church. The church wanted to keep its hierarchical position and thus they invented the idea of hell....
No i dont get it. You know why? Because this is an argument you completely forged on your own and that no one is advancing. D'souza's argument is that religion is not the result of a wish fulfillment
ideology as is being argued by Hitchens. Matter of fact he quotes an ATHEIST STEVEN PINKER to illustrate this very point!
Let me put this another way since you obviously rejected D'souza's argument and chose to make up your own.
Making up hell does not give the church any more control over people who already believed in heaven.
Matter of fact it would serve to turn more people away from the church and weaken its control than attract these so called wish fulfillment seekers that you argue are so ready to buy into religion.
Again that is twisted logic. People cant ignore eternal suffering? really? because if i mistaken our newspapers are rife with all manner of sinners and people who have rejected the idea of eternal suffering in favor of proclivities of all kind from sexual to down right grotesque behavior. (Haggart, Swaggat, catholic priest child abuse scandals, catholic nazism,fascism)
Your argument here is outrageously wrong if not down right laughable.
Did you ever thing that they don't really believe this bullshit and that they're doing it for other reasons? Of course you would ignore that, as you ignore all the FACTS opposing your theory.
I also gave you an example why its so difficult to disprove God; its difficult because the idea itself is so ridiculous and laughable.
I gave you a perfect example and you still did not prove to me that a magical pink stapler did NOT create the universe and is not talking to me and to other people I know.
It is a shame that you, as well as D'souza, and perhaps even Hitchens seem to have such a narrow view of "wish fulfillment". People do not always wish for positive things, people could just as easily wish for a good thing for themsleves (heaven) while wishing for a bad thing for others(hell). In fact, this is very befitting with humanities apparent nature and attitude. Many people want a punishment to be delivered in the afterlife, otherwise bad people can easily get away with doing bad things.
I think you are trying to narrow D'souza's argument and invalidate it based on your own revised views.
You can manufacture a hot hell for your enemies, but that doesnt explain depriving yourself of your own primal desires but trapping yourself in self described sin that would send you to hell along with your enemies.
Look at the whole and dont go selecting unique scenarios around which to formulate your argument.
Where did I say I was trying to defend Hitchens? I can disagree with the mighty Hitchens can I? Religion was created for other purposes, which I stated in my previous post.
Your motives for attempting to sound intelligent are not germane to the issue.
Childish and obtuse nonsense? You followed that up with "tee hee hee", i guess that makes you an expert on being childish and obtuse.
It only "eats" at me that you think it's important enough to you to spend hours trolling this comment section. Would you like me to point out the myriad logical fallacies employed by D'Souza? If thats what you wanted all you had to do was ask.
I would imagine to your stratum of society being able to tie one's shoes or feed oneself would qualify as "genius". So you'll forgive me if i'm not flattered by the praise of some gormless redneck.
the bad thing about the thesaurus you are currently abusing is that is simply doesnt grant you wisdom. You can copy and paste all you want from it, you will remain as dumb as the donkey that wastes people's time pointing out that apparently D'souza cant count to three.
Who said anything about a thesaurus? If anyone is abusing a thesaurus it is you. People who use the word "excreta" can generally spell the word "cesspool". Do you even know what a thesaurus is? If you did you would realize why copying and pasting from one would be stupid.
"wastes people's time"
Much like you are wasting my time trying to convince me that you have more IQ points than toes?
I pointed out a stupid remark that D'Souza made, which apparently gets your knickers in a twist.
Again you are lying you are got your knickers in a twist because some one questioned your IQ level for making incredibly stupid and childish comments on D'souza's counting abilities
Now you are pathetically trying to make me the subject of your obtuse comments. Simply because i had the nerve to point out to every one your abject stupidity.
Like i said and will keep saying it wont work!
You are the jerry springer moron with the obtuse arguments and all this crap wont hide it!
You're a common troll who thinks he's some sort of intellectual force because he can use the word "obtuse" every other sentence.
"you are got your knickers in a twist"
And you say I'M stupid? Get the fuck out of here, tool. I also only made one comment on D'Souza's mathematical faux pas, apparently you arent too hot on counting either.
Keep saying whatever you like, being an insipid parrot seems to be your calling in life. Get a job, redneck.
You failed to 'make' him look stupid, you also looked too far into his observation, however petty it was, that does not necessarily make it 'dumb as the donkey. . .", nor does it attest to 'abject stupidity'. I think you are guilty of the same hyperbole present in D'souza's multiple spiels and character-defining assaults.
D'Souza doesn't realize that the reason he gives for the spread of Christianity in India -- the promise of equality among the poor (untouchables) -- was precisely the same reason why it spread in the Roman Empire as well. If it had not appealed to the poor and the slaves, it would have never gained such large numbers, and would now be forgotten as just another Bronze Age Mediterranean myth.
WRONG!!!! Adopting christianity in the roman empire you speak of initially meant death in the mouth of a lion or whatever gruesome method the roman rules had devised at the time. In India it meant some what of a salvation or rebirth for new christians that were afforded new rights byt their colonial masters.
He then goes on to yap about the untouchables being attracted to christianity, yeah dumbass because they get a better deal out of it. He just proved it was done for selfish reasons, and not based on any evidence. Religious people never fail in sinking their own boats.
"Did religion poison Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Michelangelo, or Bach"
I doubt any of them took a keen view of those of other faiths. Try again.
Suit yourself my lad, shouldn't you do something more towards your intellectual level, such as huffing glue or "talking smack" in a Halo lobby? Dont forget to take your ritalin sport.
Pathetic yet again! I know you are embarrassed and you are trying to salvage some dignity from the rather daft comments you made! Nonsensical baboon type crap you thought so smart. (for a jerry springer audience) too bad some of us arent.
Now here you are still rumbling on embarrassing yourself and shaming those gibbering primates you so poorly mimic.
I'm not your "brother" and if i were suicide would seem a reasonable alternative. You can profess to sound clever, if you like, but it hasn't worked so far. Another inept religious apologist who cant form proper sentences, what else is new? You sound more like one of the people who would be on the Jerry Springer show rather than merely watching it.
D'esouza talks of "rhetorical excess" then continues to spew rhetorical diarrhea of the mouth to which the likes of a 6-yeah old seeing through his red herring metaphors.
Skepgnostic 6 days ago
"large numbers of Indians rushing to Christianity ... why?" Well certain numbers of any ignorant poor peoples I believe can be bribed by much needed help/handouts. The question of why there has to be a bribe involved to help those to get them to "believe"... I don't know.
Sconezeta 1 month ago
ELMERRRRRR!
SnorkyTheInept 7 months ago
Wow, Hitchens is SMASHED!
He could have done a much better job if he wasn't quite so drunk.
AudioForAnarchists 9 months ago
Christianity repects women...Right Dinesh. Idiot.
Most genius of the past happened in SPITE of religion, you jackass.
blahbl4hblahtoo 9 months ago
Christianity repects women...Right Dinesh. Idiot.
blahbl4hblahtoo 9 months ago
Dinesh works in King's college
49fiori 10 months ago
The guy from Tonga asked a question about cannibalism. Where cannibalism does exist, it usually takes place as part of a religious ritual. I'm surprised that Hitchens didn't make that point.
FreeAnalyst 10 months ago 2
Isn't King's a Christian school? Dinesh is on his home turf here..
bwconklin 10 months ago
Dinesh all the way baby
blopajmbar62 1 year ago
In fairness I think Hitch could have answered the Tongan guy's question a bit better.
Zenhumanist 1 year ago
dinesh is such a hyprocrite.. says hitchens is making rethorical arguments only... well dinesh is a like a tape with prerecorded answers to everything and really pushes the limits in terms of rethorical abuse
Amstrup77 1 year ago
Regarding the last point around 9:10, why doesn't DSouza do extreme sports? He would get into heaven way faster. But he will come up with a reason to not kill himself, and that's thanks to evolution.
ac1th 1 year ago
Dinesh is pretty rational when he speaks... yet most people here don't acknowledges this. Stop writing hateful comments and listen to the debate while pondering the questions.
130adi 1 year ago
Dinesh is a fucking clown. It is clear that Hell was made up because people entertained REVENGE FANTASIES over those who had died---and because it was a useful method for insuring obedience.
As for wish fulfillment not helping evolutionarily, it is true that it has a huge evolutionary cost. However, over a smaller time horizon it could increase confidence, decrease anxiety---which could all prove to be benefits. It is a well-known element of courtship that confidence is half of game.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
Dinesh is a fucking clown. It is clear that Hell was made up because people entertained REVENGE FANTASIES over those who had died---and because it was a useful method for insuring obedience.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
I haven't seen this debate in so long but, re-watching it, fucking Dinesh is so petty. It pisses me off LOL and I usually get, exclusively as well, humor out of these people. Craig, Hovind, all of them. Dinesh though, I guess because he does have some intellectual capacity and is obviously a mentally competent person it gets to me that so many people clap and think his points are anything but what I said above, fucking petty points. Every single one of them. LET'S GO REASON clapclapclapclapclap!
Territomauvais 1 year ago
D'Souza spends way too much time attacking Hitchens personally
singhkinng 1 year ago 3
The question the man from Tonga asked really shed a proper light upon each debator. The man is obviously a kind, humble, respectful person...who asked Hitchens the question with a smile and body language saturated in loving respect. Hitchens then goes into his lowly, negative drowl with contempt written on every square inch of his face, and never answered the question. Dinesh addressed him respectfully and gave a heartfelt answer - maybe not the right one - but at least he was respectful.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
D'Souza IS A LIAR AND A MORON , I HAVE NOTHING GOOD TO ABOUT HIM , LOL, NEW VALUES, KILLING , PERSECUTING , JUDGING, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD , GREAT VALUES HEY.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
at 8:01 D'Souza says "I can totally see why, in a wish-fulfillment world, we would invent heaven...I don't think I would have made up hell."
That's pathetically disingenuous. How could he possibly not know that the threat of hell is such an effective component of religious sales pitches. If it weren't, an atheist wouldn't have to constantly listen to that "What if you're wrong" crap. Try selling your religion without it and see how often you close the sale.
fusedchromosome 1 year ago
Also, it should be pointed out that the whole point of Buddha's teaching (500 years before Jesus) was compassion, even for enemies, and in so doing he explicitly rejected the Indian caste system AND SLAVERY. Slavery was never rejected by Jesus, and was explicitly endorsed by St Paul.
sam51092 1 year ago 2
Dinesh's rabbit story only points out a big contradiction in religious thinking. If people believe paradise awaits them after death, then why DO they care about death? Why bother saying 'life is sacred'? Why care about hospitals, life insurance, starvation, disaster prevention, genocidal dictatorships, etc. etc.? When the extremist looks into the camera and says 'we love death more than the infidel loves life', why don't ALL religious people agree with him? (Now who can't justify morality??)
sam51092 1 year ago
"We would invent heaven. Heaven is cool. But I wouldn't make up hell..." Why would wish fulfillment inventors of religion come up with that? Well, why not create a realm where your enemies go? Why not create the image of a torture chamber where people who do not adhere to your beliefs must struggle through eternity? Maybe that's not how the hell concept was created, but is it too hard to imagine that people would wish their enemies be smite forever even after death?
Gottacanon 1 year ago
Fuck Him and trying to saying i want a better "afterlife" because of diabetes fuck him.
bacchusreborn 1 year ago
@bacchusreborn - well put mensa! thank you for solidifying my theory that all atheists are essentially angry and frustrated C students
so, which of the Ivy League schools do you attend?
mollkatles 1 year ago
@mollkatles
Carleton university if you must know, doing rather well too.
im sorry but it enrages me when anybody presumes anything because of somebodies "disability" especially if it is one i share.
bacchusreborn 1 year ago
@bacchusreborn two things; the first and most important, don't be so sensitive, you sound hysterical in your previous message. Due to your hyper-sensitivity you missed his point, emotion clouded your perspicacity, listen again in a controlled state of mind and you will easily see where you erred.
that's it, important life lesson, free of charge, and no need to thank me either
mollkatles 1 year ago
@mollkatles
i understood his point but i find it invalid to say that god is needed or even the best for those people who feel bad about it.
not hyper sensitivity just overly loud disagreement.
bacchusreborn 1 year ago
hell would have been created by the so called religious inventors because it is wish fulfillment towards having their enemies will suffer duh. It is the opposite of wish fulfillment and that heaven is reward. Reward and punishment thats all.
rainbowspite222 2 years ago
Welcome to the theistic bulk barn where each item has a unique price and you can pick and chose TO SAVE YOUR SOUL! BWAHAHAHA
rainbowspite222 2 years ago 3
So the Indians in the lower cast, saw a better deal. Christianity bullied alot of societies to become indoctrinated, become christian or you die... hmmm. What would you chose.
rainbowspite222 2 years ago
nice to see that Dinesh sees dogs as nothing...
setmedic 2 years ago
Dogs and cats rule, in fact cats were worshiped at one time within Egypt wasn't it so? Meow.
rainbowspite222 2 years ago
dinesh is an accident - had the genes of his ancestors not sucked up to the portuguese out of fear of DEATH (a very natural impulse) he would not be alive to debate..those that opposed the portuguese died at their hands.
CityzenJane 2 years ago 2
"I am a rabbit." Hahahaha, just the way his tone of voice is when he says that cracks me up.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
I think both debaters are extremely intelligent, but Dinesh, although a lot of people on these forums apparently disagree with him, won this debate (in my opinion, I'm not here to argue), and I'm also not saying this because I'm a strong follower of Christ. Just in this debate, though (excluding the other ones), he has made some rational refutes to Christopher Hitchens (as well as Chris has to him), but Dinesh has laid it more strongly against Christ. Plus, Dinesh is freaking hilarious, lol.
HowdyNrealLife 2 years ago
Mr. Hitchins DESTROYED Mr. D'Souza. I don't know what you were watching, although you're a strong follower of Christ (imagine that), but Mr. D'Souza doesn't have any ground to stand on whatsoever.
SocialDissimulation 2 years ago 4
the idea of hell was invented by man to force them to an obeidiance by sacring them ans so was the eye of god that watch you everything you do and the he knows everything you thing it is a mind control in a distance by fear,some need a psychology lecture on that subject like d souza surly would benifit on it
mystisme 2 years ago
Besides, the sheer arrogance D'Souza demonstrates when he accuses Dawkins of historical ignorance is hypocritical. Has he never heard of the Code of Hammurabi (1790 years before Christ), Nesilim, and many more Babylonian to cite from ONE culture alone. Moses allegedly receives the 10 commandments 1400 years before Christ. This man, in the words of George Carlin, and at the risk of being visceral, should have a cock put in his mouth.
thejokerslastlaugh 2 years ago 5
in all fairness.. i think Dinesh is the better debater. His wit and arguing style just outshine Hitchens' unarguable brilliance. Nonetheless, Hitchens is a VERY articulate person. However, the audience these debates target (College students) are much more fond and entertained and built up by D souza's speaking style.
seven2me 2 years ago
Of course. Prosecutorial debating is a far more convincing technique, because it abuses of the opposing orator to legitimize, or validate if you will, the argumentatively lacking cause. It is not a debate of fact, it is a parade of discrediting argumentation that pretends to validate one's position by the disqualifying the opposing orator. There is a certain "unChirstian-like" malice emanating from Dinesh in order to defeat Hitchens. Making this behavior evident to the audience is called for.
thejokerslastlaugh 2 years ago
How can one be possibly as BLINDED and NAIVE as this Catholic sucker?! And how can people in a UNIVERSITY possibly cheer to him? Be ashamed!!
thehydra08 2 years ago 24
@thehydra08 he is a lot smarter than you are. You are pathetic and bitter.
socalmikee 10 months ago
"Wish thinkers" made up hell because if there is one thing that is "the opium of the people," it's fear. Let's not fool ourselves here. The men who wrote the bible had, at the time they were etching it out, not yet been dead. So, even if heaven did/does exist (it doesn't), they had no good way of describing what it would actually be like. It's hard to get people to wish for something they can't picture. So then what? How about creating a horrifying alternative? And there you have it, my friends.
mrw21 2 years ago 3
Unbelievable. That's the problem. Why would an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god choose to spread his message in this way? That he would plant the seed of that message in, as Hitchens calls it, "an illiterate sliver of the Middle East" (by the way, it's clear that the writers of the bible had no concept of a world outside of this region) and then have PEOPLE spread it from there. Why would he not just peel back the sky and say, "Hey everybody, listen up - here's the deal." Nonsense.
mrw21 2 years ago 3
Nonsense.
Like I said before, our forming of societies allows the human species to bypass the need for hard-coded morality.
Without the altruism, we would fail as a species, god or no god, because we would cease to be social animals.
yt2vinay 2 years ago
yt2vinay 2 years ago
Ah! ye who into this ill world are come—
Fleeting and false—set your faith fast on Me!
Fix heart and thought on Me! Adore Me! Bring
Offerings to Me! Make Me prostrations! Make
Me your supremest joy! and, undivided,
Unto My rest your spirits shall be guided.
Here ends Chapter IX. of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ
yt2vinay 2 years ago
Listening to D'Souza prattle on about how thankful he is that his ancestors were violently forced to convert by the Portuguese missionaries is downright surreal. I don't know a whole lot of Native Americans who speak that highly of their ancestors' oppressers. Or for that matter, African Americans who speak so glowingly of their great great grandparents' "owners."
IDLERACER 2 years ago 4
What the fuck was with the rabbit analogy? How is that congruent with any of the conditions of human life? Perhaps if there was another rabbit on the sidelines who had a dislike for the one being chased by the lion, and the intelligence to manufacture an ideology that would get old mate eaten...lol...
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
Dinesh is just full of shit, really.
Why invent Hell? To get people to believe in Heaven!
If there was no Hell, and atheists just supposedly went back to Earth after they were dead, or went to some other place like Earth, I'd take that ANY DAY over Heaven.
I can't think of a more boring, horrible thing than eternity groveling at the feet of an intoxicated vagabond.
F33bs 2 years ago 4
Yeah, it's not. He's trying to compare human reason to rabbits dicking around in the woods as if the two were similar. It's a shitty analogy and he knows it.
Besides, making up Hell wouldn't *create* Hell in real life. It would exist only on paper. So the analogy is doubly asinine given that, Hell wouldn't exist, and the rabbits choice would get him devoured by the lion.
It's amazing how these people don't realize how full of shit he is.
F33bs 2 years ago
Why invent hell?
Control.
mooktank 2 years ago 5
Indeed sir. Why invent heaven? Same answer.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
Dinesh is good at debating (I.E. riling the base like a politician), but many of his points are based on lies. No, Christian nations are NOT the most charitable, the morals he praises as Christian do NOT stem from Christianity, the Christians were NOT the primary anti-slavery advocates, so on and so forth. He claims to rely on evidence and reason, but he merely hijacks some of their language; he doesn't use their principles or findings.
Very dishonest Dinesh,. tsk tsk, all too Christian-like.
analubalitious 2 years ago 6
I think these two are now friends. I don't think they are adversarial enough.
kadene2 2 years ago
The height of Christian arrogance is to think that all morality comes from them and that life owes them more than it gives them. I get sick of listening to Christians talk about how accepting Christ grants you eternal life. So while they "tolerate" you, in the back of their mind they're having a laugh at you and filling themselves with a sense of importance. Doesn't alter the fact existence vanishes in death - it's not bad, it's nothing. It's not a journey we all take - it's a fate we all meet.
athlete117 2 years ago 31
@athlete117 Point taken about Christian arrogance, but if you admire Hitchens then surely you know that he, too, rails against many aspects of our ("meager") existence and if anything uses it as a philosophical supporting argument against the existence of a god. I think wanting more out of life than what it "gives [you]" is not a Christian tendency, just a human one.
conwict7 1 year ago
D'Souza propones christian morals as being good. That does in no way prove his argument about the existence itself, merely that Christ was a man with some good ideas. Yes, thats a big deal, but divine? No. Does it require belief to agree with the morals? No.
Obversity 2 years ago 2
I heard D'Souza once say "how can you explain how we existed on the planet for tens of thousands of years, perhaps as many as 200,000, before we even invented the wheel. Someone would have to conclude a supernatural entity breathed life into this homo sapien you speak of".
And the whole audience applauded.
So call off the research, call off anthropology and archeology: magic man done it.
Neanderthalcouzin 2 years ago 2
Hell was obviously invented to control the masses and make them fearful and slavishly obedient.
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago 3
You don't have to be christian to promote equality and let's look at this point.
CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT PROMOTE EQUALITY !!! Women were supressed, gays persecuted, other religions slaughtered, atheists and anyone who questioned it persecuted.
And christianity is just plagarism of judaism.
Why haven't we gotten rid of it? Because people have some insane notion that its useful.
Terrible Grovelling & Arrogance = Religion.
youjutsusha 2 years ago 6
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 3
Atheism FTW!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 3
i think D'Souza's most idiotic comment was when he said why would christians invent hell. They invented hell to scare a bunch of ignorant morons who believed in witch craft so they could control them.
justinsgil185 2 years ago 5
Humans have all kinds of wishes Dinesh..one of them - and one of the deeper ones is to have all wrongs avenged. Hell is not for you - it is for your enemies. All a Xtian needs to do is repent...and as anyone whose ever felt guilty about anything repenting is EASY almost natural...it is most often the consequence in non sociopaths the direct result of seeing the harm you have caused in the pain of another human...Hell is for your enemies.
CityzenJane 2 years ago 2
that entire last argument from D'Souza literally made me laugh out loud
FatherofMan25 2 years ago 2
lol Uh yeah....was it just me or did he prove Hitchens' argument far more than his own with that little rabbit analogy?
Gonzo707 2 years ago
D'Souza's arguments should be countered outright, as they occur, in the debate. Hitchens has a tendency to quote his book and use sayings he has performed many times before. While this can be useful, he should have countered the arguments outright. D'Souza uses half bakes theories frosted with impressive rhetoric. Hitchens is smart enough to see through this, but he should start by explaining why D'Souza is wrong, then he should go in for the kill with his spot on reasoning.
Geoinmotion 2 years ago 3
i honestly think he would have liked to but the format decided upon simply didn't allow it. i agree though, it's frustrating.
FatherofMan25 2 years ago
D'souza makes a incorrect assertion of Judaism being of the tribe and not universalistic. Chosen is poorly translated, Chosen in hebrew is a verb, only, not a noun. When used by a noun it is a corruption of the original intention. Judaism is based around doing good things because they are good for you in the present, and has little interest in expressing what this means for the afterlife. So the job of the chosen is to spread "good deeds" message without a real interest in converting people.
pmentslenchanted 2 years ago
Hell slowly evolved. It was not anywhere in the religion at first. Hell is the tool used to force the status quo. It is to keep people in check and scare people into conversion.
Onodera1980 2 years ago
Hell has been around a long time, it just has been recycled and reformatted into different media. In the form of tartarus for the ancient greeks and aralu of the sumerians. Christianity didn't conceive the idea of hell originally, it was something very involved with polytheism and later took its hold on momotheism. So it's growth hasnt been linear and the concept has taken hold in mnay different religious forms.
pmentslenchanted 2 years ago
Dinesh, the master of the false, misleading analogies.
whimsicaljoss 2 years ago 2
I love Hitchens and I am an atheist, but in this debate he reeaaally takes his time to prove a point. Not one of his best debates by date.
And to be completely honest, D'Souza brings forth a couple of ok-arguments, and I think that is much more than many of the other christians that have hopelessly tried to prove Hitchens wrong before.
Kuukk1s 2 years ago
I agree for the most part. Hitchens wasn't as sharp as usual, but D'Souza was all over the place. The cross-examination part was especially sloppy for both of them; it wasn't a good format.
pizzaman883 2 years ago
I think because hitchens hasnt had his scotch.... u can see he is just drinking water
Nades129 2 years ago
Hitchens is not a very good debater at all. I've commented on many of his debates here on YouTube, you can probably find me ranting about why he isn't lol. I've only ever seen ONE debate, one which was against D'Souza, that he did well. He did so well in that debate, that D'Souza was getting noticeably angry, frustrated and changed the topic many times
My favorite theist was actually David Wolpe. He sounded sincere in what he said. Unlike this manipulative scum.
MartialArtistWannabe 2 years ago
And which debate was that MrtialArtistWannabe?
Hitchens make some amazing points, some that are self-evident.
D'souza is a very good debater, no one will deny this, not even Hitchens - as he states early in this debate. D'souza will gloss over entire points - Hitchens's comment on Hitler. D'souza just seems like he is in denial.
percymate 2 years ago
which debate was that? can u send me the link?
toohuman90 2 years ago
Dinesh can't seem to get the bull out of his mind.
kreskinkun 2 years ago
Rabbits don't fucking make decisions. Dumbshit.
Besides, in leaping into the lions mouth, that rabbit would have been saving it's mate and all it's offspring.
D'Souza is an assclown.
LordOmberus 2 years ago
He's also ignoring the obvious answer as to why people would "make stuff up." The same reason he makes stuff up. To control others.
utukkuxul 2 years ago
Dinesh's basic argument: "christianity has been a political/moral force in the world therefore God exists" - brain-twisting babble.
lonerook860 2 years ago 7
The premise of this debate is "is religion the problem?", not "does God exist." Check part 1 of the debate.
loudchristian2112 2 years ago
hahah. D'Souza ends by proving why religion is dangerous. because we end up like a rabbit who leaps into a lion's mouth. (i.e. suicide bombers, etc.) What an idiot.
davidngo4415 2 years ago 5
he is a douche bag
Foothead1 2 years ago 4
All D'Souza is proving is that Christianity is slightly better than pure Cannibalism. haha. But given the choice we have now between Rationalism and Faith-based religions like Christianity, I choose rationality. Christianity though a step up from barbarism, is still by far insufficient in terms of logic and morality.
davidngo4415 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
#1
D'Souzas rabbit is simplistically able think about death and life after death, but gives no signs the all too human and significant ability to DOUBLEthink, which means, to hold simultaneously contradictory assumptions such as saying that the Christian god is one but is at the same time three (without any change at all in the essence of the meaning of god in both cases).
YakobusRO 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
#2
If the rabbit really had a psyche similar to that of humans, both following thoughts could be perfectly concilated in its mind: the thought that life has a definitive end so that survival instincts would find no obstacles to powerfully arising, and the opposing thought that death is not the end because there is an almighty creator who grants a post-mortem paradise to the faithful.
YakobusRO 2 years ago
#3 The religious rabbit in this situation would sure instinctively fear death, but on the other hand would feel reassured by the faith that a supreme being wants him to live on and would be helping him out. God will help me! And with His help Ill succeed. With the grace of God, like David defeated Goliath! Reassured, the rabbit would gather more psychological strength and have better chances of escaping.
YakobusRO 2 years ago
#4
For practical purposes the promise of heaven is often eclipsed, sometimes even by means of tenets of faith such as the supreme being wants his creatures struggling hard in the world, never surrendering to death, suicide is cowardice, gods wont let suicides get away with it and will send them to the underworld.
YakobusRO 2 years ago
#5
As far as social reassurance and control go, religious belief and mainly religious doublethinking could reallly help humans evolutionarily; it is in the general case, as Pinker claimed (and DSouza misquoted ), that religious belief does not necessarily help evolutionary process.
YakobusRO 2 years ago
Comment removed
YakobusRO 2 years ago
Comment removed
YakobusRO 2 years ago
D'Souza could fill a whole stadium with his straw men!
BoneySkylord 3 years ago 3
how do we know the rabbit didn't go somewhere after it died?
hey, comment #400!
chessdawgz 3 years ago
2:30 D'Souza preaches.
KonijNx2 3 years ago
Hes a great charismatic Christian speaker/preacher in debates. I can see how Christians would look up to ease their cursed minds.
AtheistBrad 3 years ago
Yes, I would agree that he is a good charasmatic speaker/preacher (though not debater). But you don't notice his bad debating, because he covers it up by masturbating the crowd and employing a miriad of fallacies to appeal to the very worst in the audience. I don't think they are soothed by it, I think they are fooled by it.
KonijNx2 3 years ago
D'Souza is being misleading about Dante, Michaelangelo, Shakespeare, etc. These people were courtiers. Their patrons were royalty, nobility, and clergy (often, all three were the same). The church offered these men the chances to create grand works. They didn't do it out of piety.
Oh, and Dante's Inferno is a reaction to christianity, not an affirmation of it.
dougmanjones 3 years ago
That rabbit is a perfect example of my stepmother who said, if she happened to have a gun and had a chance to save her and her daughters life, would she use it. She said "no, it's in god's hands at that point" because she felt safe for going to heaven. I told her "thank god your not my mom"
Badboyblue3 3 years ago 2
Religion or believing God is not a survival mechanism, or a side effect of society. Atheism is every bit as much based on faith (belief in something not proven). And the common atheist explanation for everything ("I don't know why the universe exists, I just know it isn't God") is simply not logical.
xtrashed 3 years ago
No, science and religion looks at existence and things like morality through a more plausible and factual way, meaning it actually tries to find out...why...instead of just saying, it's a gift from God, God did it, don't be foolish my friend, science actually tries to explain things through a realistic way.
chrissup19 3 years ago
Comment removed
AtheistBrad 3 years ago
BTw.. your magic stapler issue i believe i addressed. And will say again it is equally laughable for some one to believe that as it is for them to believe an equally dumb idea like there exists a magic egg from which all energy, life, matter came from. (big bang theory)
You both don't have and iota of proof to defend your positions.
you are both equally clueless about what you speak.
As such, atheists are no more believable than believers of any faith
karamarouge 3 years ago
Big band is a THEORY
Creation is a THEORY
why a theory you might ask? because NO ONE KNOW
YOU dont know, I dont know
NO ONE!
What happens after that, now thats a different story.
WKaliber1 3 years ago
I dont know why you are bothering with this explanation.
You are more or less stating what i have been saying all this time. Both Religion and Atheism are based on theoretical ideas than no one can prove of disprove for that matter.
You both dont have evidence! Can you grasp that simple concept!
What then gives you the right to challenge any one else's similarly unsubstantiated beliefs?
Please answer this
karamarouge 3 years ago
Because the bible doesnt make sense from a factual, scientific perspective! THATS the difference.
WKaliber1 3 years ago
But who here is arguing that the bible makes sense from a factual or scientific perspective. D'souza doesnt to that, neither do I.
And just so you know religion does not equal the bible!
karamarouge 3 years ago
If you really believe that the Bible is just a book of fiction and mythology YOU give me proof that the Bible is not historically reliable. It seems to me that you are the one believing in mythology, sorry. There is no ancient, document, none, that has the documentary support that the Bible has! Not to mention the archaeology, the other historical witnesses, secondary resources etc. extra-biblical
xtrashed 3 years ago
so the Earth is 6 thousand years old? why doesn't the bible mention dinosaurs?
WKaliber1 3 years ago
This whole discussion is seriously beyond you. You need to find some books and educate yourself on the issues before bringing up dead arguments that neither true atheists nor creationists even waste their time on any more.
Do you even realize that no one here has mentioned the bible but you? Who cares what the bible says? for all you know i am a bhuddist, or muslim, or hindu? why do you keep bringing up the phony bible argument?
karamarouge 3 years ago
You conceded to me hahaha
You lose my friend
WKaliber1 3 years ago
If thats the conclusion you falsely came to, I will be honest, i dont really blame you. It would be best you tell yourself that I conceded. You have a serious misunderstand of facts, cant even make a coherent argument and honestly dont even have a clue about what you are talking about.
It would be best for you to pretend you won. No one will hold that against it. I fully understand how ignorance among atheists works.
karamarouge 3 years ago
You bring up the Bible as the most historically accurate record and then you refuse to refute my point, changing the subject. A sign of a beaten man clutching at straws.
I rest my case.
WKaliber1 3 years ago
Now you have descended into out right pathetic lying (not that i expected anything different looking at your last post)
NO WHERE DID I BRING THE BIBLE OR EVEN MENTION IT. MATTER OF FACT ALL MY LAST RESPONSES HAVE BEEN QUESTIONING WHY YOU BROUGHT IT UP AND WHO THE HELL IS TALKING ABOUT IT.
You are either dillusional or a rather pathetic liar who will tell silly lies even if any one can look at all my comments and see that i have not brought up the bible or talk about it once!
karamarouge 3 years ago
And just so that we are clear, i am neither an advocate for atheism or religion. Rather i prefer to argue the merits of the case and point out the outrageous hypocrisy espoused by atheists who demand proof and evidence yet they offer neither.
Ps..After you concede on the wish fulfillment issue please feel free to post whatever "FACTS" there are that support atheism, that i have apparently ignored.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Did you not read my post? Why do I have to concede when I clearly never took the position in the first place? I cited OTHER REASONS.
WKaliber1 3 years ago
I did read your post and i did you see where you specifically stated that religion was created to control people (a point which i challenged by asking you to explain the twisted illogical statement that apparently hell was created because "people cant ignore eternal damnation"
From that point on, you leapt on some other argument and failed to respond to that.
karamarouge 3 years ago
I responded to that stament, you must have missed it.
WKaliber1 3 years ago
If you responded to it, i missed and and still cant find it. Please elaborate because i am not the kind who likes to move off a debate issue to another one without closing out the first argument.
karamarouge 3 years ago
I am the troll? Correct me if i am wrong you are the pathetic twat who runs around correcting bogus inconsequential errs in people's arguments, while making a complete bloody fool of himself in the process then getting pissed off because some one had the nerve to point out his childish antics!
sorry dumbass. i will stay here and drive in that that point over and over again!
Hey asshole.. please tell me again the correct way to spell cespit! lol
karamarouge 3 years ago
8:05
One of the dumbest arguments I have heard. How are you going to control people without inventing something horrible, such as hell? You couldn't. Thats the purpose of hell, and thats the purpose of religion - control
WKaliber1 3 years ago
Actually your response pretty much says that you are the one who lacks the ability to understand the argument that has been dumbed down for even the most simple minded to comprehend (see example of rabbit)
You completely misunderstood the question and ultimately failed to grasp the answer from even Hitchens himself the atheist on the panel who doesnt even make this argument you have falsely infused in here.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Because if some one takes your argument on its face value, you are more or less saying that some where along the evolutionary process there exist ed some yet unamed cabal of conspirators that planted the idea of hell in people's DNA so as to achieve "control"
karamarouge 3 years ago
Because somewhere along the evolutionary process, people looked for an explanation to things they didn't understand, such as thunder etc. They started believing in many Gods, then one God, which gave rise to the church. The church wanted to keep its hierarchical position and thus they invented the idea of hell....
do you really not get this?
WKaliber1 3 years ago
No i dont get it. You know why? Because this is an argument you completely forged on your own and that no one is advancing. D'souza's argument is that religion is not the result of a wish fulfillment
ideology as is being argued by Hitchens. Matter of fact he quotes an ATHEIST STEVEN PINKER to illustrate this very point!
karamarouge 3 years ago
Let me put this another way since you obviously rejected D'souza's argument and chose to make up your own.
Making up hell does not give the church any more control over people who already believed in heaven.
Matter of fact it would serve to turn more people away from the church and weaken its control than attract these so called wish fulfillment seekers that you argue are so ready to buy into religion.
That is why your argument makes no sense!
karamarouge 3 years ago
No, but it brings people INTO THE CHURCH. You can ignore eternal life as it were, you cannot ignore eternal suffering.
WKaliber1 3 years ago
Again that is twisted logic. People cant ignore eternal suffering? really? because if i mistaken our newspapers are rife with all manner of sinners and people who have rejected the idea of eternal suffering in favor of proclivities of all kind from sexual to down right grotesque behavior. (Haggart, Swaggat, catholic priest child abuse scandals, catholic nazism,fascism)
Your argument here is outrageously wrong if not down right laughable.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Did you ever thing that they don't really believe this bullshit and that they're doing it for other reasons? Of course you would ignore that, as you ignore all the FACTS opposing your theory.
I also gave you an example why its so difficult to disprove God; its difficult because the idea itself is so ridiculous and laughable.
I gave you a perfect example and you still did not prove to me that a magical pink stapler did NOT create the universe and is not talking to me and to other people I know.
WKaliber1 3 years ago
I will not tolerate this squirming and posturing you lot typically employ to escape when defeated in an argument.
Let us first put the issue of religion is not a wish fulfillment ideology to rest first.
When you do admit as did Steven Pinker a fellow atheist did then we can proceed to tackle other arguments.
I am not one to leave people to leap from one bogus argument to the next after failing to meet the challenges paused to them in the first place.
karamarouge 3 years ago
It is a shame that you, as well as D'souza, and perhaps even Hitchens seem to have such a narrow view of "wish fulfillment". People do not always wish for positive things, people could just as easily wish for a good thing for themsleves (heaven) while wishing for a bad thing for others(hell). In fact, this is very befitting with humanities apparent nature and attitude. Many people want a punishment to be delivered in the afterlife, otherwise bad people can easily get away with doing bad things.
KonijNx2 3 years ago
I think you are trying to narrow D'souza's argument and invalidate it based on your own revised views.
You can manufacture a hot hell for your enemies, but that doesnt explain depriving yourself of your own primal desires but trapping yourself in self described sin that would send you to hell along with your enemies.
Look at the whole and dont go selecting unique scenarios around which to formulate your argument.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Where did I say I was trying to defend Hitchens? I can disagree with the mighty Hitchens can I? Religion was created for other purposes, which I stated in my previous post.
WKaliber1 3 years ago
Stupid religious people
WKaliber1 3 years ago
Yep, religion will do that to a person.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
I also notice you yet again pointed out a spelling mistake of mine, kinda like how you pointed out D'souza's inability to count to three.
Lol.
Your "genius" is on full display tonight isnt it?
karamarouge 3 years ago
Your motives for attempting to sound intelligent are not germane to the issue.
Childish and obtuse nonsense? You followed that up with "tee hee hee", i guess that makes you an expert on being childish and obtuse.
It only "eats" at me that you think it's important enough to you to spend hours trolling this comment section. Would you like me to point out the myriad logical fallacies employed by D'Souza? If thats what you wanted all you had to do was ask.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
I would imagine to your stratum of society being able to tie one's shoes or feed oneself would qualify as "genius". So you'll forgive me if i'm not flattered by the praise of some gormless redneck.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
the bad thing about the thesaurus you are currently abusing is that is simply doesnt grant you wisdom. You can copy and paste all you want from it, you will remain as dumb as the donkey that wastes people's time pointing out that apparently D'souza cant count to three.
That will be your legacy thesaurus or not!
karamarouge 3 years ago
Who said anything about a thesaurus? If anyone is abusing a thesaurus it is you. People who use the word "excreta" can generally spell the word "cesspool". Do you even know what a thesaurus is? If you did you would realize why copying and pasting from one would be stupid.
"wastes people's time"
Much like you are wasting my time trying to convince me that you have more IQ points than toes?
I pointed out a stupid remark that D'Souza made, which apparently gets your knickers in a twist.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
Again you are lying you are got your knickers in a twist because some one questioned your IQ level for making incredibly stupid and childish comments on D'souza's counting abilities
Now you are pathetically trying to make me the subject of your obtuse comments. Simply because i had the nerve to point out to every one your abject stupidity.
Like i said and will keep saying it wont work!
You are the jerry springer moron with the obtuse arguments and all this crap wont hide it!
And
karamarouge 3 years ago
You're a common troll who thinks he's some sort of intellectual force because he can use the word "obtuse" every other sentence.
"you are got your knickers in a twist"
And you say I'M stupid? Get the fuck out of here, tool. I also only made one comment on D'Souza's mathematical faux pas, apparently you arent too hot on counting either.
Keep saying whatever you like, being an insipid parrot seems to be your calling in life. Get a job, redneck.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
tee hee hee!!!
Those are the tools i use to make you look stupid.
And if you could make any legitimate arguments against D'souza's ideas, should have started with that.
Instead, you chose to point out his apparent poor counting skills.
lol..
nice going there bozo..
(ps. i left a few spelling/gramatic errors in there, it should be fun for you to find them, point them out and pretend to be smart)
karamarouge 3 years ago
You failed to 'make' him look stupid, you also looked too far into his observation, however petty it was, that does not necessarily make it 'dumb as the donkey. . .", nor does it attest to 'abject stupidity'. I think you are guilty of the same hyperbole present in D'souza's multiple spiels and character-defining assaults.
KonijNx2 3 years ago
I'm not your "brother" and if i were suicide would seem a reasonable alternative
Lol. and you are questioning my sentence composition skills on Youtube no less!
AGain your mental shortcomings are on display!
You made a dumb comment now own it you pathetic troglodyte! OWN IT!!!
karamarouge 3 years ago
sunspots are giant buttholes. this is a statement of great substance and import.
blatspanner 3 years ago
mormons thought that black people were soulless? that's wacky.
blatspanner 3 years ago
They thought blackness was a curse, and would be cured in the afterlife for black people that joined up. Unsurprisingly, plenty of them signed up.
KonijNx2 3 years ago
... Christianity gave him his respect for women ... ? o.0
6kaydee7 3 years ago
"two words...the portugese inquisition"
chessdawgz 3 years ago
D'Souza doesn't realize that the reason he gives for the spread of Christianity in India -- the promise of equality among the poor (untouchables) -- was precisely the same reason why it spread in the Roman Empire as well. If it had not appealed to the poor and the slaves, it would have never gained such large numbers, and would now be forgotten as just another Bronze Age Mediterranean myth.
DonJulioBlanco2002 3 years ago 2
WRONG!!!! Adopting christianity in the roman empire you speak of initially meant death in the mouth of a lion or whatever gruesome method the roman rules had devised at the time. In India it meant some what of a salvation or rebirth for new christians that were afforded new rights byt their colonial masters.
Two different scenarios there brother.
karamarouge 3 years ago
"two words: the portuguese inquisition"
Thats three words Dinesh.
He then goes on to yap about the untouchables being attracted to christianity, yeah dumbass because they get a better deal out of it. He just proved it was done for selfish reasons, and not based on any evidence. Religious people never fail in sinking their own boats.
"Did religion poison Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Michelangelo, or Bach"
I doubt any of them took a keen view of those of other faiths. Try again.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
Oh look here fellow youtubers!!! this guy can count to three!
karamarouge 3 years ago
"this guy can count to three"
Apparently something D'Souza is incapable of. Although christians have a flair for saying things that arent clever.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
Yes.. you are right D'souza cant count to three..
tee hee hee hee!
Hitchen's crowds dont tend to do well in critical thinking exercises.
karamarouge 3 years ago
I dont think i want someone who says "tee hee hee hee" telling me about "critical thinking".
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
No you dont, especially after you took the time out to type the "illuminating" argument.
karamarouge 3 years ago
Suit yourself my lad, shouldn't you do something more towards your intellectual level, such as huffing glue or "talking smack" in a Halo lobby? Dont forget to take your ritalin sport.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
Pathetic yet again! I know you are embarrassed and you are trying to salvage some dignity from the rather daft comments you made! Nonsensical baboon type crap you thought so smart. (for a jerry springer audience) too bad some of us arent.
Now here you are still rumbling on embarrassing yourself and shaming those gibbering primates you so poorly mimic.
Tee hee hee! You still sound stupid brother.
karamarouge 3 years ago
I'm not your "brother" and if i were suicide would seem a reasonable alternative. You can profess to sound clever, if you like, but it hasn't worked so far. Another inept religious apologist who cant form proper sentences, what else is new? You sound more like one of the people who would be on the Jerry Springer show rather than merely watching it.
"tee hee hee!"
Grow up.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago