very dishonest arguments from Loftus. He says D'souza is charming but dead wrong but offers no logical evidence for it. And btw, as almost all physicists would tell you, it's probably the big bang which caused the universe to come into existence....quantum tunnelling is NOT the explanation as of today. tunnelling is a difficult concept to grasp even by university students let alone the mainstream. Im dissapointed that this emotional fool even has an audience. Look up Hitchens instead.
I think D'souza was foolish in that he didn't put Loftus on the spot biblically with his false assertions, like Jesus was ALL God plus man. That is a trinitarian perspective not a biblical one and since Loftus is allegedly a bible scholar I would've held his ass to proving it biblically because he can't.
@2nDoppelganger What are you talking about? If you think people believed the Earth was flat, read Jeffrey Burton Russell's book "Inventing the Flat Earth".
@TheDreamMechanic the arguments those ppl bring up existed FAR earlier then they did . . . btw, u brought those ppl up, not me. i dont give two shits about either one of them. personally i dont even like dawkins. the point is that D'Souza never once demonstrated the existence of his god . . . if u ask me, he failed horribly.
Well good. As you said, those are old arguments that these hacks are profiteering off of. D'Souza did state his case; citing the impossibly intricate laws of the physical universe, and how there is an obvious intelligence involved. Whether that intelligence is anthropomorphic is a whole other discussion; but one needs to consider that science itself has arrived at the conclusion that the two fundamental building blocks of the material universe are energy and intelligence.
@TheDreamMechanic well actually the argument from design fails im afraid. the laws, if u read into physics at all, ARE NOT impossibly intricate and there is no OBVIOUS intelligence im sorry to say. why is it then that most of the leading minds in cosmology and physics almost always fall on the side of the atheist? simply not having a naturalistic answer does not then credit the supernatural, unfounded answer as more credible one.
CONT . . . . . . " science itself has arrived at the conclusion that the two fundamental building blocks of the material universe are energy and intelligence." what scientific paper or journal does this come from?
the anthropic principle is the best way for me to descibe my feelings about the "cause " of the universe. w/e it maybe, we know we are here. so be it a supernatural cause or a natural cause, we know that human life can exist and that existence DOES NOT denote intelligence
CONT . . . another problem i have with the argument from fine tuning is that, u make it moot with ur explanation. u have a life form, called god, existing without cause or reason. the properties of his existence are such perfectly fine tuned things so that not only can he exist but he has the power to create us. so ur explanation, in fact, is just as complex as the universe u try to explain. the fine tuning is unnecessary when u concider that ur god exists without the need of being fine tuned.
the universe has no known beginning. the inflation event descibed by the big bang theory is the moment in time that we can say "our universe existed at this time" before then we cant say that because we dont know. the numbers given that determine our existence are from what we know, the only way to arrange matter and energy to make life. maybe there are different ways . . . to say the least, ur making a bold assertion that life cannot exist anyother way and that no natural cause exists.
I've read into the physics quite deeply - even into quantum mechanics - and I disagree with you. The leading minds almost always side on the side of the atheist, eh? Tell me, do these names ring a bell?: Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Planck, Faraday, Newton, Tesla, etc.?
These are among the truly great, free thinking, paradigm shifting scientists.
And they all believed in God.
Don't let your left brained education fool you. There's more than the material.
@TheDreamMechanic hahahahhahahaa im talking about MODERN physicists . . . . and fyi einstein was an admitted agnostic which means he was an admitted atheist.
that is the subject of what ur talking about. those scientists that came up with the constants that u brought up to prove ur god, most of them are atheists . . . . wonder why?
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. - Einstein
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. - Einstein
@TheDreamMechanic The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
MODERN physicists, well the ones that people like you know and read about and are taught in "our" academia, are institutionalized. If you knew anything about how these things are funded and subsequently propogated, you would be less inclined to feign intellectual superiority on their part. And it's pervasive. It's also something I imagine you would never, ever readily admit to.
@TheDreamMechanic I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
@TheDreamMechanic WHAT ARE U TALKING ABOUT? so are u tlling me that these "institutionalized" physicists are atheists because some sort of academic bias??????? can u prove this? why is it then that ppl like u and D'souza use the constants from the math that THEY did? that doesnt make any sense. in one breath ur telling me that physics proves that god must exist then in the other hand ur trying to tell me that physicists are atheits because there biased . . . .
Are you aware that, in order to be accepted into the elitist graduate programs, you have to be interviewed, and your beliefs taken into consideration? Are you aware of the stigma associated with "believing" in the realm of science? YES. It is institutionalized...and it's completely irrelevant. Think about this. If a scientist believes in God, odds are he or she is completely devoted to the study and discovery of God's revelation. There is a great humility involved in that.
I think the more proper question is: If 95 percent of the world believes in God, are you really asserting that you're in the top five percent of human intelligence?
Don't be stupid, kegger. And have a bit more respect for human intelligence.
@TheDreamMechanic if u wanna know, i have been placed in the top 97.5 percentile. it wasnt as serious of a test as i would have liked. it was at century college and i wasnt even in college at the time. i was in highschool doing a "what are u gunna be after highschool" class. thats kind of why i never brag about it. pretty much nothing to brag about i guess. still though i never really asserted that im in the 95 percentile. u just kinda made that up . . .
Yeah, they nabbed me when I was in the third grade. Pulled me out of school, took me to a government building, and I sat in a room behind a large window wearing a pair of headphones while three creepy men in dark suits asked me questions. By far the creepiest thing that's ever happened to me.
So, seriously, if you're on that level of intelligence, you should have at least an idea of how much you DON'T know. Speaking in absolute terms of universal origin is laughable.
Loftus' point at the beginning about history being in the mind was spot on. The Bible was written 40 years after the supposed events...in ANY other case, a 40 year discrepancy would be worthy of heavy scrutiny. Why is the book with such extraordinary claims free from the same kind of scrutiny?
@chessdawgz Today, 40 years would be worthy of heavy scrutiny. In Ancient History 40 years is an incredibly short time span to have in relation to the events. Very few events from ancient history were recorded in such a short time.
@CapsHockey100 Events...such as some people live to 900, some people die and come back to life, Noah rounds up two of EVERY animal on the "Love Boat"...et cetera
Please enlighten me as to why that a list of absurd things is MORE credible than one insignificant controversy, like George Washington never telling a lie...
@chessdawgz The Bible was not written 40 years after the events. I should have clarified. The earliest Gospel can generally be considered to be written 40 years after the events. However, we have earlier reports still, especially regarding the resurrection.
I am missing the connection to Noah and GW. Sorry.
@CapsHockey100 You do realize how BIG that boat had to be to carry 2 of every animal at that time?
I'm saying a claim like "so-and-so never told a lie" versus "someone DIES and come BACK to life" are completely different in terms of how much evidence you need...get it?
@chessdawgz One big boat no doubt! I think the only thing bigger than the boat would be the smell...
Yes, clearly the larger the claim, the larger the evidence. As long as that does not mean no evidence will ever be enough to make me believe x,y, or z.
There is a reason that Oxford and Cambridge historians have considered the resurrection one of the best attested facts of ancient history.
@chessdawgz If were going to compare the players of the game it would be like comparing major leagues to little leagues. Everyone has the right to claim something, whether it is true or not clearly is the difference. If the resurrection is the best attested fact of ancient history, then we should treat it as such. We cant just throw it to the confines of fictional stories.
@chessdawgz If the resurrection is true, it is incredible. Just think, Jesus would have been dead, and then came back to life! When this is coupled with current NDE research it becomes apparent that their is life after death. It gives hope that this is not all their is and we will see other loved ones again. "We mourn, but not as those without hope."
@CapsHockey100 I don't mean to be callous, but think about it...NEAR death experiences....there is nothing apparent about 'life after death'
People who are medically declared "dead" and then return within the hour is improbable but not impossible, it happens, however there has never been anyone "die" then return after say, 100 years...
People on life support have "miraculously" woken up after having it removed, but they obviously weren't dead to begin with...
@chessdawgz I dont think your being callous, this is a good conversation on life's important questions. 'NEAR' death experiences is the only way to describe someone who has no EKG or no EEG for a specified amount of time and then have come back to life. There have cases cited in medical journals that report someone with no EKG no EEG reporting events in
@chessdawgz events in other locations. For example, one person was in a hospital room, no EKG no EEG reporting what was happening at his house!
We do not have any reports of anyone coming to life after 100 years. However, I would say that we have someone dying and coming back to life in 3 days!
We all have hope for the eternal and life after death as well, why would that be? I think C.S. Lewis says that is like a fish dreaming about living on land.
@CapsHockey100 That merely means we have more medical information to learn, as I said, NDE don't ever last 100+ days before returning, let alone 3 (unless you're referring to George Rodonaia). You also jumped right back to how this demonstrates true, Biblical resurrection...
Example: The story of the Headless Horseman is obviously false. The fact that it's written on paper, or the fact that there is literally an empty gravestone that reads "Headless Horseman" doesn't make it any less false...
@chessdawgz I agree with your example, the same problem applies to the Iliad. What is great is that this is not true for the resurrection. As I said earlier, Oxford and Cambridge professors say it is one of the best attested facts of history, not fiction, but history. An actual event. There is a reason they say this about the resurrection and not about these other stories. Moreover, Acts is considered a book referring to history and not mythology. I think even Bart Ehrman concedes this.
@CapsHockey100 Unless these professors have supplementary evidence we aren't privy to, I'm not seeing how appealing to them makes the resurrection myth more credible.
At least in our times people aren't dying and returning right and left, I find it...predictable, that as we look into our primitive past we find more and more creation, resurrection, and miracle myths; the more superstitious we are (and were), the more irrational "commonplace" behavior occurs...
@chessdawgz I wouldnt say they have special evidence, they just have a lot more time to study the evidence. I am appealing to them precisely because of this. If professors from the highest levels of academia believe it to be historical, we can be pretty safe as well. I can provide the evidence if you like and even some great sources and debates.
@CapsHockey100 NDE's are much more common than you think. I don't have the exact numbers, but it happens enough for hospitals to put signs in odd places in order to experiment further on NDE's. This is highly suggestive that their is life after death. The resurrection is my assurance of it.
@chessdawgz There are at least 12 historical facts regarding the resurrection that are accepted by the majority of critical scholars across a wide spectrum of belief. Christians, agnostics, and skeptics will virtually agree to the twelve facts. It is not unanimous, but then again so people do not think the holocaust happened either, but it is a large majority.
3 His death caused the disciples to lose hope and experience despair
4 Although not as recognized to the same degree as the other findings here, most scholars seem to hold that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty just a few days later
5 The disciples had real experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus
6 These experiences transformed the disciples from apprehensive followers who were afraid to identify with Jesus into bold proclaimers of His death and resurrection, even being willing to die for this belief.
7 James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he believed he also saw the resurrected Jesus.
8 Saul of Tarsus (Paul), the famous persecutor of the church, became a Christian a couple of years later after an experience that he, similarly, believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.
These facts are the reason that we can still discuss the resurrection today and why the majority of naturalistic explanations have been practically disregarded since the late 1800's.
@chessdawgz Sources: Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, William Lane Craig, N.T. Wright are some, I personally like Habermas the best. His website has tons of debates and articles that is worth looking into. He is well known for his debates with the former leading athiest Antony Flew.
Dinesh: "You don't know how to explain something? All you have to do is keep chanting repeatedly the word 'quantum'. You don't understand consciousness? Well it's probably some sort of quantum thing.
Whereas if Dinesh doesn't know how to explain something all he has to do is keep chanting repeatedly the words 'God did it'." You don't understand consciousness? Well it's probably some sort of magic God thing.
He is correct though. The Overuse of the covenient quantum appeal is every bit as insipid as the oversue of the idea of "The God of The Gaps". You could call it the "Science Of the Gaps" It's basically the same thing.
No, he starts with a false analogy and just crashes and burns from there. Quantum weirdness, though still very mysterious, has been demonstrated over and over again in the lab. God has not.
And again, Dinesh is doing exactly what Loftus said he would in his opening statement, arguing for some vague possibility of a deity instead of defending his actual beliefs.
The original Christians were Jews which means that they thought the Moshiac was going to re-establish Israel not die and go off to fairy land. Indeed it is not until the puported works of Paul that we have the start of the Western Christian doctrines which were enhanced by Greek Stoicism and Roman mythologies. There are other Christians in the world including the Coptics who have a totally different BELIEF from the West, but you as will they, claim the right to define Christianity. LMAO Golem!
not accepting the a-scientific conclusions for questions asked outside of the realm of science...then yes. Dinesh accepts science to answer scientifc questions. In the same way I'm sure he does not go to a shoe store if he's looking to buy a car. I accept shoe stores across the board. Only when it comes to shoes not cars. I accept science across the board too but not on the question of God.
There's nothing "a-scientific" about the conclusions Dinesh denies. Dinesh just doesn't like them because they conflict w/ what he wants to believe. You don't get to pick & choose the reality you want to accept. That's called psychosis. Evolution is the foundational principle behind just about all of modern biology. It's proven beyond reasonable doubt. As is the Big Bang.
i dont understand wat ur point is. First of all, the big bang has many theistic implications. If the universe was created out of nothing, then it had a cause. Its simple tautology, From Nothing Nothing Comes. The cause of the universe must exist externally from the universe and it must exist neccesarily.
U and Loftus are wrong when u try to to use evolution to explain everything. There is a difference between evolution as a scientific theory, and evolution as a metaphysical claim.
Evolution might be the best explanation for the diversity of life we see, but it by no means accounts for everything Loftus and u make it out to be. Darwinian evolution by no means attempts to explain the origin of life, Darwain's entire theory is based on a huge presupposition of life and self replicating cells. As darwain admitted, natural selection has only given lame and inadequete explnations for the eye. And the biggest thing that evolution cannot account for is morality.
"As darwain admitted, natural selection has only given lame and inadequete explnations for the eye."
We know know exactly how the eye evolved.
"And the biggest thing that evolution cannot account for is morality."
Neither does gravity. I guess then you don't believe in that either. However, you're not entirely right on that. Evolution does explain altruism. Biology is1 of the 2 components necessary for morality. The other component is social & is explained by psychology.
Y do humans act in ways that go aganist their self interest. If i give a dollar to a homeless person i am decreasing my chances of survival and increasing his. it is absolutly illogical for me to give blood, practice charity and donate organs if all i am is an evolved darwinian primate.
I accept evolution as a general theory. But it only denegrades ur arguemnt when u atheists high jack evolution and use it to smear christianity and explain things that it never sought to account for.
First of all, I fail to see why it's not only necessary for evolution to explain morality but why you seem to think this is evolution's biggest problem.
When we say something is good, we mean that it's good FOR US (society) and when we say something is bad, we mean it's bad FOR US (society). That's what morality is.
Yeah, unfortunately Loftus isn't nearly as good a speaker as Hitchens or Harris. Loftus made all his points in the opening statement and now seems to just be resorting to calling Dinesh wrong, which I'd be fine w/ if he was wittier. I could listen to Hitchens mock the degree of an apologist's wrongness for hours. But fortunately, Dinesh acts like such a condescending douchebag that Loftus at least appears slightly more civil.
You seem to be confused as to A) the difference between "Christians" and "Christianity". and B) the Jewish roots (or shall we say the evolutionary origins) of Christianity.
Disbelieve all you like that's your preogative...but if you are going to open your mouth at least know what it is you are talking about. mmmmmkay?
LMAO. Being that I can't read minds or am not your supposedly all-knowing GOD, anyone who declares themselves a Christian, I accept that. As for Christianity, the term refers to a body of beliefs centred around a character in Judaic mythology whom some have called Jesus the Crucified. There are main branches including, Catholics, Western Protestants, the Orthodoxes, Coptics, Donatist and Maronites. As for its Judaic root, that can also be traced to other regional myths post Jammia. You clown!
exactly...you can pull a definition of Christianity off the internet well enough. But you don't know what Christianity is well enough to make an informed decision on it's veracity...anymore than I can make a medical diagnosis even though I know some medical terms. You, my friend, are the assclown here.
LMAO. Its funny that each Christian is sure that their version of Jesus and what he alegedly said is the right version. Oddly you people act as if Atheist live on another planet and were not raised in the same bullshit that you have decided to accept as true. I am an assclown? Because i do not accept that a woman can have a child without sperm, or that dead bodies can violate the laws of biology, physics and geology, I am an assclown? LMAO LMAO LMAO LAMAO. Grow up man...seriously
as an Engineering perspective I was looking for a scientific method proof or probably some kind of analytical (equation-based) proof but instead I hear so many fallacies. I hope the next debate will have more convincing speakers than more charming speakers. I am not convinced from both parties... how disappointing.
Skewing the subject again Dinesh? Painting an impression of a present day situation by talking about the scientists of the past. Ther's a maginitude of difference in knowledge and methods availiable now. Besides science (or natural philosophy as it was called then) started to blossom with renaissance when people started to regain interest in antique and therefore pagan philosophers whos works even more ironically had been preserved and refined by islamic scholars. An educated person knows it.
Maybe "brainwashed" is the wrong terminology! Most scientists are NOT theists but rather deists at best and 90% are atheists. Interesting that D'Souza didn't mention that! Also, brainwashed, no but child indoctrination? Yes! A difference but not much!
Finally, NO Mr. D'Souza the burden of proof is NOT on Loftus but is CLEARLY on you as it's you making the extraordinary claim that there is a god, and that the personal christian god is the one! Please lol!
The "burden of proof" remark was about the universe being created from a "quantum event", not the existence of a god. The burden is certainly on Loftus to justify his claim.
I suggest you pay more attention in the future, 99minerkc.
@EricOneOneNine, Did you miss what the debate was on? Was it not, "Does the Christian God Exist?" Hmm.... Who believes in the christian god, Loftus or D'Souza? The burden of proof is on the theist as he is claiming a personal god exists! Maybe you had better pay closer attention in the future!!
@99minerkc, Did you miss what idea D'Souza was discussing at that particular moment? Was it not, "Did the universe come into existence by a quantum event?" Hmm.... Who believes in the quantum event, D'Souza or Loftus? The burden of proof is on the atheist as he is claiming the universe came from a quantum event! Maybe you had better pay closer attention in the future!!
I have known all along you weren't referring to the specific point, and that is precisely why your remark was a non sequitur. D'Souza claimed that the burden was on Loftus to prove a specific thing, and you replied by saying that no, the burden was on D'Souza to prove a *different* thing! That is a non sequitur, because the burden of proof could be on D'Souza to prove one thing but on Loftus to prove a different thing.
What a clusterfrack
BrownCharlie01 1 month ago
loftus is terrible and I'm an atheist
sashang0 2 months ago
9:32 Earlier D'Souza quotes Hawking, but what he's calling a non-explanation is what Hawking claims.
mjt532 4 months ago
very dishonest arguments from Loftus. He says D'souza is charming but dead wrong but offers no logical evidence for it. And btw, as almost all physicists would tell you, it's probably the big bang which caused the universe to come into existence....quantum tunnelling is NOT the explanation as of today. tunnelling is a difficult concept to grasp even by university students let alone the mainstream. Im dissapointed that this emotional fool even has an audience. Look up Hitchens instead.
markbr 4 months ago
Wonderful.... D'Souza thinks he knows better than physicists now.
BabyfartMcGeesak 5 months ago
Loftus is right... but he is a lousy debater
94jmcorrea 6 months ago
I think D'souza was foolish in that he didn't put Loftus on the spot biblically with his false assertions, like Jesus was ALL God plus man. That is a trinitarian perspective not a biblical one and since Loftus is allegedly a bible scholar I would've held his ass to proving it biblically because he can't.
stevehauk 9 months ago
-2000 years
"99% of us believe that the earth is flat. Why should we believe this guy is right when he says the earth is round?"
People, learn from history.
2nDoppelganger 1 year ago
@2nDoppelganger What are you talking about? If you think people believed the Earth was flat, read Jeffrey Burton Russell's book "Inventing the Flat Earth".
rogerbaconistheman 4 months ago
Loftus is a 20 car pile up. He is completely scatter brained.
jim6584 1 year ago
@jim6584 i shouldn't laugh but that's funny - God bless him.
davidlessig 11 months ago
Loftus is pathetic
Gavoora123 1 year ago
@Gavoora123 No joke, John fall apart
MrMohjong 1 year ago
"I kinda feel like I'm in a rodeo - I see a point here, I see a point there, but a lot of bull in between". Hahahahaha.
MrTonked 1 year ago 4
dinesh rips the heart out of loftus
dealerovski82 1 year ago
Sorry, atheists...you may not like him, but D'Souza is pwning this tomato can.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic says the brainwashed guy . . . .
keggerous 1 year ago
@keggerous
Brainwarshed, eh? Yeah okay. Don't you have some Richard Dawkins or perhaps some Christopher Hitchens to vomit up all over the screen?
I think for myself, thank you very much.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic the arguments those ppl bring up existed FAR earlier then they did . . . btw, u brought those ppl up, not me. i dont give two shits about either one of them. personally i dont even like dawkins. the point is that D'Souza never once demonstrated the existence of his god . . . if u ask me, he failed horribly.
keggerous 1 year ago
@keggerous
Well good. As you said, those are old arguments that these hacks are profiteering off of. D'Souza did state his case; citing the impossibly intricate laws of the physical universe, and how there is an obvious intelligence involved. Whether that intelligence is anthropomorphic is a whole other discussion; but one needs to consider that science itself has arrived at the conclusion that the two fundamental building blocks of the material universe are energy and intelligence.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic well actually the argument from design fails im afraid. the laws, if u read into physics at all, ARE NOT impossibly intricate and there is no OBVIOUS intelligence im sorry to say. why is it then that most of the leading minds in cosmology and physics almost always fall on the side of the atheist? simply not having a naturalistic answer does not then credit the supernatural, unfounded answer as more credible one.
keggerous 1 year ago
CONT . . . . . . " science itself has arrived at the conclusion that the two fundamental building blocks of the material universe are energy and intelligence." what scientific paper or journal does this come from?
the anthropic principle is the best way for me to descibe my feelings about the "cause " of the universe. w/e it maybe, we know we are here. so be it a supernatural cause or a natural cause, we know that human life can exist and that existence DOES NOT denote intelligence
keggerous 1 year ago
CONT . . . another problem i have with the argument from fine tuning is that, u make it moot with ur explanation. u have a life form, called god, existing without cause or reason. the properties of his existence are such perfectly fine tuned things so that not only can he exist but he has the power to create us. so ur explanation, in fact, is just as complex as the universe u try to explain. the fine tuning is unnecessary when u concider that ur god exists without the need of being fine tuned.
keggerous 1 year ago
the universe has no known beginning. the inflation event descibed by the big bang theory is the moment in time that we can say "our universe existed at this time" before then we cant say that because we dont know. the numbers given that determine our existence are from what we know, the only way to arrange matter and energy to make life. maybe there are different ways . . . to say the least, ur making a bold assertion that life cannot exist anyother way and that no natural cause exists.
keggerous 1 year ago
@keggerous
I've read into the physics quite deeply - even into quantum mechanics - and I disagree with you. The leading minds almost always side on the side of the atheist, eh? Tell me, do these names ring a bell?: Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, Planck, Faraday, Newton, Tesla, etc.?
These are among the truly great, free thinking, paradigm shifting scientists.
And they all believed in God.
Don't let your left brained education fool you. There's more than the material.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic hahahahhahahaa im talking about MODERN physicists . . . . and fyi einstein was an admitted agnostic which means he was an admitted atheist.
that is the subject of what ur talking about. those scientists that came up with the constants that u brought up to prove ur god, most of them are atheists . . . . wonder why?
keggerous 1 year ago
@keggerous
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. - Einstein
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. - Einstein
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
keggerous 1 year ago
@keggerous
MODERN physicists, well the ones that people like you know and read about and are taught in "our" academia, are institutionalized. If you knew anything about how these things are funded and subsequently propogated, you would be less inclined to feign intellectual superiority on their part. And it's pervasive. It's also something I imagine you would never, ever readily admit to.
BaaAaAaAAAaAaAA. BaaAAAAaaaAaaaAaAaa. Sheep boy.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
Albert Einstein ------
keggerous 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic WHAT ARE U TALKING ABOUT? so are u tlling me that these "institutionalized" physicists are atheists because some sort of academic bias??????? can u prove this? why is it then that ppl like u and D'souza use the constants from the math that THEY did? that doesnt make any sense. in one breath ur telling me that physics proves that god must exist then in the other hand ur trying to tell me that physicists are atheits because there biased . . . .
keggerous 1 year ago
@keggerous
Are you aware that, in order to be accepted into the elitist graduate programs, you have to be interviewed, and your beliefs taken into consideration? Are you aware of the stigma associated with "believing" in the realm of science? YES. It is institutionalized...and it's completely irrelevant. Think about this. If a scientist believes in God, odds are he or she is completely devoted to the study and discovery of God's revelation. There is a great humility involved in that.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic 95% of the world believes in god . . . whos the fucking sheep u idiot.
keggerous 1 year ago
@keggerous
I think the more proper question is: If 95 percent of the world believes in God, are you really asserting that you're in the top five percent of human intelligence?
Don't be stupid, kegger. And have a bit more respect for human intelligence.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic if u wanna know, i have been placed in the top 97.5 percentile. it wasnt as serious of a test as i would have liked. it was at century college and i wasnt even in college at the time. i was in highschool doing a "what are u gunna be after highschool" class. thats kind of why i never brag about it. pretty much nothing to brag about i guess. still though i never really asserted that im in the 95 percentile. u just kinda made that up . . .
keggerous 1 year ago
@keggerous
Yeah, they nabbed me when I was in the third grade. Pulled me out of school, took me to a government building, and I sat in a room behind a large window wearing a pair of headphones while three creepy men in dark suits asked me questions. By far the creepiest thing that's ever happened to me.
So, seriously, if you're on that level of intelligence, you should have at least an idea of how much you DON'T know. Speaking in absolute terms of universal origin is laughable.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic i dont think anything is absolute about the universe . . . im an agnostic atheist. i dont claim to know a god exists or not.
keggerous 1 year ago
Loftus' point at the beginning about history being in the mind was spot on. The Bible was written 40 years after the supposed events...in ANY other case, a 40 year discrepancy would be worthy of heavy scrutiny. Why is the book with such extraordinary claims free from the same kind of scrutiny?
chessdawgz 1 year ago
@chessdawgz Today, 40 years would be worthy of heavy scrutiny. In Ancient History 40 years is an incredibly short time span to have in relation to the events. Very few events from ancient history were recorded in such a short time.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago 2
@CapsHockey100 Events...such as some people live to 900, some people die and come back to life, Noah rounds up two of EVERY animal on the "Love Boat"...et cetera
Please enlighten me as to why that a list of absurd things is MORE credible than one insignificant controversy, like George Washington never telling a lie...
chessdawgz 1 year ago
@chessdawgz The Bible was not written 40 years after the events. I should have clarified. The earliest Gospel can generally be considered to be written 40 years after the events. However, we have earlier reports still, especially regarding the resurrection.
I am missing the connection to Noah and GW. Sorry.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 You do realize how BIG that boat had to be to carry 2 of every animal at that time?
I'm saying a claim like "so-and-so never told a lie" versus "someone DIES and come BACK to life" are completely different in terms of how much evidence you need...get it?
chessdawgz 1 year ago
@chessdawgz One big boat no doubt! I think the only thing bigger than the boat would be the smell...
Yes, clearly the larger the claim, the larger the evidence. As long as that does not mean no evidence will ever be enough to make me believe x,y, or z.
There is a reason that Oxford and Cambridge historians have considered the resurrection one of the best attested facts of ancient history.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 I agree with everything but the last sentence...I'm not really seeing how the story of a resurrection in a book makes the story true.
The Iliad has similar stories, was "divinely" inspired, and mentioned some historical facts and events.
The game's the same, only the players change.
chessdawgz 1 year ago
@chessdawgz If were going to compare the players of the game it would be like comparing major leagues to little leagues. Everyone has the right to claim something, whether it is true or not clearly is the difference. If the resurrection is the best attested fact of ancient history, then we should treat it as such. We cant just throw it to the confines of fictional stories.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@chessdawgz If the resurrection is true, it is incredible. Just think, Jesus would have been dead, and then came back to life! When this is coupled with current NDE research it becomes apparent that their is life after death. It gives hope that this is not all their is and we will see other loved ones again. "We mourn, but not as those without hope."
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 I don't mean to be callous, but think about it...NEAR death experiences....there is nothing apparent about 'life after death'
People who are medically declared "dead" and then return within the hour is improbable but not impossible, it happens, however there has never been anyone "die" then return after say, 100 years...
People on life support have "miraculously" woken up after having it removed, but they obviously weren't dead to begin with...
Et cetera
chessdawgz 1 year ago
@chessdawgz I dont think your being callous, this is a good conversation on life's important questions. 'NEAR' death experiences is the only way to describe someone who has no EKG or no EEG for a specified amount of time and then have come back to life. There have cases cited in medical journals that report someone with no EKG no EEG reporting events in
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@chessdawgz events in other locations. For example, one person was in a hospital room, no EKG no EEG reporting what was happening at his house!
We do not have any reports of anyone coming to life after 100 years. However, I would say that we have someone dying and coming back to life in 3 days!
We all have hope for the eternal and life after death as well, why would that be? I think C.S. Lewis says that is like a fish dreaming about living on land.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 That merely means we have more medical information to learn, as I said, NDE don't ever last 100+ days before returning, let alone 3 (unless you're referring to George Rodonaia). You also jumped right back to how this demonstrates true, Biblical resurrection...
Example: The story of the Headless Horseman is obviously false. The fact that it's written on paper, or the fact that there is literally an empty gravestone that reads "Headless Horseman" doesn't make it any less false...
chessdawgz 1 year ago
@chessdawgz I agree with your example, the same problem applies to the Iliad. What is great is that this is not true for the resurrection. As I said earlier, Oxford and Cambridge professors say it is one of the best attested facts of history, not fiction, but history. An actual event. There is a reason they say this about the resurrection and not about these other stories. Moreover, Acts is considered a book referring to history and not mythology. I think even Bart Ehrman concedes this.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 Unless these professors have supplementary evidence we aren't privy to, I'm not seeing how appealing to them makes the resurrection myth more credible.
At least in our times people aren't dying and returning right and left, I find it...predictable, that as we look into our primitive past we find more and more creation, resurrection, and miracle myths; the more superstitious we are (and were), the more irrational "commonplace" behavior occurs...
chessdawgz 1 year ago
@chessdawgz I wouldnt say they have special evidence, they just have a lot more time to study the evidence. I am appealing to them precisely because of this. If professors from the highest levels of academia believe it to be historical, we can be pretty safe as well. I can provide the evidence if you like and even some great sources and debates.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 NDE's are much more common than you think. I don't have the exact numbers, but it happens enough for hospitals to put signs in odd places in order to experiment further on NDE's. This is highly suggestive that their is life after death. The resurrection is my assurance of it.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
By all means... :D
chessdawgz 1 year ago
@chessdawgz There are at least 12 historical facts regarding the resurrection that are accepted by the majority of critical scholars across a wide spectrum of belief. Christians, agnostics, and skeptics will virtually agree to the twelve facts. It is not unanimous, but then again so people do not think the holocaust happened either, but it is a large majority.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@chessdawgz I wont post all 12 but they include,
1 Jesus died
2 He was buried
3 His death caused the disciples to lose hope and experience despair
4 Although not as recognized to the same degree as the other findings here, most scholars seem to hold that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty just a few days later
5 The disciples had real experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@chessdawgz
6 These experiences transformed the disciples from apprehensive followers who were afraid to identify with Jesus into bold proclaimers of His death and resurrection, even being willing to die for this belief.
7 James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he believed he also saw the resurrected Jesus.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@chessdawgz
8 Saul of Tarsus (Paul), the famous persecutor of the church, became a Christian a couple of years later after an experience that he, similarly, believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.
These facts are the reason that we can still discuss the resurrection today and why the majority of naturalistic explanations have been practically disregarded since the late 1800's.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@chessdawgz Sources: Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, William Lane Craig, N.T. Wright are some, I personally like Habermas the best. His website has tons of debates and articles that is worth looking into. He is well known for his debates with the former leading athiest Antony Flew.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
Dinesh: "You don't know how to explain something? All you have to do is keep chanting repeatedly the word 'quantum'. You don't understand consciousness? Well it's probably some sort of quantum thing.
Whereas if Dinesh doesn't know how to explain something all he has to do is keep chanting repeatedly the words 'God did it'." You don't understand consciousness? Well it's probably some sort of magic God thing.
He's right. It's not an explanation. It's idiocy.
mjr256 2 years ago
He is correct though. The Overuse of the covenient quantum appeal is every bit as insipid as the oversue of the idea of "The God of The Gaps". You could call it the "Science Of the Gaps" It's basically the same thing.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, he starts with a false analogy and just crashes and burns from there. Quantum weirdness, though still very mysterious, has been demonstrated over and over again in the lab. God has not.
And again, Dinesh is doing exactly what Loftus said he would in his opening statement, arguing for some vague possibility of a deity instead of defending his actual beliefs.
mjr256 2 years ago
The original Christians were Jews which means that they thought the Moshiac was going to re-establish Israel not die and go off to fairy land. Indeed it is not until the puported works of Paul that we have the start of the Western Christian doctrines which were enhanced by Greek Stoicism and Roman mythologies. There are other Christians in the world including the Coptics who have a totally different BELIEF from the West, but you as will they, claim the right to define Christianity. LMAO Golem!
CamAtheist 2 years ago
Dinesh: "I accept science across the board...'
...except for just about all of biology, astronomy, quantum physics, psychology, and anthropology.
mjr256 2 years ago
not accepting the a-scientific conclusions for questions asked outside of the realm of science...then yes. Dinesh accepts science to answer scientifc questions. In the same way I'm sure he does not go to a shoe store if he's looking to buy a car. I accept shoe stores across the board. Only when it comes to shoes not cars. I accept science across the board too but not on the question of God.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
There's nothing "a-scientific" about the conclusions Dinesh denies. Dinesh just doesn't like them because they conflict w/ what he wants to believe. You don't get to pick & choose the reality you want to accept. That's called psychosis. Evolution is the foundational principle behind just about all of modern biology. It's proven beyond reasonable doubt. As is the Big Bang.
mjr256 2 years ago
i dont understand wat ur point is. First of all, the big bang has many theistic implications. If the universe was created out of nothing, then it had a cause. Its simple tautology, From Nothing Nothing Comes. The cause of the universe must exist externally from the universe and it must exist neccesarily.
U and Loftus are wrong when u try to to use evolution to explain everything. There is a difference between evolution as a scientific theory, and evolution as a metaphysical claim.
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"First of all, the big bang has many theistic implications."
Too bad.
"If the universe was created out of nothing, then it had a cause."
That's not what the Big Bang Theory says. That's what Christianity says.
So let me see if I understand your premise:
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Not everything has a cause.
Have I got that straight?
Nobody uses evolution as a metaphysical claim. Evolution is a biological claim.
mjr256 2 years ago
Evolution might be the best explanation for the diversity of life we see, but it by no means accounts for everything Loftus and u make it out to be. Darwinian evolution by no means attempts to explain the origin of life, Darwain's entire theory is based on a huge presupposition of life and self replicating cells. As darwain admitted, natural selection has only given lame and inadequete explnations for the eye. And the biggest thing that evolution cannot account for is morality.
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
cont'd
"As darwain admitted, natural selection has only given lame and inadequete explnations for the eye."
We know know exactly how the eye evolved.
"And the biggest thing that evolution cannot account for is morality."
Neither does gravity. I guess then you don't believe in that either. However, you're not entirely right on that. Evolution does explain altruism. Biology is1 of the 2 components necessary for morality. The other component is social & is explained by psychology.
mjr256 2 years ago
Y do humans act in ways that go aganist their self interest. If i give a dollar to a homeless person i am decreasing my chances of survival and increasing his. it is absolutly illogical for me to give blood, practice charity and donate organs if all i am is an evolved darwinian primate.
I accept evolution as a general theory. But it only denegrades ur arguemnt when u atheists high jack evolution and use it to smear christianity and explain things that it never sought to account for.
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First of all, I fail to see why it's not only necessary for evolution to explain morality but why you seem to think this is evolution's biggest problem.
When we say something is good, we mean that it's good FOR US (society) and when we say something is bad, we mean it's bad FOR US (society). That's what morality is.
This is all explained in more detail here:
ht tp blogs myspace com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=145688843&blogId=519323530
mjr256 2 years ago
Dinesh's fallacies in this clip alone:
-Ad Populum Argument (it's not brainwashing if lots of people believe it, let's say we go to a village where 99% say they know a guy named Tom...)
-Straw man (now you can say they're all lying , they're all making it up...)
-False Dichotomy (so there's 2 possibilities: Tom does not exist & 99% are all lying or Tom does exist & guy just hasn't met him)
They could also be delusional, Dinesh, you know, like you believe every1 of another religion is.
mjr256 2 years ago
Yeah, unfortunately Loftus isn't nearly as good a speaker as Hitchens or Harris. Loftus made all his points in the opening statement and now seems to just be resorting to calling Dinesh wrong, which I'd be fine w/ if he was wittier. I could listen to Hitchens mock the degree of an apologist's wrongness for hours. But fortunately, Dinesh acts like such a condescending douchebag that Loftus at least appears slightly more civil.
mjr256 2 years ago
what's with all the lame jokes? Loftus knows he's facing his intellectual better. This guy makes Dan Barker look smart in comparison!
wjb67ii 2 years ago
Dinesh is smarter than someone? You mean the other Christians he defends I hope, well and Muslims and then Jews...oh yes you are right..my bad.
CamAtheist 2 years ago
You seem to be confused as to A) the difference between "Christians" and "Christianity". and B) the Jewish roots (or shall we say the evolutionary origins) of Christianity.
Disbelieve all you like that's your preogative...but if you are going to open your mouth at least know what it is you are talking about. mmmmmkay?
wjb67ii 2 years ago
LMAO. Being that I can't read minds or am not your supposedly all-knowing GOD, anyone who declares themselves a Christian, I accept that. As for Christianity, the term refers to a body of beliefs centred around a character in Judaic mythology whom some have called Jesus the Crucified. There are main branches including, Catholics, Western Protestants, the Orthodoxes, Coptics, Donatist and Maronites. As for its Judaic root, that can also be traced to other regional myths post Jammia. You clown!
CamAtheist 2 years ago
exactly...you can pull a definition of Christianity off the internet well enough. But you don't know what Christianity is well enough to make an informed decision on it's veracity...anymore than I can make a medical diagnosis even though I know some medical terms. You, my friend, are the assclown here.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
LMAO. Its funny that each Christian is sure that their version of Jesus and what he alegedly said is the right version. Oddly you people act as if Atheist live on another planet and were not raised in the same bullshit that you have decided to accept as true. I am an assclown? Because i do not accept that a woman can have a child without sperm, or that dead bodies can violate the laws of biology, physics and geology, I am an assclown? LMAO LMAO LMAO LAMAO. Grow up man...seriously
CamAtheist 2 years ago
lol @ 2:44 - 2:53
"T...t...t...t....TODAY, JUNIOR!"
What a terrible public speaker. He may be making some decent points but I can't tell through all the rambling and stuttering. Where's Hitchens?
Saxydude05 2 years ago
as an Engineering perspective I was looking for a scientific method proof or probably some kind of analytical (equation-based) proof but instead I hear so many fallacies. I hope the next debate will have more convincing speakers than more charming speakers. I am not convinced from both parties... how disappointing.
Akusan 2 years ago
I agree
both the speakers seem to be going around in circles with their own propaganda without even acknowledging the other person's point
schitambaran 2 years ago
Skewing the subject again Dinesh? Painting an impression of a present day situation by talking about the scientists of the past. Ther's a maginitude of difference in knowledge and methods availiable now. Besides science (or natural philosophy as it was called then) started to blossom with renaissance when people started to regain interest in antique and therefore pagan philosophers whos works even more ironically had been preserved and refined by islamic scholars. An educated person knows it.
miraenna 2 years ago
Loftus is the worst debater ever. All he can say is Dinesh is wrong. HELLO!!!! This is a debate, Please Loftus more debate and less whining.
Jmsadv 2 years ago
Maybe "brainwashed" is the wrong terminology! Most scientists are NOT theists but rather deists at best and 90% are atheists. Interesting that D'Souza didn't mention that! Also, brainwashed, no but child indoctrination? Yes! A difference but not much!
99minerkc 2 years ago
Finally, NO Mr. D'Souza the burden of proof is NOT on Loftus but is CLEARLY on you as it's you making the extraordinary claim that there is a god, and that the personal christian god is the one! Please lol!
99minerkc 2 years ago
The "burden of proof" remark was about the universe being created from a "quantum event", not the existence of a god. The burden is certainly on Loftus to justify his claim.
I suggest you pay more attention in the future, 99minerkc.
EricOneOneNine 2 years ago
@EricOneOneNine, Did you miss what the debate was on? Was it not, "Does the Christian God Exist?" Hmm.... Who believes in the christian god, Loftus or D'Souza? The burden of proof is on the theist as he is claiming a personal god exists! Maybe you had better pay closer attention in the future!!
99minerkc 2 years ago
@99minerkc, Did you miss what idea D'Souza was discussing at that particular moment? Was it not, "Did the universe come into existence by a quantum event?" Hmm.... Who believes in the quantum event, D'Souza or Loftus? The burden of proof is on the atheist as he is claiming the universe came from a quantum event! Maybe you had better pay closer attention in the future!!
EricOneOneNine 2 years ago
I was NEVER referring to a specific point, I was looking at the bigger picture!
99minerkc 2 years ago
I have known all along you weren't referring to the specific point, and that is precisely why your remark was a non sequitur. D'Souza claimed that the burden was on Loftus to prove a specific thing, and you replied by saying that no, the burden was on D'Souza to prove a *different* thing! That is a non sequitur, because the burden of proof could be on D'Souza to prove one thing but on Loftus to prove a different thing.
EricOneOneNine 2 years ago
Whatever! Do you believe in the existence of a personal god?
99minerkc 2 years ago