D'Souza makes very valid points if you people weren't so ignorant and actually listened to someone who believes in what there talking about you might learn something. Hitchens is an atheist, well spoken at that but D'Souza slaughters him on several debates including this one. Just because his rhetoric isn't as powerful as Hitchens doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is talking about. Listen and you might learn!!
Everyone who dissliked this video is an idiot in my opinion. The video is of good quality and so is sound , can't you people differ between rating video and reaction to D'souza? Thanks for the debate!
The argument for design by fine tuning is a poor one IMHO. The chances that the Universe has the values it does is 100%. We have no reason to assume that the universal constants (such as Planck's constant) are tunable. The "If any of them were different..." argument ignores that there is no chance they can be different.
Whoa -- Dinesh doesnt even know that cave paintings are much, much older than 5000 years? like 20,000-40,000 years. He thinks all traces of man's intelligence are limited to 5000 years back? Stunning he can sit there and assume an authority (he doesn't deserve) and be so ignorant. I guess it could've been worse: he could've professed adherence to Young Earth creationism and thereby shown ignorance of biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, as well as anthropology.
Disgusting to see Dinesh, in his first comments, make a cheap anti-Islamic slur. Then, tries to claim Hitch would concur. Hitch is anti-Islam, because he's anti-religion. He's not a bigot like you. Seeing Dinesh call Islam nonsense reminds me of the joke of the American and Soviet discussing their political systems. The American says, in my country I can walk up to the President and call him an idiot. The Soviet replies, So can I. I can walk up to your President and call him an idiot.
@skat1140 Ummm... I believe Hitchens did openly support live ammunition against radical Muslims. I think Dinesh knows exactly what he's talking about when he speaks for Prager and Hitchens. Again, not about putting bullets into every Muslim in the world, just the radicals who fight the US. Prager and Hitch were both very open about this, D'Souza knows what he's talking about.
Basically, whenever religious fundies, like D'Souza, try to inject reason into their prosthelitizing, they have to ignore annoyances, like FACTS, EVIDENCE, RECORDED HISTORY, because those things force them to compare the obviously ridiculous aspects of their faith with reality, and reality always wins.
Prager is very sensible. I tend to take the view that believe in an omnipotent God is not sustainable for the very reason Prager mentioned. So I am not an atheist like Hitchens but I worry about blind religious belief....
the early Jews knew the nefish as the animal "soul",and human soul was given to Adam(not first man,first with neshuma,human soul,God breathing life into him)...so yes there was man(Bible describes as years before and generations past)where man lived but like cavemen,like animals,then on year one of Jewish calendar,God breathed life neshuma into Adam....its that simple...then came Egyptian and Mayan math,and Moses,Abraham,Joseph,Solomon and all these brilliant minds w/in 2 millenia of first life
The Industial Revolution increased human inventiveness.
To suggest that because Man hadn't reached their potential and knowledge for a LONG time (we still haven't) doesn't mean Man couldn't have existed "darwinianly".
BlAfrica was devoid of technology the rest of the old world had for thousands of years; does that mean he believes aethiopic people were created seperately as well as after mongoloids and caucasoids simply because they were technologically "inferior"?
@NormanAngle You're missing the weight of the argument. Why for so long did man exist, biologically, as we do today, but only after thousands and thousands of years did the Industrial Revolution occur?
Well, I at least can stand the silly things D'souza says for his good humor is warming. Prager makes me smash through my own teeth through gritting with much intensity.
Round One: Prager kicked Hitchens' intellectual ass out of the field and left him looking like he suffers from Anal Cranium Inversion Syndrome. Next, D'souza makes Hitchens' look like a nonsense spewing buffoon. Anyone with an IQ above 50 can see that Hitchens' is the one who got the smack-down in this debate. PS: I am not interested in arguing with you atheists. Just make your comment using the response field for the video and don't bother responding to me directly. Thanks....I appreciate it.
@Aliof: Hi Adolf. I see you are following me around. Are those Nazi Jack boots I here behind me? Do you have a comment to make that makes sense or are you hear to confuse people like your father the devil is so good at?
@Aliof: I don't have a pastor Adolf. I don't even go to church and I am definately no more religious about my beliefs than Hitchens is about his non-belief.
Was D'Souza making his argument to grade school children or something? How is this guy even called up to debate Hitchens? Creationists really need a better speak then this chump.
Watching only the first 3 clips so far it seems D'Souza and Prager are doing an excellent job already for dismissing their christian beliefs to me by their proponent arguments alone. They're so weak and lacking in any coherent logic that it's a bit of an eye-opener.
D'Souza's arguments seem strong only to the ignorant of science/history it seems all too easy to go along with. He shows how he voraciously go through Hawkins scientific books looking to capitalize on unexplained, or not yet fully understood aspects of the Universe and propose them as a failure, then immediately claiming "because science cannot yet explain this, therefore god exists". This is just childish/cheap&dishonest. Then he claims the Universe is here because of "us",this pale blue DOT!
Maybe to the untrained observer. But for those of us who harbor sufficient intelligence to see an obvious sensationalist indulge himself in projecting the contents of his own psyche onto others, we'll save our thirty dollars - and our intellectual integrity for that matter - by calling him out for what he is.
Not that he is completely devoid of redeeming qualities. In fact, I adore his endless well of syntactical resources. But I find him more redundant than revelatory.
@TheLordValarath Although I also agree with a lot of Hitchens arguments. Your argument is qualitative and is not legitimate, although I like agnostic reasoning, the numbers don't count, the quality of the argument do! The other way around I could imagine five bad debaters on proposition of atheism beeing beaten by one good reglious debater.. On second thought, could I? No :) Thank god ;)
D'Souza...knows absolutely nothing about history... he's seriously saying that human history only started 10k years ago? -_-
And no, the universe is not "fine tuned" in a manner that would make the arisal of a survivable universe impossible...or even completely improbable....
And no, the universe is not meant to create us...stop being narcissistic....
3.00 all those questions are being scientifically investigated, and plenty of progress has been made . . . what are religious people doing to explain the past? Sitting around talking a lot of complete shite, with no basis in reason
Douglas Adam's sentient puddle. ... who wakes up one morning and thinks, "This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
The 'fine tuning of the dial' arguement is proof of this guys lack of sense. 'The whole universe appears to be a giant conspiracy to produce, well...us'. 'an arguement immune to Darwinian attack'... I can't concieve of any intelligent atheise who would be 'put on the defensive' by such a narrow-minded, self-gratifying approach.
If you want to see people on the defensive.. look at all the religious people on earth squirming in desperate denial of science and evolution theory.
@tommyboomboom haha, science makes no metaphysical claims. Nor does science make absolute truth claims about mind-independent reality. Why? Because science is all about relating our observations, which exist only in the mind-dependent world (what Kant called the phenomenal world). So nobody is "denying science," but thinking people see the necessary distinction between science and ontology.
is d'souza for real? does he honestly think recorded human history is inly 5000 years old? He's obviously fairly articulate so how can he be so ignorant?
If people want to remain ignorant about their own human history then so be it. I only get one chance at life, I want to understand a bit more than this joke of an argument. He just invented his own religious belief, that a God came down and gave us a soul and showed us how to start agriculture and the wheel. Understand this, religion takes any issue, real or contrived, who's answer lies behind the curtain, and stops exploring: they just invoke God.
We just created artificial life, we split the atom, sent robbots to Mars and are recreating the conditions of the big bang in a Large Hadron Collidor. And yet, we are not capable of planting seeds and domesticating wild ox and boars without the supernatural deity?
And the proposterous religious argument goes on: find an aspect of knowledge, the cosmos, behavior, whatever, that we don't understand, cut around the dotted line, insert God. This is ridiculous. He doesn't understand anthropology and pre-history, does not understand the neolithic revolution, so he scratches his head and says 'God did it'.
I love how believers use scientific datas, not to appreciate in awe the complexity of the universe and its laws, but to impress themselves in all excitement of how unlikely their imagination is capable to conceive of this universe existence without their promissing god.
I don't understand this fine tuning argument. If someone gives me a car that crumbles into a pile of shard and metal if I even so much as adjust the rear view mirror, is this the sign of an intelligent car maker, or an incredibly incompetent car maker?
i think the answer is rather clear - humanity was slow to start because of population and lack of germ theory....it was only until human kind was able to form larger communities that we were able to move forward at an ever increasing rate. and regarding the bs about the "fine tuning" - it's equivalent to saying that a cup is perfectly designed for a liquid. life developed and adapted to what was there...
What an idiot! D'Souza criticized Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens when he held one of his debates with Michael Shermer. D'Souza said that Dawkins and Hitchens had a habit of going out of the realm of their expertise and talking about history when they knew very little about it. Now he's in this debate saying that there was no human history before 5K years ago...he specifically said "no cave paintings". Hey asshole...read about the Lascaux Caves! Just another stupid Christian.
man was too busy trying to apprehend protein and calorie sources using wood and stone tools to jot down there memoirs. we had a little more time on our hands once we figured out how to maximize physical output with things like the atlatl or bow, and to set a trap instead of throwing rocks at fleeing rabbits. its pretty simple, technological, artistic, mental advances accelerate at an exponential rate. the more we learn, the more we learn. its not that difficult.
I love how guys like Dinesh always blame liberal, atheist university students and college professors for causing Christians to question their faith. Most of my grad school professors were Christians and those who weren't kept quiet about it.
I realized Christianity and the Bible were bogus by reading the Bible, listening to Christians, and by doing research on my own.
Only weak-minded and lazy people believe or don't believe based on what others tell them to do.
Well, literal interpretations of the bible are obviously bogus, given the thousands of contradictions in the Bible. I mean look at the first and second chapters of Genesis: 1) God created man and then all the beasts of the Earth, 2) God created all the beasts of the Earth and then man.
Ummmm, what?
Look up skeptic's annotated bible contradictions by book for a more thorough break down of all the literal contradictions.
As for theological ones, I always like, "Why do children suffer evil?"
Darkmiles is absolutely correct. Maybe you should read your Bible critically and study the history of Christianity. The proof could and has filled books. Maybe you should read some of them.
All I had to do is read the Bible itself. I didn't need anyone to tell me that the Tower of Babel story was made up or that the flood story was entirely ludicrous. Then there's the ahistorical accounts of the New Testament. The birth and crucifixion stories have no basis in history or reality.
maybe u need to learn how to read a little better. I make any claims, i just wanted that guy to back up wat he was saying instead of making outlandish statements.
D'Souza poses an interesting question here. The answer, unfortunately, doesn't bode well for his own position. Man was slow to evolve because there are some who cling to dogmatic beliefs and reject progressive thought and inquiry.
don't forget technology. every advancement of the human race has been a direct influence of technology. i believe the human race with it's rate of information spread has increased exponentially over the years, it's scary and exciting at the same time.
and as information continues to spread, and as technology advances, "god" will be irrelevant.
I can't believe he would quote smolin so inaccurately.Yes hawking, smolin and the likes totally embrace the idea that the universe has the exact laws to produce atoms and life. But this is just a revelation of the obvious, there are other universes. Just like, given the trillions of stars. systems with living worlds is a statistical certainty and rarity. The answer simply is that there are plenty of universes to allow one like ours. indeed, we'd only be in one that does, obviously
Listening to D'Souza always makes me feel as if my brains want to escape through my ears. How can one human being be so incredibly dumb? Doesn't he realize that all of his "arguments" have been shred to bits numerous times?
I guess Dinesh has never heard of the technological advancements that took place during the Stone Age. Inventing the bow and arrow, the atlatl, firestarting, microliths, domestication of the dog,,,, Just look at the progress from Homo habilis's unwieldy handaxe to H. sapiens's carefully sculpted microliths.
Fuck me. Who would trust a guy who wrote a book about the "evidence for life after death" to talk about rational knowledge? This fucking paki has no idea what he's talking about.
Every time you listen to d'souza his arguments are utterly repetitive and become boring quite quickly...it is like a mantra...almost brainwashing,listen to the other debates on YT.
My response to the fine tuning argument: First, if there are many parallel universes, one was bound to have the right values to produce like---just like one planet was bound to have the right stuff for it. Moreover, what is really being said is that you can't have conscious beings unless you have these specific values: But, if that is the case, how could you have a conscious God without those specific values.
What? All I am saying is that the fine tuning argument contradicts itself. It assumes that conscious beings can exist only under these specific conditions and then says that God---a conscious being---existed under different conditions. That is a contradiction. There is nothing circular in my refutation.
D'Souza made fucking sense. Adding things up where there aren't any relations. And Prager.. talking firmly with such a tone of voice does not make his arguments true because they are based on flawed opinion. How can they be so blind?
Sheesh... the way D'Souza talks about the sudden insertion of god could just as easily be "suddenly Aliens appeared and propelled human consciousness"... Why couldn't it all just be that it took that long for humans to finally work things out to that level. Still no need for god or aliens, just human ingenuity and consciousness evolution...
D'Souza is talking bullshit, sorry I rarely swear but if you think that is what happened then you know nothing of history. It is not that for thousands of years we had nothing, it is a combination of two things 1. the further back we go the harder it is to find the work of civilisations 2. history has its advent with the cohesive writing. There are examples of symbols going back 10s of thousands of years. Inventions, cultural and industrial - the microlith was an epic technological advancement.
curzmg. No, I am NOT agreeing with D'Souza. I was actually making an ironic statement that discounted D'Souza's claim. Perhaps you meant to reply to elmenhorster?
You missed the point. We sat around for 95,000 thousands years with nothing to show for it and then poof we started inventing things. Evolution is supposed to take billions of years so no evolution not involved in fact evolution is dead as a theory.
D'Souza is such an idiot - when will they put down this anthropocentric, unbelievably arrogant viewpoint.
Sure the universe is perfect for us...um no, one tiny planet appears to be perfect for us in the vastness of space. Anyway, we have nothing to compare it to - modern science says there may be many universes. Even so, it's not that the universe is perfect for us, its that we are perfect for the universe, in the same way that water fits perfectly into a glass or a pipe...
In all cases when people debate Hitchens, their tone when orating annoys me. They almost always use this corny preaching style of oration while Hitchens just talks plainly.
"The whole universe appears to be a giant conspiracy to produce... well, US!"
This smacks of human-centric chauvinism, apparently D'Souza believes humans are the most complex phenomena in the universe. This guy really needs to take some mescaline.
Have you met anyone else out there? But you gotta love the part of humans being around for 100,000 years and for 95,000 of those years they invented nothing not even a wheel LOL priceless.
Somehow the teleological argument still keeps going strong... Dinesh, in the small space that you call a head, has it ever occured to you that if 'the knobs were tweaked otherwise' other forms of life could have existed in the universe?
Only as an adult do you have to use intelligence to defend stupidity.
Mr. Hitchens is absolutely correct to inpugn & reject the statements and persons of certain institutional leaders in Christianity to the extent that they have made offensive, baseless & intolerant anti-semetic statements. Christian texts are clear that God loves everyone (the world) & that the first christian church was comprised of Jewish converts & diciples. I carry no brief for Hitchins, but Paul said be careful of UR conversation brothers.
If you went to the moon and saw 100s of 1000s of stones laying randomly about, it would not be worth mentioning. But if you saw 10,000 arrows composed of neatly arranged stones and they all pointed precisely to the same exact spot several miles away, that would seem to be worthy of an explanation. It would certainly infer some intelligent being arranged them. It would be hard to convince mission control that it was just a coincidence. That's basically the point he was making.
"Stalin didn't commit their atrocities in the name of atheism."
Of course he did.
Soviet Rules and Programs-The 1919 Party Program. "The all Russian Communist Party does not content itself with the already decreed separation of church and state...The aim of the Party is finally to destroy the ties between the exploiting classes and the organization of religious propaganda."
That's why they murdered millions & took their churches & made museums out of them( the one that they didnt destroy).
Do you really think that the problem with communist societies is their LACK of dogma? The ideology of personality cults is EXACTLY THE SAME as that of religious ones... Is skepticism and rational scrutiny really the issue with a society that follows its dear leader to the edge? These crimes were not committed in the name of atheism, they were committed in the name of a false ideal so that a minority could exploit and brainwash the majority. Wake up please... religion is evil.
No, just the opposite. Atheists are just as dogmatic as religious people. It seems you have little knowledge of communism. From the Soviet communism Program and Rules.
"The all Russian Communist Party does not content itself with the ALREADY decreed separation of church and state. The aim of the Party is finally to destroy the ties between the exploiting classes and the organization of religious propaganda"
To do this they murdered millions of Christians and made museums of their churches.
Andrew, nearly 90% of the hospitals built in the US were built by Christian denominations, Atheists built Zero. Christians give more freely in charity each yr than the GNP of almost every country in the world. Atheist groups, Zero. They love to hate, yet give little or nothing of themselves except for purely political purposes. Nearly 100 million people were murdered at the hands of officially atheist countries. What has Atheism done that is good? Perhaps I missed it.
This guy says that the universe was designed to have us humans because all the laws of physics works for it and bla bla bla,but couldn't we just say that we are here because the universe works like that?He is just inverting things.Life is not the objective,just a consequense.
The "anthropic principle" argument is like a puddle saying to itself that the hole it is in must have been specially made for it because it fits into it so well. It's just ridiculous.
Except the anthropic principle is about life that can talk to itself, unlike a puddle.
D'Souza make a good point. At least as good as Hitchens. He also make a good point about the naivete of young believers when they first attend college. The secular/ atheist arguments sound so clever until they are examined closely.
...Prager does seem like a strange choice in such a debate. D'Souza and Hitchens are intellectual, both are writers, and they seem to have built their proffessional careers on the topic of religion, and Prager's just another talk show host. And he gives an AWFUL impression to anyone who's watched any of these debates with that opening statement.
Prager has written over 25 books. I think that is more than both Hitchens and D'Souza. Prager teaches the Torah and has for, I believe, about 30yrs. If I remember correctly, he speaks 3 languages fluently. I believe he also has 2 post graduate degrees from Columbia University. You may not like his style or arguements but he is not just a talk show host.
Prager made a very ineffective and myopic opening statement. Our universe started out as gases spiraling in space for billions of years before they coalesced into the matter we perceive today. Thhe heavy atoms that compose our dna, everything above the atomic weight of iron were formed during the death of another star billions of yesrs in the past. through the process known as nucleo synthesis. Hence we didn't go from stones to Bach.... we went from thin air to Bach
Hitler and Stalin didn't commit their atrocities in the name of atheism. Prager manages nothing more than to distort facts and play on people's misunderstandings to try to validate his arguement. What a fool. "From a rock to Beethoven's ninth"is not at all different from his belief that adam was made from dirt and eve from a bone. Fuck Prager.
"...and then suddenly 5 thousand years ago history gets started- History gets started in a lot of different places...everybody starts inventing stuff.."
so, we've established that 2 people still aren't enough to out debate hitchens, even when Hitch is made to open with the refutation of a argument that his opponents get to arrange accordingly after the fact... plus they're given twice as long. although i don't think it's accurate to count Prager as an entire debater. where as denesh plays the "shady cut throat lawyer" Prager is more "my drunk neo-con uncle aimlessly ranting at last years family reunion after my sister showed up with a black guy"
All three of these guys are idiots.Lets focus on those OTHER religious fanatics with guns and bombs and jsut ignore the worlds 2 largest terrorist organisations - the CIA and Mossad.
Are they not focusing on religion and not actually terrorism? They are only debating terrorism that actually ties in with religion. Since religion is the bases of the debate in the first place and not terrorism itself. One must be a douche bag on an epic level to call Hitchens an idiot so I am just trying to understand.
Hitchens for all of his outstanding arguemnt s and points appears to be blind to the religious fanaticism present in the policies of america and the UK.
Hitchens brings in the point of islamic terrorism, and thus must address the concept of religious fanaticism as a whole.
To agree with a person on most matters cannot allow one to accept everything which that person says without question. This is the issue I have with Hitchens.
Ok, I agree but as I said I think he will only address what he sees fit as a benefit for that argument right there to cave his opponent. I don't think he cares to tackle all terrorism and religious fanaticism. He after all is limited to time. He could mention it I guess but what difference would this make as his goal is to just make a factual point for the argument and he does that anyways.
Oh my god, that was possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
First, I would say that when the average lifespan is 25, and most of that time is spent in pain and terror, your chance of getting a lot done is pretty low.
And second, the more you know, the more you can know. We learned more about the world and developed more technology in 2008 than we did in the entirity of human history from the first human to the year 2000.
It does matter. D'Souza seems to think that mankind did not develop at all culturally during it's 100-200,000 year human history. This is wholly false! D'Souza knows better but still treats his audience like idiots! Confounding scientific evidence, mystifying everything before 'biblical times' and just basically being a cunt!
He deliberately focuses on our gaps of scientific knowledge and fills it with his God. He then follows that this is the Christian God! at times and a deist God at other times! How is that a logical argument? I doubt he even believes in God! He then rattles on about how the foundations of science are built on assumptions and theories, without every acknowledging that the predictions are provable and the laws are accurate.
Responding to bluetubas - not true at all. They're the ones claiming that IF the laws were changed, life would be impossible. They're the ones making that argument, and they're the ones who don't know.
I didn't click reply because I can see he's a dumbass. He spells "your" as "you're" and scenarios without the c. I don't want to chat with him.
You're argument is based on what we don't know. They are basing their statements on laws we do know. We can't have a discussion if we argue with "what if" senarios.
I would like to know your thoughts on why. I'm an atheist, and I agree...but I can't stand little atheist children who ridicule and harrass others, although they themselves are sheep...and they, like their religious counterparts, believe they hold higher intellectual ground.
Sorry if my assumption about you is wrong, but it'd be nice if you can prove it. xD
Obviously you're a moron. The burden of proof lies with me? You deduced Danish is "astonishingly ignorant" from his argument on the video - I would just like to know how you came to that conclusion.
Let me clarify: to prove me wrong (that you're not little kid trying to act smart), all you have to do is expand on your own statement. So the onus is on you, pal.
I have deduced that "Danish [sic]" is astonishingly ignorant (in the literal not pejorative sense) from more than this video. But check out from 2:35 to 3:20 anyway.
Let ME clarify; the onus is on you to tell me why exactly you think I have been ridiculing and harassing others. You came up with this hypothesis that I am "a little kid trying to act smart" all on your own and I feel no great need to try and prove otherwise (or myself) to someone trying to throw a bit of weight around.
D'Souza makes very valid points if you people weren't so ignorant and actually listened to someone who believes in what there talking about you might learn something. Hitchens is an atheist, well spoken at that but D'Souza slaughters him on several debates including this one. Just because his rhetoric isn't as powerful as Hitchens doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is talking about. Listen and you might learn!!
youngsteve113 1 month ago
Everyone who dissliked this video is an idiot in my opinion. The video is of good quality and so is sound , can't you people differ between rating video and reaction to D'souza? Thanks for the debate!
Morclaw 2 months ago 2
The argument for design by fine tuning is a poor one IMHO. The chances that the Universe has the values it does is 100%. We have no reason to assume that the universal constants (such as Planck's constant) are tunable. The "If any of them were different..." argument ignores that there is no chance they can be different.
drfoxcourt 2 months ago
Whoa -- Dinesh doesnt even know that cave paintings are much, much older than 5000 years? like 20,000-40,000 years. He thinks all traces of man's intelligence are limited to 5000 years back? Stunning he can sit there and assume an authority (he doesn't deserve) and be so ignorant. I guess it could've been worse: he could've professed adherence to Young Earth creationism and thereby shown ignorance of biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, as well as anthropology.
skat1140 4 months ago
Disgusting to see Dinesh, in his first comments, make a cheap anti-Islamic slur. Then, tries to claim Hitch would concur. Hitch is anti-Islam, because he's anti-religion. He's not a bigot like you. Seeing Dinesh call Islam nonsense reminds me of the joke of the American and Soviet discussing their political systems. The American says, in my country I can walk up to the President and call him an idiot. The Soviet replies, So can I. I can walk up to your President and call him an idiot.
skat1140 4 months ago
@skat1140 Ummm... I believe Hitchens did openly support live ammunition against radical Muslims. I think Dinesh knows exactly what he's talking about when he speaks for Prager and Hitchens. Again, not about putting bullets into every Muslim in the world, just the radicals who fight the US. Prager and Hitch were both very open about this, D'Souza knows what he's talking about.
Tomer1776 2 months ago
Dinesh D'Souza claims to know his brother, when he doesn't even know himself.
ballerine11 4 months ago
Basically, whenever religious fundies, like D'Souza, try to inject reason into their prosthelitizing, they have to ignore annoyances, like FACTS, EVIDENCE, RECORDED HISTORY, because those things force them to compare the obviously ridiculous aspects of their faith with reality, and reality always wins.
MinstrelKrampf 5 months ago
Amusing because the god of the bible is the old man with a beard. The nebulous god of the apologist is not the god of the bible.
phookadude 6 months ago
D'Souza is digging his own hole here.
Winterwolf00 6 months ago
I respect D'Souza because he tries to argue scientifically. But still, he's so easy to Hitchslap into oblivion.
TheMessiersAndromeda 7 months ago
Dinesh is beyond stupid.
Saitothesushi 7 months ago
D'Souza:...this would explain things a lot better, wouldn't it?
Prager: It certainly would.
D'Souza: ...this is not because we can't answer those questions but because we don't have those answers...
Prager: precisely...
D'Souza: ...an adult theism, a mature theism that can withstand skeptical assault...
Prager: exactly...
D'Souza: ...thank god for religion...
Prager: oh, yes, I'm with you brother...
D'Souza: ...and specifically, thank God for Christianity...
Prager: ye...wait, what...
nowgleaning 7 months ago
Prager is very sensible. I tend to take the view that believe in an omnipotent God is not sustainable for the very reason Prager mentioned. So I am not an atheist like Hitchens but I worry about blind religious belief....
D'Souza is full of crap indeed.
jceepf 7 months ago
Prager is somewhat reasonable but dinesh is too goddamn retarded.
pratto54321 7 months ago
What a retard
THEBHUPINDER1984 7 months ago
Dinesh was actually not doing so badly up to minute 5:35 ... after that he should have left.
foroparapente 8 months ago
I got a headache from listening to D'Souza. It is true. College and university don't make you brilliant.
someThinkingApe 8 months ago
D'souza breaths like darth vader.
NoahTheZoophile 9 months ago
Darwinian primates????? what the fuck is that?
ThieleM 10 months ago
the early Jews knew the nefish as the animal "soul",and human soul was given to Adam(not first man,first with neshuma,human soul,God breathing life into him)...so yes there was man(Bible describes as years before and generations past)where man lived but like cavemen,like animals,then on year one of Jewish calendar,God breathed life neshuma into Adam....its that simple...then came Egyptian and Mayan math,and Moses,Abraham,Joseph,Solomon and all these brilliant minds w/in 2 millenia of first life
cykoaudio777 10 months ago
D'Souza is right; he did come to be a dolt.
NormanAngle 10 months ago
The Industial Revolution increased human inventiveness.
To suggest that because Man hadn't reached their potential and knowledge for a LONG time (we still haven't) doesn't mean Man couldn't have existed "darwinianly".
BlAfrica was devoid of technology the rest of the old world had for thousands of years; does that mean he believes aethiopic people were created seperately as well as after mongoloids and caucasoids simply because they were technologically "inferior"?
NormanAngle 10 months ago
@NormanAngle You're missing the weight of the argument. Why for so long did man exist, biologically, as we do today, but only after thousands and thousands of years did the Industrial Revolution occur?
TheHeshbon 10 months ago
@TheHeshbon
Why not? One has to get ones foot in the door/get the ball rolling first.
NormanAngle 10 months ago
Well, I at least can stand the silly things D'souza says for his good humor is warming. Prager makes me smash through my own teeth through gritting with much intensity.
therorysnake 11 months ago
Round One: Prager kicked Hitchens' intellectual ass out of the field and left him looking like he suffers from Anal Cranium Inversion Syndrome. Next, D'souza makes Hitchens' look like a nonsense spewing buffoon. Anyone with an IQ above 50 can see that Hitchens' is the one who got the smack-down in this debate. PS: I am not interested in arguing with you atheists. Just make your comment using the response field for the video and don't bother responding to me directly. Thanks....I appreciate it.
johnspartan98 11 months ago
Comment removed
Aliof 11 months ago
@Aliof: Hi Adolf. I see you are following me around. Are those Nazi Jack boots I here behind me? Do you have a comment to make that makes sense or are you hear to confuse people like your father the devil is so good at?
johnspartan98 11 months ago
@johnspartan98
Just a little reply to your moronic comment Jack. You need to find a rock and crawl under it, perhaps one that your pastor has pissed on.
If I were a believer I wouldn't want you anywhere near me for the simple fact that your stupidity might be contagious.
Aliof 11 months ago
@Aliof: I don't have a pastor Adolf. I don't even go to church and I am definately no more religious about my beliefs than Hitchens is about his non-belief.
johnspartan98 11 months ago
Was D'Souza making his argument to grade school children or something? How is this guy even called up to debate Hitchens? Creationists really need a better speak then this chump.
keithhickson 11 months ago
Watching only the first 3 clips so far it seems D'Souza and Prager are doing an excellent job already for dismissing their christian beliefs to me by their proponent arguments alone. They're so weak and lacking in any coherent logic that it's a bit of an eye-opener.
guild1981 1 year ago
"live ammunition" - Oh D'Souz, you are such a card. I'll bet you just knocked em dead in the university coffee shop.
MicDoane 1 year ago
"live ammunition" - Oh D'Souz, you are such a card. I'll bet you just knocked em dead in the university coffee shop.
MicDoane 1 year ago
D'Souza's arguments seem strong only to the ignorant of science/history it seems all too easy to go along with. He shows how he voraciously go through Hawkins scientific books looking to capitalize on unexplained, or not yet fully understood aspects of the Universe and propose them as a failure, then immediately claiming "because science cannot yet explain this, therefore god exists". This is just childish/cheap&dishonest. Then he claims the Universe is here because of "us",this pale blue DOT!
esiosan 1 year ago 2
Athiest equals Epic Fail.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv So does your spelling
Tamerleen 1 year ago
@Tamerleen Missing a period at the end of your sentence.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
I find it funny that it takes two people to even try to match Hitchens, he just verbally decimates them over and over.
TheLordValarath 1 year ago 9
@TheLordValarath
Maybe to the untrained observer. But for those of us who harbor sufficient intelligence to see an obvious sensationalist indulge himself in projecting the contents of his own psyche onto others, we'll save our thirty dollars - and our intellectual integrity for that matter - by calling him out for what he is.
Not that he is completely devoid of redeeming qualities. In fact, I adore his endless well of syntactical resources. But I find him more redundant than revelatory.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheLordValarath Although I also agree with a lot of Hitchens arguments. Your argument is qualitative and is not legitimate, although I like agnostic reasoning, the numbers don't count, the quality of the argument do! The other way around I could imagine five bad debaters on proposition of atheism beeing beaten by one good reglious debater.. On second thought, could I? No :) Thank god ;)
vniekje 3 months ago
D'Souza...knows absolutely nothing about history... he's seriously saying that human history only started 10k years ago? -_-
And no, the universe is not "fine tuned" in a manner that would make the arisal of a survivable universe impossible...or even completely improbable....
And no, the universe is not meant to create us...stop being narcissistic....
tskasa1 1 year ago
Bet D'Souza is glad Prager is there making him sound intelligent. For once.
Maybe next time they should get a third or fourth person to argue with Hitchens, might start to even up the teams..
MrFitz7 1 year ago
Do all atheists consider themselves intelligent?
goldenage 1 year ago
Dinesh, it's called agriculture...
RPFS2008 1 year ago
D'Souza's argument is nothing but a bunch of fancy words devoid of any substance.
Aliof 1 year ago
NOTE TO DINESH: Fidgeting with your glasses doesn't add validity to your argument.
2eelShmeal 1 year ago 2
So then, D'Souza, why then are we all born Atheists?
WhiteLakeDan 1 year ago 4
@WhiteLakeDan You just proved that atheists will believe in anything.
emaleroland 1 week ago
am i the only one who finds dsouza's twitchiness fucking annoying
vohshkab 1 year ago 2
Dinesh is just fuckin gay.
Kristophirst 1 year ago
babies are born athiests. theyre pure evil. -_-
southsydney 1 year ago
D'Souza is right. Fantasy explains reality better that reality explains reality. WTF?
cperez1000 1 year ago
Yes, Dinesh is possibly the dumbest person ive ever listened too
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000 Why did athiest invent God?
quailhill 1 year ago
3.00 all those questions are being scientifically investigated, and plenty of progress has been made . . . what are religious people doing to explain the past? Sitting around talking a lot of complete shite, with no basis in reason
Mister0Alexi 1 year ago
Douglas Adam's sentient puddle. ... who wakes up one morning and thinks, "This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
tommyboomboom 1 year ago 3
The 'fine tuning of the dial' arguement is proof of this guys lack of sense. 'The whole universe appears to be a giant conspiracy to produce, well...us'. 'an arguement immune to Darwinian attack'... I can't concieve of any intelligent atheise who would be 'put on the defensive' by such a narrow-minded, self-gratifying approach.
If you want to see people on the defensive.. look at all the religious people on earth squirming in desperate denial of science and evolution theory.
tommyboomboom 1 year ago
@tommyboomboom haha, science makes no metaphysical claims. Nor does science make absolute truth claims about mind-independent reality. Why? Because science is all about relating our observations, which exist only in the mind-dependent world (what Kant called the phenomenal world). So nobody is "denying science," but thinking people see the necessary distinction between science and ontology.
dbmcmillan 1 year ago
is d'souza for real? does he honestly think recorded human history is inly 5000 years old? He's obviously fairly articulate so how can he be so ignorant?
tommyboomboom 1 year ago
Fine-tuning argument. Aghhhh!!!!!! Aghhhh!!!!!!
If someone wins the lottery, is the lottery rigged?
PopUpPenguin 1 year ago 2
Nauseating. Blurgh. Brain vomit!!!
LostSubsForever 1 year ago
If people want to remain ignorant about their own human history then so be it. I only get one chance at life, I want to understand a bit more than this joke of an argument. He just invented his own religious belief, that a God came down and gave us a soul and showed us how to start agriculture and the wheel. Understand this, religion takes any issue, real or contrived, who's answer lies behind the curtain, and stops exploring: they just invoke God.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
We just created artificial life, we split the atom, sent robbots to Mars and are recreating the conditions of the big bang in a Large Hadron Collidor. And yet, we are not capable of planting seeds and domesticating wild ox and boars without the supernatural deity?
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
And the proposterous religious argument goes on: find an aspect of knowledge, the cosmos, behavior, whatever, that we don't understand, cut around the dotted line, insert God. This is ridiculous. He doesn't understand anthropology and pre-history, does not understand the neolithic revolution, so he scratches his head and says 'God did it'.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
Okay, this debate needed anthropologists, archeologists and scientists. God damn it, how did D'Souza get away with his comments about anthropology!? Nah, fuck that. Tens of thousands years-old paintings, 400,000 year-old throwing spears, nearly 20,000 year-old Atlatl technology, 60,000 year-old flutes... jewelry, clothing, beautiful cave paintings, music, myth, hunting technology, careful burials with funerary paraphernalia. Wrong, D'Souza!
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
I love how believers use scientific datas, not to appreciate in awe the complexity of the universe and its laws, but to impress themselves in all excitement of how unlikely their imagination is capable to conceive of this universe existence without their promissing god.
fallacy in action.
EyeFed 1 year ago
I don't understand this fine tuning argument. If someone gives me a car that crumbles into a pile of shard and metal if I even so much as adjust the rear view mirror, is this the sign of an intelligent car maker, or an incredibly incompetent car maker?
ivanmikhailov 1 year ago
He's sort of a "dweeb," except that dweeb usually at least implies intelligence...
reilly616 1 year ago
i think the answer is rather clear - humanity was slow to start because of population and lack of germ theory....it was only until human kind was able to form larger communities that we were able to move forward at an ever increasing rate. and regarding the bs about the "fine tuning" - it's equivalent to saying that a cup is perfectly designed for a liquid. life developed and adapted to what was there...
geoaegis 1 year ago
What an idiot! D'Souza criticized Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens when he held one of his debates with Michael Shermer. D'Souza said that Dawkins and Hitchens had a habit of going out of the realm of their expertise and talking about history when they knew very little about it. Now he's in this debate saying that there was no human history before 5K years ago...he specifically said "no cave paintings". Hey asshole...read about the Lascaux Caves! Just another stupid Christian.
andyrooney11 1 year ago 2
@andyrooney11 I can't believe no one challenged him on that idiocy.
Springheel01 1 year ago
D'Souza has always irritated me. He puts forward meaningless rhetoric, and baseless philosophical assertions.
PCrePs 1 year ago 3
man was too busy trying to apprehend protein and calorie sources using wood and stone tools to jot down there memoirs. we had a little more time on our hands once we figured out how to maximize physical output with things like the atlatl or bow, and to set a trap instead of throwing rocks at fleeing rabbits. its pretty simple, technological, artistic, mental advances accelerate at an exponential rate. the more we learn, the more we learn. its not that difficult.
savageknives1 1 year ago
I love how guys like Dinesh always blame liberal, atheist university students and college professors for causing Christians to question their faith. Most of my grad school professors were Christians and those who weren't kept quiet about it.
I realized Christianity and the Bible were bogus by reading the Bible, listening to Christians, and by doing research on my own.
Only weak-minded and lazy people believe or don't believe based on what others tell them to do.
Joosybum 2 years ago 2
christianity and the bible are bogus, hm....
anything to back up those statements?
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
Well, literal interpretations of the bible are obviously bogus, given the thousands of contradictions in the Bible. I mean look at the first and second chapters of Genesis: 1) God created man and then all the beasts of the Earth, 2) God created all the beasts of the Earth and then man.
Ummmm, what?
Look up skeptic's annotated bible contradictions by book for a more thorough break down of all the literal contradictions.
As for theological ones, I always like, "Why do children suffer evil?"
darkmiles22 2 years ago
Darkmiles is absolutely correct. Maybe you should read your Bible critically and study the history of Christianity. The proof could and has filled books. Maybe you should read some of them.
All I had to do is read the Bible itself. I didn't need anyone to tell me that the Tower of Babel story was made up or that the flood story was entirely ludicrous. Then there's the ahistorical accounts of the New Testament. The birth and crucifixion stories have no basis in history or reality.
Joosybum 2 years ago
maybe u need to learn how to read a little better. I make any claims, i just wanted that guy to back up wat he was saying instead of making outlandish statements.
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
D'Souza poses an interesting question here. The answer, unfortunately, doesn't bode well for his own position. Man was slow to evolve because there are some who cling to dogmatic beliefs and reject progressive thought and inquiry.
zmbrevis 2 years ago 8
@zmbrevis
don't forget technology. every advancement of the human race has been a direct influence of technology. i believe the human race with it's rate of information spread has increased exponentially over the years, it's scary and exciting at the same time.
and as information continues to spread, and as technology advances, "god" will be irrelevant.
visualkei72 2 years ago
white haired guy rude pig!
coolioto 2 years ago 3
I can't believe he would quote smolin so inaccurately.Yes hawking, smolin and the likes totally embrace the idea that the universe has the exact laws to produce atoms and life. But this is just a revelation of the obvious, there are other universes. Just like, given the trillions of stars. systems with living worlds is a statistical certainty and rarity. The answer simply is that there are plenty of universes to allow one like ours. indeed, we'd only be in one that does, obviously
quantumhed 2 years ago 4
Man... How this Dinesh guy can be so astonishingly ignorant of histoy is absolutely beyond me.
People like him prove that even college and university educated people can be ignorant morons.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago 54
hmm, the worst thing is that he comes from an ancient, polytheistic culture and trades it all in for a heap of missionary crap.
mojo972 2 years ago 5
d'souza is a level of special i will never comprehend... watching him is hilarious.
ymatmband 2 years ago 6
Listening to D'Souza always makes me feel as if my brains want to escape through my ears. How can one human being be so incredibly dumb? Doesn't he realize that all of his "arguments" have been shred to bits numerous times?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 years ago 44
I just skip the parts where Dinesh is speaking.
Mercurybath 2 years ago 2
I guess Dinesh has never heard of the technological advancements that took place during the Stone Age. Inventing the bow and arrow, the atlatl, firestarting, microliths, domestication of the dog,,,, Just look at the progress from Homo habilis's unwieldy handaxe to H. sapiens's carefully sculpted microliths.
366z0rs 2 years ago
Fuck me. Who would trust a guy who wrote a book about the "evidence for life after death" to talk about rational knowledge? This fucking paki has no idea what he's talking about.
ls1z28chris 2 years ago 2
Why would a god that is supposedly OUTSIDE of time and space create anything outside of his realm? Why aren't we outside of time and space?
I guess if we were outside, we wouldn't need a creator.
WisdomVendor 2 years ago
Every time you listen to d'souza his arguments are utterly repetitive and become boring quite quickly...it is like a mantra...almost brainwashing,listen to the other debates on YT.
donnyab 2 years ago
The evolutionists are worse you ever check out Dick Dawkins?
mellowtribe 2 years ago
Yeah, Dawkins is great.. see the clip where he owned Bill O'Reilly?
MRoane41 2 years ago
My response to the fine tuning argument: First, if there are many parallel universes, one was bound to have the right values to produce like---just like one planet was bound to have the right stuff for it. Moreover, what is really being said is that you can't have conscious beings unless you have these specific values: But, if that is the case, how could you have a conscious God without those specific values.
MetaMorphy 2 years ago
Circular my friend. you sound like a professor of evolution. Hit a bump and stop the "skip" or something.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
What? All I am saying is that the fine tuning argument contradicts itself. It assumes that conscious beings can exist only under these specific conditions and then says that God---a conscious being---existed under different conditions. That is a contradiction. There is nothing circular in my refutation.
MetaMorphy 2 years ago
D'Souza made fucking sense. Adding things up where there aren't any relations. And Prager.. talking firmly with such a tone of voice does not make his arguments true because they are based on flawed opinion. How can they be so blind?
elmenhorster 2 years ago
Sheesh... the way D'Souza talks about the sudden insertion of god could just as easily be "suddenly Aliens appeared and propelled human consciousness"... Why couldn't it all just be that it took that long for humans to finally work things out to that level. Still no need for god or aliens, just human ingenuity and consciousness evolution...
xephyr1000 2 years ago
D'Souza is talking bullshit, sorry I rarely swear but if you think that is what happened then you know nothing of history. It is not that for thousands of years we had nothing, it is a combination of two things 1. the further back we go the harder it is to find the work of civilisations 2. history has its advent with the cohesive writing. There are examples of symbols going back 10s of thousands of years. Inventions, cultural and industrial - the microlith was an epic technological advancement.
curzmg 2 years ago
curzmg. No, I am NOT agreeing with D'Souza. I was actually making an ironic statement that discounted D'Souza's claim. Perhaps you meant to reply to elmenhorster?
xephyr1000 2 years ago
Yes I think I might have done, sorry I was in a hurry! Take care. x
curzmg 2 years ago
You missed the point. We sat around for 95,000 thousands years with nothing to show for it and then poof we started inventing things. Evolution is supposed to take billions of years so no evolution not involved in fact evolution is dead as a theory.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
D'Souza is such an idiot - when will they put down this anthropocentric, unbelievably arrogant viewpoint.
Sure the universe is perfect for us...um no, one tiny planet appears to be perfect for us in the vastness of space. Anyway, we have nothing to compare it to - modern science says there may be many universes. Even so, it's not that the universe is perfect for us, its that we are perfect for the universe, in the same way that water fits perfectly into a glass or a pipe...
Gidwan 2 years ago 2
In all cases when people debate Hitchens, their tone when orating annoys me. They almost always use this corny preaching style of oration while Hitchens just talks plainly.
BillKiernan 2 years ago 4
"The whole universe appears to be a giant conspiracy to produce... well, US!"
This smacks of human-centric chauvinism, apparently D'Souza believes humans are the most complex phenomena in the universe. This guy really needs to take some mescaline.
googlejoint 2 years ago
Have you met anyone else out there? But you gotta love the part of humans being around for 100,000 years and for 95,000 of those years they invented nothing not even a wheel LOL priceless.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
Read an elementary history or biology book.
MRoane41 2 years ago
Things started being built 5000 years ago after man discovered Slavery. And religion soon followed. Thank God I'm an Atheist !!!
MrPriorityone 2 years ago
Dinesh's smarmy fallacious arguments succeed in making me feel ill.
BipedalHumanoid 2 years ago 3
D'Souza has obviously never heard of Archaeology.
Also since when did Christianity endorse shooting our enemy.
Just because science has not yet explained the fine balance of our universe doesnt mean there is a God.
It just means it isnt explained.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
3:25 The Chinesse also, people (religious) allways forget them.
ceezmad1 2 years ago
i would never stop enjoying torturing and killing the root of all evil.
first book of maccabbes.<<<<<<<<<<<<
i am mad and i want my empire back. my beautiful empire.
pervertedmind 2 years ago
D'Souza doesn't know the history of the species very well . . .
KarlVasquez 2 years ago 7
God is more improbable than the Universe and life itself. Find a new angle.
athlete117 2 years ago 2
D'souza uses the same jokes in nearly every debate... so shit. at least hitchens jokes on the spot.
jmsimpson11 2 years ago 5
D'Souza is quite unctuous and smarmy, and i don't think he has any capacity to help it, poor little idiot
marcligon1 2 years ago 4
He reminds me of a schoolboy who borrowed his father's suit and glasses.
Valelacerte 2 years ago
Somehow the teleological argument still keeps going strong... Dinesh, in the small space that you call a head, has it ever occured to you that if 'the knobs were tweaked otherwise' other forms of life could have existed in the universe?
Only as an adult do you have to use intelligence to defend stupidity.
dapodix 2 years ago 4
Mr. Hitchens is absolutely correct to inpugn & reject the statements and persons of certain institutional leaders in Christianity to the extent that they have made offensive, baseless & intolerant anti-semetic statements. Christian texts are clear that God loves everyone (the world) & that the first christian church was comprised of Jewish converts & diciples. I carry no brief for Hitchins, but Paul said be careful of UR conversation brothers.
111111111111111111111
shieldsff 2 years ago
listen to OSHO
jaibajranga 2 years ago
fiiilll ,
If you went to the moon and saw 100s of 1000s of stones laying randomly about, it would not be worth mentioning. But if you saw 10,000 arrows composed of neatly arranged stones and they all pointed precisely to the same exact spot several miles away, that would seem to be worthy of an explanation. It would certainly infer some intelligent being arranged them. It would be hard to convince mission control that it was just a coincidence. That's basically the point he was making.
AnimeOfTheState 2 years ago
please give this guy a history book!
and one about evolutionary biology and psychology!
cuz he's making such a fool of himself
cicala2007 2 years ago 3
"Stalin didn't commit their atrocities in the name of atheism."
Of course he did.
Soviet Rules and Programs-The 1919 Party Program. "The all Russian Communist Party does not content itself with the already decreed separation of church and state...The aim of the Party is finally to destroy the ties between the exploiting classes and the organization of religious propaganda."
That's why they murdered millions & took their churches & made museums out of them( the one that they didnt destroy).
AnimeOfTheState 2 years ago
Do you really think that the problem with communist societies is their LACK of dogma? The ideology of personality cults is EXACTLY THE SAME as that of religious ones... Is skepticism and rational scrutiny really the issue with a society that follows its dear leader to the edge? These crimes were not committed in the name of atheism, they were committed in the name of a false ideal so that a minority could exploit and brainwash the majority. Wake up please... religion is evil.
AndrewFranzke7 2 years ago
No, just the opposite. Atheists are just as dogmatic as religious people. It seems you have little knowledge of communism. From the Soviet communism Program and Rules.
"The all Russian Communist Party does not content itself with the ALREADY decreed separation of church and state. The aim of the Party is finally to destroy the ties between the exploiting classes and the organization of religious propaganda"
To do this they murdered millions of Christians and made museums of their churches.
AnimeOfTheState 2 years ago
Andrew, nearly 90% of the hospitals built in the US were built by Christian denominations, Atheists built Zero. Christians give more freely in charity each yr than the GNP of almost every country in the world. Atheist groups, Zero. They love to hate, yet give little or nothing of themselves except for purely political purposes. Nearly 100 million people were murdered at the hands of officially atheist countries. What has Atheism done that is good? Perhaps I missed it.
AnimeOfTheState 2 years ago
This guy says that the universe was designed to have us humans because all the laws of physics works for it and bla bla bla,but couldn't we just say that we are here because the universe works like that?He is just inverting things.Life is not the objective,just a consequense.
fiiilll 2 years ago
"couldn't we just say that we are here because the universe works like that?He is just inverting things."
A little irony in that statement.
AnimeOfTheState 2 years ago
The "anthropic principle" argument is like a puddle saying to itself that the hole it is in must have been specially made for it because it fits into it so well. It's just ridiculous.
SLRL1A1 2 years ago 3
Except the anthropic principle is about life that can talk to itself, unlike a puddle.
D'Souza make a good point. At least as good as Hitchens. He also make a good point about the naivete of young believers when they first attend college. The secular/ atheist arguments sound so clever until they are examined closely.
ciscotx74 2 years ago
...Prager does seem like a strange choice in such a debate. D'Souza and Hitchens are intellectual, both are writers, and they seem to have built their proffessional careers on the topic of religion, and Prager's just another talk show host. And he gives an AWFUL impression to anyone who's watched any of these debates with that opening statement.
Boognish64 2 years ago
Prager has written over 25 books. I think that is more than both Hitchens and D'Souza. Prager teaches the Torah and has for, I believe, about 30yrs. If I remember correctly, he speaks 3 languages fluently. I believe he also has 2 post graduate degrees from Columbia University. You may not like his style or arguements but he is not just a talk show host.
AnimeOfTheState 2 years ago
If only prager's style was the problem with him...
fiiilll 2 years ago 3
"not even a cave painting"
cave painting predates civilization by tens of thousands of years.
epic fail.
TheRealEricLester 2 years ago 8
Prager made a very ineffective and myopic opening statement. Our universe started out as gases spiraling in space for billions of years before they coalesced into the matter we perceive today. Thhe heavy atoms that compose our dna, everything above the atomic weight of iron were formed during the death of another star billions of yesrs in the past. through the process known as nucleo synthesis. Hence we didn't go from stones to Bach.... we went from thin air to Bach
bucksmaster 2 years ago 4
Hitler and Stalin didn't commit their atrocities in the name of atheism. Prager manages nothing more than to distort facts and play on people's misunderstandings to try to validate his arguement. What a fool. "From a rock to Beethoven's ninth"is not at all different from his belief that adam was made from dirt and eve from a bone. Fuck Prager.
Redbaron011 2 years ago 5
Prager: Arguement from ingorance
Just because we don't know doesn't mean it is God.
Prager in Part in 2, does a very great job at stating the need for a first cause but not for a Judeo-Christian benvolent God.
I am sorry guys but when they say by faith alone they mean by FAITH alone.
Valkyrie0010 2 years ago 5
Breathed a soul huh? What a soul Dinesh. And to excuse the slaughter of your people by those Christian butchers, you fuck.
nightspider78 2 years ago
"and this open communication I think should take the form of live ammunition"
What a fascist scumbag.
jumpnjza2 2 years ago 4
3:07 Dinesh says:
"...and then suddenly 5 thousand years ago history gets started- History gets started in a lot of different places...everybody starts inventing stuff.."
Like religion for example?
whyabadi 2 years ago 5
so, we've established that 2 people still aren't enough to out debate hitchens, even when Hitch is made to open with the refutation of a argument that his opponents get to arrange accordingly after the fact... plus they're given twice as long. although i don't think it's accurate to count Prager as an entire debater. where as denesh plays the "shady cut throat lawyer" Prager is more "my drunk neo-con uncle aimlessly ranting at last years family reunion after my sister showed up with a black guy"
watchzeitgeist 2 years ago 2
Dinesh's point at 5.30 can be summarised as "as you get older you are able to put your head further into the sand."
synkronyk 2 years ago 3
All three of these guys are idiots.Lets focus on those OTHER religious fanatics with guns and bombs and jsut ignore the worlds 2 largest terrorist organisations - the CIA and Mossad.
Hypocritical.
synkronyk 2 years ago
Are they not focusing on religion and not actually terrorism? They are only debating terrorism that actually ties in with religion. Since religion is the bases of the debate in the first place and not terrorism itself. One must be a douche bag on an epic level to call Hitchens an idiot so I am just trying to understand.
Love9sick 2 years ago
Hitchens for all of his outstanding arguemnt s and points appears to be blind to the religious fanaticism present in the policies of america and the UK.
Hitchens brings in the point of islamic terrorism, and thus must address the concept of religious fanaticism as a whole.
To agree with a person on most matters cannot allow one to accept everything which that person says without question. This is the issue I have with Hitchens.
synkronyk 2 years ago
Ok, I agree but as I said I think he will only address what he sees fit as a benefit for that argument right there to cave his opponent. I don't think he cares to tackle all terrorism and religious fanaticism. He after all is limited to time. He could mention it I guess but what difference would this make as his goal is to just make a factual point for the argument and he does that anyways.
Love9sick 2 years ago
Oh my god, that was possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
First, I would say that when the average lifespan is 25, and most of that time is spent in pain and terror, your chance of getting a lot done is pretty low.
And second, the more you know, the more you can know. We learned more about the world and developed more technology in 2008 than we did in the entirity of human history from the first human to the year 2000.
TBlake34 2 years ago
Thank you D´Souza for not shouting in this video. Your normal use of voice was really refreshing.
WillyDillyWillyDilly 2 years ago
NO! twat face D'Souza!
Cave paintings are 30,000 years old! not 5,000!!
Erren1234 2 years ago 3
It doesn't matter if you're talking thousands of years on a scale of millions, even billions of years.
ilieklolcatz 2 years ago
It does matter. D'Souza seems to think that mankind did not develop at all culturally during it's 100-200,000 year human history. This is wholly false! D'Souza knows better but still treats his audience like idiots! Confounding scientific evidence, mystifying everything before 'biblical times' and just basically being a cunt!
Erren1234 2 years ago 2
Hm... denouncing the person, not actually arguing against his viewpoint, are we?
ilieklolcatz 2 years ago
Here is my argument against D'Souza:
He deliberately focuses on our gaps of scientific knowledge and fills it with his God. He then follows that this is the Christian God! at times and a deist God at other times! How is that a logical argument? I doubt he even believes in God! He then rattles on about how the foundations of science are built on assumptions and theories, without every acknowledging that the predictions are provable and the laws are accurate.
Erren1234 2 years ago 2
Responding to bluetubas - not true at all. They're the ones claiming that IF the laws were changed, life would be impossible. They're the ones making that argument, and they're the ones who don't know.
I didn't click reply because I can see he's a dumbass. He spells "your" as "you're" and scenarios without the c. I don't want to chat with him.
highwind8124 2 years ago
As for Dinesh's comment that the laws of the universe are finetuned for life, he doesn't know that.
Computer programmers call this "fire in the machine", when you introduce so many variable that if you change one the result is unpredictable.
Dinesh and Hawking have never TRIED changing the laws. For all they know, life could be EVEN BETTER under different laws.
Life adapts to its surroundings. Period. We don't know what life would like under different laws.
highwind8124 2 years ago 2
You're argument is based on what we don't know. They are basing their statements on laws we do know. We can't have a discussion if we argue with "what if" senarios.
bluetubas 2 years ago
highwind responded to you, check it out. :D
MartialArtistWannabe 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2 vs 1?
redskin133 2 years ago
D'dumbass is astonishingly ignorant.
jabmeister 2 years ago
I would like to know your thoughts on why. I'm an atheist, and I agree...but I can't stand little atheist children who ridicule and harrass others, although they themselves are sheep...and they, like their religious counterparts, believe they hold higher intellectual ground.
Sorry if my assumption about you is wrong, but it'd be nice if you can prove it. xD
MartialArtistWannabe 2 years ago
Prove what? You've come up with all the hypotheses therefore the burden of proof lies with you.
But just to play your inane game; firstly I am an adult. Secondly care to direct me to where I "ridiculed and harass"ed anyone?
Not that ridicule is necessarily a bad thing, someone like Dinesh deserves it.
jabmeister 2 years ago
Obviously you're a moron. The burden of proof lies with me? You deduced Danish is "astonishingly ignorant" from his argument on the video - I would just like to know how you came to that conclusion.
Let me clarify: to prove me wrong (that you're not little kid trying to act smart), all you have to do is expand on your own statement. So the onus is on you, pal.
MartialArtistWannabe 2 years ago
I have deduced that "Danish [sic]" is astonishingly ignorant (in the literal not pejorative sense) from more than this video. But check out from 2:35 to 3:20 anyway.
Let ME clarify; the onus is on you to tell me why exactly you think I have been ridiculing and harassing others. You came up with this hypothesis that I am "a little kid trying to act smart" all on your own and I feel no great need to try and prove otherwise (or myself) to someone trying to throw a bit of weight around.
jabmeister 2 years ago