we all want to know who or what or where made all this happen. we all want to know the meaning of this existence. we all do. even atheists. but to assume something so flawed. to assume something that has never in history been proven as the ultimate truth that triumphs over all the others. that others who dont believe in their assumptions are just sorry sobs who needs to believe to be saved otherwise they lose some favour points with god or will go to hell? nah...
so you can prove there is? i cannot yet see goblins in front of my door. i cann see vampires under my bed. i cannot prove it doesnt exist. so is it time that i assume there has to be goblins in front of my door? vampires under my bed? because there is none to be seen and no evidence any existed we do not assume what is the obvious: that it dont exist.
How can someone be sure there is no god? How can someone be sure that there is no ANYTHING? I can be sure there is no cat in my in this box in my hands, but I cannot be sure there is no cat in my entire yard because I cannot see my entire yard at one time.
I can say I can't see behind me so does that mean my window isn't there.
That statement can't be compared to
"I cannot hear see smell communicate with a God in any way but he exists because i know he is there" - its nonsense and that is basically what you are saying.
Because you cannot prove he does/does not exist he therefore exists. Nonsense
Not only is D'Souza not a thinker, but rather someone who loves to argue ad populum; He also loves to argue ad bacterium; the proposition that, because bacteria believe a thing, it must be true.
Why...did we need to know the moderator's credentials? He isn't part of the debate....
Also, I agree with the first commenter - how is D'Souza a great thinker? All he's good at doing is making fallacious arguments, which mostly boil down to argument from tradition or argumentum ad populum.
Maybe he gets the title for spending most of his time thinking, even though he's doing it wrong?
we all want to know who or what or where made all this happen. we all want to know the meaning of this existence. we all do. even atheists. but to assume something so flawed. to assume something that has never in history been proven as the ultimate truth that triumphs over all the others. that others who dont believe in their assumptions are just sorry sobs who needs to believe to be saved otherwise they lose some favour points with god or will go to hell? nah...
anytime... i reject. anytime
SaintDL 2 years ago
@tbed63
so you can prove there is? i cannot yet see goblins in front of my door. i cann see vampires under my bed. i cannot prove it doesnt exist. so is it time that i assume there has to be goblins in front of my door? vampires under my bed? because there is none to be seen and no evidence any existed we do not assume what is the obvious: that it dont exist.
SaintDL 2 years ago
that opening is nauseatingly boring and unnecessarily long......typical sermon by a man of the cloth who likes to hear himself speak !!
tonymarcel100 2 years ago 4
you could have just as well lost the opening speech and jumped right to the debate ...
symelian 2 years ago
How can someone be sure there is no god? How can someone be sure that there is no ANYTHING? I can be sure there is no cat in my in this box in my hands, but I cannot be sure there is no cat in my entire yard because I cannot see my entire yard at one time.
tbed63 2 years ago
There are 3 options:
1. Nothing made us.
2. Something made us on purpose.
3. Something made us by accident.
Since everything that happens in the box is 3.
Therefore everything that happens in the yard is 3. too.
It's simple and careless assumption.
Having said that 1,2,3, are all completely valid BELIEFS, but that's what they are. Belief. All 3.
to put it another way,
Some people think they'll get somewhere driving on the right side of the road in England.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
That really doesn't mean anything does it?
I can say I can't see behind me so does that mean my window isn't there.
That statement can't be compared to
"I cannot hear see smell communicate with a God in any way but he exists because i know he is there" - its nonsense and that is basically what you are saying.
Because you cannot prove he does/does not exist he therefore exists. Nonsense
youjutsusha 2 years ago
I cannot see everything and therefore anything can exist.
The existance of god here is questioned in a practical sense; did he actually intervene or simply created the universe and abandoned it?
The latter is exactly the same as the nonexistance of god as far as we, humans, are concerned.
whyabadi 2 years ago
There is no such thing as god, so it is good to defend a fairy tale....
CondorDM 2 years ago 6
Prove there is prove there isn't.
Or I suppose assume that you can accurately speculate on what is outside of our time and for a belief out of it. Like theism and atheism.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Aquinas, "one of the greatest thinkers of all time"?
I don't fucking think so. Perhaps a great thinker compared to the likes of D'Souza. That guy is misled at best.
TheCorrigan 2 years ago 3
nice. so true!
bourgkul 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
D'souza is awesome! Anyone who defends christianity is!
princessdiana71 2 years ago
D'Souza is a great writer....Hitchens a great debater. Good to see them both under the same roof
owenline 2 years ago
PLAYLIST
PLAYLIST
PLAYLIST
JonathanWKnight 2 years ago 2
"PLAYLIST "
Check my profile page for the playlist.
deBeuk 2 years ago
Not only is D'Souza not a thinker, but rather someone who loves to argue ad populum; He also loves to argue ad bacterium; the proposition that, because bacteria believe a thing, it must be true.
luerwulf 2 years ago
luerwulf:
he does a great job of showing how bad affirmative action is, how wrong it is...
glorp896 2 years ago
Why...did we need to know the moderator's credentials? He isn't part of the debate....
Also, I agree with the first commenter - how is D'Souza a great thinker? All he's good at doing is making fallacious arguments, which mostly boil down to argument from tradition or argumentum ad populum.
Maybe he gets the title for spending most of his time thinking, even though he's doing it wrong?
GyrinidaeRex 2 years ago 4
Heh. It's kind of funny that D'Souza is considered a "great thinker", given his inability to do so well.
Fordi 2 years ago 9
Great sound and visual quality! Thanks for putting up deBeuk. Looking forward to the Hitch Wiping the floor with D'Souza again.
Kevo216666 2 years ago 4
[Enter your text here] indeed, deBeuk! ;)
Athaeus 2 years ago