@ThoughtGazeCarlos In addition I believe that if you are allowed to present your imaginary friend, it would only be fair if we presented you with some of our own.
Is D'Sousa for real? Why would he implicate Dan in his rape scenario? Has he no sense of decency? His thinly veiled personal attacks reveal a very telling desperation, and a poorly constituted character.
@drreiserer "Why would he implicate Dan in his rape scenario? Has he no sense of decency?"
Dinesh is exposing the "indecency" of the atheistic view that we are merely biological machines without purpose except for maybe survival. Survival for what? For production and reproduction. For what? to survive. And around it goes. Rape isn't wrong in atheism. That is the indecency.
His entire argument hinges on appeal to emotion. People like this are harmful without even knowing that they are. He's a fast-talking car salesman that walks you around to the side of the car without the big ding in it, hoping you might not notice it.
less questions and more time to answer them would have been good. dinesh, in one minute tell me why you think the bible his historically reliable - pretty ridiculous.
but nevertheless a great debate - i stayed up til 2am to watch it, and got a lot out of it. thanks for uploading.
No, I don't think D'Sousa is speaking nonsense. He's clearly a very good debater and intelligent guy who is defending his religious beliefs. So saying that he doesn't in anyway convince me in the existence of God.
The worst moderated debate on the issue I have ever seen. If dogmatic keeping time is more important than allowing debators to finish their statements so that we can get a deeper and better knowledge on the subject, than the whole purpose of debate is missing.
I was recently in a debate with dinesh and michael shermer the founder of skeptic magazine i think that dan did a much better job he is stupendous, i saw the entire debate and i hated the moderators. AND its true once you see D'souza debate once you see the same over and over
Oh, Dinesh, Dinesh... You don't understand evolution, you don't understand philosophy, you love to misrepresent, to misinterpret, and just plain to lie. A typical Christian lier.
Dan Barker on the other side is probably one of the best debaters and one of the most intellectually honest atheists I've ever heard
No one ever found his body. Many witnesses then saw him in his resurrected form, and went on to fall on their knees in belief, and spread the word to thousands. This is when the church flourished. It grew by the thousands! Why didn't anyone question it then? I'm sure they did! But something was going on. Not one person could disprove this was all bogus, and many were mysteriously coming to belief in this Jesus Christ, just as people are today.
Finally: We all want evidence. One of the most incredible pieces of evidence is the beginning of the Christian church. Jesus Christ was buried in a tomb, and when his family went in to bury him, he wasn't there.
@kimls21 Yeah, that we're broken when these relationships crumble.
That's about what you said. You've said nothing, therefore, your example shows us nothing - not something. What exactly does it show YOU?
klmls21, it is very possible to admire, love, care, and praise for something that isn't real - while we're genuinely under the impression it is real - and from this false belief one can obtain this utmost joy you speak of.
Would you view it the same if this was a the case?
What if this God knows that our praising, knowing, and loving him brings us this utmost joy and therefore he pursues us consistently. Then the relationship between God and man is no longer that of an egotistically, fragile dictator and his followers, but rather a relationship based on love, joy, and fulfillment. The irony is that we thrive in these types of relationships. Look at marriage, dating, friendships, etc. We crave relationships like this.
@kimls21@kimls21 Would you still feel this way if this feeling of utmost joy turns out to come from just an imagination that this god is real? The feeling IS very real, klmls21. However, this feeling of utmost joy doesn't automatically assign its cause to a god.
And even if it did, how do you assign this joy to the god of the bible? What about Allah, Krishna, Thor, and the likes? How are you connecting the dots to Christianity?
I'm glad you said "what if" but you didn't end with a "?."
@lnfiniteKnowledge Well, it would take me many more words that YouTube allows me to discuss this. However, if I could be brief, the God of the Bible is the only God that saves His people despite their horrendous mistakes and despicable lives. All other religions are attempting to attain a holiness, and yet the God of the Bible says that is impossible, yet that God is strong enough to save you and literally change you. That is indescribable (the change) but it happens all the time, and...
@kimls21 Read what you're writing. And then listen to the voice in your head as you're writing what you'll write next; " . . . the God of the Bible is the only God that saves His people despite their horrendous mistakes and despicable lives," right - if you accept Jesus as your savior. How about those of us that didn't do horrendous "mistakes" or lived dispicable lives, but refused to accept Jesus as our savior? Why are we sentenced to eternal hell?
@kimls21 So your god decides to forgive those who ask for forgiveness (thereby accepting Jesus as their savior), no matter how horrible and immoral of a life they lived, and condem those who lived a sound and moral life simply because they reject Jesus as their lord and savior?
I don't know. Your god does sound like an egotistical, dictator/ fragile/ inept parent who needs our praise.
@lnfiniteKnowledge Well, it would take me many more words that YouTube allows me to discuss this. However, if I could be brief, the God of the Bible is the only God that saves His people despite their horrendous mistakes and despicable lives. All other religions are attempting to attain a holiness, and yet the God of the Bible says that is impossible, yet that God is strong enough to save you and literally change you. That is indescribable (the change) but it happens all the time, and...
@lnfiniteKnowledge And I am living proof that although sometimes it is hard to explain or even understand, when I read the Bible and then follow it, rather than follow the opposite, I realize how good God is, and how he wants good for us. Also, it is possible that God is not real, but I think it takes more faith to believe that. And imagine for a moment that He is not real, then there is no point in life or no hope, and we can all do whatever we want with reckless abondon...
@kimls21@kimls21 If your god is real, then there's no point in life. The only point to our lives would be his, not our own. We are born sinners, as your book says, and our sole purpose is to accept our sins and beg for forgiveness. In that process we proove our faithfulness to this god. What purpose is there for YOU in any of that? You're just an IOU, slaving away prayers in hopes of reedeming the trust ruined by Eve.
@lnfiniteKnowledge Yet, living like that causes a lot of pain. Don't take my word, pick up a Bible at a local book store, and read for yourself. It is an incredible book, filled not only with law, and seemingly old stories (as most think, and I did myself at one point), but stories that will blow you away, poems and songs that touch your heart, words of wisdom that ring true, unbelievably romantic analogies, and the evidence of a God who loves, forgives, and redeems through the entire Bible.
@kimls21 Here your Christian arrogance shines. As if to say, I hold my position only because I haven't picked up a bible. And picking one up, would answer all my question as it has yours. Wrong.
I have picked the bible up. I have read through it thoroughly; front to back, over and over. And I confidently say no one will ever understand or comprehend that book. Not because it's of divine origin, but because it's a pile of crap contradictions.
@lnfiniteKnowledge I apologize if I sounded arrogant...I really didn't mean to, and looking at it, that did sound pretty arrogant and I was assuming too much (what I hate most about typing is the absence of voice and the intentions behind it). Anyways, my aim is not to debate anymore because I can tell we have two different view points. The entire Old Testament sets the stage for a savior, a messiah. This is because no one is righteous, not even one person....
@lnfiniteKnowledge And that is where I'm coming from. There is no one who lives a sound and moral life, no matter how hard they try. And that was also the point that Jesus was trying to get across in the New Testament. And yet His love for His children (us) is so strong that he still chose to redeem us even though we don't deserve it. God is so good and so holy and we are so rotten, yet through His great love we can know Him. And knowing Him brings utmost joy and satisfaction.
We have nothing to be redeemed from. There's nothing wrong with being human, and I'm sorry to see they've convinced you that our species is somehow rotten and perverted to the point that we have to be born again.
I was born OK the first time, and so were you. They wounded you in order to sell you a bandaid.
@BohemianBlasphemy Actually, it's not that anyone had to convince me that we need redemption. Take a look at the world we live in--everyone's lives are a mess. An absolute tragic mess. We try to live great lives and they end up being pitiful. Even the little good that we do, is minute in comparison to what we know we are made to live like. We dream big, have high hopes, act invincible, and yet deep down I know (and I know others do too) that we yearn for a deeper meaning and satisfaction.
Today's world is wonderful compared to how it was: We don't force kids to work like at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, life expectancy keeps getting longer and longer, our food is cleaner than ever and today a poor child being born in India is more likely to get to be 90 that a king being born in Europe 200 years ago. We are progressing as a society towards fairness, we know more, we are healthier. The world is improving.
@BohemianBlasphemy I don't know if e-mail alerts you of this, but this is a great discussion and instead of posting, due to room, I messaged you via YouTube.
Just food for thought: Often we think of the God of Christianity as a being who is grossly egotistical, and in the words of Dan Barker, some kind of dictator/ fragile/ inept parent who needs our praise, when actually the opposite is true. Reality is that, whether one wants to admit it or not, we need this God, not the opposite. What if knowing, praising, and realizing that there is a God out there who created us brings us utmost joy.
i really hate debates in this format. it drives me crazy to be cut off mid-thought, and just watching someone get cut off by a moderator mid-thought irks the hell out of me. i really, really disagree with D'Souza, but i still want to hear his arguments to completion. i really wish moderators would just shut up and let the debaters argue, stepping in only when things get out of hand.
Ya know, they're both right. Both of these men are well educated, verbally articulate, and gifted orators that have quite obviously devoted a great deal of time and thought to these questions. Throwing mud at one or the other solves nothing. If you were actually listening, you heard two coherent arguments about the same thing that differed poignantly. Consider the quantum revelation. Shouldn't this be par for the course? The answer to the debate is: There is no debate!
As opposed to what some may think atheists do not struggle with morality. If you haven't been brought up by wolves you know pretty much what's right and wrong without the help of Jesus. Jesus thought slavery was cool, BTW, not to mention killing his enemies and hating his family. Some moral teacher.
Very enlightening comments by Dan Barker on most everything discussed. On the other side, I didn't actually hear Dinesh ANSWER any of the audience questions proposed to him. Politicians tell you to always answer the question you WANT to be asked, which is what occured in Dinesh's case. Dinesh can't answer simple direct questions, due to his complete lack of evidence, logic,or rational argument to back up any of his claims in support of his pet deity. If the universe needs a creator why not god.
You are so right, coil. Dinesh verbally ambles around, shows off his memorized quotes from books, and so often never actually gets around to answering a question. Directness and succinctness are not in his talent bag.
In one of the earlier parts of this debate, when Dinesh was supposed to asking Dan Barker a question, he went into lecture mode to get his point across and had to be prompted to stay with the program and ask a question.
It's incomprehensible how I, a pathetic good for nothing human being, can not believe in the all-loving magic-man who sends me to an eternity of torture for being what he supposedly created me to be.
Dinesh 2:31 "So you want proofs of god? There's one that is sitting within your head."
Hmm, yes, the stuff people come up with in their own mind to convince themselves there is actually a god. The "proof" they rely on is only in their own head. Every person who believes in a god, creates that god within their own mind. Gives a whole new meaning to "personal god".
He may have been alluding to the idea that what's in your own head is not merely atoms reacting with atoms. Afterall, what does current physics and chemistry tell us about mind & consciousness? Despite all we know about how *stuff* works (materialism), we have yet to obtain anything other than speculation about *mind* based on scientific materialism.
"we should be good for goodness' sake" lol. The one thing atheists seem to struggle with most is morality. In an indifferent universe, I fail to see how something contrary to that could arise. I think the more consistent atheists' say morality is a convention of society.
anybody who doesn't think barker won this needs a quick lesson in rational thought. Here we go. In order to prove a positive claim(god) you need evidence. When all your evidence is shown not be evidence as there are more likely theories that fit this evidence, anythings more likely than supernatural, your evidence goes out the window. No evidence goes back to the null hypothesis, no god. Hence Barker won and this is what happens here and in all debates.
Throughout the entire debate, Dinesh said absolutely NOTHING to justify his claims on Christianity, while Dan made his point understandable and did it in an eloquent fashion. Cheers for Dan!
Any comments on whose point of view was served by this bad debate format? I think Dinesh did more to expose the limited format than Dan Barker did. Perhaps Dan Barker's point of view is served better by 'pat' answers. I suspect Dinesh would have benefited more greatly if allowed answers of greater depth.
I love how Christians like to speak of scientific topics with conviction and authority despite their extremely feeble education in them. Why should someone with a P.H.D in biology listen to what someone who never graduated high school say about evolutionary biology. See, unfortunately for Christians I have both a Masters in biology and in theology. So I am able to annhilate any Christian with the use of science and their own scriptures concomitantly. I embrace my ability to utilize scripture. ha
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
firstly thing dinesh came up with more scientific facts that actually support his argument something the atheist prides themeself by doing and which bark only slightly did. secondly and more concrete factually is that atheist are in the minority and only God knows why ;)
I think if there was more time to answer questions, Dan Barker would have blown D'Souza out of the water. I think Barker ended very well, saying how we should not do good deeds for the love of Christ, but for goodness sake. Yes, it IS more authentic if we do it for the sake of humanity, not Christ.
This is such a horribly hypocritical statement. If you do it for goodness sake you are still not doing it for the sake of the recipient but for the sake of the ideal of "goodness," which ironically presupposes the idea of some sort of transcendent standard. If there is no transcendent standard then the idea of goodness is merely subjective and not one that can be used to posit the supposed superiority of agape over selfishness. The statement is self contradictory, end of story.
@ocja0201 It's not hypocritical when you are doing something good solely for the sake of humanity ("for goodness sake" or "because it is the right thing to do") but if you do goodness because some holy guy will reward you and that is your main motivation, then that is a selfish act.
Doing good for the sake of humanity? The Herero and Namaqua Genocide, The Armenian Genocide, The Assyrian Genocide, The Parsley Massacre, The Expulsion of Germans after World War II, The Rwandan Genocide, The Sabra and Shatila massacre, The Helmet Massacre of the Tikuna people, The Srebrenica Genocide, The conflict between Darfur, Sudan. :) Nazism, The Soviet Union... Jesus has a better record I have to say and I am going to make you say it. Does Jesus have a better record, Yes/no? Please.
@ThoughtGazeCarlos atheism is just unbelief in god. No other tenets come with it. Atheists are still susceptible to hatred, bigotry, etc, but since there are no dictates from atheism, it is not responsible for those faults. Religion is different. We shouldn't hold religion responsible for atrocities that don't follow from its teachings (even if the offenders SAY it's in the name of religion). But many of these atrocities are dictates FROM religion, and it SHOULD be held responsible for those.
@bossmonkeykj Ummmm...very insightful comment--yours. But my previous comment was to juxtapose Jesus and humanity and not about the concern over the tenets of atheism and Christianity. Clearly Jesus has a better record; I would have a much better predisposition to good in the name of Christ than in the name of humanity--given their records. That is all I said hence your point was moot.
@ThoughtGazeCarlos My history is lacking, so I can't cite examples or comment on the ones you've mentioned, but around 600-1000 die of AIDS in South Africa alone every day because of the lies spread by the Catholic church about condoms. Also, Hitler's Christianity is debatable.
There have also been studies done that the most atheistic societies have the lowest crime rates. We can cite examples back and forth all day, but it's more important to debate on the ideological level.
@ThoughtGazeCarlos I will say again, I'm no history expert. I've cited what I know. And religion can't lay claim to all human morality. You really think that the Jews had no idea it was wrong to steal, kill, etc before reaching Mt. Sinai? Our morality has evolved (we take what is good from our religion and ignore the bad, like slavery, based on secular decisions). What I'm saying is the origin of the good you claim comes from Jesus isn't as black and white as you'd like to think.
@ThoughtGazeCarlos You are asking for us to compare the evils of all humanity to that of your imaginary friend. Even if you were to take an average of how many people have been killed versus how many of us have lived without killing, or using some measurement of sin to come out to the conclusion that the general populace has sinned, therefore we are all sinners... it is still a weighted comparison. Instead you should ask us to present our greatest, most void of sin, atheist to combat your Jesus.
The debate format SUCKED. Wasn't enough time for in depth answers to questions. Better to have less questions and more time to address them. D'Souza did a great job -- I give him the win.
Once again, my respect for Dan Barker grows, and my respect for Dinesh D'Souza weakens. I watched these debates after reading his book, and my conclusion is the same. He may be a fine political scientist, but as a defender of Christianity, he is immature, incoherent, and lacking in ability to directly answer questions. The same reasoning he uses to defend one area can be used to defeat his arguments in other areas. Just read his section on miracles and cause & effect.
Watch the recent debate. Dinesh really ands it to the old man. His debating skills are better, and he has the intelligence to withstand all these atheists attacking his faith.
Immature, incoherent, AND lacking in ability to directly answer questions? Wow, that's a mouthful. And the first two don't even sound remotely true. Do you have rectal itch or something because you just sound like you're in a bad mood.
Atheism is not an intellectual position. It is an emotional position. The only difference between the Christian and the atheist is that the atheist doesn't WANT God.
I'm just going to assume it was and go to sleep. Oh, and Dinesh D'Souza is an intellectual hack who made a fool of himself in this debate against a much more rational and biblically knowledgeable opponent.
You are a moron! His view that Science operates according to faith-based principles is intellectual high treason.
His views that human behavior, which would be summed up into one word, morality, have a supernatural basis defy all logic. Human behavior is a natural process, which needs a natural explanation. A confluence of ideas from fields as varying as Psychology, Cognitive Science, Linguistics, Sociology, .etc are what that explain human behavior. Not God.
"We are either primates in a Darwinian sense or we are primates with a soul", says Dinesh. Well, all the priest, cardinals, popes and bible bashers in the world wrapped into one haven't been able to deny Darwin's theory of evolution. Hey, but this guy thinks he's got the answer... Get real!!
Homo sapiens is the only known species that is capable of mass genocide! How arrogant of Dinesh to presume that we are somehow above other species simply because we are ignorant enough to be believe in some sort of celestial supervisor. Mind boggles!
The crux of Dinesh's argument seems to be that atheists can't explain everything i.e. the beginnings/workings of the universe. So be it. But that doesn't automatically mean his conception of God is responsible. Why can't it be the flying spaghetti monster?
when i was a christian i never really thought it through, but think about it : christianity is based on the principle of human sacrifice. To be a christian is to believe that somehow, in some speicific situations, if certain criteria is met, then the act of sacrificing a human being DOES SOMETHING. its kind of hard to preach about asbolute truth out of one side of your mouth and then explain how jesus was SMOTE ON THE CROSS out the other side of your mouth.
absurd. all dinesh did was present one of the following : incorrect information. or strawmen of darwinism. example : he seems to think that darwinism predicts that human beings behave like cavemen, or dogs.clearly he is the one playing devils advocate ( or devils ignorant, in this case), yet he accuses barker of playing ignorant in his criticisms.I mean, all dinesh really said that was true was about how religion has done great good in the past. christianity is twisted, man. you cant argue that.
Barker was wrong about Christ's statement, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Her's an example of a separation of spiritual and civic obligations.
Also, I think Dinesh was correct, when he said Barker was just playing feeble minded, making general observations like a 5 year old. No Bible student who makes those hermeneutic errors.
A 20 year preacher knows better, but in the interests of debate, he would rather score points by acting incoherent.
dinesh said a lot of things that were just flat out wrong. ( the universe requires a designer because it is a "thing"... niga please. christianity is the reason for modern morality... niga please. evolution doesnt explain altruism .... NIGA PLEASE.) i understand totally barkers position, I was raised a christian for almost 20 years until I slowly opened my eyes to the truth. THE MORE REASON YOU APPLY TO CHRISTIANITY, THE LESS SENSE IT MAKES. I DARE YOU TO DO SO, THERE IS NO HELL TO FEAR MY FREND
I have watched all of these debates and the only atheist who did well was probably Peter Singer, he is a pretty solid thinker in my opinion despite holding despicable opinions. Michael Shermer seems like he doesn't truly believe what he says he believes, Dennett throws out elementary criticisms laced with elitism, Hitchens although funny is not objective and is often too rhetorical. Peter Singer on the other hand shows a desire for objectivity and is also the most consistent in his views.
Dinesh was really muzzled this time. If he were allowed to explain some of the questions he was interrupted on he would have widened the gap of this victory. However, the playing field was even for both men.
Dinesh is extremely intelligent, this is obvious. From what I see, Dan Barker does not clearly assess his own arguments to ascertain the validity behind them, instead he totally criticizes religion while being completely inconsistent while doing so. If he believes there is no God, he should act accordingly. In otherwords, go outside and ride a bike or something, not waste your mental capacity arguing these trivial matters.
Dan Barker has clearly won this debate without a shadow of doubt, Dinesh D'Souza evaded most questions, but the ones that he did answer he answered with great intelligence
I dont even think this was a debate. It seemed to be putting both up for 'cross examination'. I agree with dan barkers ultimate position, Dinesh D'Souza offered nothing insightful and gave me nothing thoughtful so I agree, Dan Barker won.
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is." ---Unknown
If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.
The response for any seeker is: because it's True. As CS Lewis points out in the essay cited above: Christianity claims to give an account of facts—to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer.
again,good job dan.i thougth ,by the way he introduced himself,dinesh,would make me change my position about atheism,he didn't.he acted like a very smart guy,but he ended up looking like a fool in the way he answered the questions.i know he's intelligent and knows a lot,but he just coulnd't make his point.
its in the head meaning our magnificent brain with its billions of neurons and synapses are intricate and complex that it couldnt come about by chance but by a creator
Not by chance, nobody says the brain formed by chance! unless of course you're a wish thinker. It was time,( eons, millions of years ) mutation, natural selection that resulted in the organ we know as "the brain". No magic tricks involved. Ladies and gentleman i give you - the brain, by chance vincenz55 happened on one, now can somebody tell me where the "on" button is for it or does somebody have a remote control. Maybe they do, think, reason and discard superstition, you'll be happier.
mutations my ass..if you beleive the brain mutated into what it is now then your the biggest beleiver in fairy tales in the universe..what a joke statement i have ever ever heard.first of all to say time has by chance and selection put itself together would be such an enormous undertaking and the probability so small that it would be easier for humpty dumpty to put himself together exactly the same way a billion times over and over than for the brain to have been produced by chance. NO PROOF
But thats the attraction of Christianity:You can say how great it is in teaching values,but if you act like a jerk you are empowered by the sense that your behavior was excused 2,000 years ago by a man dying.There is no reason to be concerned that such primitive ideas are still being promoted by the religion buisness,or is there?
omg I am so glad this debate is over... the format was driving me up the wall, I can't believe one or the other of the speakers didn't get up and walk out lol.
I respect Dinesh's attempt at approaching atheists on their ground. I don't think that he succeeds in it though; not sure it's possible. Dan Barker is an interesting character, having been a former minister type. Dinesh attacks Dawkins/Hitchens because he cannot argue with Barker's loss of faith.
anyone that thinks kaboobi was the victor in this debate, is flat out wrong. Dan Barker is refreshingly succicnt and hands down showed intellegence trumps feudal fundamentalism.
"See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more [shall not] we [escape], if we turn away from him that [speaketh] from heaven:" (Heb 12:25)
We have OBSERVED non-life becoming simple life via chemical reaction at volcanic vents on the ocean floor. We have replicated the conditions that existed chemically in the laboratory and it is from there where the term 'chemical soup' came from. Sounds sort of hodgepodge but the experiment itself was not. Until another theory comes into existence that has better explanatory power and can make accurate predictions, superior to the current theory the it will be accepted. Until such time....
The chemical soup experiments were based on estimated temperment conditions and atmosphere gases, and these were used to the advantage of making the cells. Get the facts straight and look farther then the results.
First of all, I have looked at the facts. Your fundie propaganda of it being a 'fixed' experiment to get the results they wanted is ridiculous. That's not how peer-review works. Every other scientist is looking to rip their work to shreds. Furthermore, that does not explain the OBSERVED events on the ocean floor and the volcanic vents. So YOU can get YOUR facts straight, junior.
There is no Darwinian morality, why would their be such a thing. It would make no sense not even for a Darwinian, molecules to morality, why do we have such an inbuilt sense of right and wrong? Where did conscience come from and why does it have such amazing power? But we must try and explain it because it is something that exists and is important to all of us. What we accept as a proper explanation for this question, should challenge us to be more aware of the eternal not just the primal.
this was a pretty bad debate for both sides. how do you expect either one of these guys to dive into such deep and profound questions and give satisfactory answers in just two minutes? and then rebut someone in 30-45 seconds? i think harvard created a pretty terrible forum for a debate. these guys arent debating what the best flavor of gum is! you need more time to elaborate and bring out a high quality, thought provoking answer.
Perhaps you think Barker trashed D'souza in this debate because you agree with Barkers point... Just as a Christian would hold the opposite opinion... thats quite obvious.
Wolves have advanced morals. They have rules and regulations.
Why does he not get it? More intelligence yields more morals. More inquisition. That's why we want to know how everything works. Intelligence is what got us through our earlier evolution. The side effect is we want to know everything.
Mother Teresa was atheist. Read her journals and letters. "I cannot feel His love, no matter how I try. There is nothing". Those are her words.
Who else thinks that moderator is an a**hole?
hyperstone6 4 months ago
Amazing how mean spirited Dinesh was towards Dan Barker.Some Cristian...
rubstrol 5 months ago 3
@rubstrol i know,and no wonder he needs a book on morals
haris1254 4 months ago
@ThoughtGazeCarlos In addition I believe that if you are allowed to present your imaginary friend, it would only be fair if we presented you with some of our own.
ShrodingerFu 7 months ago
Is D'Sousa for real? Why would he implicate Dan in his rape scenario? Has he no sense of decency? His thinly veiled personal attacks reveal a very telling desperation, and a poorly constituted character.
drreiserer 9 months ago 6
@drreiserer I was embarrassed by that
hyperstone6 4 months ago
@drreiserer "Why would he implicate Dan in his rape scenario? Has he no sense of decency?"
Dinesh is exposing the "indecency" of the atheistic view that we are merely biological machines without purpose except for maybe survival. Survival for what? For production and reproduction. For what? to survive. And around it goes. Rape isn't wrong in atheism. That is the indecency.
peace
dwheel39 1 month ago
His entire argument hinges on appeal to emotion. People like this are harmful without even knowing that they are. He's a fast-talking car salesman that walks you around to the side of the car without the big ding in it, hoping you might not notice it.
Klynx22 9 months ago
less questions and more time to answer them would have been good. dinesh, in one minute tell me why you think the bible his historically reliable - pretty ridiculous.
but nevertheless a great debate - i stayed up til 2am to watch it, and got a lot out of it. thanks for uploading.
BozoTheBear 11 months ago
Is D'Sousa speaking nonsense or is it my impression?
Do you have the same feeling?
sokolel 1 year ago
@sokolel
No, I don't think D'Sousa is speaking nonsense. He's clearly a very good debater and intelligent guy who is defending his religious beliefs. So saying that he doesn't in anyway convince me in the existence of God.
Zenhumanist 1 year ago
The worst moderated debate on the issue I have ever seen. If dogmatic keeping time is more important than allowing debators to finish their statements so that we can get a deeper and better knowledge on the subject, than the whole purpose of debate is missing.
PitBoruta 1 year ago 2
These moderators and the shitty format is pathetic. Harvard needs to do better.
DTBSAI 1 year ago
I was recently in a debate with dinesh and michael shermer the founder of skeptic magazine i think that dan did a much better job he is stupendous, i saw the entire debate and i hated the moderators. AND its true once you see D'souza debate once you see the same over and over
octavoch 1 year ago
@octavoch yes, all d'souza debates are the same, but then again, so are all hitchens debates
bossmonkeykj 9 months ago
I listened to all 15 of these and I honestly think D'Souza got his ass kicked. His case was just incredibly weaker and less convincing.
jpdistef 1 year ago 4
Oh, Dinesh, Dinesh... You don't understand evolution, you don't understand philosophy, you love to misrepresent, to misinterpret, and just plain to lie. A typical Christian lier.
Dan Barker on the other side is probably one of the best debaters and one of the most intellectually honest atheists I've ever heard
yegorletoff 1 year ago 2
No one ever found his body. Many witnesses then saw him in his resurrected form, and went on to fall on their knees in belief, and spread the word to thousands. This is when the church flourished. It grew by the thousands! Why didn't anyone question it then? I'm sure they did! But something was going on. Not one person could disprove this was all bogus, and many were mysteriously coming to belief in this Jesus Christ, just as people are today.
Merely some food for thought.
kimls21 1 year ago
Finally: We all want evidence. One of the most incredible pieces of evidence is the beginning of the Christian church. Jesus Christ was buried in a tomb, and when his family went in to bury him, he wasn't there.
kimls21 1 year ago
Also, our hearts are absolutely broken when these relationships crumble. This really shows us something.
kimls21 1 year ago
@kimls21 Yeah, that we're broken when these relationships crumble.
That's about what you said. You've said nothing, therefore, your example shows us nothing - not something. What exactly does it show YOU?
klmls21, it is very possible to admire, love, care, and praise for something that isn't real - while we're genuinely under the impression it is real - and from this false belief one can obtain this utmost joy you speak of.
Would you view it the same if this was a the case?
lnfiniteKnowledge 1 year ago
What if this God knows that our praising, knowing, and loving him brings us this utmost joy and therefore he pursues us consistently. Then the relationship between God and man is no longer that of an egotistically, fragile dictator and his followers, but rather a relationship based on love, joy, and fulfillment. The irony is that we thrive in these types of relationships. Look at marriage, dating, friendships, etc. We crave relationships like this.
kimls21 1 year ago
@kimls21 @kimls21 Would you still feel this way if this feeling of utmost joy turns out to come from just an imagination that this god is real? The feeling IS very real, klmls21. However, this feeling of utmost joy doesn't automatically assign its cause to a god.
And even if it did, how do you assign this joy to the god of the bible? What about Allah, Krishna, Thor, and the likes? How are you connecting the dots to Christianity?
I'm glad you said "what if" but you didn't end with a "?."
lnfiniteKnowledge 1 year ago
@lnfiniteKnowledge Well, it would take me many more words that YouTube allows me to discuss this. However, if I could be brief, the God of the Bible is the only God that saves His people despite their horrendous mistakes and despicable lives. All other religions are attempting to attain a holiness, and yet the God of the Bible says that is impossible, yet that God is strong enough to save you and literally change you. That is indescribable (the change) but it happens all the time, and...
kimls21 1 year ago
@kimls21 Read what you're writing. And then listen to the voice in your head as you're writing what you'll write next; " . . . the God of the Bible is the only God that saves His people despite their horrendous mistakes and despicable lives," right - if you accept Jesus as your savior. How about those of us that didn't do horrendous "mistakes" or lived dispicable lives, but refused to accept Jesus as our savior? Why are we sentenced to eternal hell?
lnfiniteKnowledge 1 year ago
@kimls21 So your god decides to forgive those who ask for forgiveness (thereby accepting Jesus as their savior), no matter how horrible and immoral of a life they lived, and condem those who lived a sound and moral life simply because they reject Jesus as their lord and savior?
I don't know. Your god does sound like an egotistical, dictator/ fragile/ inept parent who needs our praise.
lnfiniteKnowledge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lnfiniteKnowledge Well, it would take me many more words that YouTube allows me to discuss this. However, if I could be brief, the God of the Bible is the only God that saves His people despite their horrendous mistakes and despicable lives. All other religions are attempting to attain a holiness, and yet the God of the Bible says that is impossible, yet that God is strong enough to save you and literally change you. That is indescribable (the change) but it happens all the time, and...
kimls21 1 year ago
@lnfiniteKnowledge And I am living proof that although sometimes it is hard to explain or even understand, when I read the Bible and then follow it, rather than follow the opposite, I realize how good God is, and how he wants good for us. Also, it is possible that God is not real, but I think it takes more faith to believe that. And imagine for a moment that He is not real, then there is no point in life or no hope, and we can all do whatever we want with reckless abondon...
kimls21 1 year ago
@kimls21 @kimls21 If your god is real, then there's no point in life. The only point to our lives would be his, not our own. We are born sinners, as your book says, and our sole purpose is to accept our sins and beg for forgiveness. In that process we proove our faithfulness to this god. What purpose is there for YOU in any of that? You're just an IOU, slaving away prayers in hopes of reedeming the trust ruined by Eve.
lnfiniteKnowledge 1 year ago
@lnfiniteKnowledge Yet, living like that causes a lot of pain. Don't take my word, pick up a Bible at a local book store, and read for yourself. It is an incredible book, filled not only with law, and seemingly old stories (as most think, and I did myself at one point), but stories that will blow you away, poems and songs that touch your heart, words of wisdom that ring true, unbelievably romantic analogies, and the evidence of a God who loves, forgives, and redeems through the entire Bible.
kimls21 1 year ago
@kimls21 Here your Christian arrogance shines. As if to say, I hold my position only because I haven't picked up a bible. And picking one up, would answer all my question as it has yours. Wrong.
I have picked the bible up. I have read through it thoroughly; front to back, over and over. And I confidently say no one will ever understand or comprehend that book. Not because it's of divine origin, but because it's a pile of crap contradictions.
lnfiniteKnowledge 1 year ago 2
@lnfiniteKnowledge I apologize if I sounded arrogant...I really didn't mean to, and looking at it, that did sound pretty arrogant and I was assuming too much (what I hate most about typing is the absence of voice and the intentions behind it). Anyways, my aim is not to debate anymore because I can tell we have two different view points. The entire Old Testament sets the stage for a savior, a messiah. This is because no one is righteous, not even one person....
kimls21 1 year ago
@lnfiniteKnowledge And that is where I'm coming from. There is no one who lives a sound and moral life, no matter how hard they try. And that was also the point that Jesus was trying to get across in the New Testament. And yet His love for His children (us) is so strong that he still chose to redeem us even though we don't deserve it. God is so good and so holy and we are so rotten, yet through His great love we can know Him. And knowing Him brings utmost joy and satisfaction.
kimls21 1 year ago
@kimls21
We have nothing to be redeemed from. There's nothing wrong with being human, and I'm sorry to see they've convinced you that our species is somehow rotten and perverted to the point that we have to be born again.
I was born OK the first time, and so were you. They wounded you in order to sell you a bandaid.
BohemianBlasphemy 1 year ago 3
@BohemianBlasphemy Actually, it's not that anyone had to convince me that we need redemption. Take a look at the world we live in--everyone's lives are a mess. An absolute tragic mess. We try to live great lives and they end up being pitiful. Even the little good that we do, is minute in comparison to what we know we are made to live like. We dream big, have high hopes, act invincible, and yet deep down I know (and I know others do too) that we yearn for a deeper meaning and satisfaction.
kimls21 1 year ago
@kimls21
Today's world is wonderful compared to how it was: We don't force kids to work like at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, life expectancy keeps getting longer and longer, our food is cleaner than ever and today a poor child being born in India is more likely to get to be 90 that a king being born in Europe 200 years ago. We are progressing as a society towards fairness, we know more, we are healthier. The world is improving.
Your religion makes you focus on the negative.
BohemianBlasphemy 1 year ago 4
@BohemianBlasphemy I don't know if e-mail alerts you of this, but this is a great discussion and instead of posting, due to room, I messaged you via YouTube.
kimls21 1 year ago
Just food for thought: Often we think of the God of Christianity as a being who is grossly egotistical, and in the words of Dan Barker, some kind of dictator/ fragile/ inept parent who needs our praise, when actually the opposite is true. Reality is that, whether one wants to admit it or not, we need this God, not the opposite. What if knowing, praising, and realizing that there is a God out there who created us brings us utmost joy.
kimls21 1 year ago
What a poorly moderated debate. The two men were constantly being cut off mid sentence.
resedoton 1 year ago
i really hate debates in this format. it drives me crazy to be cut off mid-thought, and just watching someone get cut off by a moderator mid-thought irks the hell out of me. i really, really disagree with D'Souza, but i still want to hear his arguments to completion. i really wish moderators would just shut up and let the debaters argue, stepping in only when things get out of hand.
Error302 1 year ago
At 0:19 I smelled the bullshit and I stopped the video.
Dragos1591 1 year ago
GAY Moderators, fucking idiots
TheWinepusher 1 year ago 2
You know what, I'm gonna fuck for fucks sake.
hawklanzs 1 year ago
@hawklanzs , I do that and I'm religious! :-)
99minerkc 1 year ago
Wow! Dan Barker really kicked Dinesh's ass!
projectptube 2 years ago 2
Dinesh D'Souza could step in bullshit and come up smelling like a rose. Either that, or sell ice cubes to Eskimos.
filthyphillyboy 2 years ago
Ya know, they're both right. Both of these men are well educated, verbally articulate, and gifted orators that have quite obviously devoted a great deal of time and thought to these questions. Throwing mud at one or the other solves nothing. If you were actually listening, you heard two coherent arguments about the same thing that differed poignantly. Consider the quantum revelation. Shouldn't this be par for the course? The answer to the debate is: There is no debate!
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
As opposed to what some may think atheists do not struggle with morality. If you haven't been brought up by wolves you know pretty much what's right and wrong without the help of Jesus. Jesus thought slavery was cool, BTW, not to mention killing his enemies and hating his family. Some moral teacher.
SFTor1 2 years ago
Very enlightening comments by Dan Barker on most everything discussed. On the other side, I didn't actually hear Dinesh ANSWER any of the audience questions proposed to him. Politicians tell you to always answer the question you WANT to be asked, which is what occured in Dinesh's case. Dinesh can't answer simple direct questions, due to his complete lack of evidence, logic,or rational argument to back up any of his claims in support of his pet deity. If the universe needs a creator why not god.
coil311 2 years ago 3
You are so right, coil. Dinesh verbally ambles around, shows off his memorized quotes from books, and so often never actually gets around to answering a question. Directness and succinctness are not in his talent bag.
In one of the earlier parts of this debate, when Dinesh was supposed to asking Dan Barker a question, he went into lecture mode to get his point across and had to be prompted to stay with the program and ask a question.
In summary, Dinesh D'Souza is quite the windbag.
Turandot29 2 years ago 2
BARKER NAILED THAT FUCKING PAKI
flush80 2 years ago
I have no deep love of Dinesh D'Souza but he is not a Paki, as you assert with so much derision.
Turandot29 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'ts amazing the blindness that happens when a person refuses to humble themselves before the creator.
Esandero 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Be good for goodness sake LOLOLOLOL.
You better watch out , you better not cry LOL.
HE KNOWS IF YOU BEEN BAD OR GOOD """SO BE GOOD FOR GOODNESS SAKE""""
A fairy tale is the bases for atheist morality..... Anyone expect something else? nope!
Esandero 2 years ago
"A fairy tale is the bases for atheist morality."
Well, that's what Dinesh is arguing, at least.
mrbluesky323 2 years ago
I know!
All hail CHRONOS!
mrbluesky323 2 years ago
It's incomprehensible how I, a pathetic good for nothing human being, can not believe in the all-loving magic-man who sends me to an eternity of torture for being what he supposedly created me to be.
Dragos1591 2 years ago 3
You shouldn't think so low of yourself, dude.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
I don't. I was mocking Christianity.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
And I was being funny.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
Evidently, you failed.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
No I didn't. You failed to have a sense of humor. There's a difference.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
Or maybe it's just not funny. You should try to consider that possibility.
Dragos1591 2 years ago
Pehaps a bit dry, but funny none the less.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
good one
punnet2 1 year ago
Dinesh 2:31 "So you want proofs of god? There's one that is sitting within your head."
Hmm, yes, the stuff people come up with in their own mind to convince themselves there is actually a god. The "proof" they rely on is only in their own head. Every person who believes in a god, creates that god within their own mind. Gives a whole new meaning to "personal god".
gettingfreeftw 2 years ago
He may have been alluding to the idea that what's in your own head is not merely atoms reacting with atoms. Afterall, what does current physics and chemistry tell us about mind & consciousness? Despite all we know about how *stuff* works (materialism), we have yet to obtain anything other than speculation about *mind* based on scientific materialism.
horsie111 2 years ago
"we should be good for goodness' sake" lol. The one thing atheists seem to struggle with most is morality. In an indifferent universe, I fail to see how something contrary to that could arise. I think the more consistent atheists' say morality is a convention of society.
dannynatizzle 2 years ago 2
This was overall a crappy debate, in which no progress was made in either direction. But then again, most debates are like this.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago 2
Oh man, lol. I honestly can't believe how incompetent D'Souza's arguments are. It baffles me!
stellar876 2 years ago
Good point Dan.
Neondub 2 years ago
anybody who doesn't think barker won this needs a quick lesson in rational thought. Here we go. In order to prove a positive claim(god) you need evidence. When all your evidence is shown not be evidence as there are more likely theories that fit this evidence, anythings more likely than supernatural, your evidence goes out the window. No evidence goes back to the null hypothesis, no god. Hence Barker won and this is what happens here and in all debates.
izbo10 2 years ago 2
Throughout the entire debate, Dinesh said absolutely NOTHING to justify his claims on Christianity, while Dan made his point understandable and did it in an eloquent fashion. Cheers for Dan!
In the end, Atheism ultimately wins.
AlmightySparks 2 years ago
Any comments on whose point of view was served by this bad debate format? I think Dinesh did more to expose the limited format than Dan Barker did. Perhaps Dan Barker's point of view is served better by 'pat' answers. I suspect Dinesh would have benefited more greatly if allowed answers of greater depth.
horsie111 2 years ago
I love how Christians like to speak of scientific topics with conviction and authority despite their extremely feeble education in them. Why should someone with a P.H.D in biology listen to what someone who never graduated high school say about evolutionary biology. See, unfortunately for Christians I have both a Masters in biology and in theology. So I am able to annhilate any Christian with the use of science and their own scriptures concomitantly. I embrace my ability to utilize scripture. ha
vroika 2 years ago 2
wow, you're really smart
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
Dinesh would do himself a favour if he took a course in Evolutionary Psychology. He would have many of his confusions about human behaviour answered.
imaccuish 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow if there is no God no heaven or hell no devil. THen everyone has nothing to worry about!. Hehehe. Really cool huh!
BUT
if there really is one....Atheist are fucked. FUCKED!
hawklanzs 2 years ago
Wow, Dinesh really knows how to twist and distort evolution
Nades129 2 years ago 2
Explain your metaphor... what do you mean he "fell" into "darkness".
thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks =)
hogansch 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
firstly thing dinesh came up with more scientific facts that actually support his argument something the atheist prides themeself by doing and which bark only slightly did. secondly and more concrete factually is that atheist are in the minority and only God knows why ;)
mwhahahahaha
wirinonoa 2 years ago
huh?
hogansch 2 years ago 2
You should at least try at punctuation and grammar.
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago
And again, wirinonoa gives credence to the notion of the bullying theist. The mock-evil laughter does nothing to hide this.
And again, Dinesh says nothing at all, but very convincingly. Barker maintains a calm eloquence and remains articulate throughout.
infideluxe 2 years ago 3
What did dinesh say scientifically that supported the argument for christianity?
araless 2 years ago 3
D'Souza ALWAYS gets his ass kicked in these things. He's such a glutton for punishment.
subversivemedia 2 years ago 25
Do good for goodness sake! heheh
CruSaD3Rs 2 years ago 2
I think if there was more time to answer questions, Dan Barker would have blown D'Souza out of the water. I think Barker ended very well, saying how we should not do good deeds for the love of Christ, but for goodness sake. Yes, it IS more authentic if we do it for the sake of humanity, not Christ.
smeezh 2 years ago 26
@smeezh
This is such a horribly hypocritical statement. If you do it for goodness sake you are still not doing it for the sake of the recipient but for the sake of the ideal of "goodness," which ironically presupposes the idea of some sort of transcendent standard. If there is no transcendent standard then the idea of goodness is merely subjective and not one that can be used to posit the supposed superiority of agape over selfishness. The statement is self contradictory, end of story.
ocja0201 1 year ago
@ocja0201 It's not hypocritical when you are doing something good solely for the sake of humanity ("for goodness sake" or "because it is the right thing to do") but if you do goodness because some holy guy will reward you and that is your main motivation, then that is a selfish act.
ladypyramidhead 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
ThoughtGazeCarlos 9 months ago
Doing good for the sake of humanity? The Herero and Namaqua Genocide, The Armenian Genocide, The Assyrian Genocide, The Parsley Massacre, The Expulsion of Germans after World War II, The Rwandan Genocide, The Sabra and Shatila massacre, The Helmet Massacre of the Tikuna people, The Srebrenica Genocide, The conflict between Darfur, Sudan. :) Nazism, The Soviet Union... Jesus has a better record I have to say and I am going to make you say it. Does Jesus have a better record, Yes/no? Please.
ThoughtGazeCarlos 9 months ago
@ThoughtGazeCarlos atheism is just unbelief in god. No other tenets come with it. Atheists are still susceptible to hatred, bigotry, etc, but since there are no dictates from atheism, it is not responsible for those faults. Religion is different. We shouldn't hold religion responsible for atrocities that don't follow from its teachings (even if the offenders SAY it's in the name of religion). But many of these atrocities are dictates FROM religion, and it SHOULD be held responsible for those.
bossmonkeykj 9 months ago
@bossmonkeykj Ummmm...very insightful comment--yours. But my previous comment was to juxtapose Jesus and humanity and not about the concern over the tenets of atheism and Christianity. Clearly Jesus has a better record; I would have a much better predisposition to good in the name of Christ than in the name of humanity--given their records. That is all I said hence your point was moot.
ThoughtGazeCarlos 9 months ago
@ThoughtGazeCarlos My history is lacking, so I can't cite examples or comment on the ones you've mentioned, but around 600-1000 die of AIDS in South Africa alone every day because of the lies spread by the Catholic church about condoms. Also, Hitler's Christianity is debatable.
There have also been studies done that the most atheistic societies have the lowest crime rates. We can cite examples back and forth all day, but it's more important to debate on the ideological level.
bossmonkeykj 8 months ago
@bossmonkeykj Are you intentionally dodging my question? I will ask it again to you more bluntly, whom has a better record: Jesus or humanity?
ThoughtGazeCarlos 8 months ago
@ThoughtGazeCarlos I will say again, I'm no history expert. I've cited what I know. And religion can't lay claim to all human morality. You really think that the Jews had no idea it was wrong to steal, kill, etc before reaching Mt. Sinai? Our morality has evolved (we take what is good from our religion and ignore the bad, like slavery, based on secular decisions). What I'm saying is the origin of the good you claim comes from Jesus isn't as black and white as you'd like to think.
bossmonkeykj 8 months ago
@ThoughtGazeCarlos You are asking for us to compare the evils of all humanity to that of your imaginary friend. Even if you were to take an average of how many people have been killed versus how many of us have lived without killing, or using some measurement of sin to come out to the conclusion that the general populace has sinned, therefore we are all sinners... it is still a weighted comparison. Instead you should ask us to present our greatest, most void of sin, atheist to combat your Jesus.
ShrodingerFu 7 months ago
The debate format SUCKED. Wasn't enough time for in depth answers to questions. Better to have less questions and more time to address them. D'Souza did a great job -- I give him the win.
bdeaner 2 years ago
Thanks, tothesource1, for posting this debate and others on your channel. I'm really enjoying them.
Turandot29 2 years ago
Once again, my respect for Dan Barker grows, and my respect for Dinesh D'Souza weakens. I watched these debates after reading his book, and my conclusion is the same. He may be a fine political scientist, but as a defender of Christianity, he is immature, incoherent, and lacking in ability to directly answer questions. The same reasoning he uses to defend one area can be used to defeat his arguments in other areas. Just read his section on miracles and cause & effect.
ummich10 2 years ago
You have to admit, however, that he does a darn good job of defending something he has no evidence for.
tighttritenight 2 years ago
Watch the recent debate. Dinesh really ands it to the old man. His debating skills are better, and he has the intelligence to withstand all these atheists attacking his faith.
princessdiana71 2 years ago
I'm sorry, he really (?) it to the old man?
He might have great intelligence, but I don't believe he used it to withstand anything.
ummich10 2 years ago
ummich10-
Immature, incoherent, AND lacking in ability to directly answer questions? Wow, that's a mouthful. And the first two don't even sound remotely true. Do you have rectal itch or something because you just sound like you're in a bad mood.
Atheism is not an intellectual position. It is an emotional position. The only difference between the Christian and the atheist is that the atheist doesn't WANT God.
Thumbs down if you agree!
ibepresodent 2 years ago
I hope this comment was intended as a joke.
I'm just going to assume it was and go to sleep. Oh, and Dinesh D'Souza is an intellectual hack who made a fool of himself in this debate against a much more rational and biblically knowledgeable opponent.
multard 2 years ago 3
Dinesh knows fuck all about the familial and social relationships of chimps.
DuctTapeMyFace 2 years ago 2
Behold DuctTapeMyFace, the expert on ethology, graciously granting us his presence on Youtube!
ibepresodent 2 years ago
Jane Goodall would be very dissapointed in D'souza's lack of understanding of the "ape kingdom".
hisdoodnes 2 years ago 7
DINESH DROP BLOWS ON THEM lol he sounded funny when he said Dan throws me blows
Voltajavi 2 years ago
Dan Barker says "we should be good for goodness sake?"
This is a line from a Santa Claus song!
What is good? your def. of good, or my def. of good?
jdautograph 2 years ago
definitely your definition of good.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
While I deeply respect Dinesh as a thinker and debater, I do think Barker won this debate.
basswiz2005 2 years ago 4
You are a moron! His view that Science operates according to faith-based principles is intellectual high treason.
His views that human behavior, which would be summed up into one word, morality, have a supernatural basis defy all logic. Human behavior is a natural process, which needs a natural explanation. A confluence of ideas from fields as varying as Psychology, Cognitive Science, Linguistics, Sociology, .etc are what that explain human behavior. Not God.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 years ago
If he doesn't believe in scientific evidence what makes his supernatural theory factual... Especially when he provides no evidence.
globalmigrant1 2 years ago
"We are either primates in a Darwinian sense or we are primates with a soul", says Dinesh. Well, all the priest, cardinals, popes and bible bashers in the world wrapped into one haven't been able to deny Darwin's theory of evolution. Hey, but this guy thinks he's got the answer... Get real!!
globalmigrant1 2 years ago
Homo sapiens is the only known species that is capable of mass genocide! How arrogant of Dinesh to presume that we are somehow above other species simply because we are ignorant enough to be believe in some sort of celestial supervisor. Mind boggles!
globalmigrant1 2 years ago
The crux of Dinesh's argument seems to be that atheists can't explain everything i.e. the beginnings/workings of the universe. So be it. But that doesn't automatically mean his conception of God is responsible. Why can't it be the flying spaghetti monster?
killerecho 2 years ago
when i was a christian i never really thought it through, but think about it : christianity is based on the principle of human sacrifice. To be a christian is to believe that somehow, in some speicific situations, if certain criteria is met, then the act of sacrificing a human being DOES SOMETHING. its kind of hard to preach about asbolute truth out of one side of your mouth and then explain how jesus was SMOTE ON THE CROSS out the other side of your mouth.
wragnar1122 3 years ago 3
absurd. all dinesh did was present one of the following : incorrect information. or strawmen of darwinism. example : he seems to think that darwinism predicts that human beings behave like cavemen, or dogs.clearly he is the one playing devils advocate ( or devils ignorant, in this case), yet he accuses barker of playing ignorant in his criticisms.I mean, all dinesh really said that was true was about how religion has done great good in the past. christianity is twisted, man. you cant argue that.
wragnar1122 3 years ago 2
Barker was wrong about Christ's statement, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Her's an example of a separation of spiritual and civic obligations.
Also, I think Dinesh was correct, when he said Barker was just playing feeble minded, making general observations like a 5 year old. No Bible student who makes those hermeneutic errors.
A 20 year preacher knows better, but in the interests of debate, he would rather score points by acting incoherent.
Kazae02 3 years ago
dinesh said a lot of things that were just flat out wrong. ( the universe requires a designer because it is a "thing"... niga please. christianity is the reason for modern morality... niga please. evolution doesnt explain altruism .... NIGA PLEASE.) i understand totally barkers position, I was raised a christian for almost 20 years until I slowly opened my eyes to the truth. THE MORE REASON YOU APPLY TO CHRISTIANITY, THE LESS SENSE IT MAKES. I DARE YOU TO DO SO, THERE IS NO HELL TO FEAR MY FREND
wragnar1122 3 years ago
I have watched all of these debates and the only atheist who did well was probably Peter Singer, he is a pretty solid thinker in my opinion despite holding despicable opinions. Michael Shermer seems like he doesn't truly believe what he says he believes, Dennett throws out elementary criticisms laced with elitism, Hitchens although funny is not objective and is often too rhetorical. Peter Singer on the other hand shows a desire for objectivity and is also the most consistent in his views.
Vanmeter815 3 years ago
Dinesh was really muzzled this time. If he were allowed to explain some of the questions he was interrupted on he would have widened the gap of this victory. However, the playing field was even for both men.
Kazae02 3 years ago
Agreed.
Vanmeter815 3 years ago
this was a total victory for dan barker. his arguments were all well designed to completely eviscerate dineshs parlor tricks.
wragnar1122 3 years ago
I totally disagree with fierce vigor. (lol)
Dinesh is extremely intelligent, this is obvious. From what I see, Dan Barker does not clearly assess his own arguments to ascertain the validity behind them, instead he totally criticizes religion while being completely inconsistent while doing so. If he believes there is no God, he should act accordingly. In otherwords, go outside and ride a bike or something, not waste your mental capacity arguing these trivial matters.
Vanmeter815 3 years ago
I thought Dinesh won but Barker put up good fight at times.
Kazae02 3 years ago
Dan Barker has clearly won this debate without a shadow of doubt, Dinesh D'Souza evaded most questions, but the ones that he did answer he answered with great intelligence
jpc08109 3 years ago
I dont even think this was a debate. It seemed to be putting both up for 'cross examination'. I agree with dan barkers ultimate position, Dinesh D'Souza offered nothing insightful and gave me nothing thoughtful so I agree, Dan Barker won.
cjunk351 3 years ago
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is." ---Unknown
xtrashed 3 years ago
Pascals wager. Shown to be rubbish on so many levels it is embarrassing to see anyone still trotting it out.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
An atheist saying "just be good for goodness' sake" is the same as a religious person saying "jump up and down for jumping's sake!"
There has to be a reason why something is done.
xtrashed 3 years ago
And there is, why not ask and find out.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.
xtrashed 3 years ago
The response for any seeker is: because it's True. As CS Lewis points out in the essay cited above: Christianity claims to give an account of facts—to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer.
xtrashed 3 years ago
The essence of the Atheists' slogan is that if one does not need God to be good, why believe in God?
xtrashed 3 years ago
Not the essence no, but certainly an aspect of it.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
The way Dinesh says 'darwinian primate' positively screams that his understanding of evolution is incomplete.
daveycomet 3 years ago
again,good job dan.i thougth ,by the way he introduced himself,dinesh,would make me change my position about atheism,he didn't.he acted like a very smart guy,but he ended up looking like a fool in the way he answered the questions.i know he's intelligent and knows a lot,but he just coulnd't make his point.
GRANMAZZINGERZ 3 years ago
What an ugly and foul world it would be if it was full of Dan Barkers.
observer75 3 years ago
Danesh said it best, "You want proofs of God, there's one that's sitting in your head." He's right. It's all in the head.
redchango 3 years ago
its in the head meaning our magnificent brain with its billions of neurons and synapses are intricate and complex that it couldnt come about by chance but by a creator
vincenz55 3 years ago
Not by chance, nobody says the brain formed by chance! unless of course you're a wish thinker. It was time,( eons, millions of years ) mutation, natural selection that resulted in the organ we know as "the brain". No magic tricks involved. Ladies and gentleman i give you - the brain, by chance vincenz55 happened on one, now can somebody tell me where the "on" button is for it or does somebody have a remote control. Maybe they do, think, reason and discard superstition, you'll be happier.
jamichelash 3 years ago
mutations my ass..if you beleive the brain mutated into what it is now then your the biggest beleiver in fairy tales in the universe..what a joke statement i have ever ever heard.first of all to say time has by chance and selection put itself together would be such an enormous undertaking and the probability so small that it would be easier for humpty dumpty to put himself together exactly the same way a billion times over and over than for the brain to have been produced by chance. NO PROOF
vincenz55 3 years ago
But thats the attraction of Christianity:You can say how great it is in teaching values,but if you act like a jerk you are empowered by the sense that your behavior was excused 2,000 years ago by a man dying.There is no reason to be concerned that such primitive ideas are still being promoted by the religion buisness,or is there?
NYatheist 3 years ago
Dan actually displays dignity and true compassion,while Dinesh struck out bigtime with his attitude.
NYatheist 3 years ago
test post
NYatheist 3 years ago
omg I am so glad this debate is over... the format was driving me up the wall, I can't believe one or the other of the speakers didn't get up and walk out lol.
I respect Dinesh's attempt at approaching atheists on their ground. I don't think that he succeeds in it though; not sure it's possible. Dan Barker is an interesting character, having been a former minister type. Dinesh attacks Dawkins/Hitchens because he cannot argue with Barker's loss of faith.
invisblchzbrgr 3 years ago
anyone that thinks kaboobi was the victor in this debate, is flat out wrong. Dan Barker is refreshingly succicnt and hands down showed intellegence trumps feudal fundamentalism.
jamichelash 3 years ago
conv,
Dan won permission by God for further existence.
Thus, he still may repent.
"See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more [shall not] we [escape], if we turn away from him that [speaketh] from heaven:" (Heb 12:25)
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
Barker's a supposed chemical-onlyite.
Thus, he's only chemistry..
..no love..no meaning..no hope..no morals..etc.
Chemistry never can have a "point"...
..only swamp bubblings.
----
BACK to the Bible for REAL infallible FACTS.
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Mt 16:26)
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
Dan won.
converse02 3 years ago
Why do Christian Apologists constantly use morality as evidence for god? Morality is very simply explained through evolution and memes.
SpiralingOut23 3 years ago
amen :p
xdarnokx 3 years ago
How was that well explained ? Dinesh totally destroyed thoses "explanations"...
Canadian350 3 years ago
We have OBSERVED non-life becoming simple life via chemical reaction at volcanic vents on the ocean floor. We have replicated the conditions that existed chemically in the laboratory and it is from there where the term 'chemical soup' came from. Sounds sort of hodgepodge but the experiment itself was not. Until another theory comes into existence that has better explanatory power and can make accurate predictions, superior to the current theory the it will be accepted. Until such time....
rationalskeptic7718 3 years ago
The chemical soup experiments were based on estimated temperment conditions and atmosphere gases, and these were used to the advantage of making the cells. Get the facts straight and look farther then the results.
Canadian350 3 years ago
First of all, I have looked at the facts. Your fundie propaganda of it being a 'fixed' experiment to get the results they wanted is ridiculous. That's not how peer-review works. Every other scientist is looking to rip their work to shreds. Furthermore, that does not explain the OBSERVED events on the ocean floor and the volcanic vents. So YOU can get YOUR facts straight, junior.
rationalskeptic7718 3 years ago
dan barker wins...as reason and logic always do!
lemonheartfly 3 years ago
In that case, Dinesh won !
Canadian350 3 years ago
Dinesh, is pathetic!!
statickk14 3 years ago
Your grammar is horrible !
Canadian350 3 years ago
I don't need to learn grammer on youtube, besides Dinesh still sucks and he is pathetic. Forget Dan Barker, he won't even win a debate against me.
statickk14 3 years ago
There is no Darwinian morality, why would their be such a thing. It would make no sense not even for a Darwinian, molecules to morality, why do we have such an inbuilt sense of right and wrong? Where did conscience come from and why does it have such amazing power? But we must try and explain it because it is something that exists and is important to all of us. What we accept as a proper explanation for this question, should challenge us to be more aware of the eternal not just the primal.
sapian59 3 years ago
this was a pretty bad debate for both sides. how do you expect either one of these guys to dive into such deep and profound questions and give satisfactory answers in just two minutes? and then rebut someone in 30-45 seconds? i think harvard created a pretty terrible forum for a debate. these guys arent debating what the best flavor of gum is! you need more time to elaborate and bring out a high quality, thought provoking answer.
KingsloseCrowns 3 years ago 2
I completely agree.
Booya503 3 years ago
Barker trashed D'Souza in this debate.
hopokuk 3 years ago 5
Perhaps you think Barker trashed D'souza in this debate because you agree with Barkers point... Just as a Christian would hold the opposite opinion... thats quite obvious.
Booya503 3 years ago
True.
But Barker had stronger points.
hopokuk 3 years ago
Dinesh just panders to emotion.
Wolves have advanced morals. They have rules and regulations.
Why does he not get it? More intelligence yields more morals. More inquisition. That's why we want to know how everything works. Intelligence is what got us through our earlier evolution. The side effect is we want to know everything.
Mother Teresa was atheist. Read her journals and letters. "I cannot feel His love, no matter how I try. There is nothing". Those are her words.
Barker for the win
tommyk77 3 years ago
Christians act like nihilists hiding in a belief in God.
eliteobserver 3 years ago