How does Dinesh D'Souza, an evolved mammalian ape whose ancestors wandered out of Africa 100,000 years ago, know anything, ANYTHING at all about the so-called after-life? How does he know it even exists? He CAN'T know that. Almost by definition. The Bible says so? I don't care. The Bible also says the Earth was made in 6 days and a woman was made from the rib of a man. The Bible is not a reliable source and to claim otherwise is ABSURD.
1. Which God are you wagering on? Most religions are mutually exclusive. It's more like a bet on the numbers of a roulette wheel than a bet on red or black.
2. Which god would be fooled by a dishonest belief based on fear of punishment or a bet? Is that what any god wants?
3. A false religious belief has a real cost of time, effort, money. Also, nearly every religion has some repugnant practices or beliefs, such as stoning, hatred, or bigotry.
Pascal's wager doesn't argue that you 'have to choose.' The argument is that if you choose the wrong thing, you may be damned. If it's true, as D'Souza said in this very debate, that there are no proofs either way, how reasonable would it be for God to demand that people decide whether they believe in him or not? Dinesh also failed utterly to engage the question, which was.....isn't Pascal's wager flawed by the fact that it assumes a God who punishes non-belief. And the answer is yes.
The answer to that first question was much simpler than the one Dinesh gave. The concept of God is the concept of a first cause, if God was created then he isn´t God. He is, necessarily, then, if true, not cause of itself, but eternal and uncreated.
When dinish finaly explains who created the creation, i finally see it in his eyes : he knows he dont know he knows he cant explain but he will anyways, not just say what he thinks but thinks what he says, slimebag, the best hecomes up with is " he isnt bound by our laws" mr indian carlton please tell me then why you argue for its creation by a creator using our laws and reasoning
Dennett skewers the ridiculous first cause argument. As often happens in metaphysics, the rules of argument are bent to make the point. As the student points out, no intelligent person today gives any credence to Pascal's ridiculous wager.Personally, I'd live NO DIFFERENTLY if I believed in life after death!
You know, you guys all ridicule D'Souza for using Pascal's Wager as stupid, but what he says from 5:40 onward and especially at 7:30 is true. People use it in their everyday lives, yet they don't want to use it for God. Christians take heat sometimes when atheists tell them that they don't apply their same philosophies about God on their everyday lives, but atheists do the same thing in reverse it seems like...
I hear so often from my Christian frenemies that Dawkins effectively can't be right because he is a jerk. but they need to listen to D'Souza for 5 minutes!!
What represents best Dinesh's thinking is how he begins his thread: "I wanna answer THIS WAY..". Not a straight answer, not one original thought and he just repeats himself because of this. By the way does anyone had a feeling that he's just barking at Dennett's feet? :)
D'Souza says at 6 min that agnostics (and he'd probably say atheists as well) believe themselves to be "morally superior." This is in fact the opposite. Theists are the ones who believe themselves to be morally superior. They believe non-theists cannot live morally without some influence by God's "moral standards."
You are all atheists and we believers know it is useless to argue with you. We have something you do not possess-- the Holy Spirit, which imparts to us knowledge that you who are spiritually blind, do not have.
@divawriter The Holy Spirit is in your head. The woman who sliced off her baby's arms claimed she had the Holy Spirit in her too. At what point do you differentiate between hallucinations/voices in your head and the voice of God? Please do not tell me that it's based on what you "feel", that is absurd and has no place in real world decisions. I mean, Bush was apparently told that Gulf II would be a huge success by his Holy Spirit.
In the later parts of this debate, I notice that Dinesh starts to yell more and more. You know you're in trouble when you need to resolve to that. I suppose empty barrels ARE louder that full ones.
(clumsily put, I know, but it sounds better in my native language. True none the less)
As for Pascal's wager, "not choosing is as risky as choosing" is simply mathematically false. Not choosing any god gives you 0% chance of getting into heaven whereas choosing among a set of gods gives you some chance of God. So the 2 courses of actions are not equal. You need to choose your words more carefully. As for the "sucking up" comment, you suggest that there's no God but that there is a heaven! Now you're just inventing your own fantasy world, which is not very scientific.
@MrFreeLibertarian I'd imagine a probability distribution can be constructed as follows: centered about zero, on the positive side of the graph we have the contributions of the various Judeo-Christian type gods, which reward you for belief. However, on the left / negative side of the graph we also have the negative type God, which sends you to heaven only if you don't believe in them. Given no information to weigh the probabilities, it appears the probability distribution should be symmetric.
Well this sites proves one thing, and that is that a lot of atheists are not critical thinkers. "God's beginning can't be explained" ? What definition of God are you using? It's not the commonly accepted definition in the dictionary. You can argue that there is no God, but to argue that God needs to have been created is absolute nonsense and can only be argued via a changed definition of God.
@ChristianViewer08 Particulars are all we have to go on. As there is no evidence for any one of the many gods, I need you to explain the details of your specific god before we can discuss him. Dinesh, like Frank Turek and William Lane Craig, borrows misunderstood science in order to cast favorable light on a conclusion that simply cannot be reached by studying science. The bridge between not knowing and utmost certainty is always built through inductive reasoning and faith, not science.
At 4:56 a student stands up and nullifies Pascal's Wager, a fallacious and antiquated bit of philosophy which was the conclusion of D'Souza's argument. Did he assume there wouldn't be any first-year philosophy students in the room?
@DocBlasto I am almost done with master's degree in philosophy, but I think D'Souza is right about the point of Pascals argument. Pascal just means we are epistemologically limited in our understanding of metaphysics so we have to make a choice. If you choose the theist side instead of the atheistic side, you are more likely to have a better outcome. It doesn't prove God metaphysically, but it is just a better choice, is what Pascal means.
@natedaug1 It still hangs its hat, ultimately, on the idea of an afterlife for which there isn't the slimmest shred of evidence. If you assume the false dichotomy of everlasting damnation or nothingness, maybe it works. On the other hand, it ignores the sad state wherein a believer spends his whole life groveling to a nonexistent god and dies having experienced nothing but needless self-imposed slavery for the duration of the only life any of us has ever lived this one.
@DocBlasto Yeah, I think empirically there is no evidence, and therefore epistemologically, for God. When someone believes in God it is more ontological than epistemological. Whether there is a version of self-imposed slavery or not is subjective and ultimately just their choice. I think this is sort of the point of Pascals wager, that people have a make a choice, isn't really a claim on God's existence or not.
Kid with the beanie is actually a smarter dude than Dinesh Souza. I would rather listen to this college junior than Dinesh talk abotu any subject whatsoever Raise your hand if you didn't make through all 12 parts of this debate, because of his horrific tone of voice and retarded smugness.
what he didn't address in pascals wager is the 35000 denominations of christianity.. oh and all the other religions and gods.. including the 300 million in india.
To the young man in the cap and glasses, while I believe that God did create the universe, and did reveal himself in Jesus, that revelation was one of the unconditional love and regard for humanity and the universe itself. Perfect Love casts out all fear, everyone will be reunited with God. That's the message that has been forgotten and/or ignored by the Churches. You will find that many of the Church Fathers taught this truth. Rest in God's love for you.
HAHAHA.... non-natural instead of supernatural = Intelligent design instead of creationism. Call it what you want Dinesh, it still makes no sense no matter how much sense you try to make of it.
The power of pascals wager!? wtf!? It's a weak wager! I also don't like how he attacks Agnostics... I don't believe in pascals wager and that is WHY I AM AN AGNOSTIC! Dummy!
I love Dinesh's original answer. "God had to make the universe, because we can't explain the Universe's beginning. But God's beginning can't be explained either, but we can ignore that."
@DaDoctaBoom You really don't get it. If the time-space continuum had an absolute beginning then it is absolutely necessary that there be a non-natural cause. This is self-evident. Dennett's attack on causality is just an attack on accepting the most rational explanation. Dinesh is mopping the floor with him. Funny that you can't see it. You probably don't see how the ultimate cause can't possibly be composite but must be simple.
@Youdamana I'm fully willing to posit a cause outside the universe.
But you must be willing to posit that a cause outside the space-time continuum cannot create temporally isolated events. Dinesh's point is self-defeating if he wants to claim that God is atemporal.
@TimelessApologist "Actually it was a great answer, because you don't need to explain the explaination for something to exist."
Unless, you know, it's the Universe. This double-standard only applies when talking about Yahweh himself, everything else requires Jesus as an explanation for its existance.
Thank goodness for youtube! Watching all these debates have really granted me insight. The arguement Denett threw against Dinesh's Creation has a creator. Never heard that one. It annihilates intelligent design
Dinesh didnt really answer the question. The kid asked "Where do you draw the line in terms of absurdity". I think he meant of all the moral codes in the bible, how do you draw a line to divide which you must follow or risk going to hell? Dinesh responded by trying to give a preachy lecture on what pascal's wager is.
But the wager is fallacious, when you attempt to argue that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God, when confronted with every god that has ever existed or ever will
How can an educated man SERIOUSLY argue in favour of Pascal's wager? The only thing you need to utter to prove its stupidity is "Which god should I have faith in?"
In other words: not choosing is as risky as choosing. What's more, feeling the need to choose merely is proof of harbouring the notion that sucking up to an invisvible deity provides the only chance of a free ride into heaven.
It was striking how D'Souza spent his entire response describing his "interpretation" of Pascal's Wager only to answer the man's question in the very last two sentences.
"... you never get full information and yet you have to choose. The same is true of God as well."
He could have simply exclaimed, "Accept Jesus or go to Hell." Not only can we never fully prove or disprove God, but there is positively no verifiable evidence.
@JasperNagtzaam who said dinesh was an educated man? that would imply he's learned something.
pascal's wager, in addition to assuming there are only two options, is also cowardly bet-hedging and an all-knowing god would see through that type of phony belief. in fact, god would probably be insulted by it.
@JasperNagtzaam I liked the question. The guy basically said: if you live a good life, chances are that together with the creator (surprise!), the two of you might look down and laugh at the christians in hell.
@JasperNagtzaam Why can't an educated man argue in favor of Pascal's wager ? Wasn't Pascal argument a rational one, and wasn't Pascal himself is a well educated man ?
Surely choosing something is better than not choosing anything (not to choose any religion). Even having 1 in a billion chance to go to heaven is still better than having zero chance. So choosing to believe in any religion is clearly not as risky as being non religious.
Dennett: "You have no right to talk about creation at all because that's something we know of from the natural world."
BINGO!
Romans 1.20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
I just can't believe the absurdity of Dinesh's arguments...ridiculous analogies and misleading and constant logical fallacies are all he uses. Intellectual slight of hand, and he knows it.
Phew... "causal on a different level" - what exactly is that supposed to mean? If god didn't use the existing laws of physics, then there is simply no explanation for creation.
The agnostic usually fancies themselves a morally superior person? Huh? Where's your research on that?
5:45 completely ignores the question: if i believe that being a christian is a safe wager, then why isnt doing pushups a safe wager? He doesnt adress the question in any way. The power of the wager seems to be that he can completely ignore any question and still claim he's right.
Its a good argument, but it is answered by dinesh's necessary existence argument, and toxic religion. We don't believe the guy who says 10 push ups saves us from hell because they don't line up in a rational way. To follow christianity with the possiblity of afterlife allows the latter to necessitate the former. 10 pushups doesn't rationally necessitate anything, which would in itself hint us towards toxic religion which d'souza doesn't indict.
@1csteffen The sentence should be that the afterlife doesnt necessitate pushups, instead of saying that pushups dont necessitate an afterlife. I know it doesnt, but the question was why does the afterlife necessitate (require) belief.
You say it lines up in a rational way. Ok show me the rationality between "kill all non christian", "Take the sabbath holy", "eat no pork" and going to heaven.
remember toxic religion. D'souza and i don't indict that. Eat no Port is stupid, i'm not catholic. taking the sabbath holy is an outlier because it doesn't have the implications the other two do.- its not those things that = heaven, its the acceptance of jesus christ as savior
@1csteffen And how is accepting Jesus different from accepting Joe or from fucking Anne or from praising the spaghetti monster? You say its rational. You will go to heaven if you have sex daily. You will go to heaven if you understand the big bang. You will go to hell if you dont do math. Where is the difference to your wager?
christianity is the most LEGIT of all religions because it wasn't created to benefit only a certain group or culture like muhammed, the greek gods, hinduism, etc. Human nature suggests that christianity couldn't be "made up" because its not a rational human creation. a rational creation would BENEFIT a select group, not the entire race. that is why jesus is more legit than all other religious figures, he didn't exist to satisfy a group,= he has more ground to base truth.
@1csteffen It benefits only a select group. Whenever a king wanted to wage war in medieval times or lead a crusade he called his enemy godless heathens. When George Bush wants to wage war he calls someone the axis of evil. Atheists are called second class citizens and islams are called terrorists. It is utterly divisive religion. Let me hear the pope say just once that atheists will not go to hell. Let him apologise for burning heretics alive (heretic is another word for atheist).
The OVERALL idea of christianity is that its an irrational human creation (thats the argument) sure, every religion has its toxic form, but thats not what i'm talking about. at face value, christianity couldn't be "MADE UP" because it doesn't satisfy the typical innate demand for a uniquely beneficial god. (like other religions)
@1csteffen None of the made up gods is beneficial for anyone but the religion. All religions believe in hell or some sort of punishment. They dont benefit the believer, but the belief. Thats why its called a mindvirus or viral meme.
You just conveniently overlook the fact that most religions also believe in huge rewards for belief. Christianity, Judaism, Islam= afterlife=incentive to believe. Religion is not based fear, its based on the final gift.
Why do you accept the legal structure. You are forced to obey laws for fear of the consequences associated with them. Are not the modern approaches to government and legality your equivalent to religion? Why subjectify religion.
@1csteffen so religious fear isnt an incentive, yet u seem to think a godless atheist society would fail? So if the fear of hell isnt a threat, then why did god tell us about hell??? why not just keep it quiet, why not keep heaven quiet so he could actually see who genuinely loves him without any incentive? Lol
Also in our legal system were innocent till prove guilty, In jesus's eyes were all sick till proven saved...complete difference
The idea of being sick until proven saved is a bastardization of christianity by catholicism. The multiple derivatives of christianity may make you think thats how ALL christians think- which would be quite an assumption on your part. For me, we ARE innocent until proven guilty as a way to compensate for the death of infants, etc. Ignorance DOES necessitate belief, but it also justifies some sort of compensation. Simply choosing NOT to believe, despite the promise of heaven= hell.
@1csteffen O, i'm very aware that theres infinite numbers of different interpretations, personal opinions, literal beliefs, metaphoric debates, etc... amongst christianity.
But who's right??? ive heard thousands of christians tell people they'll burn unless they except jesus, and christians who dont even believe in hell! lol. most educated christians fully accept evolution, some think dinosaurs walked with man, some think fossils are a test of faith lol, Who is right??? are u right?
dinesh doesnt understand that the human mind isnt equiped to grasp such imaginations of the complex universe, So all his petty little brain can come up with is a creator...like the great richard feynman said " Anyone who thinks they understand quantum physics, doesnt understand quantum physics"
this is where dinesh need to stop being so constricted and foolish
in his book, d'souza shows that we as humans can't comprehend a world void of time. this paradox is something we can't understand, and thus, must conclude as being "beyond thought," which is a commonly accepted definition of god, even to atheists. Because science proves singularity, time was created at one precise moment- when everything before it existed in a timeless paradox. to reduce the world to reductive materialism IS THE SOURCE OF THE WORLDS IGNORANCE
@1csteffen if your saying we cant understand something so god did it, that doesnt answer anything. if your saying a moment of creation created time this also doesnt make sense as creation would envolve time. God as in harmony and order (the einstein or steven hawking god, doesnt actually suggest a personal theist god). string theory is the best we have to imagine the unimaginable, and string theory also has no need for a creator.
You say that Chance did it, or you simply can't explain HOW it happened. We as christians actually IDENTIFY an answer, you stray away from one as if YOU'RE scared of knowledge. Your a reductive materialist who claims nothing more can be known beyond what you and i know- so it can't be true. - thats why God exists, to fulfill the necessity of an explanation for a timeless and eternal paradox before singularity
@1csteffen What do you mean chance did it...did what? whatever has happened in universal history implies 100% probability, therefore you have the wrong perception of chance. Chance can only be estimated before actual events. We are here because we are in a universe where we must be here. (Have u counted all the failed universes???) As for straying away from knowledge. science is the ONLY source to obtain facts not scripture. Your (no-one can know so god did it) mentallity doesnt help in anyway.
read about Occam's Razor. even atheist scientists say that two hypotheses that are equally probable should call for the simpler to be taken over the more complicated. because there is an equal chance god exists than doesn't, why do you claim that infinite universes mean that there HAD to be a chance that a perfect one was created.
@1csteffen lol. the probability of god or no god is not 50/50.
In the same way the probability of zeus or no zeus is not 50/50.
There is 0 scientific evidence for any of the thousands of gods accepted in human history. No atheist says theres a 0% chance of a god (thats an anti theist)
and the anthropic princible doesnt imply a perfect universe was CREATED (choose your words carefully) it implies we are here because we must
regardless, you still use the anthropic principle as a way to justify something you don't understand. You simply say that the amount of universes is infinite, therefore the perfect balance of life HAD to be achieved at some point as a way to satisfy your "creation came from chance" argument. Why do atheists conveniently "make up theories" as a response to christian theories? Do you not WANT a god to exist?
@1csteffen For the last time we are not here by chance, we are here because we are...its that simple. There are 3 types of possible universes, open closed and flat. We live in a flat universe with fundamental laws which govern life because we have too. Thats all there is too it, its not that hard. Nobody says (creation came by chance) you say its definately a god, therefore the burden of explanation is on you not me!
whatever. thats fine if you want to keep making up crazy theories to PREVENT god from ever existing. Your "universe" theories are all the equivalent of god. you put the same faith into believing them- which is what makes atheism a religion.
since you fail to understand my point (even though i have tried to explain as i would a third grader) i am done arguing about this. now i know the problem with atheists. every time they argue, they don't know whats going on. I suggest you reread my post, and maybe you'll understand where i am coming from with the whole "atheism = religion"
How else are you gunna convince people...you cant prove a god,
you cant seperate your relgion from any other, you dont understand the meaning of atheism (u think its a religion lol), you cant prove biblical morality isnt vile,
you fail to respond to my point about sweeden etc.. comeon!!! gimme something
I know what atheism is supposed to be, but YOU have turned it into a religion. Why aren't we having debates about einstein, keppler, mendel, etc? its because you don't "believe" in something widely accepted as true. Because atheism is not widely accepted, you preach it constantly. THAT is why it is a religion, because YOU made it a religion. Anyone could make a religion out of anything that can't be disproven. Look at Pastafarianism.
@1csteffen And no i dont want a theistic god to exist, as i dont want to live in north korea. the korean dictatorship or state is what your god wants from us.
@1csteffen A theist god is not beyond thought, as it is a human imaginationary authority,
which is within us to instinctually create. People would rather have an answer than no answer. Because we cant comprehend something with our limited brain capacity, a god or gods were created through out history to explain origins.
99% of these gods are now non existent, and we dont need them to explain quantum fluxuations that produce stuff from nothing.
God is not beyond thought. He represents the paradox and the existence outside of time (of which is beyond thought) THAT universe is "outside of thought"
Dinesh says 'Think of the Universe as a novel' notice this implication. He is implying that all crimes are acceptable because god made a criminal do something.
don't twist things around, this analogy is restricted to the rules of physics and a paradox outside of time. Your remark is absent of the background knowledge of christianity. All dinesh has to do is prove God. All other questions are answered through the bible
@1csteffen Actually, I wasn't twisting it around, I was reading between the lines (maybe a bit unfairly, I can admit that) and still Dinesh does not prove god, or come close to doing so. Such a thing might even be impossible.
But you can't disprove God, you just replace him with the absence of knowledge. Atheism is as much a faith and religion as christianity is. Why aren't you an einsteinian, or george busian? because atheism has become a lifestyle, not a view. you worship NOTHING as a tangible entity that exists. but u can't prove it
@1csteffen Worship nothing, and it is not a faith, but a lack of a faith, that's all. Also if you say a god exists you have the burdon of proof, I don't need to prove a god I don't believe in because I don't say one exists. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods, so it IS a view. And I am an Einsteinian, and a Darwinian, and an Atheist - you seem to presume a lot about me; things you don't know.
i don't think you see what i mean. Look at the reason you are responding to this video in the first place. You Believe in Nothing. Not the absence of something, but the personified version of Nothing. To you, nothing is a objectifiable entity that you WORSHIP. you respond to this video out of your atheist tremors, just as i do out of defense of christianity.
@1csteffen And that's fine, we both hold different ideas and I respect you for it (I wish to even thank you for not being as abrasive as I might seem) however, I wish to point out that though I personally believe in no supernatural idea, I do not believe in the absence of a personification of nothing. I might even say I believe god exists in a Jungian sense.
after reading a lot of literature, and being involved in debate classes for three years, i really like learning an talking about this stuff. I'm only 16, but the ways of this world are amazing, and i seek truth, reason, and happiness in it.
@lmhjs1000 Just as there is 0 evidence for the belief that there is no god, though I'll admit this is a personal belief I have, it is nothing more than that. I will be silly to say that there is a god, or is not a god; and if there is a god I don't see why one should be offended by the fact that I don't believe in him. And if such a god exists I'll tell him that.
if a theist god gave us this inquisitive ponderous mind and then cant except why we can be skeptical of non evidence, thats gods mistake in our design lol.
No atheist says theres no chance whatsoever in a god or gods,
we just say until this is positively backed up, it is no stronger than belief in anything else unspecified
The atheist says "a rational explanation does not exist because i limit my mind to what is material and what is physical by immediately excluding the ontology of metaphysics"
@1csteffen How can you tell people they believe in nothing? and not the absence of something? (atheism is the absense of believe in ALL gods) You have absense of belief in 99% of gods . If you take your god or gods out of the equation, that doesnt leave nothing lol. We'd still have music, art, poetry, love, science etc.. And what do you mean "nothing is an objectifiable entity" (Thats the complete opposite definition of nothing!!! Lmao
You worship the thought of nothing. Pretend nothing is equivalent to the algebraic unknown (X). You worship (X) and devote your life to giving (X) a non existent value
then why are you so quick to respond to my comments- and these videos for that matter. YOU ARE RESPONDING TO YOUR BELIEFS= RELIGION (can't disprove god so you "believe" there is none) Look at atheist regimes, (communism/ stalin/ castro/etc) -murder and death on behalf of a viewpoint? NO. those deaths are a result of an atheist fetish which is why atheism should be considered a language
@1csteffen 1. A belief is not a religion, (religion is a way of life that expresses certain beliefs. 2. Again, I dont need to disprove god, just as i dont need to disprove zeus, atheism is the default position, you have all the work to do. 3. communism has nothing to do with atheism. These regimes were political dictatorships where the state acted substitute for god!!!
@lmhjs1000 3- this is where you're wrong. read the history and literature regarding the governments. A communist regime eliminates god, and forces rule based on the idea of no god. This prevents morality from limiting the execution of millions on behalf of power. - its atheism that allowed that.
@1csteffen No sorry your wrong. The majority of nazi's including hitler were catholics. The north korean president is a reincarnation of the former who commands 24/7 worship. Mal and pol pot in china were actually gods!
The point is these places were not influenced by lack of a diety. They were evil men, they werent acting in the name of atheism (thats a fallacy in the statement)
If u want a modern secular atheist society, sweeden, denmark, holland, france.
@lmhjs1000 Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions- he was able to use this to justify the death of millions.
You need to read some literature before you debate, check out "Religion in the Soviet Union"
@1csteffen look at all the thousands of religions and gods that have died, there isnt any difference between them and yours. if you were born in india, you would be hindu, if you were born in iran, you'd be muslim, if you were born in anccient greece you'd belief in zeus. In 2010 we can look in awe of how wonderful the universe is. We can see how evolution is a very imperfect development of life.
there is no need for, and no proof for any god. its ok to be alone
Christianity is the most sensible religion because it isn't a rational human invention. Atheists say that all religions are fantasies conjured by the human mind to fill the gaps of science. this is because all of the "dead gods and religions' worshipped gods that only benefited an individual culture. Christianity can not be an innately human invention because it targets everyone rather than benefited a group.
@1csteffen O, and if you want to play the morality card. How did man go hundreds of thousands of years without murdering and raping eachother before they reached moses at mount sinai (which has never been found by the way)
And if your guna say next, "But theres no foundation for right or wrong" I can tell you there is because a species that acted immoral on eachother wouldnt have reached 2010
that is the most ridiculous statement i have ever heard. You indict science as the only answer to universal scenarios, yet you disregard the simple fact that humans "homo sapiens" have only existed for around eleven thousand years. Show me evidence of "intelligent" existence exceeding that, and I MAY grant that you aren't being entirely redundant and time consuming.
@1csteffen Lol, the minimum scientific estimation for the first homosapiens is 100,000 years dude...this goes up to 250,000. No-one says less than 100,000.
And who said science is the only answer to stuff??? lol.
Science is the only way to seek knowlege, truths, facts...Science has brought us foward, and changed most of what we know in the last 100 years at an amazing rate.
when you talk about humans that far back, they were just hominids, sapiens- not yet evolved. You say that all of this time went by without rape, murder etc. Thats a total fallacy. At THAT point in time, we were just animals, and behaved in the like
@1csteffen Wrong. Homosapiens are no less than 100,000 years old.
Richard Dawkins thinks 250,000. Homo-erectus evolved about 2.5 million years ago. There are various inteligent hand prints on caves dated back at least 50 thousand years...so again, how did these people get to mount sinia (which doesnt exist) with no foundation of christian morality?
@1csteffen I'll tell you why morality has evolved within us.
We dont go round killing because a species or civilization murdering doesnt benifit anyone. We dont lie because the meaning and use of language is to transfer information, if everyone lied, language would be redundant. We dont steal because we value our own possesions...etc.. this morality is obvious to any successful civilization (by that i mean, if we did kill eachother we wouldnt be here)
@1csteffen 99% of all life that has ever existed is now EXTINCT.
We are still here because of luck, and because we have learned right and wrong from benificial morals...If we murdered eachother more than helped eachother, WE WOULDNT BE HERE, its that simple dude
@1csteffen No modern society follows the fudamental laws in the bible.
Even America seperates church and state. So if we dont need biblical morality (which is vile) and we dont need it to answer scientific questions...Whats the need for it. If you want to have the bible instated as a universal moral guide, then you must also except sharia law (islamic moral guidence)??? happy
@1csteffen Western europe is the highest atheist populated place on earth today.
sweeden is 90% atheist. It has less crime, less abortion, better education, better health etc... than anywhere...this is to do with its modern secular laws and morals, uninfluenced by any religious scripture. compare this to the most relgious places on earth, America and the middle east.
if you like the anthropic principle, then you really need to think about Occam's Razor. if two hypotheses are equally probable (atheism vs. christianity) then you take the simplest explanation. Saying that infinite universes mean that one of them HAS to be perfect just shows that you will always make up random theories so you don't have to admit god exists. And yes, i am sure this comment will provoke an equally long and responsive comment.
@1csteffen Again, your understanding of probability is wrong.
And the multiverse theory does not imply perfection.
As you know, most of our known universe is unhabiable for life (This is not a good design) We are in this universe because of billions of years of cooling and eventual forming of heavy elements formed by exploding stars. Life could exist with different fundamental laws in trillions of other universes where christianity is non existent
@1csteffen you have all the faith and work cut out for you.
atheism doesnt have to explain or prove anything.
theism (believing in an interfering god) Gives you all the work to do.
Atheism has the modesty to say I DONT KNOW...therefore we have nothing to prove. Your the one who thinks you have certainty and understanding of things the rest of us dont...
@1csteffen You cant disprove zeus, or fairies or monsters, (so is it faith haulting your beliefs in these myths...?) This is the same position atheists are in. You can't have faith to not have faith in something, it doesnt make sense lol.
I.e. Is there a term for people who DONT believe in astrology or alchemy NO...
this is exactly what atheism means...theres no faith envolved.
Pascal's Wager only works in relation to the possibility of the worst possible afterlife idea being true. But I can think of worse afterlife ideas even than Christianity. Perhaps the Arcturans have an even worse one, and perhaps they're right, but unfortunately we'll never know about it, and so are condemned to their particular Hell!
The question at 4:30 or so is excellent. Pascal's Wager has been an object of philosophical embarrassment for at least a couple thousand years. I was really surprised to see Dinesh endorsing it.
@paxson001 A couple thousand years, eh? Your insight on this matter is fascinating, since Blaise Pascal lived from 1623-1662. This bozo gets "Highest Rated Comment?" It is a shame about Pascal, though, religion truly lowered this otherwise ingenius man.
@MichaelnChristine You're totally correct... typo/brain dump on my part. Pascal lived in 1600's France. Regardless, I bet the underlying sentiment behind Pascal's Wager has been around ever since religion arose.
@paxson001 Sorry, rereading that it may have seemed snide. Wasn't tryin' to be a jerk! I am not sure about your point though. Consider that during the Dark ages and earlier if you didn't believe you could just be Stoned to death!! I think as Time has gone by the Yoke has loosened a fair bit!!
@MichaelnChristine For sure, but that's kind of a difference between public and private life. Of course for much of the last thousand years atheism meant death or ostracism, but you have to wonder how many people, especially educated people who had read the Bible and were familiar with all of the contradictions and mistakes, privately doubted. I'd imagine many of them would end up consoling or trying to convince themselves to belief using something like Pascal's Wager.
@paxson001 Sort of an Infidel's wager. If there is a religion and you believe you live. If there is a religion and you don't you die. Better believe....
@MichaelnChristine You're totally correct... typo/brain dump on my part. Pascal lived in 1600's France. Regardless, I bet the underlying sentiment behind Pascal's Wager has been around ever since religion arose.
Who made Dostoevsky?
roboticarmspress 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How does Dinesh D'Souza, an evolved mammalian ape whose ancestors wandered out of Africa 100,000 years ago, know anything, ANYTHING at all about the so-called after-life? How does he know it even exists? He CAN'T know that. Almost by definition. The Bible says so? I don't care. The Bible also says the Earth was made in 6 days and a woman was made from the rib of a man. The Bible is not a reliable source and to claim otherwise is ABSURD.
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Here's only 3 problems with Pascal's wager:
1. Which God are you wagering on? Most religions are mutually exclusive. It's more like a bet on the numbers of a roulette wheel than a bet on red or black.
2. Which god would be fooled by a dishonest belief based on fear of punishment or a bet? Is that what any god wants?
3. A false religious belief has a real cost of time, effort, money. Also, nearly every religion has some repugnant practices or beliefs, such as stoning, hatred, or bigotry.
rchertkow 3 months ago
@rchertkow
4. It assumes the god cares about belief.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
Grammar are the rules, or, grammar is the rule. not "grammar is the rules". come on!!
RobertTyrrellSlater 4 months ago
@RobertTyrrellSlater u watched this entire video, and the only thing you have to argue about is the guys grammar? hahaha
1BabyBuffalo 4 months ago
@1BabyBuffalo there's not enough space to talk about all the stuff he said which i disagree with :)
RobertTyrrellSlater 4 months ago
@RobertTyrrellSlater be cause you can not disprove anything he said therefor ur argument is invalid.
1BabyBuffalo 4 months ago
@1BabyBuffalo i don't argue over the internet.
RobertTyrrellSlater 4 months ago
@RobertTyrrellSlater because you know you do not have a valid argument, therefore you say that u dont argue, but if u didnt argue wouldnt comment
1BabyBuffalo 4 months ago
Pascal's wager doesn't argue that you 'have to choose.' The argument is that if you choose the wrong thing, you may be damned. If it's true, as D'Souza said in this very debate, that there are no proofs either way, how reasonable would it be for God to demand that people decide whether they believe in him or not? Dinesh also failed utterly to engage the question, which was.....isn't Pascal's wager flawed by the fact that it assumes a God who punishes non-belief. And the answer is yes.
multard 5 months ago
The answer to that first question was much simpler than the one Dinesh gave. The concept of God is the concept of a first cause, if God was created then he isn´t God. He is, necessarily, then, if true, not cause of itself, but eternal and uncreated.
ThePhilosorpheus 5 months ago
Comment removed
ThePhilosorpheus 5 months ago
This is a nice Dennett lecture, but why do they keep giving the microphone to this random Indian idiot?
GBart 6 months ago
Does anyone else had the impression that Dinesh was high con cocaine?
uacho 6 months ago
To rebute the whole thing, if the universe was created by supernatural means / wouldnt those be natural laws anyways? Just unknown to us.
schorske 7 months ago
When dinish finaly explains who created the creation, i finally see it in his eyes : he knows he dont know he knows he cant explain but he will anyways, not just say what he thinks but thinks what he says, slimebag, the best hecomes up with is " he isnt bound by our laws" mr indian carlton please tell me then why you argue for its creation by a creator using our laws and reasoning
schorske 7 months ago
Thank you for posting this, tothesource1.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Dennett skewers the ridiculous first cause argument. As often happens in metaphysics, the rules of argument are bent to make the point. As the student points out, no intelligent person today gives any credence to Pascal's ridiculous wager.Personally, I'd live NO DIFFERENTLY if I believed in life after death!
BrentGrainger2000 7 months ago
You know, you guys all ridicule D'Souza for using Pascal's Wager as stupid, but what he says from 5:40 onward and especially at 7:30 is true. People use it in their everyday lives, yet they don't want to use it for God. Christians take heat sometimes when atheists tell them that they don't apply their same philosophies about God on their everyday lives, but atheists do the same thing in reverse it seems like...
M3PanoS 8 months ago
@M3PanoS But even if the Pascal Wager has some utility, you can rely on the utility that some people to claim that as a truth.
rapechristian 5 months ago
The rebuttal Dennett gave to Dinesh's novel analogy was perfection.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
I hear so often from my Christian frenemies that Dawkins effectively can't be right because he is a jerk. but they need to listen to D'Souza for 5 minutes!!
iamFegor 8 months ago
What represents best Dinesh's thinking is how he begins his thread: "I wanna answer THIS WAY..". Not a straight answer, not one original thought and he just repeats himself because of this. By the way does anyone had a feeling that he's just barking at Dennett's feet? :)
daer357 8 months ago
i could marry dennet, and im heterosexual male :D
he is so smart
soth3d 9 months ago
D'Souza says at 6 min that agnostics (and he'd probably say atheists as well) believe themselves to be "morally superior." This is in fact the opposite. Theists are the ones who believe themselves to be morally superior. They believe non-theists cannot live morally without some influence by God's "moral standards."
igniteice 9 months ago
You are all atheists and we believers know it is useless to argue with you. We have something you do not possess-- the Holy Spirit, which imparts to us knowledge that you who are spiritually blind, do not have.
divawriter 9 months ago
@divawriter What you have is an electrical fire in your brain. Seek professional help.
kissmyass682 9 months ago 2
@divawriter The Holy Spirit is in your head. The woman who sliced off her baby's arms claimed she had the Holy Spirit in her too. At what point do you differentiate between hallucinations/voices in your head and the voice of God? Please do not tell me that it's based on what you "feel", that is absurd and has no place in real world decisions. I mean, Bush was apparently told that Gulf II would be a huge success by his Holy Spirit.
scsublett 8 months ago
In the later parts of this debate, I notice that Dinesh starts to yell more and more. You know you're in trouble when you need to resolve to that. I suppose empty barrels ARE louder that full ones.
(clumsily put, I know, but it sounds better in my native language. True none the less)
Hermy1138 10 months ago
As for Pascal's wager, "not choosing is as risky as choosing" is simply mathematically false. Not choosing any god gives you 0% chance of getting into heaven whereas choosing among a set of gods gives you some chance of God. So the 2 courses of actions are not equal. You need to choose your words more carefully. As for the "sucking up" comment, you suggest that there's no God but that there is a heaven! Now you're just inventing your own fantasy world, which is not very scientific.
MrFreeLibertarian 10 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian I'd imagine a probability distribution can be constructed as follows: centered about zero, on the positive side of the graph we have the contributions of the various Judeo-Christian type gods, which reward you for belief. However, on the left / negative side of the graph we also have the negative type God, which sends you to heaven only if you don't believe in them. Given no information to weigh the probabilities, it appears the probability distribution should be symmetric.
Mattprole 8 months ago
Well this sites proves one thing, and that is that a lot of atheists are not critical thinkers. "God's beginning can't be explained" ? What definition of God are you using? It's not the commonly accepted definition in the dictionary. You can argue that there is no God, but to argue that God needs to have been created is absolute nonsense and can only be argued via a changed definition of God.
MrFreeLibertarian 10 months ago
@ChristianViewer08 Particulars are all we have to go on. As there is no evidence for any one of the many gods, I need you to explain the details of your specific god before we can discuss him. Dinesh, like Frank Turek and William Lane Craig, borrows misunderstood science in order to cast favorable light on a conclusion that simply cannot be reached by studying science. The bridge between not knowing and utmost certainty is always built through inductive reasoning and faith, not science.
DocBlasto 10 months ago
0:30 gay tattoo
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
Did he say you have no info but u have to make a choice .
curt121281 1 year ago
At 4:56 a student stands up and nullifies Pascal's Wager, a fallacious and antiquated bit of philosophy which was the conclusion of D'Souza's argument. Did he assume there wouldn't be any first-year philosophy students in the room?
DocBlasto 1 year ago
@DocBlasto I am almost done with master's degree in philosophy, but I think D'Souza is right about the point of Pascals argument. Pascal just means we are epistemologically limited in our understanding of metaphysics so we have to make a choice. If you choose the theist side instead of the atheistic side, you are more likely to have a better outcome. It doesn't prove God metaphysically, but it is just a better choice, is what Pascal means.
natedaug1 10 months ago
@natedaug1 It still hangs its hat, ultimately, on the idea of an afterlife for which there isn't the slimmest shred of evidence. If you assume the false dichotomy of everlasting damnation or nothingness, maybe it works. On the other hand, it ignores the sad state wherein a believer spends his whole life groveling to a nonexistent god and dies having experienced nothing but needless self-imposed slavery for the duration of the only life any of us has ever lived this one.
DocBlasto 10 months ago
@DocBlasto Yeah, I think empirically there is no evidence, and therefore epistemologically, for God. When someone believes in God it is more ontological than epistemological. Whether there is a version of self-imposed slavery or not is subjective and ultimately just their choice. I think this is sort of the point of Pascals wager, that people have a make a choice, isn't really a claim on God's existence or not.
natedaug1 10 months ago
The arguments these students present are very poorly constructed.
dvc5797 1 year ago
Finally you can see the questioners lol.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
The second Questioner:
D'SOUZA TELL ME WHERE I DRAW THE LINE YOU IDIOT...
Nabeel4313 1 year ago
Pascal Wager Rocks! 3:57
aerycksmusic 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza is panting, yelling and sweating
Shaghayegh11 1 year ago
@Shaghayegh11 he cited a Queen LaTifa movie?
porkupine73 1 year ago
Dennett...looks like a drunk Santa....
rd0311207 1 year ago
Kid with the beanie is actually a smarter dude than Dinesh Souza. I would rather listen to this college junior than Dinesh talk abotu any subject whatsoever Raise your hand if you didn't make through all 12 parts of this debate, because of his horrific tone of voice and retarded smugness.
McLarenF1God 1 year ago
Funny but these debates don't happen about the tooth fairy... why do they happen about imaginary gods?
SteveGBell 1 year ago
I would ask Dinesh, given that he has access to a microphone and amplified sound, why does he have to shout ?
GowanBray 1 year ago
Ugh. What part of "short question" did they miss!
Coldwontrise 1 year ago
D'Souza's argument about God creating the universe I thought was interesting, I think he handled the issue well although he did not persuade me.
johneamer 1 year ago
The question "who created God?" has its equivalent in "Where did the singularity that exploded with the big bang come from?"
PeterLaman 1 year ago
what he didn't address in pascals wager is the 35000 denominations of christianity.. oh and all the other religions and gods.. including the 300 million in india.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2 But on core issues the 35,000 denominations of Protestantism are substantially the same.
dvc5797 1 year ago
To the young man in the cap and glasses, while I believe that God did create the universe, and did reveal himself in Jesus, that revelation was one of the unconditional love and regard for humanity and the universe itself. Perfect Love casts out all fear, everyone will be reunited with God. That's the message that has been forgotten and/or ignored by the Churches. You will find that many of the Church Fathers taught this truth. Rest in God's love for you.
bernhardkirt 1 year ago
HAHAHA.... non-natural instead of supernatural = Intelligent design instead of creationism. Call it what you want Dinesh, it still makes no sense no matter how much sense you try to make of it.
Stuckherewithyou 1 year ago
Dennett isn't very articulate, I'd much preder Hitchens.
TheWinepusher 1 year ago
The power of pascals wager!? wtf!? It's a weak wager! I also don't like how he attacks Agnostics... I don't believe in pascals wager and that is WHY I AM AN AGNOSTIC! Dummy!
gary031183 1 year ago
I love Dinesh's original answer. "God had to make the universe, because we can't explain the Universe's beginning. But God's beginning can't be explained either, but we can ignore that."
DaDoctaBoom 1 year ago 33
@DaDoctaBoom You really don't get it. If the time-space continuum had an absolute beginning then it is absolutely necessary that there be a non-natural cause. This is self-evident. Dennett's attack on causality is just an attack on accepting the most rational explanation. Dinesh is mopping the floor with him. Funny that you can't see it. You probably don't see how the ultimate cause can't possibly be composite but must be simple.
Youdamana 11 months ago
@Youdamana I'm fully willing to posit a cause outside the universe.
But you must be willing to posit that a cause outside the space-time continuum cannot create temporally isolated events. Dinesh's point is self-defeating if he wants to claim that God is atemporal.
DaDoctaBoom 11 months ago
@DaDoctaBoom
Actually it was a great answer, because you don't need to explain the explaination for something to exist.
You are just too fuckin dumb and biased against theism to understand.
Moron....
TimelessApologist 6 months ago
@TimelessApologist "Actually it was a great answer, because you don't need to explain the explaination for something to exist."
Unless, you know, it's the Universe. This double-standard only applies when talking about Yahweh himself, everything else requires Jesus as an explanation for its existance.
DaDoctaBoom 6 months ago
Thank goodness for youtube! Watching all these debates have really granted me insight. The arguement Denett threw against Dinesh's Creation has a creator. Never heard that one. It annihilates intelligent design
D4R3W 1 year ago
Dinesh didnt really answer the question. The kid asked "Where do you draw the line in terms of absurdity". I think he meant of all the moral codes in the bible, how do you draw a line to divide which you must follow or risk going to hell? Dinesh responded by trying to give a preachy lecture on what pascal's wager is.
But the wager is fallacious, when you attempt to argue that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God, when confronted with every god that has ever existed or ever will
D4R3W 1 year ago
How can an educated man SERIOUSLY argue in favour of Pascal's wager? The only thing you need to utter to prove its stupidity is "Which god should I have faith in?"
In other words: not choosing is as risky as choosing. What's more, feeling the need to choose merely is proof of harbouring the notion that sucking up to an invisvible deity provides the only chance of a free ride into heaven.
JasperNagtzaam 1 year ago 24
@JasperNagtzaam
It was striking how D'Souza spent his entire response describing his "interpretation" of Pascal's Wager only to answer the man's question in the very last two sentences.
"... you never get full information and yet you have to choose. The same is true of God as well."
He could have simply exclaimed, "Accept Jesus or go to Hell." Not only can we never fully prove or disprove God, but there is positively no verifiable evidence.
God and the nonexistent are strangely similar.
free2question 1 year ago
@JasperNagtzaam who said dinesh was an educated man? that would imply he's learned something.
pascal's wager, in addition to assuming there are only two options, is also cowardly bet-hedging and an all-knowing god would see through that type of phony belief. in fact, god would probably be insulted by it.
doaftheloaf 4 months ago
@JasperNagtzaam I liked the question. The guy basically said: if you live a good life, chances are that together with the creator (surprise!), the two of you might look down and laugh at the christians in hell.
whauffend 3 months ago
@JasperNagtzaam Why can't an educated man argue in favor of Pascal's wager ? Wasn't Pascal argument a rational one, and wasn't Pascal himself is a well educated man ?
Surely choosing something is better than not choosing anything (not to choose any religion). Even having 1 in a billion chance to go to heaven is still better than having zero chance. So choosing to believe in any religion is clearly not as risky as being non religious.
susantolim 1 month ago
This is what happens when you let a politician out of his office.
Cyllid 1 year ago
Dennett: "You have no right to talk about creation at all because that's something we know of from the natural world."
BINGO!
Romans 1.20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Lol, the still frames of a lot of these segments show Dinesh in decidedly Hitler-esque poses.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
I just can't believe the absurdity of Dinesh's arguments...ridiculous analogies and misleading and constant logical fallacies are all he uses. Intellectual slight of hand, and he knows it.
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 year ago
Phew... "causal on a different level" - what exactly is that supposed to mean? If god didn't use the existing laws of physics, then there is simply no explanation for creation.
The agnostic usually fancies themselves a morally superior person? Huh? Where's your research on that?
betlamed 1 year ago
Legandary debate!!!
I'm not giving up till i here something that cant be dismissed so easily like everything i've heard so far. lol
lets talk about the evolution of a snake. (God condemned it to crawl on its belly)
Lets discuss how and why snakes really move like this, and how its actually benificial lol
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
5:45 completely ignores the question: if i believe that being a christian is a safe wager, then why isnt doing pushups a safe wager? He doesnt adress the question in any way. The power of the wager seems to be that he can completely ignore any question and still claim he's right.
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient
Its a good argument, but it is answered by dinesh's necessary existence argument, and toxic religion. We don't believe the guy who says 10 push ups saves us from hell because they don't line up in a rational way. To follow christianity with the possiblity of afterlife allows the latter to necessitate the former. 10 pushups doesn't rationally necessitate anything, which would in itself hint us towards toxic religion which d'souza doesn't indict.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen The sentence should be that the afterlife doesnt necessitate pushups, instead of saying that pushups dont necessitate an afterlife. I know it doesnt, but the question was why does the afterlife necessitate (require) belief.
You say it lines up in a rational way. Ok show me the rationality between "kill all non christian", "Take the sabbath holy", "eat no pork" and going to heaven.
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient
remember toxic religion. D'souza and i don't indict that. Eat no Port is stupid, i'm not catholic. taking the sabbath holy is an outlier because it doesn't have the implications the other two do.- its not those things that = heaven, its the acceptance of jesus christ as savior
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen And how is accepting Jesus different from accepting Joe or from fucking Anne or from praising the spaghetti monster? You say its rational. You will go to heaven if you have sex daily. You will go to heaven if you understand the big bang. You will go to hell if you dont do math. Where is the difference to your wager?
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient
christianity is the most LEGIT of all religions because it wasn't created to benefit only a certain group or culture like muhammed, the greek gods, hinduism, etc. Human nature suggests that christianity couldn't be "made up" because its not a rational human creation. a rational creation would BENEFIT a select group, not the entire race. that is why jesus is more legit than all other religious figures, he didn't exist to satisfy a group,= he has more ground to base truth.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen It benefits only a select group. Whenever a king wanted to wage war in medieval times or lead a crusade he called his enemy godless heathens. When George Bush wants to wage war he calls someone the axis of evil. Atheists are called second class citizens and islams are called terrorists. It is utterly divisive religion. Let me hear the pope say just once that atheists will not go to hell. Let him apologise for burning heretics alive (heretic is another word for atheist).
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient
The OVERALL idea of christianity is that its an irrational human creation (thats the argument) sure, every religion has its toxic form, but thats not what i'm talking about. at face value, christianity couldn't be "MADE UP" because it doesn't satisfy the typical innate demand for a uniquely beneficial god. (like other religions)
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen None of the made up gods is beneficial for anyone but the religion. All religions believe in hell or some sort of punishment. They dont benefit the believer, but the belief. Thats why its called a mindvirus or viral meme.
omnissient 1 year ago
@omnissient
You just conveniently overlook the fact that most religions also believe in huge rewards for belief. Christianity, Judaism, Islam= afterlife=incentive to believe. Religion is not based fear, its based on the final gift.
Why do you accept the legal structure. You are forced to obey laws for fear of the consequences associated with them. Are not the modern approaches to government and legality your equivalent to religion? Why subjectify religion.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen so religious fear isnt an incentive, yet u seem to think a godless atheist society would fail? So if the fear of hell isnt a threat, then why did god tell us about hell??? why not just keep it quiet, why not keep heaven quiet so he could actually see who genuinely loves him without any incentive? Lol
Also in our legal system were innocent till prove guilty, In jesus's eyes were all sick till proven saved...complete difference
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
The idea of being sick until proven saved is a bastardization of christianity by catholicism. The multiple derivatives of christianity may make you think thats how ALL christians think- which would be quite an assumption on your part. For me, we ARE innocent until proven guilty as a way to compensate for the death of infants, etc. Ignorance DOES necessitate belief, but it also justifies some sort of compensation. Simply choosing NOT to believe, despite the promise of heaven= hell.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen O, i'm very aware that theres infinite numbers of different interpretations, personal opinions, literal beliefs, metaphoric debates, etc... amongst christianity.
But who's right??? ive heard thousands of christians tell people they'll burn unless they except jesus, and christians who dont even believe in hell! lol. most educated christians fully accept evolution, some think dinosaurs walked with man, some think fossils are a test of faith lol, Who is right??? are u right?
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
Dinesh didn't answer the kid's question
theclewis 1 year ago
dinesh doesnt understand that the human mind isnt equiped to grasp such imaginations of the complex universe, So all his petty little brain can come up with is a creator...like the great richard feynman said " Anyone who thinks they understand quantum physics, doesnt understand quantum physics"
this is where dinesh need to stop being so constricted and foolish
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
in his book, d'souza shows that we as humans can't comprehend a world void of time. this paradox is something we can't understand, and thus, must conclude as being "beyond thought," which is a commonly accepted definition of god, even to atheists. Because science proves singularity, time was created at one precise moment- when everything before it existed in a timeless paradox. to reduce the world to reductive materialism IS THE SOURCE OF THE WORLDS IGNORANCE
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen if your saying we cant understand something so god did it, that doesnt answer anything. if your saying a moment of creation created time this also doesnt make sense as creation would envolve time. God as in harmony and order (the einstein or steven hawking god, doesnt actually suggest a personal theist god). string theory is the best we have to imagine the unimaginable, and string theory also has no need for a creator.
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
You say that Chance did it, or you simply can't explain HOW it happened. We as christians actually IDENTIFY an answer, you stray away from one as if YOU'RE scared of knowledge. Your a reductive materialist who claims nothing more can be known beyond what you and i know- so it can't be true. - thats why God exists, to fulfill the necessity of an explanation for a timeless and eternal paradox before singularity
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen What do you mean chance did it...did what? whatever has happened in universal history implies 100% probability, therefore you have the wrong perception of chance. Chance can only be estimated before actual events. We are here because we are in a universe where we must be here. (Have u counted all the failed universes???) As for straying away from knowledge. science is the ONLY source to obtain facts not scripture. Your (no-one can know so god did it) mentallity doesnt help in anyway.
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
read about Occam's Razor. even atheist scientists say that two hypotheses that are equally probable should call for the simpler to be taken over the more complicated. because there is an equal chance god exists than doesn't, why do you claim that infinite universes mean that there HAD to be a chance that a perfect one was created.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen lol. the probability of god or no god is not 50/50.
In the same way the probability of zeus or no zeus is not 50/50.
There is 0 scientific evidence for any of the thousands of gods accepted in human history. No atheist says theres a 0% chance of a god (thats an anti theist)
and the anthropic princible doesnt imply a perfect universe was CREATED (choose your words carefully) it implies we are here because we must
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
regardless, you still use the anthropic principle as a way to justify something you don't understand. You simply say that the amount of universes is infinite, therefore the perfect balance of life HAD to be achieved at some point as a way to satisfy your "creation came from chance" argument. Why do atheists conveniently "make up theories" as a response to christian theories? Do you not WANT a god to exist?
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen For the last time we are not here by chance, we are here because we are...its that simple. There are 3 types of possible universes, open closed and flat. We live in a flat universe with fundamental laws which govern life because we have too. Thats all there is too it, its not that hard. Nobody says (creation came by chance) you say its definately a god, therefore the burden of explanation is on you not me!
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
whatever. thats fine if you want to keep making up crazy theories to PREVENT god from ever existing. Your "universe" theories are all the equivalent of god. you put the same faith into believing them- which is what makes atheism a religion.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen Wrong again. The definition atheism purly means (non belief in god or gods)
You cannot say a non belief is a belief, its a false analogy.
Like i said before, me and you dont need belief, to not believe in Zeus or appollo or thor etc...
This is the same for me in relation to the christian god, understand? theres no faith or belief involved in atheism.
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
since you fail to understand my point (even though i have tried to explain as i would a third grader) i am done arguing about this. now i know the problem with atheists. every time they argue, they don't know whats going on. I suggest you reread my post, and maybe you'll understand where i am coming from with the whole "atheism = religion"
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen I have just re-read your posts.
you have no valid point or evidence for a god???
How else are you gunna convince people...you cant prove a god,
you cant seperate your relgion from any other, you dont understand the meaning of atheism (u think its a religion lol), you cant prove biblical morality isnt vile,
you fail to respond to my point about sweeden etc.. comeon!!! gimme something
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
I know what atheism is supposed to be, but YOU have turned it into a religion. Why aren't we having debates about einstein, keppler, mendel, etc? its because you don't "believe" in something widely accepted as true. Because atheism is not widely accepted, you preach it constantly. THAT is why it is a religion, because YOU made it a religion. Anyone could make a religion out of anything that can't be disproven. Look at Pastafarianism.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen And no i dont want a theistic god to exist, as i dont want to live in north korea. the korean dictatorship or state is what your god wants from us.
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@1csteffen A theist god is not beyond thought, as it is a human imaginationary authority,
which is within us to instinctually create. People would rather have an answer than no answer. Because we cant comprehend something with our limited brain capacity, a god or gods were created through out history to explain origins.
99% of these gods are now non existent, and we dont need them to explain quantum fluxuations that produce stuff from nothing.
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
God is not beyond thought. He represents the paradox and the existence outside of time (of which is beyond thought) THAT universe is "outside of thought"
1csteffen 1 year ago
Dinesh says 'Think of the Universe as a novel' notice this implication. He is implying that all crimes are acceptable because god made a criminal do something.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex
don't twist things around, this analogy is restricted to the rules of physics and a paradox outside of time. Your remark is absent of the background knowledge of christianity. All dinesh has to do is prove God. All other questions are answered through the bible
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen Actually, I wasn't twisting it around, I was reading between the lines (maybe a bit unfairly, I can admit that) and still Dinesh does not prove god, or come close to doing so. Such a thing might even be impossible.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex
But you can't disprove God, you just replace him with the absence of knowledge. Atheism is as much a faith and religion as christianity is. Why aren't you an einsteinian, or george busian? because atheism has become a lifestyle, not a view. you worship NOTHING as a tangible entity that exists. but u can't prove it
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen Worship nothing, and it is not a faith, but a lack of a faith, that's all. Also if you say a god exists you have the burdon of proof, I don't need to prove a god I don't believe in because I don't say one exists. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods, so it IS a view. And I am an Einsteinian, and a Darwinian, and an Atheist - you seem to presume a lot about me; things you don't know.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex
i don't think you see what i mean. Look at the reason you are responding to this video in the first place. You Believe in Nothing. Not the absence of something, but the personified version of Nothing. To you, nothing is a objectifiable entity that you WORSHIP. you respond to this video out of your atheist tremors, just as i do out of defense of christianity.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen And that's fine, we both hold different ideas and I respect you for it (I wish to even thank you for not being as abrasive as I might seem) however, I wish to point out that though I personally believe in no supernatural idea, I do not believe in the absence of a personification of nothing. I might even say I believe god exists in a Jungian sense.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex
after reading a lot of literature, and being involved in debate classes for three years, i really like learning an talking about this stuff. I'm only 16, but the ways of this world are amazing, and i seek truth, reason, and happiness in it.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen As do I. I just don't find theisum to be the proper way of going about it is all.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex there is 0 evidence for any theism.
1csteffen, is saying because he can not comprehend means of origin,
therefore there must be a creator.
This is a typical narrow minded opinion of theists lol
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000 Just as there is 0 evidence for the belief that there is no god, though I'll admit this is a personal belief I have, it is nothing more than that. I will be silly to say that there is a god, or is not a god; and if there is a god I don't see why one should be offended by the fact that I don't believe in him. And if such a god exists I'll tell him that.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex By which I mean, a god who cares that humans exist. I just don't buy that.
MrLemex 1 year ago
@MrLemex good comment,
if a theist god gave us this inquisitive ponderous mind and then cant except why we can be skeptical of non evidence, thats gods mistake in our design lol.
No atheist says theres no chance whatsoever in a god or gods,
we just say until this is positively backed up, it is no stronger than belief in anything else unspecified
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000 Exactly my point. :)
MrLemex 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
The atheist says "a rational explanation does not exist because i limit my mind to what is material and what is physical by immediately excluding the ontology of metaphysics"
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen lol, again your putting words into mouths.
No-one says a rational explanation of origins does not exist. lol
infact on the contrary, atheism is what it is because we and most cosmologists
find postulating a god to be irrational! And as far as limiting our minds lol,
I think you'll find that quantum mechanics is a much harder conception than a god. so try again your assuming untruths again
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@1csteffen How can you tell people they believe in nothing? and not the absence of something? (atheism is the absense of believe in ALL gods) You have absense of belief in 99% of gods . If you take your god or gods out of the equation, that doesnt leave nothing lol. We'd still have music, art, poetry, love, science etc.. And what do you mean "nothing is an objectifiable entity" (Thats the complete opposite definition of nothing!!! Lmao
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
You worship the thought of nothing. Pretend nothing is equivalent to the algebraic unknown (X). You worship (X) and devote your life to giving (X) a non existent value
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen this is a silly assumption.
I do notworship the unknown, i accept iggnorance of the unknowable,
and appreciate the quest for truth
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
then why are you so quick to respond to my comments- and these videos for that matter. YOU ARE RESPONDING TO YOUR BELIEFS= RELIGION (can't disprove god so you "believe" there is none) Look at atheist regimes, (communism/ stalin/ castro/etc) -murder and death on behalf of a viewpoint? NO. those deaths are a result of an atheist fetish which is why atheism should be considered a language
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen 1. A belief is not a religion, (religion is a way of life that expresses certain beliefs. 2. Again, I dont need to disprove god, just as i dont need to disprove zeus, atheism is the default position, you have all the work to do. 3. communism has nothing to do with atheism. These regimes were political dictatorships where the state acted substitute for god!!!
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000 3- this is where you're wrong. read the history and literature regarding the governments. A communist regime eliminates god, and forces rule based on the idea of no god. This prevents morality from limiting the execution of millions on behalf of power. - its atheism that allowed that.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen No sorry your wrong. The majority of nazi's including hitler were catholics. The north korean president is a reincarnation of the former who commands 24/7 worship. Mal and pol pot in china were actually gods!
The point is these places were not influenced by lack of a diety. They were evil men, they werent acting in the name of atheism (thats a fallacy in the statement)
If u want a modern secular atheist society, sweeden, denmark, holland, france.
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000 Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions- he was able to use this to justify the death of millions.
You need to read some literature before you debate, check out "Religion in the Soviet Union"
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen look at all the thousands of religions and gods that have died, there isnt any difference between them and yours. if you were born in india, you would be hindu, if you were born in iran, you'd be muslim, if you were born in anccient greece you'd belief in zeus. In 2010 we can look in awe of how wonderful the universe is. We can see how evolution is a very imperfect development of life.
there is no need for, and no proof for any god. its ok to be alone
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
Christianity is the most sensible religion because it isn't a rational human invention. Atheists say that all religions are fantasies conjured by the human mind to fill the gaps of science. this is because all of the "dead gods and religions' worshipped gods that only benefited an individual culture. Christianity can not be an innately human invention because it targets everyone rather than benefited a group.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen O, and if you want to play the morality card. How did man go hundreds of thousands of years without murdering and raping eachother before they reached moses at mount sinai (which has never been found by the way)
And if your guna say next, "But theres no foundation for right or wrong" I can tell you there is because a species that acted immoral on eachother wouldnt have reached 2010
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
that is the most ridiculous statement i have ever heard. You indict science as the only answer to universal scenarios, yet you disregard the simple fact that humans "homo sapiens" have only existed for around eleven thousand years. Show me evidence of "intelligent" existence exceeding that, and I MAY grant that you aren't being entirely redundant and time consuming.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen Lol, the minimum scientific estimation for the first homosapiens is 100,000 years dude...this goes up to 250,000. No-one says less than 100,000.
And who said science is the only answer to stuff??? lol.
Science is the only way to seek knowlege, truths, facts...Science has brought us foward, and changed most of what we know in the last 100 years at an amazing rate.
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
when you talk about humans that far back, they were just hominids, sapiens- not yet evolved. You say that all of this time went by without rape, murder etc. Thats a total fallacy. At THAT point in time, we were just animals, and behaved in the like
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen Wrong. Homosapiens are no less than 100,000 years old.
Richard Dawkins thinks 250,000. Homo-erectus evolved about 2.5 million years ago. There are various inteligent hand prints on caves dated back at least 50 thousand years...so again, how did these people get to mount sinia (which doesnt exist) with no foundation of christian morality?
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@1csteffen I'll tell you why morality has evolved within us.
We dont go round killing because a species or civilization murdering doesnt benifit anyone. We dont lie because the meaning and use of language is to transfer information, if everyone lied, language would be redundant. We dont steal because we value our own possesions...etc.. this morality is obvious to any successful civilization (by that i mean, if we did kill eachother we wouldnt be here)
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@1csteffen 99% of all life that has ever existed is now EXTINCT.
We are still here because of luck, and because we have learned right and wrong from benificial morals...If we murdered eachother more than helped eachother, WE WOULDNT BE HERE, its that simple dude
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@1csteffen No modern society follows the fudamental laws in the bible.
Even America seperates church and state. So if we dont need biblical morality (which is vile) and we dont need it to answer scientific questions...Whats the need for it. If you want to have the bible instated as a universal moral guide, then you must also except sharia law (islamic moral guidence)??? happy
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@1csteffen Western europe is the highest atheist populated place on earth today.
sweeden is 90% atheist. It has less crime, less abortion, better education, better health etc... than anywhere...this is to do with its modern secular laws and morals, uninfluenced by any religious scripture. compare this to the most relgious places on earth, America and the middle east.
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@1csteffen You would rather have A wrong answer than no answer.
I would rather have no answer and look for right answers.
The bible or koran can never change, yet science is always changing and improving.
The anthropic princible, and string therory are the best we have (at the moment)
God or gods have 0% evidence as it stands... There is no faith envolved in this picture, there is no faith envolved in anti theism...
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@lmhjs1000
if you like the anthropic principle, then you really need to think about Occam's Razor. if two hypotheses are equally probable (atheism vs. christianity) then you take the simplest explanation. Saying that infinite universes mean that one of them HAS to be perfect just shows that you will always make up random theories so you don't have to admit god exists. And yes, i am sure this comment will provoke an equally long and responsive comment.
1csteffen 1 year ago
@1csteffen Again, your understanding of probability is wrong.
And the multiverse theory does not imply perfection.
As you know, most of our known universe is unhabiable for life (This is not a good design) We are in this universe because of billions of years of cooling and eventual forming of heavy elements formed by exploding stars. Life could exist with different fundamental laws in trillions of other universes where christianity is non existent
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@1csteffen you have all the faith and work cut out for you.
atheism doesnt have to explain or prove anything.
theism (believing in an interfering god) Gives you all the work to do.
Atheism has the modesty to say I DONT KNOW...therefore we have nothing to prove. Your the one who thinks you have certainty and understanding of things the rest of us dont...
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
@1csteffen You cant disprove zeus, or fairies or monsters, (so is it faith haulting your beliefs in these myths...?) This is the same position atheists are in. You can't have faith to not have faith in something, it doesnt make sense lol.
I.e. Is there a term for people who DONT believe in astrology or alchemy NO...
this is exactly what atheism means...theres no faith envolved.
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
Pascal's Wager only works in relation to the possibility of the worst possible afterlife idea being true. But I can think of worse afterlife ideas even than Christianity. Perhaps the Arcturans have an even worse one, and perhaps they're right, but unfortunately we'll never know about it, and so are condemned to their particular Hell!
gurugeorge 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza has some anger management issues. He keeps screaming and I can't even follow what he's saying.
Klisstic 1 year ago
Dinesh's arguments are basiaclly all repeat ad nauseum fallacies. Not so much a debate as a test on stamina. groan
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
Comment removed
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
@DarkKnightBob1o1 - Back to your church of the living rocks you idiot.
camaroontree 1 year ago
It's called repeat ad nauseum and its a valid fallacy
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
You must be talking about D'Souza opponent.
camaroontree 1 year ago
The question at 4:30 or so is excellent. Pascal's Wager has been an object of philosophical embarrassment for at least a couple thousand years. I was really surprised to see Dinesh endorsing it.
paxson001 1 year ago 8
@paxson001 A couple thousand years, eh? Your insight on this matter is fascinating, since Blaise Pascal lived from 1623-1662. This bozo gets "Highest Rated Comment?" It is a shame about Pascal, though, religion truly lowered this otherwise ingenius man.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
@paxson001 Pascal is from the 1630s...so maybe a few hundred, not a few thousand years....
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine You're totally correct... typo/brain dump on my part. Pascal lived in 1600's France. Regardless, I bet the underlying sentiment behind Pascal's Wager has been around ever since religion arose.
paxson001 1 year ago
@paxson001 Sorry, rereading that it may have seemed snide. Wasn't tryin' to be a jerk! I am not sure about your point though. Consider that during the Dark ages and earlier if you didn't believe you could just be Stoned to death!! I think as Time has gone by the Yoke has loosened a fair bit!!
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine For sure, but that's kind of a difference between public and private life. Of course for much of the last thousand years atheism meant death or ostracism, but you have to wonder how many people, especially educated people who had read the Bible and were familiar with all of the contradictions and mistakes, privately doubted. I'd imagine many of them would end up consoling or trying to convince themselves to belief using something like Pascal's Wager.
paxson001 1 year ago
@paxson001 Sort of an Infidel's wager. If there is a religion and you believe you live. If there is a religion and you don't you die. Better believe....
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
@MichaelnChristine This could only be true if there was only one religion and one god to believe in.
retepvosnul 1 year ago
@retepvosnul True. Even the Old Testament admits that multiple God's exist.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MichaelnChristine You're totally correct... typo/brain dump on my part. Pascal lived in 1600's France. Regardless, I bet the underlying sentiment behind Pascal's Wager has been around ever since religion arose.
paxson001 1 year ago
Dennett is struggli