Do you think a politician is more honest in campaign speech to gain power, or in his diary. In Hitlers diary he makes clear his hatred toward Christianity, because it is the only moral force that confronted his policies.
It is true that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were atheists, I mean Hitler just used people through church, to get more control, more votes, etc... but he was really an atheist, even if Nazi soldier had belt buckles that read "Gott mit uns" - it means nothing in Hitler's eyes. I am not really sure that these 3 did what they did because they were atheists, and I am not sure if they would do anything differently if they were believers, their goals were to dominated the world....
@moroney1 and why would the catholic church go along with him and not defy his rule... self preservation maybe? If this is the case then why would we not question all of Catholicism's real motives. I haven't heard any good arguments for the actions this religion engaged in at this time and with the Nazi's.
@Sconezeta Catholic power in Germany as well as the fact that the Vatican already deeply respectd hitler, celebrating his birthday every year nd having a day of prayer after his failed assination. Hitler claimed to be doing God's will in Mein Kampf, and for the Vatican so were they. And I would question the motives of Catholicism always
One day I wanna go around defending God and the faith . It's my dream I'm gonna study hard and prepare myself . Thanks for being a great inspiration D'Souza : )
Communism, as is made clear in Murray Rothbard's work, is an outgrowth of Christian millennialism. Look at its tenets: To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. Both share hostility to those who have wealth (it is easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle). These similiarities are not accidental. Communism is the monstrous offspring of Christianity---and here the parent is fully to blame for the offspring's misbehavior.
If we're all a bunch of apes, I have no reason to return a man his wallet, save a person from drowning, give charity, etc. THEY'RE NOT IN MY GENE POOL! Why should I care? BUT! If we're made in the image and likeness of God, and Hitchens explaining feeling righteous about himself after giving blood gives rise to my thought about this, THEN WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HELP OUR FELLOW MAN. Do not think for a second the world would be the same without Christianity. IT NEEDS CHRISTIANITY TO EXIST
"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity..."
@StrongAgnostic1 how disinegnuous of you to quote a public propaganda speech. He had a big christian base he needed to drag on his side. This is politics and in no way a credible or definitive statement about hitler's religiosity. Fucking ridiculous.
@ComeLeVent You are a tool. Why would Hitler have to make a public speech promoting Christianity to his supporters? Have you ever wondered about it, genius?
Perhaps you should save the melodrama for someone else and simply present your evidence that Hitler was not a devout Catholic. Emotions and profanity don't win arguments; they just demonstrate evasiveness and a lack of knowledge.
Ungh, in almost all of these debates that I've watched, the Atheist cheats. Hitchens is like any other Leftist loser, he filibusters in order to censor opposition.
@thafix82 Actually is Ceausescu. Nicolae Ceausescu. Former General Secretary of Romanian Party Communist. Between 1974 and 1989 was the President of Romania. He is known to be a communist dictator. He was executed in 25th december 1989.
Stalin etc commited mass genocide based on a dictatorship premise, what does that have to do with atheism as a lable. These men were without a faith in a deity but not necessarily a higher power like their own power or the worship of their twisted ideals into action.
as i said atheism was not the cause of death of people but some ideologie of man on the contraire the killing in religion are always on the name of god, allha name it
LOL, Dinesh, the Inquisition happened in an era without the logistics and the technology of the 20th century.
You really think numbers of those killed would be the same, had the Inquisitioners had cheap bullets, machine guns, railway lines and modern logistics?
are u kidding me 2000 people in 300 years is because of the lack of technology. um yea ok. They could of killed a whole lot more of that in a lot less time regardless of technology. Get a clue you are the idiot.
Hi, moron! Killing a lot in that era also meant risking a massive retaliation from those getting killed, because the relative power distance between the two was not much.
The problem was, with pitchforks and torches, the ones oppressing had to fear mass retaliation with the same or similar weapons.
Industrialisation, rapid transport and mechanised manufacture changed all that. Of course, assuming you are a self-righteous religious idiot, it would be too much to expect you to understand this.
Lol u are fucking stupid as fuck, do u realize how stupid you sound. Listen real carefully 3 CENTURIES. Your argument holds no water because no one lives anywhere near that long especially than not to mention again retard 2000 people in 300 years. This is absolutely nothing. They could have done that in a standard lifetime without the masses coming because technology was no where to spread the horror around fast enough to the world. Get a clue and an education stop regurgitating garbage.
What are you talking about? For those three centuries, the primary weapons were blades and single-shot primitive guns. The transport infrastructure comprised of horse-drawn carriages. Get modern railroads, trucks, roadways, aircraft, machine-guns and updated logistics to the Conquistadors and their Witch-burning Christian cousins, and you'll have the same thing as the Holocaust, which too was, notably, conducted largely by Christian men and women in Christian lands. Same with Stalin.
@PeterKuriakose God would have sinners repent and come back to him, and be good people. But those people were evil and had no mercy for Israel-therefore God meted out their punishment. My god is all-merciful, but parents have responsibility for their children, and if the parents so choose to wage war, the risk of their child's safety is theirs.
@outtaker Use your brain for once. The Amalekite children were butchered. Don't tell me the children were criminals. Your false-god could not differentiate between the two. Overlooking 1 Samuel 15:3 is to swallow a hard, indigestible lump.
Look up the video, 'God On Trial: The Verdict' on YouTube, and let me know what your opinion is.
@PeterKuriakose name-calling is unnecessary, peter. You don't really care about those children anyway, cuz you're just spear chucking. I don't think my God didn't do any wrong, I KNOW he didn't. Would you kill the AntiChrist if it was born in front of your very eyes?
@outtaker Spear-chucking? I have a problem when you believe in a child-killer god, and then proceed to shove that idiocy into my life.
That said, was your false-god merely eliminating "spawns of Satan" in 1 Samuel 15:3? What about the smiting of the Egyptian first-born, slave to pharaoh? Were they evil, too? How about when your false-god forced David's innocent child to suffer an agonising death over a period of a week? Was he Satan?
Lastly, did you watch what asked below, earlier? Do so now.
@PeterKuriakose Like I KEEP ON saying, a father bears responsibility over his children and because Pharaoh was leader over his people, if he chose to cruelly not let the Israelites go after their persecutions even after he saw the plagues-it is just that the Lord send death among him and his followers. Think about it this way-my god is almighty and couldve smote all the Egyptians dead in one fell swoop or transported his people instantly to Palestine-but he didnt.
@PeterKuriakose how do you analyze my god's words here then? "For I desire not the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God, return ye and live." (Ezekiel 18:32)
@outtaker All it does is show that your false-god is self-contradicting. This, in turn, implies that your scripture's verses are as fickle as those invented by the human mind.
By attempting to hide the vile immorality of 1 Samuel 15:3 with another one extolling human life, you're actually making the argument favouring Atheism, rather than one for your false-god. Do you realise that?
@PeterKuriakose Or that he is the only being who can be both merciful and just at the same time. That's why he demands we repent of our sins, and yet forgives us when we do. No human can do that. We cannot both forgive a man and punish him at the same time.
I've told you what I thought my God meant in 1 Samuel 15:3, and that it wasn't wanton children-slaughter.
@outtaker Stalin and Mao didn't kill for Atheism. Catholic Hitler, on the other hand, had roots of his anti-Semitism sought from within his faith, and the resulting cultural anti-Semitism that it produced in Europe,
@PeterKuriakose Fool. Catholicism is not anti-semitic. It is actually pro-Semitic. We're pro-Jesus. So we're pro-Jew. And all throughout history the anti-semitic tinge of the uneducated masses has been thwarted by many church officials.
How you explain one modern fact: It is illegal to openly go to christian churches in China and North Korea and Cuba?
Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses." Does that sound benevolent to you?
@outtaker Who cares? Innocent children were slaughtered by your false-god. The morality ends right there. If this is your god, then its claim of perfect justice is demolished.
@PeterKuriakose Those were different times, and one can't simply say "oh God killed people in the bible/oh God did this that bla bla bla" Most of these events were done out of a matter of foreign policy, and if you view it in the light of modern, compassionate feel you will miss the truth of the world that was. Cold, unfeeling, ruthless...these are the least amount of things one could call many tribes around the world in those days.
There is no "foreign policy" when your false-prophet Samuel is the one who received the commandment to slaughter the Amalekite children from your false-god.
This is not "foreign policy" - this is your false-god believing co-religionists following the dictates of that false-god to kill children. There is simply no other way around it, and now that you are aware of it, this will be something you will wrestle for the rest of your life, in futility.
@PeterKuriakose oh and if you're so merciful, how come people of your moral stock abort children? I think our world has a lot more to answer for in the way of evil, than in those days!
@outtaker Who says I support abortion? Even Hitchens doesn't, arguing the case of the receding date of delivery of children born prematurely, thus implying that they're human when still inside.
@outtaker Atheists come in all stripes. They are only united by the fact that they do not believe in the existence of anthropomorphic sky gods such as the one made up by the Israeli tribes. To make loaded statements using phrases like "most do", etc., reveals a devious and dishonest intent on the part of the user.
@PeterKuriakose but atheism requires a loosening of morals when followed, including devaluing of life to that of cattle. For whatever reason, some do remain more moral than others, you're right. I've yet to meet or hear of one however. Hitchens is a peculiarity in that factor, yet he also supports euthanasia and assisted suicides-which is hardly a warm, fuzzy feeling.
Your false religion, on the other hand, forces you to accept genocide and infanticide (1 Samuel 15:3) and the needless suffering of children (David's child who was agonised for 7 days) as moral.
The Roman campaigns in Gaul killed millions. Whole cities were burnt to the ground, the men massacred, the children sold into slavery. This was all done under the auspices of the secular power of the Roman state.
The inquisition started in 1478 and ended officially in 1834. And it was done under the auspices of the King of Spain, the secular power of the realm. Some five thousand were killed. Lamentable, but incomparable to the great atrocities in history which preceded it.
@yt2vinay Do you know your history at all. Whole generations were wiped out due to wars where the people only had knives and spears. Considering the State was carrying out these excutions then yes the State would have no problem killing vast amounts of people. How many people did Rome nail to the cross or died in the Coliseum. Your technology argument is weak. Get Real!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Unfortunately, nothing was proven here. The religion vs atheism debate is truly a bottomless pit. What's the point of endless arguments over which nothing can be settled and no real progress ever made
You call that progress? In what sense? Not going to make the world a better place. btw, did you enlist your friends to put in all the thumbs down votes? Touche"
@QwidgyboMan you really are quite arrogant of the rationality behind atheism. The belief that there is no god is JUST as irrational as the belief that there is a God if not more. On that note, the most logical, scientific and rational belief system is agnostic.
That does not equate to irrationality. There are dozens of hypotheses that cannot yet be proven but just like atheism, there is overwhelming evidence and no reason AT ALL to believe the opposite or contrary.
Most claims brought forth throughout the millennia have been discredited or disproven period. This does not single out theism, as theists, agnostics and atheists alike have made claims which have been discreditided or disproven. Agnosticism is the only scientifically sound position one can take, and either theism or atheism requires faith. I have yet to see atheism provide logic any better than theism as to why there 'is no God'.
Well we simply disagree on what constitutes evidence then my friend. The fact that there is none is, in my submission quite strong evidence against it, particularly when most claims about god's existence are purported to be currently observable.
All positions, even agnosticism, require a certain measure of faith.
No doubt atheists have spoken nonsensical $h*t. But is it comparable to theists or deists? I hardly think so.
Lack of evidence is not evidence itself. You need evidence one way or the other. Agnosticism, atleast my definition of it, doesn't require faith. Simply accepting that you do not know is empirically measurable unless you want to venture into a debate about freudian psychology and subconscious knowledge.
@QwidgyboMan So what? They move the goal posts everytime and never condeed they lost the last question or the one before that or the one before that... with sociopathic consistency...
Almost every nationalistic dictator, religious or not, has persecuted religions not because he hated the religion but because he wants people to be loyal to him not god. Its the same with stalin.
D'Souza is much like Hitchens in the sense that he loves his rhetoric. Much like Hitchens, much more interesting, much more style and flair, but much less substance.
Anyone realise that he did not refute or repudiate Dawkin's point on false cause? He simply belittled Dawkins as a mere biology; ad hominem, Dinesh? In any case, the Balliolian man of Dawkins is certainly not ignorant of history, as you might posit.
Both the assertion that religion brings evil, and that atheism brings evil are in my opinion false. I think that certain personalities always try to control. I do believe that religion is often used as a vessel for control.
To set the record straight, I think religion is idiotic, and ignorant at best, and malicious, and evil at worst.
dinesh douchesouza is ridiculous. "my turn? my turn? i ask the questions and you take all the time- this is the way atheists are they hog all of the stage and push the religions out " i want to kick his lame scrawny ass all the way back to crazyville.
here's how I would respond to d'sousa's assertion that atheism breeds genocide: stalin, hitler, and maos visions of atheism all had religious undertones. for them, purging their countries of religion was a way to further their own Godlike power and control. by stopping citizens from worshiping a God, they cleared the way for their citizens to worship them instead. these men strived to be obeyed and yes, worshipped as if they were either divine or at the least more than human. sound familiar?
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."--Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922.
"...preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission".-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Your second quote, while correct, is I believe from 1927 (although correct me if I'm wrong). In it's entirety::
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
the source i got it from, dates that at april 12, 1922. and yes that's the whole quote, showing how he drew his inspiration from the galilean rabbi. KKK members and Neo-Nazi's would agree whole-heartedly with this quote, and they call themselves devout Christians. and i'm hoping, for your sake, you're not appealing to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
Ya, I agree with you 100%. Also, cheers for the correction. It's worrying how the more...spiritual (?)...side of Hitler has been gradually erased over the last few years. Don't worry, I don't agree with that ridiculous 'no true Scotsman' argument either.
@gmn545 Why is it that the Athiest will accept Hitler at his word of believing in a Creator so they can slam Christians? I'm sorry, Does Hitler have a record of telling the truth? What about that agreement not to invade Russia. Hitler kind of lied on that one. HEY ATHEIST, also in MEIN KAMPF Hitler talks about using propaganda to promote and accomplish your goals. Hitler says whatever he wants to win. Kind of like a Politician.
@Jmsadv Because Hitler never repudiated his faith; he spoke of it even in times when propaganda was not necessary. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."--Adolf Hitler, to Gen. Gerhart Engel, 1941. Hitler actually drew his inspiration for eradicating the Jews from another German: Martin Luther!!! (e.g. "On the Jews and their Lies"). The initiator of the Protestant Reformation was anti-semitic! Are you gonna claim he wasn't a "real" christian too? lol
@gmn545 So are you saying that WWII was a Religious War? Lets see you have Germany invading all of Europe and Hitler was trying to convert Christians into Christians??? He loves Christ who was a Jew but hates all other Jews???
@Jmsadv No I'm saying Hitler (including up to 50% of the Waffen-SS) was a Catholic. It was the Church itself that supported him (see Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933). "We fervently beg Our Lord God to bestow ample blessings on the undertakings of Adolf Hitler, the blessing granted to the German nation when He made Hitler a fitting leader to achieve them."--Father Ján Ferjenčík, 1940. That Hitler loved Christ but hated all other Jews...again, Martin Luther did too!
@gmn545 So if Hitler was going to War because of GOD then who was he trying to Convert? It's like saying that the Revolutionary War of 1776 was also being fought because of God. Hitler wanted complete control of the World as the founding fathers wanted control over their own Country. What about Alexender the Great who was born before Christ? He had one of the largest empires ever. Its called Greed of Power. Hitler used God to give his movement authority not motivation. True Story, lol
@Jmsadv I didn't say he was going to war "because of God"; he did, however, think God was on his side. "If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument"--Hitler, during his proclamation to the German people, Jan. 1, 1939. "used God to give his movement authority"... That would apply to Hezbollah as well. Does that then make their members not "true" adherents to Islam? No.
D'Souza actually has the audacity to talk about the standards of fairness atheists use, and how we hog the public square. Come on! Christianity has virtually monopolized western culture for almost two millennia, and has, when it was allowed to, persecuted to death all dissenters. I think atheists are owed disproportionate time in the public square. After all, we have to counter nearly 2000 years of influence in a few sound bytes within the span of a few decades.
You bring up a good point. However, I would go one step further. The reason why millions, as opposed to thousands, died in the regimes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pott, was because they lived in an era were the technological means for mass killings (i.e. gas chambers, machine guns, bombs) were available, while the religious inquisitors, Crusaders, and witch hunters of history did not have those means at their disposal. (continued)
(continued from previous response) Secondly, D'Souza and other theists act as if Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pott's Cambodia were atheistic when those dictators took power. The dirty little secret is that while MOST of those dictators were atheists (Hitler was not an atheist by the way) the populations of the countries they ruled over were ostensibly religious. Hence, it was predominately religious people who participated in genocide and not atheists.
I agree with you. I wanted to ask... if killings are not driven by a religion, why they default to atheists? The actions of Mao, Pol Pott, Mao, were not driven by Atheism, so why do atheists get blamed? I see atrocities brought upon people because of religion or because of their own will or a combination of both, but I don't see people making horrible actions in the name of atheism therefore atheism should not be blamed for such events. Correct me if i am wrong.
Chrisinsocalif, you are absolutely correct. No one has killed in the NAME of atheism. Atheism, by definition is devoid of any positive assertions. It is merely, in its simplest form, a lack of belief in God. One is free to be moral as an atheist or immoral. Hence, atheism is no more the cause of murder than not believing in unicorns causes people to murder.
D'Souza is so dumb. So there was a bad guy who did stuff in the name of atheism. Bad people did WAY more bad things in the name of religion. So if that makes atheists bad then it makes the religions bad to. Do you know why atheist regimes killed more? Technology. If the inquisition had guns and tanks I can assure you the death toll would be higher. D'Souze seems to have lost all sense of logic and reason and that's why Hitchens is cleaning up.
I know that I watched this debate while devoutly believing in God. With every offensive statement that Hitchens made towards my religion, I didn't feel the slightest bit of anger towards him. I pray for people like that. Believers pray for non believers and non believers want to burn believers at the stake. Why is that? Perhaps it's the blueprint towards who's on the right side of the fight? Or maybe you should think of other words to describe your emotion.
There is an equality in D'souza's hatered towards science and reason and my hatered towards him for that reason. On the question of hating God, I would say its absurd - absurd hating something that doesn't exist.
You see, that's the difference between us. I don't hate Hitchens; he's a brilliant individual, he's just unfortunately lost. Clearly D'souza doesn't have any hatred for science or reason for that matter. He just doesn't agree with Hitchens' logic or reason. He actually uses science and reason to further validate his points on the existence of God. Perhaps he's making more sense than Hitchen's, and perhaps that's what is angering you so terribly.
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.
I dont hate D'souza, i just think some of the ideas he expose are plain silly boarding lie.
For example from part 4 "Einstein was a Theist", that is a total lie.
Or the other example "around 200 killed by the spanish inquisition". Of course, killing indians from south america is not killing humans, or like the pope say recently in brazil tour " Christianity was not imposed by a foreign culture"
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, the "three atheist amigos". Throw in Hitchens. He and all atheists are cultists- they approach reality without using reason or rationality - the presume that human already know all of reality when in fact, there is more to know. So, they have closed their minds to the possibility of knowing more of reality which includes a "creator" or some sort. They are very fundamentalist in their thinking.
Hitchens approach is so nuanced that I have the strong feeling the majority of first time listeners have a hard time appreciating the points he is making in real time. He rewards relistening to several times over.
Do you think a politician is more honest in campaign speech to gain power, or in his diary. In Hitlers diary he makes clear his hatred toward Christianity, because it is the only moral force that confronted his policies.
jfxa40 1 month ago
Dinesh was getting schooled on the Nazi question... so he just changes the topic. It's so obvious.
huwrj 1 month ago
Lol @ the comments insulting Dinesh to cover up their doubt and the fact that Dinesh is showing them reason and making them think.
guitardrummer321 5 months ago 2
@guitardrummer321 I sure hope you can reason at a higher level than D'Souza can.
jjobie 3 months ago
ELMER FUDDDDDD!
SnorkyTheInept 7 months ago
lol at the silly bantering.
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fact that so many people are clapping for Dinesh, scares the shit out of me. <--- I couldn't agree more.
blahbl4hblahtoo 9 months ago
It is true that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were atheists, I mean Hitler just used people through church, to get more control, more votes, etc... but he was really an atheist, even if Nazi soldier had belt buckles that read "Gott mit uns" - it means nothing in Hitler's eyes. I am not really sure that these 3 did what they did because they were atheists, and I am not sure if they would do anything differently if they were believers, their goals were to dominated the world....
49fiori 10 months ago
@49fiori thankyou. hurrah for a balanced honest remark
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
@49fiori Why would Hitler state in Mein Kampf that he believed to be exerting the will of his God in getting rid of the Jewish people
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1 and why would the catholic church go along with him and not defy his rule... self preservation maybe? If this is the case then why would we not question all of Catholicism's real motives. I haven't heard any good arguments for the actions this religion engaged in at this time and with the Nazi's.
Sconezeta 1 month ago
@Sconezeta Catholic power in Germany as well as the fact that the Vatican already deeply respectd hitler, celebrating his birthday every year nd having a day of prayer after his failed assination. Hitler claimed to be doing God's will in Mein Kampf, and for the Vatican so were they. And I would question the motives of Catholicism always
moroney1 1 month ago
He didn't allow the Hitch the time to comment on Stalin, Mao, etc., and then to attack him on not doing so.
That's low.
TheDanielWooi 10 months ago 3
@TheDanielWooi
And suppose Hitchens taking up all the time refusing to be cross-examined is fair? So much for ethics and being good without God eh?
Sniper2008009 2 months ago
Hitchslapped and teabagged.
Ematched 1 year ago 2
One day I wanna go around defending God and the faith . It's my dream I'm gonna study hard and prepare myself . Thanks for being a great inspiration D'Souza : )
blopajmbar62 1 year ago
@blopajmbar62 please don't be a roadblock on the road of mental evolution, please.
Dillingerman1 11 months ago 2
@blopajmbar62
lol
papermermaid 7 months ago
@blopajmbar62 i'm sure youre gonna loose your faith on the way
hilliuno 6 months ago
If God is not, everything is permitted - what complete nonsense.
Zenhumanist 1 year ago 9
If God says so, everything is permitted.
Zenhumanist 1 year ago 3
Oooh, I LOVE it when Hitchens gets mad.
TheDanielWooi 1 year ago
Communism, as is made clear in Murray Rothbard's work, is an outgrowth of Christian millennialism. Look at its tenets: To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. Both share hostility to those who have wealth (it is easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle). These similiarities are not accidental. Communism is the monstrous offspring of Christianity---and here the parent is fully to blame for the offspring's misbehavior.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
Hitchens sounds like Sideshow Bob lol
laohung 1 year ago
The fact that so many people are clapping for Dinesh, scares the shit out of me.
Territomauvais 1 year ago 28
@Territomauvais trust me churchs organize groups for this sort of thing - atheism is like herding cats - Dawkins
lord69z 1 year ago
If we're all a bunch of apes, I have no reason to return a man his wallet, save a person from drowning, give charity, etc. THEY'RE NOT IN MY GENE POOL! Why should I care? BUT! If we're made in the image and likeness of God, and Hitchens explaining feeling righteous about himself after giving blood gives rise to my thought about this, THEN WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HELP OUR FELLOW MAN. Do not think for a second the world would be the same without Christianity. IT NEEDS CHRISTIANITY TO EXIST
outtaker 1 year ago
God is not.
Everything is NOT permitted. The Golden Rule sets the laws of morality, in the human species, as it does, in many others.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose yes he is.morality is an objective only because all goodness stems from one eternal all-powerful being: Almighty God.
Jesus brought the golden rule. Before Christianity, power ruled the world. Afterwards, meekness.
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker LOL, you just displayed how idiotic you truly are!
The Golden Rule, my friend, is a lot older than Jesus, or even Judaism, for that matter.
Do read up on it before embarrassing yourself on a public forum.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@outtaker If your false-god is all-moral, then pray tell me, how was the slaughter of children in 1 Samuel 15:3, moral?
What then, of David's child being agonised to death for 7 days, by your false-god? Was that moral too?
When you condone these barbarisms, you are also making a case for the Muslim false-god of Allah - basically the Old Testament false-god, rejuvenated.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
What a cheap clap for Dinesh!
lector0003 1 year ago
"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity..."
-Adolph Hitler, 1933
StrongAgnostic1 1 year ago
@StrongAgnostic1 how disinegnuous of you to quote a public propaganda speech. He had a big christian base he needed to drag on his side. This is politics and in no way a credible or definitive statement about hitler's religiosity. Fucking ridiculous.
ComeLeVent 1 year ago
@ComeLeVent You are a tool. Why would Hitler have to make a public speech promoting Christianity to his supporters? Have you ever wondered about it, genius?
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@ComeLeVent
Perhaps you should save the melodrama for someone else and simply present your evidence that Hitler was not a devout Catholic. Emotions and profanity don't win arguments; they just demonstrate evasiveness and a lack of knowledge.
StrongAgnostic1 1 year ago
Ungh, in almost all of these debates that I've watched, the Atheist cheats. Hitchens is like any other Leftist loser, he filibusters in order to censor opposition.
yedrow 1 year ago
who's chao chesku?
thafix82 1 year ago
@thafix82 Actually is Ceausescu. Nicolae Ceausescu. Former General Secretary of Romanian Party Communist. Between 1974 and 1989 was the President of Romania. He is known to be a communist dictator. He was executed in 25th december 1989.
ThornsOfDarkness 1 year ago
I think D'Souza didn't realize the Nazis probably wanted the strong control over people's emotions which christianity gave
TheoJbird 1 year ago
who's chao chesku?
southsydney 1 year ago
D'Souza is an idiot.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
What's that liquid in Hitchens glass? I'm so curious...
zivaray 1 year ago
@zivaray
It's strained shit sauce. He uses it as a breath freshener.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
Hitchens - 10,000
Dinesh - 0
spinnersmetal 1 year ago
lol all the christians applaud at atheist's shoving religion out because they feel they are losing the debate
DarqueSock 1 year ago
@DarqueSock are you drunk?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv I am....
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
he is gitting mad drunk lol
jasonoatmeal 1 year ago
@jasonoatmeal
your an idiot .
adlerbr12 1 year ago
D'Souza is getting his lying but handed to him on a silver plate,lol.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
D'Souza is getting his lying but handed to him on a silver plate,lol.
adlerbr12 1 year ago
Its a fact that Hitler was a roman catholic he says it himself win is book mein kampf, and was never excommunicated by the Vatican.
adlerbr12 1 year ago 2
Stalin etc commited mass genocide based on a dictatorship premise, what does that have to do with atheism as a lable. These men were without a faith in a deity but not necessarily a higher power like their own power or the worship of their twisted ideals into action.
rainbowspite222 2 years ago
dinesh was about to go back to his rodeo joke. he does that every time he's stumped.
setmedic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens at his prime? Does this mean tanked?
I know he loves Scotch...it sounds like it. The dude is belligerent, not very professional & fairly incoherent.
snowboy444 2 years ago
D'Souza oversimplfies the world and expects Hitchens to do the same thing. There is no answering the idiotic premises...
CityzenJane 2 years ago 2
Hitchens at his prime.
rolyan3 2 years ago
as i said atheism was not the cause of death of people but some ideologie of man on the contraire the killing in religion are always on the name of god, allha name it
mystisme 2 years ago
LOL, Dinesh, the Inquisition happened in an era without the logistics and the technology of the 20th century.
You really think numbers of those killed would be the same, had the Inquisitioners had cheap bullets, machine guns, railway lines and modern logistics?
Idiot.
yt2vinay 2 years ago 31
Totally agree. What a child!
thehydra08 2 years ago
are u kidding me 2000 people in 300 years is because of the lack of technology. um yea ok. They could of killed a whole lot more of that in a lot less time regardless of technology. Get a clue you are the idiot.
jcw2131 2 years ago
Hi, moron! Killing a lot in that era also meant risking a massive retaliation from those getting killed, because the relative power distance between the two was not much.
The problem was, with pitchforks and torches, the ones oppressing had to fear mass retaliation with the same or similar weapons.
Industrialisation, rapid transport and mechanised manufacture changed all that. Of course, assuming you are a self-righteous religious idiot, it would be too much to expect you to understand this.
yt2vinay 2 years ago
Lol u are fucking stupid as fuck, do u realize how stupid you sound. Listen real carefully 3 CENTURIES. Your argument holds no water because no one lives anywhere near that long especially than not to mention again retard 2000 people in 300 years. This is absolutely nothing. They could have done that in a standard lifetime without the masses coming because technology was no where to spread the horror around fast enough to the world. Get a clue and an education stop regurgitating garbage.
jcw2131 2 years ago
What are you talking about? For those three centuries, the primary weapons were blades and single-shot primitive guns. The transport infrastructure comprised of horse-drawn carriages. Get modern railroads, trucks, roadways, aircraft, machine-guns and updated logistics to the Conquistadors and their Witch-burning Christian cousins, and you'll have the same thing as the Holocaust, which too was, notably, conducted largely by Christian men and women in Christian lands. Same with Stalin.
yt2vinay 2 years ago
@yt2vinay how about the truth? The inquisition DIDNT kill so many, and ATHEISTS DID! What now?
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker You didn't understand his point. That said, read 1 Samuel 15:3
Your god is a child-killer.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose God would have sinners repent and come back to him, and be good people. But those people were evil and had no mercy for Israel-therefore God meted out their punishment. My god is all-merciful, but parents have responsibility for their children, and if the parents so choose to wage war, the risk of their child's safety is theirs.
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker Use your brain for once. The Amalekite children were butchered. Don't tell me the children were criminals. Your false-god could not differentiate between the two. Overlooking 1 Samuel 15:3 is to swallow a hard, indigestible lump.
Look up the video, 'God On Trial: The Verdict' on YouTube, and let me know what your opinion is.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose name-calling is unnecessary, peter. You don't really care about those children anyway, cuz you're just spear chucking. I don't think my God didn't do any wrong, I KNOW he didn't. Would you kill the AntiChrist if it was born in front of your very eyes?
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker Spear-chucking? I have a problem when you believe in a child-killer god, and then proceed to shove that idiocy into my life.
That said, was your false-god merely eliminating "spawns of Satan" in 1 Samuel 15:3? What about the smiting of the Egyptian first-born, slave to pharaoh? Were they evil, too? How about when your false-god forced David's innocent child to suffer an agonising death over a period of a week? Was he Satan?
Lastly, did you watch what asked below, earlier? Do so now.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose Like I KEEP ON saying, a father bears responsibility over his children and because Pharaoh was leader over his people, if he chose to cruelly not let the Israelites go after their persecutions even after he saw the plagues-it is just that the Lord send death among him and his followers. Think about it this way-my god is almighty and couldve smote all the Egyptians dead in one fell swoop or transported his people instantly to Palestine-but he didnt.
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker that is to say the Pharoah was endangering his people by letting them suffer-he was too damn proud. Even when beaten.
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker So? That makes it okay for your false-god to kill the children? My, my! Aren't your "morals" slipping?
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose how do you analyze my god's words here then? "For I desire not the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God, return ye and live." (Ezekiel 18:32)
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker All it does is show that your false-god is self-contradicting. This, in turn, implies that your scripture's verses are as fickle as those invented by the human mind.
By attempting to hide the vile immorality of 1 Samuel 15:3 with another one extolling human life, you're actually making the argument favouring Atheism, rather than one for your false-god. Do you realise that?
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose Or that he is the only being who can be both merciful and just at the same time. That's why he demands we repent of our sins, and yet forgives us when we do. No human can do that. We cannot both forgive a man and punish him at the same time.
I've told you what I thought my God meant in 1 Samuel 15:3, and that it wasn't wanton children-slaughter.
outtaker 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose your stalin and mao and hitler and pol pott would sacrifice millions of lives rather than their harsh ignoble ideaologies!
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker Stalin and Mao didn't kill for Atheism. Catholic Hitler, on the other hand, had roots of his anti-Semitism sought from within his faith, and the resulting cultural anti-Semitism that it produced in Europe,
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose Fool. Catholicism is not anti-semitic. It is actually pro-Semitic. We're pro-Jesus. So we're pro-Jew. And all throughout history the anti-semitic tinge of the uneducated masses has been thwarted by many church officials.
How you explain one modern fact: It is illegal to openly go to christian churches in China and North Korea and Cuba?
Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses." Does that sound benevolent to you?
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker You are again confusing Communism with Atheism.
Christian anti-Semitism isn't a minor streak, LOL!
"Pro-Jesus" also had a dimension of relegating the Jews as his murderers.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@outtaker Who cares? Innocent children were slaughtered by your false-god. The morality ends right there. If this is your god, then its claim of perfect justice is demolished.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose Those were different times, and one can't simply say "oh God killed people in the bible/oh God did this that bla bla bla" Most of these events were done out of a matter of foreign policy, and if you view it in the light of modern, compassionate feel you will miss the truth of the world that was. Cold, unfeeling, ruthless...these are the least amount of things one could call many tribes around the world in those days.
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker Different times, same false-god.
There is no "foreign policy" when your false-prophet Samuel is the one who received the commandment to slaughter the Amalekite children from your false-god.
This is not "foreign policy" - this is your false-god believing co-religionists following the dictates of that false-god to kill children. There is simply no other way around it, and now that you are aware of it, this will be something you will wrestle for the rest of your life, in futility.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose oh and if you're so merciful, how come people of your moral stock abort children? I think our world has a lot more to answer for in the way of evil, than in those days!
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker Who says I support abortion? Even Hitchens doesn't, arguing the case of the receding date of delivery of children born prematurely, thus implying that they're human when still inside.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose but most atheists do. Hitchens is also a conservative on foreign policy; does that make atheists conservative now?
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker Atheists come in all stripes. They are only united by the fact that they do not believe in the existence of anthropomorphic sky gods such as the one made up by the Israeli tribes. To make loaded statements using phrases like "most do", etc., reveals a devious and dishonest intent on the part of the user.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@PeterKuriakose but atheism requires a loosening of morals when followed, including devaluing of life to that of cattle. For whatever reason, some do remain more moral than others, you're right. I've yet to meet or hear of one however. Hitchens is a peculiarity in that factor, yet he also supports euthanasia and assisted suicides-which is hardly a warm, fuzzy feeling.
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker That is bullshit.
Atheism works perfectly with the Golden Rule.
Your false religion, on the other hand, forces you to accept genocide and infanticide (1 Samuel 15:3) and the needless suffering of children (David's child who was agonised for 7 days) as moral.
PeterKuriakose 1 year ago
@yt2vinay
The Roman campaigns in Gaul killed millions. Whole cities were burnt to the ground, the men massacred, the children sold into slavery. This was all done under the auspices of the secular power of the Roman state.
The inquisition started in 1478 and ended officially in 1834. And it was done under the auspices of the King of Spain, the secular power of the realm. Some five thousand were killed. Lamentable, but incomparable to the great atrocities in history which preceded it.
praxus 1 year ago
@praxus LOL, your revisionism is so boring!
As if the "secular" authorities at the time were truly separated from the Church.
yt2vinay 1 year ago
@yt2vinay Do you know your history at all. Whole generations were wiped out due to wars where the people only had knives and spears. Considering the State was carrying out these excutions then yes the State would have no problem killing vast amounts of people. How many people did Rome nail to the cross or died in the Coliseum. Your technology argument is weak. Get Real!
Jmsadv 1 year ago
At 3:12 Yes! Hitchens is drunk, I think.
at 5:00 New Man, new utopia, history for the reading.
colec001 2 years ago
A drunk, half brain-dead Hitchens would clean the clocks of religious morons like D'Souza, any given day.
yt2vinay 2 years ago
That fucking crowd... I just love how he goes "Wouldn't you say?" as the question, hahaha :D Fucking love Christopher
oxygenownz 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Unfortunately, nothing was proven here. The religion vs atheism debate is truly a bottomless pit. What's the point of endless arguments over which nothing can be settled and no real progress ever made
omocorp 2 years ago
it's better than keeping up with the kardashians
TheFlamingNuns 2 years ago 2
Progress is being made in terms of converting theists to atheism on the grounds of rationality, logic and the sciences.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
It is the fastest growing minority in the US.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
You call that progress? In what sense? Not going to make the world a better place. btw, did you enlist your friends to put in all the thumbs down votes? Touche"
omocorp 2 years ago
What do you mean in what sense? In the sense that fewer people rely on faith instead of logic and science.
No I did not put thumbs down for any of your comments.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
@QwidgyboMan you really are quite arrogant of the rationality behind atheism. The belief that there is no god is JUST as irrational as the belief that there is a God if not more. On that note, the most logical, scientific and rational belief system is agnostic.
dr4g0n0k 2 years ago
How is it just as irrational?
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
Because you are believing in something which cannot be scientifically proven.
dr4g0n0k 2 years ago 2
That does not equate to irrationality. There are dozens of hypotheses that cannot yet be proven but just like atheism, there is overwhelming evidence and no reason AT ALL to believe the opposite or contrary.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
Overwhelming evidence?
dr4g0n0k 2 years ago
Most claims brought forth by theists throughout the millennia have been discredited or disproven.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
Most claims brought forth throughout the millennia have been discredited or disproven period. This does not single out theism, as theists, agnostics and atheists alike have made claims which have been discreditided or disproven. Agnosticism is the only scientifically sound position one can take, and either theism or atheism requires faith. I have yet to see atheism provide logic any better than theism as to why there 'is no God'.
dr4g0n0k 2 years ago
If I can take your points in reverse order...
Well we simply disagree on what constitutes evidence then my friend. The fact that there is none is, in my submission quite strong evidence against it, particularly when most claims about god's existence are purported to be currently observable.
All positions, even agnosticism, require a certain measure of faith.
No doubt atheists have spoken nonsensical $h*t. But is it comparable to theists or deists? I hardly think so.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
@QwidgyboMan
Lack of evidence is not evidence itself. You need evidence one way or the other. Agnosticism, atleast my definition of it, doesn't require faith. Simply accepting that you do not know is empirically measurable unless you want to venture into a debate about freudian psychology and subconscious knowledge.
dr4g0n0k 2 years ago
@QwidgyboMan So what? They move the goal posts everytime and never condeed they lost the last question or the one before that or the one before that... with sociopathic consistency...
CityzenJane 2 years ago
Almost every nationalistic dictator, religious or not, has persecuted religions not because he hated the religion but because he wants people to be loyal to him not god. Its the same with stalin.
littlteapot 2 years ago 4
HItchens needs a mirror to look at himself as he loves to here himself talk.
THEMETALIANSTALLION 2 years ago
D'Souza is much like Hitchens in the sense that he loves his rhetoric. Much like Hitchens, much more interesting, much more style and flair, but much less substance.
Anyone realise that he did not refute or repudiate Dawkin's point on false cause? He simply belittled Dawkins as a mere biology; ad hominem, Dinesh? In any case, the Balliolian man of Dawkins is certainly not ignorant of history, as you might posit.
accountbypass1 2 years ago
Both the assertion that religion brings evil, and that atheism brings evil are in my opinion false. I think that certain personalities always try to control. I do believe that religion is often used as a vessel for control.
To set the record straight, I think religion is idiotic, and ignorant at best, and malicious, and evil at worst.
sfmike20 2 years ago
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 17
dinesh douchesouza is ridiculous. "my turn? my turn? i ask the questions and you take all the time- this is the way atheists are they hog all of the stage and push the religions out " i want to kick his lame scrawny ass all the way back to crazyville.
hamerexploreremd 2 years ago 2
Dinesh is such a dishonest dickbag in these debates.
H: (counters bald faced assertion that facists and nazists were atheists)
D: But what about every single other communist regime in existence that you didn't specifically mention?
H: Ok, then I'll give more exampl-
D: Let me talk, stop hogging the debate!
H: Fine, your turn.
D: HA! See, look at all the questions he didn't answer because I didn't let him!
kaeBR 2 years ago 3
(or rather that they did what they did _because_ of atheism and not political ideals - but you get the point)
kaeBR 2 years ago
Agree with you,
And what he said at 3:56 - complete hypocrite.
Dragos1591 2 years ago 2
here's how I would respond to d'sousa's assertion that atheism breeds genocide: stalin, hitler, and maos visions of atheism all had religious undertones. for them, purging their countries of religion was a way to further their own Godlike power and control. by stopping citizens from worshiping a God, they cleared the way for their citizens to worship them instead. these men strived to be obeyed and yes, worshipped as if they were either divine or at the least more than human. sound familiar?
FatherofMan25 2 years ago
First time I see Hitch unconfortable
safetheory 2 years ago
just cuz the guy's being a little dick
TheRealEricLester 2 years ago
Id be uncomfortable if some prick always bend and twist my words
Nades129 2 years ago
I think he was pissed more than anything.
Ragnaros12345 2 years ago
Hitchens is getting a little drunk I think.....halarious, and he still kicks D'Souza'a ass
spaceboy1250 2 years ago 7
"Hitler hated Christianity." --Dinesh
really?
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."--Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922.
"...preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission".-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
gmn545 2 years ago 7
Your second quote, while correct, is I believe from 1927 (although correct me if I'm wrong). In it's entirety::
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
- Adolf Hitler.
moiphx2 2 years ago
the source i got it from, dates that at april 12, 1922. and yes that's the whole quote, showing how he drew his inspiration from the galilean rabbi. KKK members and Neo-Nazi's would agree whole-heartedly with this quote, and they call themselves devout Christians. and i'm hoping, for your sake, you're not appealing to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
The main point is, Hitler was no atheist.
gmn545 2 years ago
Ya, I agree with you 100%. Also, cheers for the correction. It's worrying how the more...spiritual (?)...side of Hitler has been gradually erased over the last few years. Don't worry, I don't agree with that ridiculous 'no true Scotsman' argument either.
moiphx2 2 years ago
@gmn545 Why is it that the Athiest will accept Hitler at his word of believing in a Creator so they can slam Christians? I'm sorry, Does Hitler have a record of telling the truth? What about that agreement not to invade Russia. Hitler kind of lied on that one. HEY ATHEIST, also in MEIN KAMPF Hitler talks about using propaganda to promote and accomplish your goals. Hitler says whatever he wants to win. Kind of like a Politician.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv Because Hitler never repudiated his faith; he spoke of it even in times when propaganda was not necessary. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."--Adolf Hitler, to Gen. Gerhart Engel, 1941. Hitler actually drew his inspiration for eradicating the Jews from another German: Martin Luther!!! (e.g. "On the Jews and their Lies"). The initiator of the Protestant Reformation was anti-semitic! Are you gonna claim he wasn't a "real" christian too? lol
gmn545 1 year ago
@gmn545 So are you saying that WWII was a Religious War? Lets see you have Germany invading all of Europe and Hitler was trying to convert Christians into Christians??? He loves Christ who was a Jew but hates all other Jews???
Jmsadv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jmsadv No I'm saying Hitler (including up to 50% of the Waffen-SS) was a Catholic. It was the Church itself that supported him (see Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933). "We fervently beg Our Lord God to bestow ample blessings on the undertakings of Adolf Hitler, the blessing granted to the German nation when He made Hitler a fitting leader to achieve them."--Father Ján Ferjenčík, 1940. That Hitler loved Christ but hated all other Jews...again, Martin Luther did too!
gmn545 1 year ago
@gmn545 So if Hitler was going to War because of GOD then who was he trying to Convert? It's like saying that the Revolutionary War of 1776 was also being fought because of God. Hitler wanted complete control of the World as the founding fathers wanted control over their own Country. What about Alexender the Great who was born before Christ? He had one of the largest empires ever. Its called Greed of Power. Hitler used God to give his movement authority not motivation. True Story, lol
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv I didn't say he was going to war "because of God"; he did, however, think God was on his side. "If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument"--Hitler, during his proclamation to the German people, Jan. 1, 1939. "used God to give his movement authority"... That would apply to Hezbollah as well. Does that then make their members not "true" adherents to Islam? No.
gmn545 1 year ago
D'Souza actually has the audacity to talk about the standards of fairness atheists use, and how we hog the public square. Come on! Christianity has virtually monopolized western culture for almost two millennia, and has, when it was allowed to, persecuted to death all dissenters. I think atheists are owed disproportionate time in the public square. After all, we have to counter nearly 2000 years of influence in a few sound bytes within the span of a few decades.
alphacause 2 years ago
Was the population even great enough during the inquisition to have killed as many that died during Hitler's regimen?
kittystrokem 2 years ago
You bring up a good point. However, I would go one step further. The reason why millions, as opposed to thousands, died in the regimes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pott, was because they lived in an era were the technological means for mass killings (i.e. gas chambers, machine guns, bombs) were available, while the religious inquisitors, Crusaders, and witch hunters of history did not have those means at their disposal. (continued)
alphacause 2 years ago
(continued from previous response) Secondly, D'Souza and other theists act as if Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pott's Cambodia were atheistic when those dictators took power. The dirty little secret is that while MOST of those dictators were atheists (Hitler was not an atheist by the way) the populations of the countries they ruled over were ostensibly religious. Hence, it was predominately religious people who participated in genocide and not atheists.
alphacause 2 years ago
I agree with you. I wanted to ask... if killings are not driven by a religion, why they default to atheists? The actions of Mao, Pol Pott, Mao, were not driven by Atheism, so why do atheists get blamed? I see atrocities brought upon people because of religion or because of their own will or a combination of both, but I don't see people making horrible actions in the name of atheism therefore atheism should not be blamed for such events. Correct me if i am wrong.
chrisinsocalif 2 years ago
Chrisinsocalif, you are absolutely correct. No one has killed in the NAME of atheism. Atheism, by definition is devoid of any positive assertions. It is merely, in its simplest form, a lack of belief in God. One is free to be moral as an atheist or immoral. Hence, atheism is no more the cause of murder than not believing in unicorns causes people to murder.
alphacause 2 years ago
2:00-3:33 I think that is Hitchens biggest pwnage moment in all his debates.
lonerook860 2 years ago
LOL!!!!! Go hitchens u're the best
splendorfulguris 2 years ago
D'Souza is so dumb. So there was a bad guy who did stuff in the name of atheism. Bad people did WAY more bad things in the name of religion. So if that makes atheists bad then it makes the religions bad to. Do you know why atheist regimes killed more? Technology. If the inquisition had guns and tanks I can assure you the death toll would be higher. D'Souze seems to have lost all sense of logic and reason and that's why Hitchens is cleaning up.
sd06ds 3 years ago
Hitler said he was immortal, no Atheist would say that.
Mina0008 3 years ago 4
Actually and atheist would not say:
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. "
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
jotatsu 3 years ago 4
Well put.
Mina0008 3 years ago
you didn't listen to Hitchens' words at all did you?
mgundy 3 years ago
What?
Mina0008 3 years ago
Did you read what I said?
Mina0008 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know that I watched this debate while devoutly believing in God. With every offensive statement that Hitchens made towards my religion, I didn't feel the slightest bit of anger towards him. I pray for people like that. Believers pray for non believers and non believers want to burn believers at the stake. Why is that? Perhaps it's the blueprint towards who's on the right side of the fight? Or maybe you should think of other words to describe your emotion.
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
Comment removed
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
Comment removed
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
Comment removed
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
If you hate D'souza, please give this comment a thumbs up.
siyengar9821 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hate, such a strong word. So many people hate God or the mere mention of it.
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
There is an equality in D'souza's hatered towards science and reason and my hatered towards him for that reason. On the question of hating God, I would say its absurd - absurd hating something that doesn't exist.
siyengar9821 3 years ago
You see, that's the difference between us. I don't hate Hitchens; he's a brilliant individual, he's just unfortunately lost. Clearly D'souza doesn't have any hatred for science or reason for that matter. He just doesn't agree with Hitchens' logic or reason. He actually uses science and reason to further validate his points on the existence of God. Perhaps he's making more sense than Hitchen's, and perhaps that's what is angering you so terribly.
Modelmaterial7 3 years ago
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.
siyengar9821 3 years ago
I dont hate D'souza, i just think some of the ideas he expose are plain silly boarding lie.
For example from part 4 "Einstein was a Theist", that is a total lie.
Or the other example "around 200 killed by the spanish inquisition". Of course, killing indians from south america is not killing humans, or like the pope say recently in brazil tour " Christianity was not imposed by a foreign culture"
jotatsu 3 years ago 2
Time for single mat at 3:34
siyengar9821 3 years ago
Single Malt
siyengar9821 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, the "three atheist amigos". Throw in Hitchens. He and all atheists are cultists- they approach reality without using reason or rationality - the presume that human already know all of reality when in fact, there is more to know. So, they have closed their minds to the possibility of knowing more of reality which includes a "creator" or some sort. They are very fundamentalist in their thinking.
truthformeandyou 3 years ago
Dinesh is a slimey turd.
emphaticapathy 3 years ago
Hitchens approach is so nuanced that I have the strong feeling the majority of first time listeners have a hard time appreciating the points he is making in real time. He rewards relistening to several times over.
bertinotti