God exists or does not exist irrespectable of are you Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindus, Buddhist or what ever, and irrespectable of are you a theist or atheist or are you empiricist scientist or not. These both guys are worth listening. These kinds of discussions are necessary and always up-to-date at all times.
@Twicebakedtaters Humans might be an agent through which nature improves itself by ceasing to be a blind watch-maker and beginning to rationalize its procecess
@TheHunterCook Your opinion it's bullshit, it's good to know we have someone walking this earth that knows the answer 100% and was there the day the universe began. How neat....By the same token, many theists are loving life and do not have bullshit on their shoulders as well, all in opinion, nothing more. The key is learn to respect each others paths, not turn your path or opinions into fact or law.
@DaFoxx28 I refuse to respect people who believe in a jealous god that condones murder and murders people himself, Including innocent children. When people think shit like that is ok. They will condone all kinds of other bullshit justified without evidence.
@TheHunterCook I never said what I believe. Angry atheist.....none the less, you can show the world you're an angry, noid atheist all you want, and think calling theists dumb and "fairy dream chasers" all you please. Doesn't hurt anyone with strong belief 1 bit, no matter what that belief is. To them you're just some 7th grader that keeps repeating the same so call put downs, nothing more. A lot of scientists are even theists, so what, you got your belief, others have theirs, deal with it
Wow, Dennett's undergrad students and fanboys trying to wipe him up from the floor in the comments here lol.. No matter what your position, if you take a step back and look OBJECTIVELY at this debate, Dennett was clearly outmatched. Dsouza vs Singer was much closer..
I applaud Dr. Dennett for remaining calm throughout this debate. D'Souza's blatant disrespect and overall trashy demeanor is enough to make me cringe. I sincerely "pray" that his unprofessionalism is taken into account by any institution seeking him out for future debate.
Currently, there are 33.000 Protestant faiths to date and counting, all in contradiction with each other, which has not helped the cause....thank you for the deformation Martin Luther!
Christianity and its guru Dinesh D,Souza are making me sick. I would like to advise them that Please go to Africa, Latin America and Philippine. The local CHRISTIANS are hungry and have become sex slaves just to survive. The Churches have lot of money therefore they should feed, provide free schooling and health-care to them. Dinesh should use their moral values in a country where it needs the most
I don't believe that this debate ever took place since I can't verify it to my own satisfaction. The video seems real, but that doesn't matter because I've already made up my mind that it's not real. **random angry comment**; **uneducated barb** **haha look how witty I am comment**
I carry no brief for D'Souza, but .I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
@WhiteLakeDan yet another PERFECT example of how animals tend to lash out when feeling cornered/threatened. Let me guess, you have the IQ of a salad bar?
@WhiteLakeDan I have just I have just watched this debate and it was Dennett who spewed assertions without argument - not D'Souza. Dennett is reduced to a blithering moron in this debate. You either have (i) not seen the debate and just making noise; (ii) are a bigot; (iii) hate the fact that your worldview was successfully challenged by D'Souza; or (iv) just stupid.
@TBOTSS "You either have (i) not seen the debate and just making noise; (ii) are a bigot; (iii) hate the fact that your worldview was successfully challenged by D'Souza; or (iv) just stupid."
You failed to consider a range of possible explanations regarding your own incompetence and inability to grasp reality. While this might be excused somewhat if you had presented evidence, the current state of affairs make those unstated options seem far more likely to be true than yours.
Satan who hates God, and the Holy One of God. Read Luke 10:16 and find out for yourself. Suffer no more illusion! Satan is the Angel of Light who appeared to Mohammed. Jesus is God, the Holy One of God. Demons acknowledged Him as the Son of God (Matthew 8:28-34), it is written in John 5:18 that “the Son of God equals God”. Jesus Himself said, “I am God” in Mark 15:61, 62.
@righteousseed1 If you want to argue within the realm of reason and logic, do not quote the bible. Throwing bible verses into a secularist debate greatly diminishes your credibility. But I would expect no less from a bible thumping christian.
@Seigu007 hahahaha yeah. rational people with the ability to unerstand and appreciate schientific theory are the losers. not those who take their world view from fairy tales.
1. Love isn't an emotion. It is an action. You have to choose to love people. Compassion is having feeling for something. Passion is a strong feeling period, good or bad. God posses all these things. These aren't human feelings, we get them from him. 2. We have more proof for a creator, not necessarily God, than we do for evolution. Evolution assumes life. You assume that at the beginning of the world there was something to evolve from. 60 plus years of experiments have failed to prove anything
@sorakai So then the big question would be: why God? I believe in God because he has the most evidence. Buddha doesn't explain where mankind came from, neither does Confucius. Allah doesn't love his creation, and is extremely legalistic, and mooches off the God of the Bible to get popularity. If you read the Bible, you will find truth. Not only spiritual, but practical.
@sorakai There is no evidence for any god. Evidence can be observed, presented, and examined. The "evidence" for god is all anecdotal. It's not physical or real; it's a collection of stories and experiences usually mixed with a fundamental ignorance of how the universe works. Just because a religion can say they know how everything began doesn't mean they're right. I could make a religion that gives the answers to everything, but that doesn't make it right just because I said so.
@sorakai When you read the Bible, you find tales and fables and inaccurate or completely untrue history. Historians and anthropologists are well aware of Biblical inaccuracies and falsehoods when it comes to history. There's no more truth in the Bible than there is truth in a Harry Potter novel.
@sorakai If you notice, sir/ma'am. Even evolution credits "intelligence" to our origins. You hear scientists say things like "nature chose", "Mother nature", ect. Is this not crediting a "higher power"?
@sorakai Evolution in and of itself was not a horrible theory, but there isn't any evidence that it's true, not on the scale you claim. I believe animals and such can adapt, there by altering their appearance. But I don't think that elephants and the fruit fly share a common ancestral cell.
@sorakai No, it's not. It's called figurative language. Scientists do it all the time because it's the quickest and simplest way for us to express our ideas. When scientists talk about "design" they're simply referring to the illusion of design that we see in nature. It is an illusion because organisms show great diversity and complexity, yet when we study them closely, we find that they aren't so perfect and designed at all. They're a hodgepodge of imperfect organs and tissues that evolved in
@sorakai the heat of the moment when it was beneficial for their survival. That's why when we study organisms, we don't find perfection and efficiency; most things we find are indirect and inefficient, as a result of nature simply not always stumbling upon the most direct path. Organisms were not designed with intelligence. They evolved naturally over millions of years, generation by generation of gradual change as positive traits aided in reproduction and negative traits increased mortality.
1. Love is an emotion. It is a human emotion. Or we wouldn't feel it.
2. Listen to yourself when the words are switched.
"We have more proof for evolution than we do for god. God assumes intelligence . You assume that at the beginning of the world there was something called God to create the universe. 3000 plus years of stories have failed to prove anything"
Notice anything strange about that? And evolution and god are not mutually exclusive. If that were the case, tehre would be no
@sorakai no god. By your logic you have to be an atheist because it's a fact that evolution occurs. We have over 150 years of accumulated observations, studies, and data from all areas of the natural sciences that independently confirms the fact that evolution occurs. To deny it is to be, frankly, stupid. I'm done talking to you. You've shown yourself to be mentally incapable of understanding basic logic and science. You're incapable of thinking, period. I tried to discuss these issues with you
@Klazzt "it's a fact that evolution occurs"... by who? It has always been a theory thus far, just because it's heavily supported, doesn't mean it's factual.
"confirms the fact that evolution occurs", shouldn't this be "contributes to the evolution theory" instead? It is known that there have been many missing links and unsubstantiated claims in the evolution theory, so stop being a confused, impelling atheists, it just reinforce religious people in their belief.
@fize4ever No, it is a fact that evolution occurs. You're using a variation of the "just a theory" argument, which is bullocks. A scientific theory is indeed heavily supported by evidence, and evolution is one of the most concrete theories we have to the point where we can even watch and record it happening not only in the lab but in nature. It is undeniable that evolution occurs. The theory of evolution incorporates the fact of evolution plus the various scientific theories and laws that
@fize4ever that explain the processes by which evolution occurs. There are no "missing links" or "unsubstantiated claims" in evolution theory; that's the kind of rhetoric you only hear among Creationist circles. Shoot these "missing links" and "unsubstantiated claims" through a real biologist and they'll tell you. You're more than welcome to ask me about any of the supposed holes in evolutionary theory. Also, how is explaining scientific concepts in any way reinforcing religious beliefs?
But what is more funny is the fact that you said so without capitalizing the first letter of your "witty" sarcasm, nor did you use an apostrophe in your "its", and of course, end the sentence with a dot.
@sorakai and show you the gaps in your logic. I tried to scientifically explain to you emotions and morality. I tried to explain to you what we currently know about the universe and evolution. You've ignored every single thing I've told you and have simply blurted, "Goddidit." You are an intellectual failure.
@Klazzt Hey, good day to you to :) And i haven't ignored anything you've written. But likewise, I hope you've taken account of things I've said as well. "Goddiit" is as valid to me as your "Idon'tknow". Christians don't know everything, but organisms exhibit extraordinary design. How does a cell, with no brain, just "know" what it's supposed to do? How does a sperm cell just swim to the egg, and then perform all the steps to make a child? Accident? Nope, twas made that way.
I love how Dinesh gets people so wound up, it's awesome.
I know God is real, but I admit to debate that he is real is a very difficult debate to win. Dinesh is awesome because, whenever they try to make a point he refutes it because he is more familiar with their evidence than they are. He must be very well read.
@Gaijin01 I'm afraid you're poorly informed. No one refutes anything Dinesh says because he's extremely misleading, and there's no reason to to talk about a person's ignorance when it's so blatantly obvious.
@SocialDissimulation Thats funny, so your saying Dinesh Misled, Dennett and Hitchens? Thats their own fault then! They had the forum, they had a chance to say or refute ANYTHING he said. And they did a poor job of doing it. You make it sound as if they were stunned into silence at his stupidity, if you cant defend your points of view, then your better of not having them!
@Gaijin01 If I made the argument that the sky was purple, would you go into an hour long diatribe about how the sky is blue, and why it's blue, or would you laugh?
@SocialDissimulation You are extremly blind, watch the video above, Dennett is not standing there in awe, hes talking, ALOT! What you say sometimes happens but not in this video! You are defending your point of view, not this debate...
@Gaijin01 So how can you claim, whilst watching the same video as I, and using empirical evidence suggesting that Dinesh is well-read? I'll tell you how, because we weren't talking about this debate, we were talking about how Dinesh misleads people, and this is why no one bothers to refute his stupid claims. Again: If I made the argument the sky was completely purple, would you launch into debate mode, or let it go? Thanks for playing.
@SocialDissimulation@Gaijin01 Hee hee. I stand by my orginal comment, "I love how Dinesh gets people so wound up, it's awesome."
You claim people just stand in awe of his stupidity but he does not here, nor in any debate you can point to...Talk about empirical evidence, you have NO evidence at all that this happens. I will reply no further.
@Gaijin01 Why exactly do you think the top comment on this page is assigning misleading people? Why do you think every video you can see him debating in (especially with Hitchens), he goes on a sermon that makes zero sense, and his opponent just exudes his own statements? There's no use in arguing the sky is purple. Thanks for ignoring my question (for a second time in a row).
@krizzia1000 Please visit infidels.org and read every free readings at the left side of the site before you judge the site. God is fake even if others think that He is real. Please visit and share infidels.org. We are animals that have no soul. We have no soul and its not eternal. Neither will it be in Heaven or in Hell. Think and find the truth before its too late. Remember the consequences is eternal. God loves us all so much he wont protect children from pedophiles!
D'Souza is probably one of the top 3 Christian apologists living today which says a lot about the pathetic state of Christian apology. The modern world (espcially the internet) is just dealing hammerblows to the Christian worldview. Rare is the person who feels the Bible is the word of god today..
@13Xanadu Well when you folks get tired of bouncing from one theory to the next new theory of how life started then let me know because then you will have convinced yourselves that you have finnally found a solid scientific fact!
@13Xanadu I understand what you're saying. But not all people are in a position to understand what a bad argument is, which is why people like D'Souza can get away with using them wherever they go. I just think stupidity and bad argumentation should be challenged head-on whenever it's used to expose it for what it is and to shred any credibility that some might think it has.
@CherokeeApacheIrish I think an intellectually honest debater is well within his or her right to point out an opponent's lies and deceit. I really don't like debates; I don't think that one side versus another and having a winner and a loser is a good method of resolving scientific issues, and it shouldn't be up to the audience to decide, but since it is, then debaters should point out the opposition's flaws. Also, what does this have to do with the theory of life's origins? We have a good idea
@CherokeeApacheIrish of what generally must have happened billions of years ago. The details are sketchy, naturally, but a good explanation is better than no explanation.
I must say that for his initial argument he did make a bad assumption. Shermer covers this well when he says "You can't just say all religion is bad, you have to be specific about which ones". So you can' say "This is a religious country, there is more crime here than europe, therefore all religion is bad". Very poor reasoning.
@luvlatinmamis Some people just don't get the fact that America has every culture known to planet earth here! Most European nations do not have that huge mix of cultures as America does. With a huge mix of different cultures in 1 nation like America it does bring with it, it's own unique problems.
@ klazzt ....dinesh won the debate because he has evidence to support his argument, eithiest only assume and argue without evidence... so don't be bitter because dinesh demolished your beliefs, because Jesus even said, the truth will set you free and that is exactly what dinesh did, speak the truth
I read some comments and saw that people said Dinesh won this debate. Dinesh seems to win every debate he's in, not because he's right, but because his opponents never refute his poorly fallacious arguments, most of which are just plain lies. He's not a great mind. He's not great at thinking. He's an idiot. Yes, an idiot. Why do people respect him by calling him a great thinker with a great mind? He's about as great as cup of raisins, and I hate raisins.
@Klazzt lol that's pretty funny about the raisins. He does have fallacies but I haven't encountered one person on either side that hasn't used a fallacy of some sort. I agree with Micheal Shermer when he says "The statistics don't matter" He says this in context of the bigger picture of God or No God when John Lennox mentions a number of how many scientists believe in God. The same is true of how many fallacies a person uses in his or her argument.
@Klazzt Sure is not a intelligent well thought out retort if you have to use ad homenin personal attacks on one's character just as you just made! Shows you have a weak argument when you have to stoop to the level of kindergardener!
@Klazzt - Strange defeatist comment. You claim that 'Dinesh seems to win every debate...his opponents never refute his poorly fallacious arguments'. But notice Dinesh replies to his opponent’s arguments and refutes them. Dennett was taken completely off guard here and totally humiliated. In fact Klazz your name calling is just a reflection of your childishness, you are unable to offer a logical rebuttal but feel the need to associate yourself with fashionable atheism. Please grow up.
@TBOTSS Fashionable atheism? I'm not sure what you mean. And do you watch Dinesh? He doesn't refute anything. He just argues from ignorance and then tries to defame evolution and atheism and associates them with eugenics and Nazism and slaps that label on his opponents. Most of his opponents never really point out his ignorance and that's all I was pointing out. It could be that Dinesh is so stupid that his opponents don't even bother, but that doesn't change the fact that he is stupid.
@Klazzt you say 'his opponents never really point out his ignorance' and 'Dinesh is so stupid that his opponents don't even bother'. Well Dennett and others claim that theism is illogical and stupid but not one of them can back it up with an argument (and this includes Dawkins, Hitchens, Kruass, Harris etc.). Again you claim that Dinesh is ‘stupid’ (again the insults) despite the fact he has gone more atheists in the past two years than anyone expect for William Lane Craig.
@TBOTSS Insults don't matter. And the individuals you are referring to do think theism is illogical. However, they have backed up their stances numerous times. In fact, in The God Delusion, Dawkins spends an entire chapter deconstructing the "logic" used by theists to argue for their god. I'm not sure what you're getting at with Dinesh and William Lane Craig, but I don't see how he's relevant. I'm aware of Craig and he, like all other theologians, haven't presenting a true argument for god.
@Klazzt Dawkins the GD is full of great logical gems like 'I once pigued theologians and philosophers adjusting the ontological argument to prove that pigs fly. They had to use modal logic to prove that I was wrong'. Well boys and girls as Dawkins himself says he was proved wrong - and of course all modern ontological arguments are stated in modal logic. It is a bit like saying that Quantum Mechanics is wrong and saying that someone used Complex Hilbert Vector spaces to prove to them wrong.
@TBOTSS Did you even read The God Delusion? Do you comprehend that passage you just quoted? Dawkins was pointing out that using the very same logic that theologians use to prove the existence of god, he used to prove the existence of flying pigs and the theologians had to scramble their brains to think of a way to disprove flying pigs. He was pointing out that the ontological argument is a poor argument.
@Klazzt Dawkins was not using the same logic. He merely made an assertion and it was pointed out that he was mistaken. Dawkins does not understand any of the ontological arguments (or any argument for God) that is why most of his book is filled with meaningless quotes. Note that Dawkins also says that he forgot the details and others no argument in the GD to back up his case. The logic of all the ontological arguments is modal Dawkins clearly does not know this so his views are meaningless .
@TBOTSS I'm sorry, but I'm through discussing this with you. It's pointless. You fail to comprehend basic logic and your understanding of biology may be even worse than D'Souza's, which is saying something. Please make an effort to educate yourself. I've tried, but you have to put in the effort yourself.
@Klazzt Again insults, you are intellectually over matched and you know it. You claim that I do not understand basic logic then please point out where I have gone wrong. I am sorry but I do understand the intellectual and philosophical underpinnings of the modern biology. You make a plea for me to educate myself so please give me a book title however I would be very surprised if it said anything different to what I have said.
@Klazzt here are you? Why have you not pointed out my logical fallacies? Or do you just, like your atheist heroes, find yourself in a position that you know your arguments for atheism are weak and can only use abuse to make yourself feel better? You accuse everyone of being stupid, an idiot, lacking knowledge without saying where these inadequacies lie. I am sorry that you are threatened by honest disagreement. All the best
@TBOTSS I told you that I was done discussing this with you because you know nothing of the sciences and you fail to comprehend even basic rebuttals to poor theological argument. Evolution does make predictions. It can be falsified. And what do you mean biology isn't subject to general laws? What does that even mean? This is my point. You have no idea what you're talking about and it's painful, honestly. There is no "flaw" in biology that scientists are worried about.
@TBOTSS And I've never heard any scientist saying they want to reduce biology to just chemistry or just mathematics. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore, it's so absurd.
@TBOTSS I've given numerous rebuttals to Dinesh and his arguments and blind assertions. I'm actually quite tired of doing it. Other people have done it, so if you want another rebuttal to Dinesh, just read around and I'm sure you'll find some good ones.
@Klazzt Then perhaps you should debate Dinesh rather than Dennett or any other of the Four Horsemen of atheism. You may be able to engage Dinesh without humiliating yourself.
@Klazzt Dinesh would, I guess, say the same thing about you. The problem here is that you are an armchair atheist who likes to shout his rationality and intellectually superiority, but can also do so by personal attacks. If Dinesh's arguments are so bad you would think that Dennett, Loftus etc would point him out on it. But they don't as the arguments are quite good and if Dennett etc were to challenge them Dinesh's replies would rebut his opponent and show just how good his arguments are.
@TBOTSS So I'm both a fashionable atheist and an armchair atheist? I wasn't away that so many species existed. Regardless, do you honestly think Dinesh's argument that atheism is inherently evil because atheists have murdered people is a good argument? He uses it quite often. It's one of his favorites and undebatably one of his poorest. Following his logic, Christianity should be abolished because Christians have used their beliefs to kill others.
@Klazzt No you have this wrong. Dinesh is saying that all ideologies are capable of great evil. This includes both religious and secular ideas. Dinesh is arguing that it is fallacy to say that religion causes evil and that when secular ideologies go wrong it is just accidental.
@TBOTSS Then there's Dinesh's common argument against the scientific fact of evolution. He says evolution didn't happen because it would be like a Boeing 747 being created by a tornado passing through a junkyard. This shows a very fundamental ignorance in Dinesh's understanding of the science of evolution, yet he never learns and continues to use this argument against his opponents and against evolution.
@Klazzt Dinesh says that evolution did happen but is highlighting the fact that evolution and biology in general lacks laws and because of this it is so open to dispute. For example we can largely prove that the universe came into existence. If and when biology becomes a mature science we may be able to take about possible biological bangs, general laws of biology, fine turning etc.
@TBOTSS I'm assuming you don't know the scientific definitions of hypotheses, theories, and laws. What you have just said is very confusing and must come from a lack of understanding of what science is, or more dangerously from the miseducation by the likes of Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates. All science is open to dispute; however, not the kind of dispute you must be thinking of. Biology is a gigantic field of science; one of the largest, in fact, if not THE largest.
@Klazzt No I am pointing out that evolution is a historical science - it makes no predictions, cannot be falsified, and is not subject to general laws. Many scientists see this as a flaw and wish either to see evolution reduced to chemistry or placed on a mathematical basis. This does not make evolution a non-science but one different form physics or inorganic chemistry. For a very good introduction read Rosenbergs' -intro to the philosophy of biology. Again the insults why?
@TBOTSS The only disputes in biology, and in evolution specifically, are the methods and rates at which evolution occurs. These are scientific questions of the power of various processes in evolution, not disputes over the validity of the science as a whole. As for the fact that biology has no laws, that is to be expected. A scientific law is a statement that is true under all conditions., but does not explain the phenomena. For instance, the law of gravity is just the fact that gravity exists
@TBOTSS but the law of gravity does not explain gravity. That is a law; a consistently true observation. With biology, however, just about anything is possible. It would be extremely hard to pinpoint one aspect of biology that is true under all conditions in the known universe. So, of course there are no "laws of biology." We wouldn't expect any and it's no argument against the power of biological science and evolution that laws for biology don't exist.
@TBOTSS Again, biological bangs? Biological fine tunings? These are bafflingly absurd arguments from the purest form of ignorance of biology. Biology IS a mature science but we aren't going to talk about spontaneous life explosions or finely tuned systems for life. You're throwing around terms used by cosmologists and confused theologians that have nothing to do with biology.
@Klazzt No it is not a mature hard science - not one philospher of science who would agree with you. I have kindly mentioned a book by an eminent philosopher of science who is against intelligent design and an atheist which explains in detail the points Dinesh and I have made. The shift in the physical reality is how material as moved form a determinate state (physics, inorganic chemistry) to a random particular one (biology) needs to be explained. Some claim emergence and so on
@TBOTSS If you really want me to go on, there's the argument that Hitler and Stalin were both atheists and therefore atheism leads to genocide and social destruction. The argument that Hitler was an atheist is a poor one; it's possible that Hitler deconverted from Christianity later in life, but for a majority of it he was Christian, even during his campaign. As for Stalin, he was an atheist but his lack of belief in a god was not his reason for genocide. He had a terrible idea of absolute
@TBOTSS power and authority of the government and he was weeding out anyone that he saw as a threat to his establishment. Regardless, there's no reason to assume that their lack of faith in a deity had anything to do with their crimes against humanity. They were terrible people, faithful or faithless. To try to use them as proof that atheism is evil is dishonest. After all of Dinesh's offensive arguments, I believe it's perfectly right to insult him and show him no respect; he shows no respect
@Klazzt It's so pathetic how you atheists can never give credit where credit is due. Dinesh is very intelligent no matter what his beliefs are...He has more knowledge of science, history and theology than Dennett and Hitches combined! That is why he won both those debates and not for any other reason. Faith 2 Atheism 0
@buitrami Dinesh has more knowledge if science and history than Dennett and Hitchens combined? And that's why he believes evolution is the equivalent of a tornado producing an airplane? And that's why he thinks evoAnd that's why he whines that Hitler and Stalin were atheists, therefore atheists are genocidal maniacs? I could go one. Dinesh is dumb as shit. He doesn't know a thing about science and he said in one debate, "Science gives us nothing!" and he knows nothing of history.
@Klazzt LMAO! You're such an idiot! There are so many things wrong with what you just said that i would rather not even bother with my rebuttal. Arguing with you is like trying to teach Quantum Mechanics to a chimp...BTW, I'm not religious. I just repect people for how smart they are, not for what they believe in. Maybe you atheists should learn to do the same.
@buitrami I can see that discussing D'Souza with you is pointless. I can respect people for how smart they are, but D'Souza is not smart. There is no question about that. He shows himself to be incredibly ignorant and stupid in his writings, lectures, and debates. I am saying nothing bad about his faith, I am saying that he knows nothing of science and history. I refuse to respect belief in non-science, pseudoscience, and warped reality.
@Klazzt If you take the tragically monotheistic D'Souza to say that science contributes nothing to knowledge, then there's been an unfortunate mistake. Much like Chomsky, D'Souza saliently defends science as one perspective among many. Very pluralistic of him don't you think?
I wonder if he (or they) are right? We seem to live by rationality, but we seem to have other (spiritual?) appetites satisfied by art and literature. Minus the silly theistic claims, D'Souza is surprisingly entertaining.
@buitrami I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Dinesh D'Souza is a smart man must be exponentially more stupid than even D'Souza himself. You have failed to show how Dinesh is more knowledgeable about science and history; you assert it, in spite of all evidence against you.
@Klazzt Dinesh wouldn't be where he is now winning debates against some of the brightest minds alive if he weren't smart! LOL...You're a jackass...I'm beating a dead horse here. Enough said...
@buitrami Dinesh is a complete idiot. I've seen at least 6 or 7 of his debates and read his book (Christianity is NOT great, sorry Dinesh). He has no grasp of science, reason, logic, rationality, argumentation, or anything, really for that matter. He "won" the debate because you have "faith" that he won. You assumed he would win before you watched and despite the EVIDENCE to the contrary you stuck to that faith. Same way you idiots deny evolution.
@nybgrus Your assumptions are SO WRONG! LOL FIRST of all, I have never even heard of Dinesh until I saw this debate for the first time 2 weeks ago. SECOND! I believe in evolution...THIRD! If you can't agree that Dinesh won this debate, whether you're a believer or not, YOU'RE the idiot! FOURTH! Stop assuming, it makes you sound stupid. Thanks for your time.....
@buitrami My only assumption is that Dinesh cannot win a debate because he is such a blithering idiot. Which is kind of like saying I have an assumption that the sun will rise once per day and that if I trip I will fall and hit the ground because I assume that the theory of gravity is correct. Certain assumptions are indeed the hallmark of intelligence - and assuming Dinesh's stupidity and inability to debate is one of them.
@Klazzt that is your comment but Dinesh is right. Please visit valtorta.org and read every free readings at the left side of the site before you judge the site. God is real even if others think that He is not. Please visit and share valtorta.org God is explaining. We are not animals that has no soul. We have soul and it is eternal. Either it will be in Heaven or in Hell. Think and find the truth before its too late. Remember the consequences is eternal. God loves us all so much!
@sorakai I've explained several times that he openly lies to his audience, spewing out historical and scientific inaccuracies to try to paint atheists and scientists as evil, genocidal people and trying to tell that evolution is simply randomness, and therefore could never occur. Maybe he's not an idiot, if he knowingly lies. If not an idiot, then he's a very dangerous liar; neither is very good.
"Science has given us nothing and there's no reason to believe that it ever will!" ~Dinesh D'Souza
@Klazzt I believe you have taken that quote out of context. He was talking about the human consciousness. Science can't explain why people think it's wrong to: steal, kill, lie, ect. That's what he meant.
@sorakai I didn't take it out of context. Even if I did, let's assume that he was saying that science can't explain morality. As a matter of fact, it can. Morality is an issue of sociology and psychology, and the biology behind morality is becoming more and more known. In social organisms, a type of altruism and morality evolves to benefit the group. If they didn't care for one another, they wouldn't last. Occasionally, selfish individuals enter the group, but they're usually outnumbered and
@sorakai and outmatched, so selfish tendencies don't become the norm. D'Souza is still a liar, and if not a liar, extremely ignorant and ignorance is dangerous when it's spread by someone with a large audience such as himself. That is why I don't like him, and that is why many others don't like him either. He spreads a hateful message against people by twisting the Holocaust and Soviet Russia to represent all atheists and scientists and then promotes bad, completely untrue "science."
@sorakai While I'm at it, I suppose I should touch upon consciousness itself as well. We don't know the exact processes in the brain that create consciousness, but we know that those processes are completely natural and the result of neurochemistry, not a supernatural or divine soul. Psychologists and neuroscientists have shown this to be the case time and time again, and it's extraordinarily easy to prove. Let's examine two hypotheses. 1) Consciousness is a natural function of brain chemistry.
@sorakai and 2) Consciousness is a product of something beyond our brains and our bodies. Now let's examine individuals who have received trauma and injury to their brain. If hypothesis 1 is correct, we should expect to find that their consciousness becomes impaired when their brain is damaged. If hypothesis 2 is correct, we should expect to find that their consciousness is unaffected by brain injury because it's not connected to their brain. Now, what do we find? We find that their
@sorakai consciousness becomes impaired as a result of injury. There is no doubt that consciousness is a function of the brain. The exact processes that create consciousness are not fully known, but that does not mean we should throw our hands up and give up and say that science is worthless. Science is what has gotten us this far in our understanding of the world and our bodies. There is absolutely no reason to give up a winning strategy just because the game gets hard.
@sorakai Neurochemistry can even explain morality. For instance, sociopathic individuals have no sense of morality. They are literally incapable of thinking about the feelings of others or the negative consequences of their actions. Why is this? As it turns out, part of the brain in sociopaths fails to function correctly during deep thought, a part of the brain that people use to make moral decisions. Because of this neural impairment, they have a higher tendency to perform immoral acts.
@Klazzt that's behavior, not morality. Who decides what's right or wrong? The law? A judge? No, they only interpret. Why is it that people know that killing is wrong? Or stealing. Who first decided that theses things would be classified as bad? physiology can't define these things, or morality. and even so, who has the last say in the matter. Some average dude? Seriously? Denesh's point still stands, science may be able to map out behavior, but it doesn't tell us what or why something is bad.
@sorakai Morality is behavior. When you make moral decisions, you're choosing how to behave under different situations. Obviously humans don't like being hurt or killed, so collectively we have decided that assault and murder are immoral; they're harmful to others and thus know not to do them. Same with anything else most people find moral and immoral. Dinesh's point never had any ground to stand on from the beginning, because he pulls his "points" out of his ass without regard to reality.
@sorakai Why does there have to be a first thing to tell us what is good and what is not bad? All humans, regardless of race, religion, or sex collectively discover good and bad morality based on their social environment and culture. Morality is learned behavior. Psychology DOES explain morality.
@Klazzt I'm sorry, that's wrong. That's like saying taste is food. Food is a physical thing, whilst taste is the nature of it. No one man can dictate "steak is good". Somewhere else, somebody else will say, "steak is bad". Who gets the final word? The majority?That would work, except we're not talking about two people, we're talking about millions of them. Again, Psychology explains a lot, but it cannot presume to define morality. We need a higher being to dictate standards.
@sorakai So to answer your question, why there HAS to be a first thing...well, because we have to get it from somewhere. And it follows logic to assume so. Science dictates that something cannot come from nothing. To say otherwise is foolish.
@sorakai We know that something can't come from nothing. However, we have a good idea of how our universe might have come into existence through modern cosmology, the study of the universe and its origin. "Nothing" in the scientific sense isn't truly "nothing" in the sense that most people use the word. Even in vacuums where there is "nothing" we find virtual particles phasing in and our of existence. It's been proposed that these virtual particles were responsible for our universe's creation.
@sorakai It's all theoretical, but we're learning more and more about the laws of physics and the makeup of our universe. There's even some evidence that there might be other universes, evidence which is observable and fits with predicted models of other universes. Even if we don't know how our universe (or perhaps all other universes) came into being, doesn't mean that the universe has intelligent origins. It's truly foolish to propose an intelligence agent as a creator. Afterall, how can you
@sorakai have an intelligent being if it had no place to exist? If there was indeed a "first thing" who can say that it was an intelligent, compassionate being? Your argument collapses on itself. If there was a god, then who created the god? A god before it? And a god before that god? No one really knows, but it's a misstep in logic to say that because we don't know, we can propose anything we like and say it's true.
@sorakai To simplify my explanation of why your argument is illogical, think about it. The universe exists. You say there had to be a first thing but for some reason you don't think the universe could be a first thing, so you call it God, or Steve. I don't care. So Steve exists now. He's in the same predicament as the universe. There had to be a first thing to cause him to exist. By this argument, Steve, too, had to have been created by a God or a Joe. Joe would have had to... etc.
@Klazzt You raise a good point. People believe in other gods and such, because we were made to believe in such things. Its natural for mankind to want to worship a higher being. Thousands of years of history proves this. The Christian God is unique, however, in that he claims to love his creation, and desires to have a relationship with them. As to who created him...nobody, He is God. Not human, alien, or a creation. He himself is the creator. You can't humanize him, and expect him to make sense
@sorakai You humanize him by saying he feels humans human emotions such as love and interacts with humans as we would each other. Is it no surprise that we have created such gods? We are only human, afterall. And there's a deeper reason why most societies have invented gods. It's not because we were "made" to believe such things, but because we all have the same type of brain that is susceptible to such beliefs. We evolved in Afirca from organisms whose brains didn't need to comprehend
@sorakai the universe and existence. We evolved a higher level of consciousness that improved our ability to think, but as with all biological systems, nothing is perfect. All humans are susceptible to bad and false ideas, even ones they create themselves. All history proves is that all humans are similar, and we should expect that if we're all closely related and have the same brains. If anything, history proves that no religion is correct. Afterall, all people have a different religion. If
@sorakai religions were delivered from a divine being, all people would have the same revelations and recognize the same religion. What we see is cultures making their own religions based on their societies and cultures, not based on any true divinity or revelation. You can even see a geographical distribution of faiths; the Abrahamic god was created in the Middle East, and throughout history we only see Abrahamic religions in the Middle East until they began to colonize elsewhere.
@Klazzt My argument is simple: thousands of years ago God created everything: animals, plants, humans, water, sky, ect. There still here today, except some species have died out.
@sorakai As for Creationism, you have absolutely no proof to backup the claim that God made everything as it was, let alone thousands of years ago. We know that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that life has been around for about 4 billion years and has evolved since. We even have a good idea of how life began and evolved early on. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it's backed up by tons of observations and data from studies and research.
@sorakai Geology, anthropology, paleontology, genetics, chemistry, and more all independently zero in on the fact that our planet is old and that life has evolved. To deny the evidence is to either be completely ignorant of the evidence or to be miseducated by your peers, either unintentionally or deceitfully by people who know better.
@sorakai So, it doesn't matter what that higher being is as long as people believe in it and believe that it provides them with morals? I presume you believe in the Christian God, but what about cultures who have developed the same or similar morals who don't worship the Christian God? How about moral societies that don't worship the same -type- of God(s)? For instance, Animists who worship nature?
@sorakai I don't know why you can't fathom how thousands or millions of people can collectively decide a good set of morals. Afterall, a nation is a collection of thousands or millions of people who (generally) collectively decide policies and laws. If we can structure government, why can't we structure morals? Morality comes from within us, not from an unfathomable being beyond us.
God exists or does not exist irrespectable of are you Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindus, Buddhist or what ever, and irrespectable of are you a theist or atheist or are you empiricist scientist or not. These both guys are worth listening. These kinds of discussions are necessary and always up-to-date at all times.
KanchoKomancho 2 weeks ago
They should put a comment board under youtube videos so we can all post anonymously and be jerks to one another.
Whoknowsuknow 3 weeks ago 3
04:43 HOLY FUCK! IT'S SANTA!
Choobaccacabra 1 month ago
Hasn’t rationality proven effective by improving human living conditions ?
holydoggy123 2 months ago
@Twicebakedtaters Humans might be an agent through which nature improves itself by ceasing to be a blind watch-maker and beginning to rationalize its procecess
holydoggy123 2 months ago
@holydoggy123 Improvement is a belief. nature is in a constant state of change. That is all that can be said.
rationality is also a belief. nothing can be found factually rational. humans seem to have a problem grasping that fact.
Twicebakedtaters 2 months ago
Atheist: "An intelligent Christian is making me doubt my belief? Resort to pathetic insult!"
guitardrummer321 2 months ago
@guitardrummer321 I think you actually just resorted to a pathetic insult...
DBSpenser 2 months ago
@guitardrummer321 Hahahaha. An intelligent Christian.... That's funny....
TheHunterCook 3 weeks ago
@TheHunterCook a non angry atheist........that's funny.....
DaFoxx28 3 days ago in playlist Atheism
@DaFoxx28 Many Atheists are quite happy not having to have the burden of bullshit on their shoulders like theists do,
TheHunterCook 1 day ago
@TheHunterCook Your opinion it's bullshit, it's good to know we have someone walking this earth that knows the answer 100% and was there the day the universe began. How neat....By the same token, many theists are loving life and do not have bullshit on their shoulders as well, all in opinion, nothing more. The key is learn to respect each others paths, not turn your path or opinions into fact or law.
DaFoxx28 1 day ago
@DaFoxx28 I refuse to respect people who believe in a jealous god that condones murder and murders people himself, Including innocent children. When people think shit like that is ok. They will condone all kinds of other bullshit justified without evidence.
TheHunterCook 1 day ago
@TheHunterCook that's too bad for you, you won't get any respect back for your beliefs either. But oh well, that's life, ok have a good one
DaFoxx28 1 day ago
@DaFoxx28 You wont get respect for your belief in fairy tells either.
TheHunterCook 20 hours ago
@TheHunterCook I never said what I believe. Angry atheist.....none the less, you can show the world you're an angry, noid atheist all you want, and think calling theists dumb and "fairy dream chasers" all you please. Doesn't hurt anyone with strong belief 1 bit, no matter what that belief is. To them you're just some 7th grader that keeps repeating the same so call put downs, nothing more. A lot of scientists are even theists, so what, you got your belief, others have theirs, deal with it
DaFoxx28 20 hours ago
He owns a liberal arts school. The kings college and my friend is going to this damn school because he got a full ride there.
batistaker123 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, Dennett's undergrad students and fanboys trying to wipe him up from the floor in the comments here lol.. No matter what your position, if you take a step back and look OBJECTIVELY at this debate, Dennett was clearly outmatched. Dsouza vs Singer was much closer..
primomobile 4 months ago
I applaud Dr. Dennett for remaining calm throughout this debate. D'Souza's blatant disrespect and overall trashy demeanor is enough to make me cringe. I sincerely "pray" that his unprofessionalism is taken into account by any institution seeking him out for future debate.
michaelbergwell 4 months ago
Can someone please tell Dennett he must stop going "uh" in his speech. It's so naff
stuartmarathon 4 months ago 2
Currently, there are 33.000 Protestant faiths to date and counting, all in contradiction with each other, which has not helped the cause....thank you for the deformation Martin Luther!
Snotra 5 months ago
the mere sentence "debating a christian" is ridiculous in itself xD
as if anyone who believes in god could seriously debate...
IchFickDeineExistenz 5 months ago 3
Dinesh D'Souza is dumber than dennet, and I do not like dennet.
dancingwithcalvin 5 months ago
Christianity and its guru Dinesh D,Souza are making me sick. I would like to advise them that Please go to Africa, Latin America and Philippine. The local CHRISTIANS are hungry and have become sex slaves just to survive. The Churches have lot of money therefore they should feed, provide free schooling and health-care to them. Dinesh should use their moral values in a country where it needs the most
TheKirtikant 6 months ago
wow a little biased there you atheists why dont you play fair for once
JMLizardKing1971 6 months ago
I don't believe that this debate ever took place since I can't verify it to my own satisfaction. The video seems real, but that doesn't matter because I've already made up my mind that it's not real. **random angry comment**; **uneducated barb** **haha look how witty I am comment**
Hank8841 6 months ago
Whooooooah.... Dinesh D'Souza is WAAAAY out of his league.
He should stick to Jesus camp or whatnot.
nemirn 6 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett
4:38 Is where the moderator finally shuts up and the debate gets underway.
ninjatoothpaste 7 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett
On the map that Dan shows, where are the non religious countries? Where are the science countries? It's about time we make one or two of those!
durkma2 7 months ago
I carry no brief for D'Souza, but .I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 8 months ago
lol. he does not have brain either. he does not show it anyways.
righteousseed1 8 months ago
D'Souza is a pedophile. I have NO evidence of that - just FAITH. And don't you dare question my faith!!!
WhiteLakeDan 8 months ago 48
@WhiteLakeDan your comment literally made me laugh out loud! although i have been drinking...
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WhiteLakeDan yet another PERFECT example of how animals tend to lash out when feeling cornered/threatened. Let me guess, you have the IQ of a salad bar?
Seigu007 2 months ago
@WhiteLakeDan I have just I have just watched this debate and it was Dennett who spewed assertions without argument - not D'Souza. Dennett is reduced to a blithering moron in this debate. You either have (i) not seen the debate and just making noise; (ii) are a bigot; (iii) hate the fact that your worldview was successfully challenged by D'Souza; or (iv) just stupid.
Try and grow up you might become a adult one day.
TBOTSS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TBOTSS "You either have (i) not seen the debate and just making noise; (ii) are a bigot; (iii) hate the fact that your worldview was successfully challenged by D'Souza; or (iv) just stupid."
You failed to consider a range of possible explanations regarding your own incompetence and inability to grasp reality. While this might be excused somewhat if you had presented evidence, the current state of affairs make those unstated options seem far more likely to be true than yours.
Gnomefro 1 week ago
Interesting...
beverlypress 9 months ago
Satan who hates God, and the Holy One of God. Read Luke 10:16 and find out for yourself. Suffer no more illusion! Satan is the Angel of Light who appeared to Mohammed. Jesus is God, the Holy One of God. Demons acknowledged Him as the Son of God (Matthew 8:28-34), it is written in John 5:18 that “the Son of God equals God”. Jesus Himself said, “I am God” in Mark 15:61, 62.
righteousseed1 9 months ago
@righteousseed1 If you want to argue within the realm of reason and logic, do not quote the bible. Throwing bible verses into a secularist debate greatly diminishes your credibility. But I would expect no less from a bible thumping christian.
jordaniac89 9 months ago
@jordaniac89
I disagree jordanic89, quoting biblical verse is the best way to expose it for the bronze age myth it is...
ElCID40000 8 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett
@righteousseed1 lol, cool story bro
adamsbeer 8 months ago
Evolutionists are losers. Its just a matter of time :)
Seigu007 9 months ago
@Seigu007 hahahaha yeah. rational people with the ability to unerstand and appreciate schientific theory are the losers. not those who take their world view from fairy tales.
corinnabower 9 months ago
Dsouza=professional bullshtter
spinlessbastard1 9 months ago 50
@spinlessbastard1 Dennette = Fantasist loser
Seigu007 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spinlessbastard1 ad hominem. This is just another diversion from your inability to support your suppositions.
Seigu007 2 months ago
Comment removed
jasonscarlett 10 months ago
1. Love isn't an emotion. It is an action. You have to choose to love people. Compassion is having feeling for something. Passion is a strong feeling period, good or bad. God posses all these things. These aren't human feelings, we get them from him. 2. We have more proof for a creator, not necessarily God, than we do for evolution. Evolution assumes life. You assume that at the beginning of the world there was something to evolve from. 60 plus years of experiments have failed to prove anything
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai So then the big question would be: why God? I believe in God because he has the most evidence. Buddha doesn't explain where mankind came from, neither does Confucius. Allah doesn't love his creation, and is extremely legalistic, and mooches off the God of the Bible to get popularity. If you read the Bible, you will find truth. Not only spiritual, but practical.
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai There is no evidence for any god. Evidence can be observed, presented, and examined. The "evidence" for god is all anecdotal. It's not physical or real; it's a collection of stories and experiences usually mixed with a fundamental ignorance of how the universe works. Just because a religion can say they know how everything began doesn't mean they're right. I could make a religion that gives the answers to everything, but that doesn't make it right just because I said so.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai When you read the Bible, you find tales and fables and inaccurate or completely untrue history. Historians and anthropologists are well aware of Biblical inaccuracies and falsehoods when it comes to history. There's no more truth in the Bible than there is truth in a Harry Potter novel.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai If you notice, sir/ma'am. Even evolution credits "intelligence" to our origins. You hear scientists say things like "nature chose", "Mother nature", ect. Is this not crediting a "higher power"?
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai Evolution in and of itself was not a horrible theory, but there isn't any evidence that it's true, not on the scale you claim. I believe animals and such can adapt, there by altering their appearance. But I don't think that elephants and the fruit fly share a common ancestral cell.
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai No, it's not. It's called figurative language. Scientists do it all the time because it's the quickest and simplest way for us to express our ideas. When scientists talk about "design" they're simply referring to the illusion of design that we see in nature. It is an illusion because organisms show great diversity and complexity, yet when we study them closely, we find that they aren't so perfect and designed at all. They're a hodgepodge of imperfect organs and tissues that evolved in
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai the heat of the moment when it was beneficial for their survival. That's why when we study organisms, we don't find perfection and efficiency; most things we find are indirect and inefficient, as a result of nature simply not always stumbling upon the most direct path. Organisms were not designed with intelligence. They evolved naturally over millions of years, generation by generation of gradual change as positive traits aided in reproduction and negative traits increased mortality.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai
1. Love is an emotion. It is a human emotion. Or we wouldn't feel it.
2. Listen to yourself when the words are switched.
"We have more proof for evolution than we do for god. God assumes intelligence . You assume that at the beginning of the world there was something called God to create the universe. 3000 plus years of stories have failed to prove anything"
Notice anything strange about that? And evolution and god are not mutually exclusive. If that were the case, tehre would be no
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai no god. By your logic you have to be an atheist because it's a fact that evolution occurs. We have over 150 years of accumulated observations, studies, and data from all areas of the natural sciences that independently confirms the fact that evolution occurs. To deny it is to be, frankly, stupid. I'm done talking to you. You've shown yourself to be mentally incapable of understanding basic logic and science. You're incapable of thinking, period. I tried to discuss these issues with you
Klazzt 10 months ago
@Klazzt "it's a fact that evolution occurs"... by who? It has always been a theory thus far, just because it's heavily supported, doesn't mean it's factual.
"confirms the fact that evolution occurs", shouldn't this be "contributes to the evolution theory" instead? It is known that there have been many missing links and unsubstantiated claims in the evolution theory, so stop being a confused, impelling atheists, it just reinforce religious people in their belief.
fize4ever 9 months ago
@fize4ever No, it is a fact that evolution occurs. You're using a variation of the "just a theory" argument, which is bullocks. A scientific theory is indeed heavily supported by evidence, and evolution is one of the most concrete theories we have to the point where we can even watch and record it happening not only in the lab but in nature. It is undeniable that evolution occurs. The theory of evolution incorporates the fact of evolution plus the various scientific theories and laws that
Klazzt 9 months ago
@fize4ever that explain the processes by which evolution occurs. There are no "missing links" or "unsubstantiated claims" in evolution theory; that's the kind of rhetoric you only hear among Creationist circles. Shoot these "missing links" and "unsubstantiated claims" through a real biologist and they'll tell you. You're more than welcome to ask me about any of the supposed holes in evolutionary theory. Also, how is explaining scientific concepts in any way reinforcing religious beliefs?
Klazzt 9 months ago 2
@fize4ever its funny to see someone act like they know what they are talking about
hnbsniper 9 months ago 2
@hnbsniper Perhaps it is.
But what is more funny is the fact that you said so without capitalizing the first letter of your "witty" sarcasm, nor did you use an apostrophe in your "its", and of course, end the sentence with a dot.
fize4ever 9 months ago
@sorakai and show you the gaps in your logic. I tried to scientifically explain to you emotions and morality. I tried to explain to you what we currently know about the universe and evolution. You've ignored every single thing I've told you and have simply blurted, "Goddidit." You are an intellectual failure.
Good day.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@Klazzt Hey, good day to you to :) And i haven't ignored anything you've written. But likewise, I hope you've taken account of things I've said as well. "Goddiit" is as valid to me as your "Idon'tknow". Christians don't know everything, but organisms exhibit extraordinary design. How does a cell, with no brain, just "know" what it's supposed to do? How does a sperm cell just swim to the egg, and then perform all the steps to make a child? Accident? Nope, twas made that way.
sorakai 10 months ago
04:30 start of debate
88mixa 10 months ago
I love how Dinesh gets people so wound up, it's awesome.
I know God is real, but I admit to debate that he is real is a very difficult debate to win. Dinesh is awesome because, whenever they try to make a point he refutes it because he is more familiar with their evidence than they are. He must be very well read.
Gaijin01 10 months ago
@Gaijin01 I'm afraid you're poorly informed. No one refutes anything Dinesh says because he's extremely misleading, and there's no reason to to talk about a person's ignorance when it's so blatantly obvious.
SocialDissimulation 10 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Thats funny, so your saying Dinesh Misled, Dennett and Hitchens? Thats their own fault then! They had the forum, they had a chance to say or refute ANYTHING he said. And they did a poor job of doing it. You make it sound as if they were stunned into silence at his stupidity, if you cant defend your points of view, then your better of not having them!
Gaijin01 10 months ago
@Gaijin01 If I made the argument that the sky was purple, would you go into an hour long diatribe about how the sky is blue, and why it's blue, or would you laugh?
SocialDissimulation 10 months ago
@SocialDissimulation You are extremly blind, watch the video above, Dennett is not standing there in awe, hes talking, ALOT! What you say sometimes happens but not in this video! You are defending your point of view, not this debate...
Gaijin01 10 months ago
@Gaijin01 So how can you claim, whilst watching the same video as I, and using empirical evidence suggesting that Dinesh is well-read? I'll tell you how, because we weren't talking about this debate, we were talking about how Dinesh misleads people, and this is why no one bothers to refute his stupid claims. Again: If I made the argument the sky was completely purple, would you launch into debate mode, or let it go? Thanks for playing.
SocialDissimulation 10 months ago
@SocialDissimulation @Gaijin01 Hee hee. I stand by my orginal comment, "I love how Dinesh gets people so wound up, it's awesome."
You claim people just stand in awe of his stupidity but he does not here, nor in any debate you can point to...Talk about empirical evidence, you have NO evidence at all that this happens. I will reply no further.
...lol he said "thanks for playing"
Gaijin01 10 months ago
@Gaijin01 Why exactly do you think the top comment on this page is assigning misleading people? Why do you think every video you can see him debating in (especially with Hitchens), he goes on a sermon that makes zero sense, and his opponent just exudes his own statements? There's no use in arguing the sky is purple. Thanks for ignoring my question (for a second time in a row).
SocialDissimulation 10 months ago
@krizzia1000 Please visit infidels.org and read every free readings at the left side of the site before you judge the site. God is fake even if others think that He is real. Please visit and share infidels.org. We are animals that have no soul. We have no soul and its not eternal. Neither will it be in Heaven or in Hell. Think and find the truth before its too late. Remember the consequences is eternal. God loves us all so much he wont protect children from pedophiles!
shandcunt 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dinesh is the most power political mind of our time! Yes, I agree!
PecaniAnna 11 months ago
D'Souza is probably one of the top 3 Christian apologists living today which says a lot about the pathetic state of Christian apology. The modern world (espcially the internet) is just dealing hammerblows to the Christian worldview. Rare is the person who feels the Bible is the word of god today..
bwconklin 1 year ago
@bwconklin well.......besides a few billion billion other people
IrnBruDude000 1 year ago
@13Xanadu Well when you folks get tired of bouncing from one theory to the next new theory of how life started then let me know because then you will have convinced yourselves that you have finnally found a solid scientific fact!
CherokeeApacheIrish 1 year ago
@13Xanadu I understand what you're saying. But not all people are in a position to understand what a bad argument is, which is why people like D'Souza can get away with using them wherever they go. I just think stupidity and bad argumentation should be challenged head-on whenever it's used to expose it for what it is and to shred any credibility that some might think it has.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt Are you saying good argumentation is using ad homenin peronal attacks on one's character as a intellectually honest debating method?
CherokeeApacheIrish 1 year ago
@CherokeeApacheIrish I think an intellectually honest debater is well within his or her right to point out an opponent's lies and deceit. I really don't like debates; I don't think that one side versus another and having a winner and a loser is a good method of resolving scientific issues, and it shouldn't be up to the audience to decide, but since it is, then debaters should point out the opposition's flaws. Also, what does this have to do with the theory of life's origins? We have a good idea
Klazzt 1 year ago
@CherokeeApacheIrish of what generally must have happened billions of years ago. The details are sketchy, naturally, but a good explanation is better than no explanation.
Klazzt 1 year ago
I must say that for his initial argument he did make a bad assumption. Shermer covers this well when he says "You can't just say all religion is bad, you have to be specific about which ones". So you can' say "This is a religious country, there is more crime here than europe, therefore all religion is bad". Very poor reasoning.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis Some people just don't get the fact that America has every culture known to planet earth here! Most European nations do not have that huge mix of cultures as America does. With a huge mix of different cultures in 1 nation like America it does bring with it, it's own unique problems.
CherokeeApacheIrish 1 year ago
@CherokeeApacheIrish europe has more culture on any given street corner than the u.s. has throughout the whole country.
oeppevnvpeb 1 year ago
@oeppevnvpeb can you give an example what you mean by any given street corner culture?
Serpico261 1 year ago
@ klazzt ....dinesh won the debate because he has evidence to support his argument, eithiest only assume and argue without evidence... so don't be bitter because dinesh demolished your beliefs, because Jesus even said, the truth will set you free and that is exactly what dinesh did, speak the truth
iesuolevinemoni 1 year ago
@iesuolevinemoni Atheist, not eithiest.
ginetteginette2 1 year ago
I read some comments and saw that people said Dinesh won this debate. Dinesh seems to win every debate he's in, not because he's right, but because his opponents never refute his poorly fallacious arguments, most of which are just plain lies. He's not a great mind. He's not great at thinking. He's an idiot. Yes, an idiot. Why do people respect him by calling him a great thinker with a great mind? He's about as great as cup of raisins, and I hate raisins.
Klazzt 1 year ago 39
@Klazzt lol that's pretty funny about the raisins. He does have fallacies but I haven't encountered one person on either side that hasn't used a fallacy of some sort. I agree with Micheal Shermer when he says "The statistics don't matter" He says this in context of the bigger picture of God or No God when John Lennox mentions a number of how many scientists believe in God. The same is true of how many fallacies a person uses in his or her argument.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@Klazzt Sure is not a intelligent well thought out retort if you have to use ad homenin personal attacks on one's character just as you just made! Shows you have a weak argument when you have to stoop to the level of kindergardener!
CherokeeApacheIrish 1 year ago
@Klazzt - Strange defeatist comment. You claim that 'Dinesh seems to win every debate...his opponents never refute his poorly fallacious arguments'. But notice Dinesh replies to his opponent’s arguments and refutes them. Dennett was taken completely off guard here and totally humiliated. In fact Klazz your name calling is just a reflection of your childishness, you are unable to offer a logical rebuttal but feel the need to associate yourself with fashionable atheism. Please grow up.
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS Fashionable atheism? I'm not sure what you mean. And do you watch Dinesh? He doesn't refute anything. He just argues from ignorance and then tries to defame evolution and atheism and associates them with eugenics and Nazism and slaps that label on his opponents. Most of his opponents never really point out his ignorance and that's all I was pointing out. It could be that Dinesh is so stupid that his opponents don't even bother, but that doesn't change the fact that he is stupid.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt you say 'his opponents never really point out his ignorance' and 'Dinesh is so stupid that his opponents don't even bother'. Well Dennett and others claim that theism is illogical and stupid but not one of them can back it up with an argument (and this includes Dawkins, Hitchens, Kruass, Harris etc.). Again you claim that Dinesh is ‘stupid’ (again the insults) despite the fact he has gone more atheists in the past two years than anyone expect for William Lane Craig.
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS Insults don't matter. And the individuals you are referring to do think theism is illogical. However, they have backed up their stances numerous times. In fact, in The God Delusion, Dawkins spends an entire chapter deconstructing the "logic" used by theists to argue for their god. I'm not sure what you're getting at with Dinesh and William Lane Craig, but I don't see how he's relevant. I'm aware of Craig and he, like all other theologians, haven't presenting a true argument for god.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt Dawkins the GD is full of great logical gems like 'I once pigued theologians and philosophers adjusting the ontological argument to prove that pigs fly. They had to use modal logic to prove that I was wrong'. Well boys and girls as Dawkins himself says he was proved wrong - and of course all modern ontological arguments are stated in modal logic. It is a bit like saying that Quantum Mechanics is wrong and saying that someone used Complex Hilbert Vector spaces to prove to them wrong.
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS Did you even read The God Delusion? Do you comprehend that passage you just quoted? Dawkins was pointing out that using the very same logic that theologians use to prove the existence of god, he used to prove the existence of flying pigs and the theologians had to scramble their brains to think of a way to disprove flying pigs. He was pointing out that the ontological argument is a poor argument.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt Dawkins was not using the same logic. He merely made an assertion and it was pointed out that he was mistaken. Dawkins does not understand any of the ontological arguments (or any argument for God) that is why most of his book is filled with meaningless quotes. Note that Dawkins also says that he forgot the details and others no argument in the GD to back up his case. The logic of all the ontological arguments is modal Dawkins clearly does not know this so his views are meaningless .
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS I'm sorry, but I'm through discussing this with you. It's pointless. You fail to comprehend basic logic and your understanding of biology may be even worse than D'Souza's, which is saying something. Please make an effort to educate yourself. I've tried, but you have to put in the effort yourself.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt Again insults, you are intellectually over matched and you know it. You claim that I do not understand basic logic then please point out where I have gone wrong. I am sorry but I do understand the intellectual and philosophical underpinnings of the modern biology. You make a plea for me to educate myself so please give me a book title however I would be very surprised if it said anything different to what I have said.
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@Klazzt I do not mean to be cruel but I notice that you dropped your defence of Dawkin and the GD pretty quite.
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@Klazzt here are you? Why have you not pointed out my logical fallacies? Or do you just, like your atheist heroes, find yourself in a position that you know your arguments for atheism are weak and can only use abuse to make yourself feel better? You accuse everyone of being stupid, an idiot, lacking knowledge without saying where these inadequacies lie. I am sorry that you are threatened by honest disagreement. All the best
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS I told you that I was done discussing this with you because you know nothing of the sciences and you fail to comprehend even basic rebuttals to poor theological argument. Evolution does make predictions. It can be falsified. And what do you mean biology isn't subject to general laws? What does that even mean? This is my point. You have no idea what you're talking about and it's painful, honestly. There is no "flaw" in biology that scientists are worried about.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@TBOTSS And I've never heard any scientist saying they want to reduce biology to just chemistry or just mathematics. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore, it's so absurd.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@TBOTSS I've given numerous rebuttals to Dinesh and his arguments and blind assertions. I'm actually quite tired of doing it. Other people have done it, so if you want another rebuttal to Dinesh, just read around and I'm sure you'll find some good ones.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt Then perhaps you should debate Dinesh rather than Dennett or any other of the Four Horsemen of atheism. You may be able to engage Dinesh without humiliating yourself.
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS I'd rather not waste my time. Debating him seems like one of the most pointless affairs anyone could think of.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt Dinesh would, I guess, say the same thing about you. The problem here is that you are an armchair atheist who likes to shout his rationality and intellectually superiority, but can also do so by personal attacks. If Dinesh's arguments are so bad you would think that Dennett, Loftus etc would point him out on it. But they don't as the arguments are quite good and if Dennett etc were to challenge them Dinesh's replies would rebut his opponent and show just how good his arguments are.
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS So I'm both a fashionable atheist and an armchair atheist? I wasn't away that so many species existed. Regardless, do you honestly think Dinesh's argument that atheism is inherently evil because atheists have murdered people is a good argument? He uses it quite often. It's one of his favorites and undebatably one of his poorest. Following his logic, Christianity should be abolished because Christians have used their beliefs to kill others.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt No you have this wrong. Dinesh is saying that all ideologies are capable of great evil. This includes both religious and secular ideas. Dinesh is arguing that it is fallacy to say that religion causes evil and that when secular ideologies go wrong it is just accidental.
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS Then there's Dinesh's common argument against the scientific fact of evolution. He says evolution didn't happen because it would be like a Boeing 747 being created by a tornado passing through a junkyard. This shows a very fundamental ignorance in Dinesh's understanding of the science of evolution, yet he never learns and continues to use this argument against his opponents and against evolution.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt Dinesh says that evolution did happen but is highlighting the fact that evolution and biology in general lacks laws and because of this it is so open to dispute. For example we can largely prove that the universe came into existence. If and when biology becomes a mature science we may be able to take about possible biological bangs, general laws of biology, fine turning etc.
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS I'm assuming you don't know the scientific definitions of hypotheses, theories, and laws. What you have just said is very confusing and must come from a lack of understanding of what science is, or more dangerously from the miseducation by the likes of Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates. All science is open to dispute; however, not the kind of dispute you must be thinking of. Biology is a gigantic field of science; one of the largest, in fact, if not THE largest.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt No I am pointing out that evolution is a historical science - it makes no predictions, cannot be falsified, and is not subject to general laws. Many scientists see this as a flaw and wish either to see evolution reduced to chemistry or placed on a mathematical basis. This does not make evolution a non-science but one different form physics or inorganic chemistry. For a very good introduction read Rosenbergs' -intro to the philosophy of biology. Again the insults why?
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS The only disputes in biology, and in evolution specifically, are the methods and rates at which evolution occurs. These are scientific questions of the power of various processes in evolution, not disputes over the validity of the science as a whole. As for the fact that biology has no laws, that is to be expected. A scientific law is a statement that is true under all conditions., but does not explain the phenomena. For instance, the law of gravity is just the fact that gravity exists
Klazzt 1 year ago
@TBOTSS but the law of gravity does not explain gravity. That is a law; a consistently true observation. With biology, however, just about anything is possible. It would be extremely hard to pinpoint one aspect of biology that is true under all conditions in the known universe. So, of course there are no "laws of biology." We wouldn't expect any and it's no argument against the power of biological science and evolution that laws for biology don't exist.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@TBOTSS Again, biological bangs? Biological fine tunings? These are bafflingly absurd arguments from the purest form of ignorance of biology. Biology IS a mature science but we aren't going to talk about spontaneous life explosions or finely tuned systems for life. You're throwing around terms used by cosmologists and confused theologians that have nothing to do with biology.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt No it is not a mature hard science - not one philospher of science who would agree with you. I have kindly mentioned a book by an eminent philosopher of science who is against intelligent design and an atheist which explains in detail the points Dinesh and I have made. The shift in the physical reality is how material as moved form a determinate state (physics, inorganic chemistry) to a random particular one (biology) needs to be explained. Some claim emergence and so on
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS If you really want me to go on, there's the argument that Hitler and Stalin were both atheists and therefore atheism leads to genocide and social destruction. The argument that Hitler was an atheist is a poor one; it's possible that Hitler deconverted from Christianity later in life, but for a majority of it he was Christian, even during his campaign. As for Stalin, he was an atheist but his lack of belief in a god was not his reason for genocide. He had a terrible idea of absolute
Klazzt 1 year ago
@TBOTSS power and authority of the government and he was weeding out anyone that he saw as a threat to his establishment. Regardless, there's no reason to assume that their lack of faith in a deity had anything to do with their crimes against humanity. They were terrible people, faithful or faithless. To try to use them as proof that atheism is evil is dishonest. After all of Dinesh's offensive arguments, I believe it's perfectly right to insult him and show him no respect; he shows no respect
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt see above
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@TBOTSS to reality, to science, and even to his audience.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt what?
TBOTSS 1 year ago
@Klazzt Lmao, yeah d'souza is just so much brighter than these atheist nitwits. Hitchens is the only one who has wiped the floor with dinesh imo.
TomValedro 1 year ago
@TomValedro I watched a D'Souza vs. Hitchens debate and I certainly didn't feel that Hitchens "wiped the floor" with him.
optionqb 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@optionqb what you want me to do about it?
TomValedro 11 months ago
@Klazzt It's so pathetic how you atheists can never give credit where credit is due. Dinesh is very intelligent no matter what his beliefs are...He has more knowledge of science, history and theology than Dennett and Hitches combined! That is why he won both those debates and not for any other reason. Faith 2 Atheism 0
buitrami 11 months ago
@buitrami Dinesh has more knowledge if science and history than Dennett and Hitchens combined? And that's why he believes evolution is the equivalent of a tornado producing an airplane? And that's why he thinks evoAnd that's why he whines that Hitler and Stalin were atheists, therefore atheists are genocidal maniacs? I could go one. Dinesh is dumb as shit. He doesn't know a thing about science and he said in one debate, "Science gives us nothing!" and he knows nothing of history.
Klazzt 11 months ago 33
@Klazzt LMAO! You're such an idiot! There are so many things wrong with what you just said that i would rather not even bother with my rebuttal. Arguing with you is like trying to teach Quantum Mechanics to a chimp...BTW, I'm not religious. I just repect people for how smart they are, not for what they believe in. Maybe you atheists should learn to do the same.
buitrami 11 months ago
@buitrami I can see that discussing D'Souza with you is pointless. I can respect people for how smart they are, but D'Souza is not smart. There is no question about that. He shows himself to be incredibly ignorant and stupid in his writings, lectures, and debates. I am saying nothing bad about his faith, I am saying that he knows nothing of science and history. I refuse to respect belief in non-science, pseudoscience, and warped reality.
Klazzt 11 months ago
@Klazzt If you take the tragically monotheistic D'Souza to say that science contributes nothing to knowledge, then there's been an unfortunate mistake. Much like Chomsky, D'Souza saliently defends science as one perspective among many. Very pluralistic of him don't you think?
I wonder if he (or they) are right? We seem to live by rationality, but we seem to have other (spiritual?) appetites satisfied by art and literature. Minus the silly theistic claims, D'Souza is surprisingly entertaining.
Jac0bAndrew 7 months ago
@buitrami I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Dinesh D'Souza is a smart man must be exponentially more stupid than even D'Souza himself. You have failed to show how Dinesh is more knowledgeable about science and history; you assert it, in spite of all evidence against you.
Klazzt 11 months ago
@Klazzt Dinesh wouldn't be where he is now winning debates against some of the brightest minds alive if he weren't smart! LOL...You're a jackass...I'm beating a dead horse here. Enough said...
buitrami 11 months ago
@buitrami Dinesh is a complete idiot. I've seen at least 6 or 7 of his debates and read his book (Christianity is NOT great, sorry Dinesh). He has no grasp of science, reason, logic, rationality, argumentation, or anything, really for that matter. He "won" the debate because you have "faith" that he won. You assumed he would win before you watched and despite the EVIDENCE to the contrary you stuck to that faith. Same way you idiots deny evolution.
nybgrus 11 months ago 2
@nybgrus Your assumptions are SO WRONG! LOL FIRST of all, I have never even heard of Dinesh until I saw this debate for the first time 2 weeks ago. SECOND! I believe in evolution...THIRD! If you can't agree that Dinesh won this debate, whether you're a believer or not, YOU'RE the idiot! FOURTH! Stop assuming, it makes you sound stupid. Thanks for your time.....
buitrami 11 months ago
@buitrami My only assumption is that Dinesh cannot win a debate because he is such a blithering idiot. Which is kind of like saying I have an assumption that the sun will rise once per day and that if I trip I will fall and hit the ground because I assume that the theory of gravity is correct. Certain assumptions are indeed the hallmark of intelligence - and assuming Dinesh's stupidity and inability to debate is one of them.
nybgrus 11 months ago
@Klazzt Dinesh wins debates bc he's a better debater. That's how academic debates go.
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
@Klazzt that is your comment but Dinesh is right. Please visit valtorta.org and read every free readings at the left side of the site before you judge the site. God is real even if others think that He is not. Please visit and share valtorta.org God is explaining. We are not animals that has no soul. We have soul and it is eternal. Either it will be in Heaven or in Hell. Think and find the truth before its too late. Remember the consequences is eternal. God loves us all so much!
krizzia1000 11 months ago
@Klazzt Soooo....did you refute any of his points or just call him names?
Ad hominem.
Fike2308 10 months ago
@Fike2308 I know what an ad hominem is. It just frustrates me that someone as deceitful and ignorant as D'Souza is so popular.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@Klazzt enlighten me, why is he an idiot? Name calling is so passe, so what do you have against him?
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai I've explained several times that he openly lies to his audience, spewing out historical and scientific inaccuracies to try to paint atheists and scientists as evil, genocidal people and trying to tell that evolution is simply randomness, and therefore could never occur. Maybe he's not an idiot, if he knowingly lies. If not an idiot, then he's a very dangerous liar; neither is very good.
"Science has given us nothing and there's no reason to believe that it ever will!" ~Dinesh D'Souza
Klazzt 10 months ago
@Klazzt I believe you have taken that quote out of context. He was talking about the human consciousness. Science can't explain why people think it's wrong to: steal, kill, lie, ect. That's what he meant.
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai I didn't take it out of context. Even if I did, let's assume that he was saying that science can't explain morality. As a matter of fact, it can. Morality is an issue of sociology and psychology, and the biology behind morality is becoming more and more known. In social organisms, a type of altruism and morality evolves to benefit the group. If they didn't care for one another, they wouldn't last. Occasionally, selfish individuals enter the group, but they're usually outnumbered and
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai and outmatched, so selfish tendencies don't become the norm. D'Souza is still a liar, and if not a liar, extremely ignorant and ignorance is dangerous when it's spread by someone with a large audience such as himself. That is why I don't like him, and that is why many others don't like him either. He spreads a hateful message against people by twisting the Holocaust and Soviet Russia to represent all atheists and scientists and then promotes bad, completely untrue "science."
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai While I'm at it, I suppose I should touch upon consciousness itself as well. We don't know the exact processes in the brain that create consciousness, but we know that those processes are completely natural and the result of neurochemistry, not a supernatural or divine soul. Psychologists and neuroscientists have shown this to be the case time and time again, and it's extraordinarily easy to prove. Let's examine two hypotheses. 1) Consciousness is a natural function of brain chemistry.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai and 2) Consciousness is a product of something beyond our brains and our bodies. Now let's examine individuals who have received trauma and injury to their brain. If hypothesis 1 is correct, we should expect to find that their consciousness becomes impaired when their brain is damaged. If hypothesis 2 is correct, we should expect to find that their consciousness is unaffected by brain injury because it's not connected to their brain. Now, what do we find? We find that their
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai consciousness becomes impaired as a result of injury. There is no doubt that consciousness is a function of the brain. The exact processes that create consciousness are not fully known, but that does not mean we should throw our hands up and give up and say that science is worthless. Science is what has gotten us this far in our understanding of the world and our bodies. There is absolutely no reason to give up a winning strategy just because the game gets hard.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai Neurochemistry can even explain morality. For instance, sociopathic individuals have no sense of morality. They are literally incapable of thinking about the feelings of others or the negative consequences of their actions. Why is this? As it turns out, part of the brain in sociopaths fails to function correctly during deep thought, a part of the brain that people use to make moral decisions. Because of this neural impairment, they have a higher tendency to perform immoral acts.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@Klazzt that's behavior, not morality. Who decides what's right or wrong? The law? A judge? No, they only interpret. Why is it that people know that killing is wrong? Or stealing. Who first decided that theses things would be classified as bad? physiology can't define these things, or morality. and even so, who has the last say in the matter. Some average dude? Seriously? Denesh's point still stands, science may be able to map out behavior, but it doesn't tell us what or why something is bad.
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai Morality is behavior. When you make moral decisions, you're choosing how to behave under different situations. Obviously humans don't like being hurt or killed, so collectively we have decided that assault and murder are immoral; they're harmful to others and thus know not to do them. Same with anything else most people find moral and immoral. Dinesh's point never had any ground to stand on from the beginning, because he pulls his "points" out of his ass without regard to reality.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai Why does there have to be a first thing to tell us what is good and what is not bad? All humans, regardless of race, religion, or sex collectively discover good and bad morality based on their social environment and culture. Morality is learned behavior. Psychology DOES explain morality.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@Klazzt I'm sorry, that's wrong. That's like saying taste is food. Food is a physical thing, whilst taste is the nature of it. No one man can dictate "steak is good". Somewhere else, somebody else will say, "steak is bad". Who gets the final word? The majority?That would work, except we're not talking about two people, we're talking about millions of them. Again, Psychology explains a lot, but it cannot presume to define morality. We need a higher being to dictate standards.
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai So to answer your question, why there HAS to be a first thing...well, because we have to get it from somewhere. And it follows logic to assume so. Science dictates that something cannot come from nothing. To say otherwise is foolish.
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai We know that something can't come from nothing. However, we have a good idea of how our universe might have come into existence through modern cosmology, the study of the universe and its origin. "Nothing" in the scientific sense isn't truly "nothing" in the sense that most people use the word. Even in vacuums where there is "nothing" we find virtual particles phasing in and our of existence. It's been proposed that these virtual particles were responsible for our universe's creation.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai It's all theoretical, but we're learning more and more about the laws of physics and the makeup of our universe. There's even some evidence that there might be other universes, evidence which is observable and fits with predicted models of other universes. Even if we don't know how our universe (or perhaps all other universes) came into being, doesn't mean that the universe has intelligent origins. It's truly foolish to propose an intelligence agent as a creator. Afterall, how can you
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai have an intelligent being if it had no place to exist? If there was indeed a "first thing" who can say that it was an intelligent, compassionate being? Your argument collapses on itself. If there was a god, then who created the god? A god before it? And a god before that god? No one really knows, but it's a misstep in logic to say that because we don't know, we can propose anything we like and say it's true.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai To simplify my explanation of why your argument is illogical, think about it. The universe exists. You say there had to be a first thing but for some reason you don't think the universe could be a first thing, so you call it God, or Steve. I don't care. So Steve exists now. He's in the same predicament as the universe. There had to be a first thing to cause him to exist. By this argument, Steve, too, had to have been created by a God or a Joe. Joe would have had to... etc.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@Klazzt You raise a good point. People believe in other gods and such, because we were made to believe in such things. Its natural for mankind to want to worship a higher being. Thousands of years of history proves this. The Christian God is unique, however, in that he claims to love his creation, and desires to have a relationship with them. As to who created him...nobody, He is God. Not human, alien, or a creation. He himself is the creator. You can't humanize him, and expect him to make sense
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai You humanize him by saying he feels humans human emotions such as love and interacts with humans as we would each other. Is it no surprise that we have created such gods? We are only human, afterall. And there's a deeper reason why most societies have invented gods. It's not because we were "made" to believe such things, but because we all have the same type of brain that is susceptible to such beliefs. We evolved in Afirca from organisms whose brains didn't need to comprehend
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai the universe and existence. We evolved a higher level of consciousness that improved our ability to think, but as with all biological systems, nothing is perfect. All humans are susceptible to bad and false ideas, even ones they create themselves. All history proves is that all humans are similar, and we should expect that if we're all closely related and have the same brains. If anything, history proves that no religion is correct. Afterall, all people have a different religion. If
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai religions were delivered from a divine being, all people would have the same revelations and recognize the same religion. What we see is cultures making their own religions based on their societies and cultures, not based on any true divinity or revelation. You can even see a geographical distribution of faiths; the Abrahamic god was created in the Middle East, and throughout history we only see Abrahamic religions in the Middle East until they began to colonize elsewhere.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@Klazzt My argument is simple: thousands of years ago God created everything: animals, plants, humans, water, sky, ect. There still here today, except some species have died out.
sorakai 10 months ago
@sorakai As for Creationism, you have absolutely no proof to backup the claim that God made everything as it was, let alone thousands of years ago. We know that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that life has been around for about 4 billion years and has evolved since. We even have a good idea of how life began and evolved early on. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it's backed up by tons of observations and data from studies and research.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai Geology, anthropology, paleontology, genetics, chemistry, and more all independently zero in on the fact that our planet is old and that life has evolved. To deny the evidence is to either be completely ignorant of the evidence or to be miseducated by your peers, either unintentionally or deceitfully by people who know better.
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai So, it doesn't matter what that higher being is as long as people believe in it and believe that it provides them with morals? I presume you believe in the Christian God, but what about cultures who have developed the same or similar morals who don't worship the Christian God? How about moral societies that don't worship the same -type- of God(s)? For instance, Animists who worship nature?
Klazzt 10 months ago
@sorakai I don't know why you can't fathom how thousands or millions of people can collectively decide a good set of morals. Afterall, a nation is a collection of thousands or millions of people who (generally) collectively decide policies and laws. If we can structure government, why can't we structure morals? Morality comes from within us, not from an unfathomable being beyond us.
Klazzt 10 months ago