D'Souza: Soul blown into man 3.000 B.C.

[ideologger]

I don't understand why people think Hitchens was such a good debater. He wasn't- he went out, gave his spiel, had some good one liners, and not much more. He either didn't understand or didn't care about the rules of debate, refuting specific points, etc- most debates with Hitchens vs someone else involve each party talking past eachother giving speeches.

D'Souza is a slimy guy- not unlike William Lane Craig. Salesmen slinging the same old hash.

[nishan375]

Please accept our appologies for producing this clown.

India.

[winterstellar]

Hehe, religious people say the weirdest thigs! The aborifinees of Australia have been in Australia most probably more than 60thousand years, did they walk around with no "souls" for 55 thousand years? Or maybe they didn't get their "souls" until they met christian missionaries a few hundred years ago? Jeez, I have to admire Hitchens for even accepting to talk to people like this guy. : )

[winterstellar]

@winterstellar Oh, and the aboriginees have rock paintings that are tens of thousands of years old, and the most famous cave paintings in the world in France are some 30thousand years old, so what is that christian talking about when he says "not a single cave painting"? How ignorant is he really?:)

[winterstellar]

And there is no mystery to why culture and civilisation evolved either, that came when we happened to discover agriculture and had time for other things than hunting and gathering. Jeez, isn't that secondary or primary school stuff?: )

[wirechair]

Good to see Dinesh has put every atheist in their place so far. Like a lion against a foal. Keep it up!! Most atheists are easy to tip over anyways, their beliefs are baseless and purely emotional. and don't get me started with those atheists who think they know science. Give them an elementary differentiation question and they embarrass themselves. Those sheeple just memorize and bleat what they hear other atheists say. they're none the wiser. hopefully they'll evolve one day :)

[Jeremias1111]

@wirechair

What do you say regarding his arguments, especially the "The soul was blown into man 5.000 years ago", which was discussed in this video?

[thescorpionking2020]

what a moron

[DesiFreethinkers]

Nicely made and informative video m8 :) The problem with debates is that debating isn't all about revealing the truth, but about winning even if in the end you're wrong. There are also situations like these, where it helps to read/memorise vast swaths of information, sometimes you don't have enough time to construct a counter argument, or don't have time to look up facts that would have allowed one to debunk Dinesh on the spot.

[msteele79]

Nobody had a hard time debating D'Souza. Like any other creationist, he has no real argument except his faith.

[nomis101uk]

I agree with Jeremias111. D'Souza is an exceptional debater. Creationists have no new arguements, but he can phrase these old arguments in a way makes them far more convincing and harder to refute. You know they're wrong, but its hard to express in words why that it. Thus he appears to do well in a debate even if his points wouldn't hold up to real scrutiny. He is a dishonest shill though.

[rrpostalagain]

I have never heard Dsouza offer any argument that even got me thinking. I find him by far the weakest of the popular apologists. Like his "answer" to this question. What he says is a boring argument from ignorance and an avoidance of the question. He rarely veers into the amusingly bonkers scale either. So his debates are just dry non-discussions. I love Hitch, but he tends to say the same stories regardless of topic. Thus this "debate" is the least likely to stimulate me in any way at all.

[mistereveready]

Theologist always seem to have extremely weak arguments. i guess that's because its based off bullshit and can only defend that so much.

[ZakBrownrigg123]

intelligent than we actually needed to be in order to survive. Most scientists agree that if the cycle of life was to start again on earth, the human race as we know it would likely not exist. Coincidence?

[ZakBrownrigg123]

You started going WAY off at about 7 minutes. D'Souza's argument is not bound to monotheism it is bound to the fact that God fuzed a soul into man. There was a jump.

This does not mean that religion suddenly appeared, it just means that this is where God intervened. IF you look at natural selection, an animal only devellops at a slow rate. However, human beings "jumped" from one level to another at a far faster rate. We denied the law of natural selection, as we became so much more

[Jeremias1111]

@ZakBrownrigg123

The claim that mankind didnt achieve much before 4000 BC is wrong and I think I presented sufficient evidence for that in this video.

[jimbob1969]

To D'Souza ..You sir are an arsehole !! ... in my world that is FACT

[jezmundberserker]

D'Souza is a Charlatan with a capital C.

[foketesz]

soul is nature, we just assume we are the only life form to carry it.

[accountbypass1]

The problem with Hitchens and the others is that they love to push a few points, again and again. Hitchens in particular addresses religion and morality, but does not touch much else, though he easily could.

[lyonellelion]

from what i understand Dinesh D'asouza did not dodge the question. yes it is unreasonable for heaven to watch humantiy suffersf for 100,000 years and only 2000 years ago it chooses to show its face. it is also unreasonalbe to say men roamed the earth for 100,000 years and nothing happened but only 4000 years ago civilazation starts.

[Jeremias1111]

I do not say he dodged the question.

I say his answer is utter nonsense and lacks any knowledge of human history.

[eddymunsterlives]

LOL look at a fuckin youtuber talkin about a guy who served in the reagan administration as lacking knowledge of human history...

...only on youtube, ladies and gentleman!

[Jeremias1111]

@eddymunsterlives

You had to have profound historical knowledge to serve in the Reagan administration? Tell me more about that!

[eddymunsterlives]

@Jeremias1111 u douchetwat how do u jump from lacking "any" knowledge to then requiring "profound"?

if the point were so germane, or even obvious, why wouldn't hitchens have simply split hairs and refuted him on that basis? apparently, u are smarter than both of them, and possess a "profound" knowledge lmao

[Jeremias1111]

@eddymunsterlives

I am pretty sure that I said his answer lacks any knowedge of human history, not that he does. Actually I can not say if DSouza knows better than that, but his argument is based on historical illiteracy.

The rest of your comment is pure idiocy. Neither have I access to Hitchens mind, nor did I make any statement about how smart either of us is. Your remark to DSouzas job at the Regan administration still does not make sense and your insults just complete the picture.

[eddymunsterlives]

@Jeremias1111 if my comment is pure idiocy, why are u responding? LMAO

[Jeremias1111]

@eddymunsterlives

You are mistaken when you think that my response somewhat validates your remarks.

[eddymunsterlives]

@Jeremias1111 Indeed, it was his response that lacked knowledge of the kind.

Naturally one doesnt have to be a history buff to work in politics! You have underscored the obvious, kudos for your acumen.

D'souza served as an advisor to the White House. One could safely assume this requires a fair amount of intelligence. Your characterization of Dsouza's "response", your insinuations are, shall we say, presumptuous.

Shame on you.

[Jeremias1111]

@eddymunsterlives

I see that you are still working on your line of argument. Let us examine the current state:

So contrary to what you said before his job at the Reagan administration does no longer indicate that DSouza is knowledgeable in human history. Thanks for retracting that bogus claim.

But now that job is a clear proof that he has "a fair amount of intelligence". And because of this one is presumptious when one points out the flaws in DSouzas arguments.

[Jeremias1111]

I called this your "line of argument" which obviously was an euphemism.

This idiocy has shown reason enough for you not to address any of my arguments nor to defend any of DSouzas points during our exchange of postings.

Do you really not understand that you have to address my arguments to prove me wrong?

[eddymunsterlives]

@Jeremias1111 ur an imbecile. ur CHARACTERIZATION of his response is presumptuous. take off ur syntax goggles for once. much like a computer program, ur quite incapable of connecting the dots on a contextual level. this only offers strong evidence for my 2 hypotheses: 1) there is no arguing with the fantastically stupid. 2)all germans love david hasslehoff

[Jeremias1111]

@eddymunsterlives

Nonsensical babble. I would like to read at least one argument from you before you leave. Would that be possible?

[mistereveready]

@eddymunsterlives umm we had president bush for 8 years. argument of by authority isn't very durable. hell ben stein was a speech writer for nixon but is apparently a creationist. humans have a strange ability to be intelligent in one area and abso-fucking-lutely stupid in others. ie solving complicated math problems or genetics and then knocking on wood for good luck.

[eddymunsterlives]

@Jeremias1111

lol

[rrpostalagain]

@eddymunsterlives I thought Dsouza's answer was horrible personally. Your statement is just an argument from authority. Since someone held a certain job, his opinions on all things should not be questioned.

[Narwal88]

@lyonellelion

You're obviously misinformed. The oldest cities in the world are about 10-000 - 8,000 years old (Damascus, Jericho, Van, Byblos).

And no one says that "nothing happened" before those years. People built villages and hamlets. The terms "civilization" derives from the Latin "civitas" meaning "city." People become "civilized" when they build cities. Before that, information is more scant for obvious reasons.

[mofofosho13]

Peter Singer is a nice man, but he is a terrible debater, probably the worst of all the ones you mentioned. He missed so many opportunities and was just too nice, I was actually embarrassed for him.

[Jeremias1111]

Strange how different our impressions of that debate were.

[mofofosho13]

I agree, and from a reflective, intellectual standpoint, Singer won that debate. Unfortunately today everyone has to be loud, caustic, and speak in soundbites with a "gotcha" attitude because that's what the masses want to see. Peter wouldn't stoop down to that level.

[Jeremias1111]

D'Souza is master of those skills, I agree with you on that.

But to my impression it was Singer's calmness and the precision of his arguments that exposed D'Souza's showmastership.

[Narwal88]

@mofofosho13

You're 100% correct.

[shamshir2000]

The use of such argument by Dsouza is actually embarrassing. At the same time that Sumerians & etc, were developing their civilizations there were hunter-gatherers or other people who lived just as their ancestors many years before. Does he suggest that they had no souls, and only Egyptians had souls? Also industrialization changed humans the same drastic way, do we have different souls now?

[dman16977]

there are no gods, we have no souls

[AbounaZarabbas]

I'm curious about something....

Why do people believe there is a victor through debates? Nothing is resolved except a portion of the audience leaning towards one side or the other and only because they entered the debate as an audience with their own inclinations predetermined by the debators.

I think debate is healthy to allow for subjective views to develop together. Eventually truth (through growth) will somehow present itself through this subjective fashion.

[sunnysgrewal]

You guys may wanna look at how catholicism came to India. And this moron has the idiocy to defend it.

[earthypig]

thanks for posting this exposing d'souza for the dishonest scumbag he is.

[earthypig]

i saw his debates -- d'souza misrepresents everything, gets a few cheap laughs, and the idiotic part of the audience howls like a bunch of monkeys with bananas and it gives an impression that he actually made a point, wheras all d'souza achieved was to show us how a human being may shit through his mouth.

[eugdog106]

distort d'newza

[666jeffrey93]

D'Souza blames "liberal assault against family values.. conducted in the name of universal rights" for Islamist hate of USA. Including the "right to sexual autonomy, to practice birth control, to abortion, to bear children out of wedlock, to no-fault divorce, of mothers to have caeers, of children against corporal punchment, to social recognition for homosexuals, to gay marriage." Yes, how evil of us. Notice how the first 6 are Womens Rights? But these "are not rights at all." Not trditionally.

[siyengar9821]

Cannot stand DoucheSouza Bag!

[siyengar9821]

Sorry, but at 3:53, D'Shitza looks like hitler

[igottaexplain]

and who blew his brains out and replaced them with dog shit?

[namnack]

I see a lot of consensus on Dinseh being a good debater. Frankly I'm appalled by this notion. He is mostly evasive debater I've had the displeasure of watching and he constantly side tracks from the points raised by his opponents in a most annoying way. He rarely makes a point that wouldn't also apply to any other known or unknown deity and the way he keeps fondling his glasses..well.don't even get me started there.

Sry, but I think he's a fool and I highly distrust the honesty of his efforts.

[adstanra]

yes, good job.well done.

[ViveLaAdam]

Excellent video, Jeremias. You have a very well constructed, not to mention presented, dismantlement of D'Souza's rebuttal.

[scorpdan]

Jeremias has done an excellent job laying D'Souza bare as having been wrong on the pre-history of man, as well as this newly baked theory of his that man was a dumb brute until a soul was blown into him around 5,000 years ago. Next time I hope Hitchens eviscerates him over this idea.

[Domzdream]

I do not agree with De Souza because he's atheist- nuff said.

But he's abrilliant speaker and intellectual. He's, I think, Hitchen's nemesis. He's the only one so far who can steadily and firmly stand his ground against Hitchens.

[Jeremias1111]

I agree that he is a very good debater. At the same time I think that most of his arguments are weak and some -like this one- are utter nonsense.

[Domzdream]

Oh, I fully agree.

[Saltydawg900]

True, but the same can be said of Hitchens no?

[Jeremias1111]

Sorry, I only noticed now that my response three weeks ago did not show up.

I would not agree that the same would be true for Hitchens. His arguments (on religion, not on politics!) are normally sound.

I would say though that if he has to chose he always will prefer a good punchline to a thorough presentation of an argument.

[marker853]

denish is a jackass!!!

[highwind8124]

D'Souza is clearly a liar. His theory is ridiculous. If a soul is breathed into man 5000 years ago, why dick around for so much time before that? I guess he's not big on 6 literal days of creation. He's a pretty slimy character.

[riversonthemoon]

Very thorough. Nicely done.

[AtheistCitizen]

was a new soul breathed into us when soap began to be widely used, and health and mortality shifted drastically, or when electricity was tamed and the idustrial revolution could happen.. Or was it the taming of plant & animals for drastically more productive and stable life that stood as foundation for explosive social and technological growth..duh

[pirbird14]

Awesome rejoinder! When people who have a principled committment to reason attempt to debate people with no such scruples -- and I welcome d'Souza's acknowledgement of the sleaziness of his tactics -- they must come armed with foreknowledge of their opponent's favourite tactics and be prepared to lower their usual standards of civillity. Otherwise, they will simply be outmanouvered.

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

I'm not an archeologist, but Hawking mentioned in his book that the big explosion in human culture and language was not long after the ice age ended, which explains a lot. It explains the timing of human culture, as well as the retarded creation stories which suppose the entire universe to not have existed before they did.

It's also supported by genetic research which suggests that most non-african humans are descended from a very small group only about 10,000 years ago.

[Jeremias1111]

Hm, I know of a study by Saharon Rosset and Doron Behar, who claim that around 70.000 B.C. the population of Homo Sapiens was only 2.000. At 10.000 B.C. Homo Sapiens had already reached Europe, Asia, Australia and even America.

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

I could, of course, easily be wrong about that.

[BBMix]

A very fair analysis of the arguments of the two parties, and I agree with your conclusion

[EarthisYoung]

LOL,...atheists whining

[Jeremias1111]

Hm, at first glance your comment does not make any sense at all. But maybe you just have to elaborate it?

[lifeisgummo]

good job, man.

i enjoyed that

5*

[ILYIAB]

Dinesh always pulls stuff out of his ass. I wonder why he keeps his head up there. Why doesn't he pull his head out of this place? Maybe he likes it there.

(All in good fun.)

Good vid. Thx.

[BayerLexan]

This one was of the very first questions I had as a child being raised in a religious family, "Why did jesus come at that time in history? Why not before? What happens to all the billions that lived before jesus, did they go to heaven?" From then it just cascades into "what about the people now that never heard of jesus, do they get to heaven, if so, why do I have to believe, if not, thats cruel." Such seeming dilemmas always confused me, and I only heard unsatisfying answers.

[pirbird14]

St. Paul's answer to this can be found in Romans 2:14. When those "without the law" naturally do that which is right, they are a law unto themselves. It seems to me that most of us would be better off without the gospel, with its confusing theology, and just "do that which is right", without having to worry about figuring out how an immortal being could die on the cross, and other such conundrums.

[thruthem]

Good work!

[cozmikzen]

that was great

[Redfingers]

Literally everything was stifled. All that remained was the Church and Scholasticism (which equaled Classics+Christianity).

And then there's the era before that, during which you had the Greeks, the Persians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Romans innovating and achieving in every category or usually just most of them.

Was our soul revoked before the emergence of Christianity and given back to us before our insistence against it (1500-1800)? All the more reason, D'Souza, not to be Christian.

[Redfingers]

But, then, you'd still be forgetting the fact that this is the Christian era and that the preceding era (500-1500) was one of practically zero significance....outside of the magnitude of barbarism, backwardness, and brutality in terms of physical abuse, nutrition, labor, social stratification, the character of the power structure, technology, war, art, architecture, and learning.

[Redfingers]

I'd just like to add a comment about D'souza's tremendous historical ineptitude:

You might as well say that the soul that changed human beings from frittering apes to the mighty man that we are today was implanted at roughly 1500 AD, when the carapace of the Catholic church had begun to be shed in favor of a resurgence in classical learning, brand new discovery, artistic achievement, architectural achievement, and cultural development.

[BayerLexan]

Yeah, trying to draw a line in the sand where a soul appeared is completely arbitrary as your example shows. What human actions constitutes the presence of a 'soul'? One could assert infinite possibilities, none of which stand alone, as we are the result of a culture(s) of accumulating technology.

[Paxmax]

Great job, nice way to tie it all together.

Excellent vid!!

[tivibtr3d]

Great video!