How can anyone in their right mind claim that a religion that says you deserve to be tortured forever for thought crimes gives people dignity? No, it takes dignity away in the cruelest and most dehumanizing way imaginable.
D'Souza suffers from Post-Childhood-Indoctrination Syndrome...
Atheist's responce to this video for the majority: Dinesh is an IDIOT! What? his arguements? man screw those just look at him! he cant stand a chance against Hitchens HAHAHA!!!! What an idiot. No i dont have to debate his arguements. That what Hitchens was doing,]
@magreggins Your pathetic attempt at an intelligent dialog on this blog has not only embarrassed intelligent people, it has also managed to make us look as foolish as you for being caught in the same virtual community as you. We can only weep, and pray that we stop at this resemblance to you, as to look like you too…well, it’s a fate worse than death.
@magreggins Lay off the illegal drugs, you rodent. I heard the toilet scrubbing company you work for, will be doing random tests soon. You might want to be careful.
@Seigu007 Is that what this is? An argument? I had no clue. Usually in an argument people bring forward points and discuss them in a clear and concise fashion. You've done neither. If you'd had the capacity to communicate properly, perhaps I would have known this was an argument and treated it as such.
At any rate, I have no interest in arguing with a functional retard, no matter how adorable his attempts at communicating like a big boy are. This conversation is finished.
@magreggins Heh…cold feet already ??? That’s too bad – I was rather looking forward to dribbling your severed head all over this blog…You have inherited (among other things) the same nervous twitch that the other God-Haters that park here have demonstrated so stop right there, you talking monkey…you shouldn’t be giving me anything less than the best ass kissing performance you are capable of.
1. The message Dinesh claims Christianity gave to converts in the less developed world is " there is equality! you are not nothing! you are a human being" Ironically, this is exactly what so many people found attractive about Communism. It was a message that the Christian theorcratic order in Russia and elsewhere most certainly did NOT provide.
2. It was indeed the British who brought Christianity to Tonga. Small point, but one begins to wonder if hapless Dinesh can get anything right.
It is a very big mistake on the part of Dinesh say with property that the precepts of morality that govern the world today come from Christianity. In fact, individuals like Buddha and Confucius preached such teachings of equality, respect and love CENTURIES before the alleged existence of Christ.
For example: the famous Golden Rule "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”, which is erroneously attributed to Jesus, in fact, was said by Confucius long before Christ.
I have a theory that Christ's disciples, not the brand of "I'm a Christian" (not to say that some are not but the word Christian has become a religious stamp and many are fakes and are going to hell bc they never intimately knew and followed the teachings of Christ, for He said go ye and make disciples not converts), and so I have a theory that Christ's disciples are not here debating on Utube, of which I'm guilty, but are changing the world for the better but atheists have nothing better to do.
D'Souza is wrong here. buddha preached equality long before jesus. Jesus's ideas were not novel. And further more the Buddha didnt threaten death, preach revenge and eternal damnation in hell to those who didnt support him.
@stephenjay375 There is the person who, but having taken the money, the wife or another man's children away, is sure, by the most terrible men of death, to be bound with the ropes of time and by force to be thrown into the hell of Tâmisra ['the darkness'] where he has to starve, crave for water, is beaten up with sticks and is scolded at; the living entity by the severe punishments received there loses at times his consciousness having landed in that most dark condition. (Srimad Bhagavatam Budda
The question that cannot be answered rationally by christians is this: why would this message of salvation have to be spread by fallible human beings, where even to this very day, with jet flight and access to every part of the world, there are still places it has not reached? What happens to the souls of the millions and millions, from the time of christ until now, who have not heard it?
As Hitchens has well put it though, the reason that the atheist regimes killed 100 million of their own people is because the atheist leaders used to be religious! hahahahaha. Dry that one out and you can fertilize the lawn. Hey! Christopher's brother is "religious". I wonder if Christopher has a past as a religious person. If so, better not let him take over a country. We may have more mass deaths again on our hands. LOL. My former god made me do it! HAHAHAHAHA
They should have imported atheism to Tonga! And killed 10 million of them in the process. hahahaha. Is there a single atheist regime in the world that hasn't killed at least 1 million of it's own people in the last 100 years?!
I think Hitch missed a valid point re cannibalism in Fiji. This was a product of their own religion. And then the British bullied them into Christianity with violence. He could have won two quick points there!
what rights is this idiot referring to, you mean the right to be subservient to the all knowing creator? if this clown did just a little bit of research he will see that prior to the abrahamic religions there was already progress. the ancient romans developed trade and for A LOT of what we know today as civil which is the most popular form of law in the world. the ancient persians developed irrigation and cyrus the great developed the FIRST declaration of human rights. what did jesus do?
dinesh still didnt answer why it took so long for christianity to the rest of the rest. he basically says how glad he is he found his faith. but he did not answer why the faith isnt spreading instantly rather after 98000 years gradually.
Why did god let the inquisition take place in the first instance. God has a lot to answer for. You know if you think about it god would be in jail if he showed his head, ( assuming god is a male, women are infinitely less cruel) stands by while his children suffer and has the power to stop it, but does nothing. I for one want no part of a god like that, what a horrible thought. Would you do it to yours?
USSR, not religious, just during Stalins rule killed or imprisoned into gulags or by simple express execution over 12 million people.
If there is no evil in this world, and that evil is just a state of mind, why then, has everyone that has come along in history that preached in the name of love, was murdered. Think about it.
Religion does not automatically mean that there is God. Unfortunately many people seem to believe that religion implies theism. Jainism is an atheistic religion. Buddhism does not talk about God at all. The main difference between the Hitchens and Dawkins and followers of atheistic religions is rationalism. Jains and Buddhists believe in re-incarnation and supernatural stuff, whereas most atheists don't because it is not rational.
Whoa Dinesh. That is a horrible argument for you being a Christian. If you were not a Christian, you would have been a hindu. And as such you would have no respect for dignity, women and equality and so on???? That's a shaky moral foundation you have. I am a hindu and I have a lot of respect for women, human rights, equality and absolute hatred for the caste system. And I am not the only one, there are lots of hindus who have the same beliefs.
I'm just trying to think about what I could say to the cannibals to get them to understand that eating each other is somehow "wrong" and should stop.
Anybody? Can anybody do it? Tell them all about the science of things, tell the cannibals anything about physics and Darwin......I don't see them caring at all. How do you explain that it's wrong? Anyone? I'd like to hear from you all.
Why not tell them that there is an invisible man in the sky, who they can never see, or find out if he is actually there or not.
Just believe us superior educated people.
OOHH, by the way. If you don't believe in him you'll burn in eternal hell fire, for ever.
And you don't think it could be achieved any other way?
I must give the human animal a little more credit than you seem to do. I'd like to think it could be achieved without filling their heads with fantasies.
#1. Take the pathetic explanations that a portion of theists come up with, which you are using for a transparent strawman, and then shove that strawman up your funhole.
#2. Whether the apparent rules that govern everything in this universe are the result of intentional undertakings or whether they're natural is the topic that is on the table.
Look, Dick Dawkins is simply Kent Hovind's bi-polar's alternate. Both of them lie to the children.
They are polar opposites because they both are making claims that are unsubstanciated.
Hovind: The laws of physics were broken to begin life. Everything appeared via magic wand.
Dawkins: We're not exactly sure what our causation is but we're99.99% sure that it's not intentional. It could be anything really......except god.
If you try to worm Dawkins out of this standpoint using that petty little scapegoat called,"we don't make claims, we just strongly infer" it makes the desperation obvious
Dawkins clearly states that he has evidence that suggests that there is 99.9% chance that this was not intentional. As unlikely as a teapot orbiting Saturn.
I curious, after he's done trying to prove a negative, whether he's willing to show his evidence for the catalyst of the laws of physics and information being unnatural.
I just want to see the data for both claims and shown why this universe CAN'T have an intentional catalyst.
As long as he admits it's his faith, I'm OK with it.
Can you direct me to the Video, or text where Dawkins makes this claim to children? "We're not exactly sure what our causation is but we're99.99% sure that it's not intentional. It could be anything really......except god".
There is a big difference between having "faith" in the scientific method, and having faith in a re hashed, re translated, multiply edited, 1500-1600 year old book of myth. Wouldn't you agree?
BTW you still didn't point me to any evidence that "god" did anything at all.
Martian, he makes both of those claims. Perhaps not in the same sentence. Nonetheless, the fact that you demand the exact quote shows me that you have no easy defense to explain these 2 statements. Any video will give you them.
I won't discuss scientific vs religious premises. From now on, leave all religion out of the conversation and deal simply with intentional vs unintentional.
"We see no god here, thus we imply no god before big bang as default.
...information, unimaginable power here, thus, we imply the aforementioned as default before the big bang."
Also, keep in mind, until you can answer me what god would have to look like/be like etc for us to observe it, then it's sneaky snickers to ask for or deny proof of it.
If you have god under a microscope, how would you know that it's 'god' you're looking at?
At any rate, I'm simply concerned with causation and whether it was intentional or unintentional.
So the QUOTE you were trying to reference doesn't exist?
You pull a quote out your arse, that doesn't even exist, then add this quote was aimed at kids too?
You gave the quote to try to PROVE a similarity with R Dawkins and Kent Hovind. As I affirmed on the first post, COBBLERS. Typical Xtian bullshit. Talk crap, and then when pulled on it, don't answer the question put another.
I wasn't demanding anything.
Youre talking SHITE.
I'm not surprised that you "won't" (can't) Cont.----
discuss science, not in the slightest bit surprised.
You are making the claim that something exists, what are you basing it on? You are attributing events to something that doesn't exist, that adds not one jot of explanation as to an events occurrence.
YOU need to base your assertion on something a little more than Magic which is what it amounts too.
You want to talk about intent?
You really want to stand side by side R Dawkins, and Kent Hovind and talk about intent? Can you be serious?
You've called me a christian and at least are convinced I'm a theist.
So that's at least 2 wrong things that you've assumed with all your powers of deduction, reason, and logic combined.
It's interesting to me that these are the same, clearly broken, tools that you use to discern the possibility of an intentional causation (assuming a causation is required). If you've given the possibility of 'intention' the same amount of thought to what you claim is my standpoint, then I see the disconnect
I do admit that I have not qualified my standpoint clearly given the amount of room to type. In fact, I ought not use the phrase of 'intentional causation' without thoroughly qualifying both of those words. Please understand, it would take far more then 400 letters.
It is these gaps in qualification that allow you to continue. Without the gaps, your concessions follow.
I'm the 1st bonafide agnostic I've seen on youtube. So read with care, it's the 1st you've been exposed.
Sorry the next 2 responses are meant for someone else.
For you, martian, I say this, poking holes in the cover of faithful atheists and ripping apart the cardboard box they live in, in an attempt to hide the facade of their faith as being science based, with the ruthless pursuit of absolute efficiency of a bonafide agnostic, HARDLY constitutes me claiming there is a 'god'.
Come to thing of it, those 2 mistells do apply to you too ; )
What a dumbass Hitchens is. God said we have freedom of choice and only by His own will woulod he intervene but we are not to petition Him or expect Him to intervene... too bad he doesn't know a damned thing about GOd or the bible....dumbass.... irony if next year he converts hahahahahaha
can you prove the the bible is full of bullshit? If you are reading the old testamnet, you will never understand God. You need to read both testaments. All other religions ARE NOT true. They are ALL variations on the same theme. There is only one truth, one God, there can only be on faith. The stories of the old testamnent are not accounts of God behaving badly, they depict man behaving unGodly, misinterpreting man. Besides you have to know WHY God made man first of all. You need to know science
Christianity is the sequel to Judaism. All other religions contain aspects of the same root, but none are the embodiment of the scientific reality except Christianity. The bible says the universe is 6 DAYS old, not 6000 years. Where the bible says "a day for God is like a thousand years to God ", Christians miss the "like" part. I say a thousand God years is a million years to us. The hitites and other 'extinct' civilizations are not gone, just dissipated, blended into new ones. Don't be silly.
if that is so then that would only make the world 6 million years old. lol god is still out by 5. 94 billion years.
hinduism, buddism, sikkism, shinto, and the hundreds of other religions have nothing in common.
the whole jesus story with him being sent on the cross, virgin birth and all that jazz was an old myth legend going round the mediteranean for many years long before jesus christ, differant versions of the story ect..... you do know this right? look it up if you dont beleive me.
You dork! YOu watched zeitgeist and did no other research. The Bible says "In the beginning was the Word". All those other versions of the same story are the countless interpretations of that Word throughout history. The story of the Jesus child was around before man, given to him by God. Other religions have a lot in common, too bad you have no clue since all you do is judge the world based on YT videos. Go read. Best one of all is your being so sure the world is SO old. You have proof of that?
i got that from the film religulous. no, because these stories came before jesus.
look, come on you have to admit that the stories coming from the bible are pretty backwards, petty and small minded? it just shows so obvious that it was man made.
I will concede absolutely that man has imposed himself on the Word, a heck of a lot. But, as I have always said, the truth within it about God, extracted, could fit on one page. To us the Bible seems hockey, because we are so much more advanced in our thinking but that acts against us as well. We think we know better, but that's not true. We are blinded by pride. We don't read between the lines because the lines are repulsive. But you ahve to consider the Old Testament and the New to get it....
The two will be totally misleading if separated. The old testament shows man at his worst. The new shows God at his best. The new and old together give tons of clues tothe science of God and for those who seek, they find it and now, in our age, science is so advanced that we are starting to understadn the fabric of matter, and in doing so we are finding that matter talks to us, leading us to the same truth that the human race started with, the Word of God, otherwise known as the knowledge of God
If the New Testament shows God at his best, then God is utterly immoral and contemptible. The idea of vicarious redemption is a disgusting example of the scapegoating. How is torturing an innocent to death for other people's past or as yet uncommitted crimes a) supposed to absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions, b) anything other than a primitive blood sacrifice from the infancy of civilisation? The central myth of Christianity undermines individual responsibility.
"How is torturing an innocent to death for other people's past or as yet uncommitted crimes a) supposed to absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions, "
This is incorrect. The bible nor anyone else says we are absolved of RESPONSIBILITY. It says we are absolved of judgement according to actions. This is where intent becomes important.
The stakes here are avoiding eternal torment after death are they not? And if you truly repent and accept the truth of Jesus' message, you will be forgiven and escape eternal punishment after death will you not? Responsibility is meaningless without consequences, and in the Christian worldview, belief ultimately frees people from the consequences of their actions. The difference between judgement and responsibility is meaningless in this context: the effect is to undermine personal morality.
No Christianity is not a license to kill. Read Romans, it explains that very thing. YOu are way off in your understanding. Read and ask for understanding, pretend there is a God and ask and don't look up in the air like he's "up there" somewhere.
Hm, you haven't adressed my arguments again: I never said that Christianity is a license to kill. Please do me the courtesy of responding to what I actually write. Which part of Romans are you referring me to? I have read the Bible repeatedly, and although it is logically incoherent in many respects, I think my summary of who escapes eternal torment in my previous posts is accurate. I would genuinely appreciate if you could demonstrate I am wrong about the criteria for avoiding eternal torture..
Besides which, you have ignored my central point, which is that to torture to death an innocent for the trangressions of others is immoral regardless of whether it is supposed to expiate responsibility or judgement - in either case, how is this supposed to work? Only if God accepts that blood sacrifices are an acceptable alternative to individual accountability. And it's worse than that: God supposedly created us in our current morally parlous state and didn't reveal his "truth" universally.
He di reveal the truth universally. The Word in the beginning was the complete word, all knowledge. We still have not comprehended the truth.
You are still accountable even forgiven in Christ because as it says "he who knows what's wrong, and choses to do it anyway, is worse of then a retard" (paraphrased) Read the bible and learn for yourself. All your answers are in there. You ask typical questions like all who never read it. Ask God about God, not men who don't know even themselves.
No, the "truth" was revealed to an illiterate community in the Middle East - not say, China, with a well established tradition of literature and civilisation. Even today, this message still hasn't percolated to many remote tribes around the world - two millennia later. Not to mention the, at minimum, hundred thousand years of modern humans who God presumably condemned to eternal torment before he told them how to avoid it. Some designer. Some revelation.
"to torture to death an innocent for the trangressions of others is immoral regardless of whether it is supposed to expiate responsibility or judgement "
It wasn't a human idea nor was Jesus just any guy. It was the idea that God would give up his life for his creation. Of course it is the illusion of death when God cannot be harmed but the body of Christ was. He suffered not torture but the nature of man, especially prejudice and pride.( ie: The nature of man makes guns deadly.)
It was God's creation wasn't it? Surely you, as an imperfect, limited fragment of God's brilliance, could easily come up with more equitable and fair system of free will and accountability? How about God gave us free will, told EVERYBODY about himself from the start, not just those lucky enough to hear and within the last two thousand years, made his laws unambiguous, gave us evidence that it was all true, and then judged us purely on our actions - that would be far more moral wouldn't it?
Again you use false pre-suppositions as premises. You assume his grace was not evident to anyone before Christ...ignoring so many verses it's funny. Romans 1:20-25 Psalm 19 etc. Basically HIS evidence is not to par with YOUR expectation of what evidence is acceptable to YOU. I suppose when YOU are God, you can create a system of free will & accountability. Not that YOU can harmonize that with a relative morality.
Your interpretation of the Bible is at odds with many of your fellow Christians. Unfortunately, even if you believe the Bible to be true, it is so vague and self-contradictory that there simply is no reliable way to determine exactly what God was trying to get across, hence all the schisms through the ages. People understand the Bible in different ways, and they come to their understanding of what it means through their innate human sense of right and wrong, and through their cultural heritage.
I'll take a stab at these...a) "uncommitted crimes" is a false presupposition. One would have to be perfect to fit into that category. Nobody but Jesus was. God seems to save judgement for children in several passages. & just because the idea of FORGIVENESS("vicarious redemption") discusts YOU doesn't make it a universal contemptible action.
b) Who put you in charge of deciding what actions constitute repentance? Sacrificing the best you have to offer(scapegoat) is God's choice. Who are you?
Violetember, a) Not so, there is a huge difference between saying someone will inevitably do something wrong in their life and prejudging them before the act. The "sin" might be telling a white lie to spare feelings or mass murder - yet apparently both fill God with a desire for punishment that can only be assuaged with the blood of his only son/himself. It is not the idea of forgiveness that is disgusting, it's the fact that a blood sacrifice is required before that forgiveness is forthcoming.
NOT if you have foreknowledge of those acts, which the Christian God claims to have. White lies are not in the Bible as a sin..bearing false witness is. There is a rudimentary difference. God does NOT desire to punish, he by nature cannot be in the presence of that which is contrary to his holyness. Hence the banishment of Satan & his followers. Hence atheists choices to NOT want to be with God being granted rather than God forcing them to love him.
I have never had a satisfactory answer as to how free will is compatible with an omniscient God. He created us, and he knows what we are going to do, yet he holds us responsible for our actions. It is one of the many things about God which simply do not make sense - the idea of God is incoherent. Also, an atheists does not make a decision to not want to be with God, they simply see no reason to believe God exists. Are you supposed to make yourself believe somehow? How woud you do that?
"satisfactory" is a VERY relative & objective term. To think there aren't compitent & intelligent scholars who've addressed that issue is committing intellectual fraud. "The problem of evil" is THE MOST addressed topic to atheists & yet they ignore the answers & recapitulate the question. Just because the answer doesn't fit YOUR arbitrary terms of satisfaction, doesn't mean it's without merrit. You make yourself arrogant & contemptuous.You don't even demonstrate basic theological understanding.
The Courtiers' Defence. The child cannot point out the Emperor's nakedness because she has no knowledge of the intricacies of Imperial Fashion... Besides which, I have read lots of theology, and I generally find it entirely circular - it really doesn't make any sense at all unless you already accept the truth of Christianity.
What is the difference between white lies and bearing false witness? This is the sort of hair-splitting linguistic tap dancing that allows theology to exist. The basic facts are, in God's universe created according to his wishes, those who don't believe in him are to be tortured for all eternity after they die. It is a system which God knew would condemn the majority of his creations to everlasting torment.
False witness is to condemn one falsely based on untrue witness. whereas a white lie would be to save emotional distress over trivial issues of which there are no legal ramifications. Use your common sense, I know you have some. God knew people would choose their own will over his. That's not his fault. NOW YOU are trying to lay your actions at God's feet?? Because he knew you would deny him, makes him responsible for your choice??? Dude...this is getting rediculous.
What's ridiculous about it? If the stakes are my eternal torment or not, God's decision to create me as an independent free-thinker, and his decision to offer only the Bible as evidence for his existence means he must've known that I would find this utterly unconvincing and thereby condemn myself to eternal suffering. I ask again, what am I to do? Try and make myself believe? How could I do that? Or is furiously trying to pretend you believe enough? Not much free will regardless...
The bible has many versus that speak of evidences for God, Romans 1:20-25, psalm 19, etc. There are books about evidences for God other than the bible. Your question why would God create someone he knew would choose to not love him is the only VALID question you've raised & is worthy of honest discussion between Christians & Athiests because it is a concept that seems to gnaw at our heartsrtings. I commend your honest confusion about this & encourage u to read books attempting to answer it.
How do you know this ?? Have you personally spoken to god, or have you spoken to the voices in your head ??? I think this whole idea of free-will is utter bull, because if I had a child and if I gave him/her the free-will and freedom of choice to do whatever the hell he/she wanted to do, i would be considered an irresponible parent, but when "god" does it to his "children", he gets no blame at all !!!! That is utter horseshit. The bible was written by illiterate and nescient bums.
It is also the idea that mere belief in Jesus and repentence is also enough to secure forgiveness - I think that lets us off the hook for our crimes too easily, thus is also morally reprehensible.
b) According to your worldview, I am thinking, independent person created in the image of God, and have been given reason, conscience and morality as part of my nature. I am therefore perfectly capable of forming an opinion about God's behaviour, and by Jesus' own standards, God's morality stinks.
You are invoking your own sense of justice against morals you don't even agree are universal. You are denying the author or morality for your own selfish motives to NOT be held accountable for your actions...THAT is the "reprehensible" act that is detestable & leads to hell. I think your presuppositions about biblical principles are unsound & devoid of theological understanding as understood by myself & ages upon ages of theologians. Your argument's conclusion rests upon false premises.
It think some morals are universal, I just don't accept they come from God and I don't think morality is ever simple. To say Idon't accept God-given morality because I am seeking to avoid responsibility is avoiding the arguments I have made all about responsibility - you are simply resorting to insults and bigoted stereotyping of me as a non-believer.
I am very well aware of the apologists interpretations of the Bible, and I think they are all utterly unconvincing. As far as I have seen so far, all the theological justifications for God and for belief in him only make a shred of sense if you already believe. It is obvious I don't share your understanding of the Bible: you could only reach the conclusions you do if you believe the Bible to be true.
I think that, without the blinkers of faith, it is self-evident that the Bible is manmade. Therefore it is your argument that is built on a false premise - that the Bible is what it says it is. My arguments are merely addressing what it clearly says in the Bible. Only one of our arguments depends on faith...
If that is true..what logical conclusion should we come to if millions of people who DID NOT believe in him, came to believe over time and/or scholarly investigations and analysis even with a scrutinous approach??? This evidence does render your "argument" above as FALSE, Unsound, un-cogent etc. Because many people in trying to disprove the bible HAVE indeed come to "faith" in it and it's claims.
It doesn't invalidate my arguement, I was merely talking about myself, I can't say why other people might believe - I really do try to understand, but I just can't. I find it very hard to accept that they really do believe - I don't see how they can. I tend to suspect them of desperately pretending they believe, furiously trying to convince themselves they do. Anyway, post hoc rationalisation is a powerful thing, I don't think it is evidence and skepticism that converts people...
b) cont. By my own worldview, I consider the idea of God to be not only wholly unsupported by any evidence at all, but to bear all the signs of having being a human invention. As such, any so-called divine morality is just as uncertain, complicated, conflicted and difficult as all human morality is. Morality is not a given, it must be constantly fought for, negotiated, questioned. To pretend God tells us how to live is to abdicate responsibility for ourselves and for our treatment of others.
"God tells us how to live is to abdicate responsibility for ourselves and for our treatment of others" En contraire...His moral standards are the means by which we Measure our treatment of others etc. Without such an "absolute" standard, human morality will always be relative & un-definted. You advocate measuring morality against an ever changing "concept".
D'Souza purposely misrepresents the Hindu caste system by stating if one is an untouchable "there's no way to go. You can't get out of it."
Hindus believe as one reincarnates more and more, they gain good or bad karma which dictates where they "karmically" begin in their next life. Thus, they will be born to a better "next life" as they improve their karma in this one.
Not gonna lie, sounds a tad bit less childish than Christian metaphysics but hey, all religions seem pretty much goofy to me :P
None of DSousa's arguments speak at all about the TRUTH of Christianity's claims. There's no reason to believe that secular humanism wouldn't have delivered similar results (except that humanists don't usually spread their message by the sword)
DSousa does not acknowledge Hitchens' message. It's not that CHRISTIANS haven't dutifully spread the message. If an allmighty creator wanted the message spread, why did he choose such terrible delivery method that took hundreds of years to reach Tonga?
Slavery was around LONG before Christianity in every part of the world. It was a normal part of society. Nowhere in the Bible just Christ every condone slavery. In fact, he denounces it. In fact you can thank Christianity, and its teachings that every man is equal under God, for being the major force behind ridding most of the world of slavery. Christianity has done more good in this world than any other force in history. You also have to remember that man is not perfect. Only God is.
Ok, so I got one part wrong. Christ never mentioned any opinion about slavery. Regardless, slavery was seen as a normal part of life up until the 17th century and was never really considered evil until then. The Bible talks about treating your slaves well. Only in the 17th century, when it became gradually a more evil concept, did ANYONE do anything about it. We see slavery as bad now, but I would argue that most people saw it as normal in ancient times, and not deplorable like today.
1) Christianity and Judaism never teach against slavery. In fact, God instructs the Jews to take slaves in ancient times. 2) God instructs genocide in the Old Testament. 3) There is no freedom of religion under Judaism. The OT says Jews are supposed to kill anyone attempting to teach them a different religion. 4) There is no gender equality under Christianity or Judaism. Women are to obey their husbands. 5) Polygamy is allowed under Christianity and Judaism. 6) Homosexuals are to be killed.
There is no such teaching in Christianity that every man is equal under God. Don't lie my Christian friend! In that case, why would Christians support slavery for centuries? Which part of the US is more religious south or North? And which of them fought to continue slavery?
lol do you know nothing of history? slavery existed in every nation christian or otherwise. in fact slavery existed before christianity existed. the north during the civil war was overwhelmingly christian. People are not equal. Some are stronger, faster, smarter, better looking, taller, funnier, darker skineed, healthier, and understand history better. However, in the "eyes of god" we are all equal. thats a christian belief. the U.S. is mostly a christian nation in the north,east,west, and south
The bible condones slavery. That is something i find a little odd seeing as how everyone claims that it was inspired by an all-knowing being. People are equal, what you listed (height, attractiveness) does not mean people are NOT equal, science doesn't demonstrate that anyone is superior to anyone else. We aren't even superior to animals.
LMAO well idk if you read the bible or saw the Ten Commandments film but god did tell moses to free all the slaves. Science has proven some people to be smarter (Newton) stronger (Mike Tyson) better looking (Brad Pitt > the elephant man) taller (yao ming > me). You haven't proven what I commented earlier to be wrong. I am superior to my dog. We were both not born equal, but we do have equal rights under a just law.
The bible is a lot different than a movie. The last commandment forbids us to covet our neighbors possessions which includes house, wife, and slaves. Wife and slaves are possessions in the bible. Seems immoral. Science has not proved that anyone is better than anyone else, what you are saying is based on opinion. Attractiveness is based on opinion. How are you superior to your dog, scientifically? It's what you believe not what we know.
lol if you don't really know what the commandments mean, you shouldn't talk about them. Don't interpret something the way you want it to be. Look, the neanderthals all died and we did not. We were naturaly better than them. Newton was smarter than any animal that is alive today. If you say you're no better than an animal fine, but speak for yourself. Humans are better than animals in soo many ways, and some humans are better than others. Its scientific fact. What science has proven otherwise?
I'm guessing you know nothing about your own religion or religion in general. Read the bible and don't just claim it is misinterpreted, IT'S THERE! You obviously know nothing about evolution, no one is better than anyone, talk to a biologist please. Humans are not better than animals, we are animals! Science clearly demonstrates that we are all under one kingdom, the animal kingdom. How does one trait equal superiority? It doesn't.
who said I was religious? I've just read the bible and torah. "IT'S THERE!" again more claims. Show me. "you know nothing about... religion in general" oh and you must have a Ph.d in theology right? Evolution has clearly stated Man is superior to ape. We are the next progression of evolution that any monkey has yet to achieve. You're telling me that there is no difference between a monkey and a human? Not so, ask a biologist.
Learn more about religion. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Exodus 20:17
Take a course in biology. Natural selection does not have a goal of creating the optimum individual; it is simply a process by which species adapt well enough to transmit their genes. It is not about perfection or superiority.
LOL first of all you have yet to show any credentials that you have a degree in theology or anything else. Servant? yeah I have one who mows the lawn. Its called paying for services.
The selfish gene always seeks ways to improve itself even at the expence of others. When the more evolved dinosaurs died, the smaller ones took over by progessively evolving better due to the change in their enviroment. You're saying evolution doesn't do anything and just exists for nothing?
Read the quote again, it clearly says anything that BELONGS to your neighbor. Does the person who mows your lawn BELONG to you?
You need to read some books on evolution, it has nothing to do with PROGRESSION, animals of the past were not less fit or somehow worse than their other counterparts, they simply adapted to the circumstances they lived in at the time and evolution does not have a purpose, it explains the diversity of life. It only has purpose because you want it to.
you "belong" to someone if you have a contract obligation. lol you say humans and monkeys are exactly the same. How is adapting to your enviroment not progression? Is it then regression? Natural selection would need to work backwards then.
No a contract does not equate to belonging to someone (AKA property).
Find me the quote where i said that a monkey and a human are EXACTLY the same. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to the more recent apes. When differences among animals affect their ability to survive and reproduce, then the animals with the favorable qualities will leave more offspring than others. The winners of natural selection move on and the losers don't, it's indifference.
I can't believe how confidently this guy can lie. "Declaration of human rights in United nation are the direct legacy of Christianity?". Have you heard of Cyrus and his declaration of human rights that's kept in UN?
Men and women are equal? Have you read the Bible "Dr"?
"Dont associate with non-Christians. Dont receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10 - Just a tiny example. Thank you for "Unversalising" this message!
Once again, non-christians take a verse out of context to try and discredit the Bible. If you read the full text of 2 John 1:7-11, it is mentioning people who specifically teach against Christians beliefs, not regular non-believers, but attackers of the faith. You need to read every verse in it's context and interpret it correctly, not just pulling a verse out and saying "ah hah!". It doesn't work that way.
Haha. That's the same argument muslims say about the Quran. When Christians criticize the "violent" verses in the book, muslims say you have to look every verse in its context and interpret it correctly.
Because it makes sense. If you heard someone yell "I'm gonna kill you!" and that's it, you might be alarmed. But what if they were telling a story and just quoting someone? It makes plenty of sense and reason to read and observe ANYTHING in its full context.
It seems to me rather convenient that D'Souza puts himself outside of the Bible. He realizes that no one can defend that sinking ship of fallacies, so he simply says "I wont mention the Bible in my arguments." I would be fine with this if he were a deist, but he is in fact declaring that the Christian God is real, so he absolutely has to defend what is considered the only true word of the god he is claiming exists. If he had to defend the claims that his religion makes he would be shot down.
Youre pretty much right, but he does not need to defend the Bible. It has imperfections from men and translations as you know, but it is still what God intended for people to have. Any defense of the Bible wouldnt be satisfactory for an atheist since it requires faith and acceptance. He does indeed accept the Bible for its purpose. He can make his case very well without saying "the Bible says so" and instead argues on the same basis as the atheists.
I haven't heard Dinesh's arguments in the 6 months since I made that comment, and I don't care enough to re-listen, I have no qualms with deism honestly, there's just no real reason to assume a God exists. And you cant defend the bible and there is no evidence that it was written by God originally.
Theres plenty of reason to believe a God exists, and one can listen to D'Souza's comments for examples. The difference is, athiests dont take these things or considerations the same way, and instead brush them off or say its coincidental. Just a difference in perspective. And again, the Bible can be defended for what it is, which perhaps you dont understand.
And why would you assume that the unedited and non translated version of the Bible was any better. People dont usually make things have more inconsistencies when they edit them, and translation would have nothing to do with scientific and historical fallacies, translating things doesn't horrifically damage the meaning of something unless you do it word by word which you can easily tell they didn't by reading the Bible.
Youre simply underestimating how much different a text can be when re-written and translated over very long periods of time, by different people, with different thinking and interests, different languages, etc. But, the overall meaning is what matters most, and in its man made imperfections it is still what we have been given inspired of God.
Christianity did alot for native americans. Christians killed most of them.
flubno 10 months ago 3
How can anyone in their right mind claim that a religion that says you deserve to be tortured forever for thought crimes gives people dignity? No, it takes dignity away in the cruelest and most dehumanizing way imaginable.
D'Souza suffers from Post-Childhood-Indoctrination Syndrome...
nightvidcole 11 months ago
Comment removed
TO0DLES213 11 months ago
Atheist's responce to this video for the majority: Dinesh is an IDIOT! What? his arguements? man screw those just look at him! he cant stand a chance against Hitchens HAHAHA!!!! What an idiot. No i dont have to debate his arguements. That what Hitchens was doing,]
Do you people READ your comments? Seriously.
GermanConquistador08 11 months ago
because you are a sycophant dsouza
PikPobedy 1 year ago
Dinesh you are sooo sharp!
PecaniAnna 1 year ago
"Two words...The Portuguese Inquisition" ... must be why when he looks at his hands he only sees 5 fingers instead of the 6 he was born with.
jimbob1969 1 year ago
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is by NO MEANS a legacy of Christianity. In fact, many tenants of Christianity are anathema to the UDHR.
Article 18 of the UDHR alone testifies to that. D'Souza is a fucking douche bag.
magreggins 1 year ago 7
@magreggins in your worldveiw what rights do humans have
tonyteb 1 year ago
@magreggins Your pathetic attempt at an intelligent dialog on this blog has not only embarrassed intelligent people, it has also managed to make us look as foolish as you for being caught in the same virtual community as you. We can only weep, and pray that we stop at this resemblance to you, as to look like you too…well, it’s a fate worse than death.
Seigu007 7 months ago
@Seigu007 What? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Have you ever heard of the phenomenon schizophasia or "word salad"? Look into it. It may be an indicator of grander mental issues.
magreggins 7 months ago
@magreggins Lay off the illegal drugs, you rodent. I heard the toilet scrubbing company you work for, will be doing random tests soon. You might want to be careful.
Seigu007 3 months ago
@Seigu007 I can see that you're trying to say something to me but I still can't make heads or tails of its meaning.
It's alright. Keep trying. Just relax and use your words. I'm sure you'll eventually make sense, if only by accident.
magreggins 3 months ago
@magreggins You’re a fool and this is the best you can do when you can’t win an argument.
You suck. Don’t do anymore drugs. you’re “deliberately” frying an already comatose brain ~snickers~
Seigu007 3 months ago
@Seigu007 Is that what this is? An argument? I had no clue. Usually in an argument people bring forward points and discuss them in a clear and concise fashion. You've done neither. If you'd had the capacity to communicate properly, perhaps I would have known this was an argument and treated it as such.
At any rate, I have no interest in arguing with a functional retard, no matter how adorable his attempts at communicating like a big boy are. This conversation is finished.
magreggins 3 months ago
@magreggins Heh…cold feet already ??? That’s too bad – I was rather looking forward to dribbling your severed head all over this blog…You have inherited (among other things) the same nervous twitch that the other God-Haters that park here have demonstrated so stop right there, you talking monkey…you shouldn’t be giving me anything less than the best ass kissing performance you are capable of.
Seigu007 3 months ago
@magreggins
many nations ignore the UDHR....look at Turkey in Cyprus
varoshah 7 months ago
>>>Respect for Women
>>>Christianity
lol
phocjame 1 year ago
2 words....the portugese inquisition.........well....thats 3 words in the English language retard!!!
studdedtires 1 year ago
@studdedtires must be why when he looks at his hands he only sees 5 fingers instead of the 6 he was born with
jimbob1969 1 year ago
apologist for imperialism and colonialism: Dinesh D'Souza
jerk4990 1 year ago
Just because christianity seems better than the awful caste system, that doesn't mean it's not still shitty.
And fuck you dinesh. Tons of those UN things are counterchristian. The slavery ones?!?!
jacobromu 1 year ago
1. The message Dinesh claims Christianity gave to converts in the less developed world is " there is equality! you are not nothing! you are a human being" Ironically, this is exactly what so many people found attractive about Communism. It was a message that the Christian theorcratic order in Russia and elsewhere most certainly did NOT provide.
2. It was indeed the British who brought Christianity to Tonga. Small point, but one begins to wonder if hapless Dinesh can get anything right.
hazydavey 1 year ago
D'souza is a beast!
yunghabesh 1 year ago
@yunghabesh are you deaf and blind? what are you smoking? he's a dumb bitch who knows nothing.
karlsmith00 1 year ago
It is a very big mistake on the part of Dinesh say with property that the precepts of morality that govern the world today come from Christianity. In fact, individuals like Buddha and Confucius preached such teachings of equality, respect and love CENTURIES before the alleged existence of Christ.
For example: the famous Golden Rule "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”, which is erroneously attributed to Jesus, in fact, was said by Confucius long before Christ.
EnemaBandit1 1 year ago
I have a theory that Christ's disciples, not the brand of "I'm a Christian" (not to say that some are not but the word Christian has become a religious stamp and many are fakes and are going to hell bc they never intimately knew and followed the teachings of Christ, for He said go ye and make disciples not converts), and so I have a theory that Christ's disciples are not here debating on Utube, of which I'm guilty, but are changing the world for the better but atheists have nothing better to do.
internetUtuber 1 year ago
Comment removed
EnemaBandit1 1 year ago
Comment removed
EnemaBandit1 1 year ago
Dangermouse for the World Dinesh!
nickyact1 1 year ago
Comment removed
EnemaBandit1 1 year ago
D'Souza is wrong here. buddha preached equality long before jesus. Jesus's ideas were not novel. And further more the Buddha didnt threaten death, preach revenge and eternal damnation in hell to those who didnt support him.
stephenjay375 1 year ago
@stephenjay375 Nor did Jesus.
lifestraight 1 year ago
@stephenjay375 There is the person who, but having taken the money, the wife or another man's children away, is sure, by the most terrible men of death, to be bound with the ropes of time and by force to be thrown into the hell of Tâmisra ['the darkness'] where he has to starve, crave for water, is beaten up with sticks and is scolded at; the living entity by the severe punishments received there loses at times his consciousness having landed in that most dark condition. (Srimad Bhagavatam Budda
antokennedy44 1 year ago
The modern so called "caste system" in India today is NOT part of the Vedic/Hindu(Sanatana Dharma) religion.It is a man-made system.
Radian1991 1 year ago
Religion is not that bad...... After all what would we have to be self righteous about
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
The question that cannot be answered rationally by christians is this: why would this message of salvation have to be spread by fallible human beings, where even to this very day, with jet flight and access to every part of the world, there are still places it has not reached? What happens to the souls of the millions and millions, from the time of christ until now, who have not heard it?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
As Hitchens has well put it though, the reason that the atheist regimes killed 100 million of their own people is because the atheist leaders used to be religious! hahahahaha. Dry that one out and you can fertilize the lawn. Hey! Christopher's brother is "religious". I wonder if Christopher has a past as a religious person. If so, better not let him take over a country. We may have more mass deaths again on our hands. LOL. My former god made me do it! HAHAHAHAHA
MPaulHolmes 1 year ago
They should have imported atheism to Tonga! And killed 10 million of them in the process. hahahaha. Is there a single atheist regime in the world that hasn't killed at least 1 million of it's own people in the last 100 years?!
MPaulHolmes 1 year ago
@MPaulHolmes yes atheist's killed million's but not in the name of atheism .
MrStewart149 1 year ago
Go Dinesh! Well stated
kingleggy 1 year ago
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA CHRISTIANITY HAS RESPECT FOR WOMEN AHAHAHHAHAHAHAH read the bible you dimwit.
Smashkirby 1 year ago
@Smashkirby I've read the bible. Have you?! Look how Jesus treated women. Jesus is God in the flesh.
MPaulHolmes 1 year ago
I think Hitch missed a valid point re cannibalism in Fiji. This was a product of their own religion. And then the British bullied them into Christianity with violence. He could have won two quick points there!
RaHaHaMen 1 year ago
Comment removed
EnemaBandit1 1 year ago
what rights is this idiot referring to, you mean the right to be subservient to the all knowing creator? if this clown did just a little bit of research he will see that prior to the abrahamic religions there was already progress. the ancient romans developed trade and for A LOT of what we know today as civil which is the most popular form of law in the world. the ancient persians developed irrigation and cyrus the great developed the FIRST declaration of human rights. what did jesus do?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
It's easy to see that Hitchens either did not understand the question, or was trying to avoid answering it.
ShadyMilkman04 1 year ago
Im Indian . Im an Atheist. Dinesh is a thundercunt.
haribharadwaj1 1 year ago
@haribharadwaj1
A well reasoned, thoughtful and eloquent response. good to see that the standards of debate and discourse are being held so high. Well done.
derek24hudson 1 year ago
@derek24hudson LOL!!!
MPaulHolmes 1 year ago
@haribharadwaj1
He's a disgrace to our nation..
rajbhagatp 1 year ago
@haribharadwaj1 Oh my, you just made my day! Thanks
Yarrick2k5 1 year ago
We need to develope a vaccine for the treatment of Christianity.
judoyodan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@judoyodan "We need to develope a vaccine for the treatment of [atheism.]"
Fixed it. :)
elijah5791 1 year ago
dinesh is a slimy kind of creature
FOIIAD 1 year ago 6
@FOIIAD People like you represent the idiocy of today.
Seigu007 7 months ago
dinesh still didnt answer why it took so long for christianity to the rest of the rest. he basically says how glad he is he found his faith. but he did not answer why the faith isnt spreading instantly rather after 98000 years gradually.
daynvattah 1 year ago
Diinesh always makes me angry
kaduisaui 1 year ago 2
dinish is a traitor to his culture and an embarrassment to his race, and yes dinish you is a untouchable you piece of shit.
vishnusinghtrinidad 1 year ago 2
Why did god let the inquisition take place in the first instance. God has a lot to answer for. You know if you think about it god would be in jail if he showed his head, ( assuming god is a male, women are infinitely less cruel) stands by while his children suffer and has the power to stop it, but does nothing. I for one want no part of a god like that, what a horrible thought. Would you do it to yours?
kramdoog 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
USSR, not religious, just during Stalins rule killed or imprisoned into gulags or by simple express execution over 12 million people.
If there is no evil in this world, and that evil is just a state of mind, why then, has everyone that has come along in history that preached in the name of love, was murdered. Think about it.
hemet92544 1 year ago
Christopher did not answer the question ! And right, a simple question....
pushro 1 year ago
what a simple question.
isakpeter13 1 year ago
Religion does not automatically mean that there is God. Unfortunately many people seem to believe that religion implies theism. Jainism is an atheistic religion. Buddhism does not talk about God at all. The main difference between the Hitchens and Dawkins and followers of atheistic religions is rationalism. Jains and Buddhists believe in re-incarnation and supernatural stuff, whereas most atheists don't because it is not rational.
hailtheempire 1 year ago
Whoa Dinesh. That is a horrible argument for you being a Christian. If you were not a Christian, you would have been a hindu. And as such you would have no respect for dignity, women and equality and so on???? That's a shaky moral foundation you have. I am a hindu and I have a lot of respect for women, human rights, equality and absolute hatred for the caste system. And I am not the only one, there are lots of hindus who have the same beliefs.
BTW I am also an atheist.
hailtheempire 1 year ago
Comment removed
CyclonexxxIce 1 year ago
What I would like to know how people keep claiming Dinesh is arguing for Deism as a Christian. How does the Incarnation square with Deism?
Kolbe19 2 years ago
I'm just trying to think about what I could say to the cannibals to get them to understand that eating each other is somehow "wrong" and should stop.
Anybody? Can anybody do it? Tell them all about the science of things, tell the cannibals anything about physics and Darwin......I don't see them caring at all. How do you explain that it's wrong? Anyone? I'd like to hear from you all.
The bible worked. What else would work?
I'm drawing a blank.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Yes, why not tell them lies?
Why not tell them that there is an invisible man in the sky, who they can never see, or find out if he is actually there or not.
Just believe us superior educated people.
OOHH, by the way. If you don't believe in him you'll burn in eternal hell fire, for ever.
And you don't think it could be achieved any other way?
I must give the human animal a little more credit than you seem to do. I'd like to think it could be achieved without filling their heads with fantasies.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
#1. Take the pathetic explanations that a portion of theists come up with, which you are using for a transparent strawman, and then shove that strawman up your funhole.
#2. Whether the apparent rules that govern everything in this universe are the result of intentional undertakings or whether they're natural is the topic that is on the table.
Look, Dick Dawkins is simply Kent Hovind's bi-polar's alternate. Both of them lie to the children.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
1. Can you then inform us of the explanations you don't think are pathetic, or do you have your own argument, I'd love to hear it.
2. Can you point me to some evidence that would support the "intentional undertakings" as opposed to "natural" explanations?
As for your opinion about Hovind Vrs Dawkins. I'm sure everyone can make up there own minds on this. (It speaks volumes).
I would be interested if you could point me to some evidence that Dawkins has lied to children.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
They are polar opposites because they both are making claims that are unsubstanciated.
Hovind: The laws of physics were broken to begin life. Everything appeared via magic wand.
Dawkins: We're not exactly sure what our causation is but we're99.99% sure that it's not intentional. It could be anything really......except god.
If you try to worm Dawkins out of this standpoint using that petty little scapegoat called,"we don't make claims, we just strongly infer" it makes the desperation obvious
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Cobblers. Your making things up.
Show me a quote where Dawkins says this.
He say's as any scientist does if he doesn't know. WE DON'T KNOW.
There is no evidence whatsoever as to it being intentional.
He may say that he BELIEVES, there is no god.
But I'll wager you cannot find me a quote of YOUR statement. he can't speak for anybody else's beliefs.
It religion that sells certainty, and religion that brings god into it.
A scientist will only say there is no evidence of anything supernatural.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
Dawkins clearly states that he has evidence that suggests that there is 99.9% chance that this was not intentional. As unlikely as a teapot orbiting Saturn.
I curious, after he's done trying to prove a negative, whether he's willing to show his evidence for the catalyst of the laws of physics and information being unnatural.
I just want to see the data for both claims and shown why this universe CAN'T have an intentional catalyst.
As long as he admits it's his faith, I'm OK with it.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Can you direct me to the Video, or text where Dawkins makes this claim to children? "We're not exactly sure what our causation is but we're99.99% sure that it's not intentional. It could be anything really......except god".
There is a big difference between having "faith" in the scientific method, and having faith in a re hashed, re translated, multiply edited, 1500-1600 year old book of myth. Wouldn't you agree?
BTW you still didn't point me to any evidence that "god" did anything at all.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
Martian, he makes both of those claims. Perhaps not in the same sentence. Nonetheless, the fact that you demand the exact quote shows me that you have no easy defense to explain these 2 statements. Any video will give you them.
I won't discuss scientific vs religious premises. From now on, leave all religion out of the conversation and deal simply with intentional vs unintentional.
"We see no god here, thus we imply no god before big bang as default.
"We see consciousness, intent, creativity
D33veeoss 2 years ago
...information, unimaginable power here, thus, we imply the aforementioned as default before the big bang."
Also, keep in mind, until you can answer me what god would have to look like/be like etc for us to observe it, then it's sneaky snickers to ask for or deny proof of it.
If you have god under a microscope, how would you know that it's 'god' you're looking at?
At any rate, I'm simply concerned with causation and whether it was intentional or unintentional.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
OH, I see.
So the QUOTE you were trying to reference doesn't exist?
You pull a quote out your arse, that doesn't even exist, then add this quote was aimed at kids too?
You gave the quote to try to PROVE a similarity with R Dawkins and Kent Hovind. As I affirmed on the first post, COBBLERS. Typical Xtian bullshit. Talk crap, and then when pulled on it, don't answer the question put another.
I wasn't demanding anything.
Youre talking SHITE.
I'm not surprised that you "won't" (can't) Cont.----
martiangrundy 2 years ago
--Cont
discuss science, not in the slightest bit surprised.
You are making the claim that something exists, what are you basing it on? You are attributing events to something that doesn't exist, that adds not one jot of explanation as to an events occurrence.
YOU need to base your assertion on something a little more than Magic which is what it amounts too.
You want to talk about intent?
You really want to stand side by side R Dawkins, and Kent Hovind and talk about intent? Can you be serious?
martiangrundy 2 years ago
You've called me a christian and at least are convinced I'm a theist.
So that's at least 2 wrong things that you've assumed with all your powers of deduction, reason, and logic combined.
It's interesting to me that these are the same, clearly broken, tools that you use to discern the possibility of an intentional causation (assuming a causation is required). If you've given the possibility of 'intention' the same amount of thought to what you claim is my standpoint, then I see the disconnect
D33veeoss 2 years ago
I do admit that I have not qualified my standpoint clearly given the amount of room to type. In fact, I ought not use the phrase of 'intentional causation' without thoroughly qualifying both of those words. Please understand, it would take far more then 400 letters.
It is these gaps in qualification that allow you to continue. Without the gaps, your concessions follow.
I'm the 1st bonafide agnostic I've seen on youtube. So read with care, it's the 1st you've been exposed.
4u? skim read is OK
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Sorry the next 2 responses are meant for someone else.
For you, martian, I say this, poking holes in the cover of faithful atheists and ripping apart the cardboard box they live in, in an attempt to hide the facade of their faith as being science based, with the ruthless pursuit of absolute efficiency of a bonafide agnostic, HARDLY constitutes me claiming there is a 'god'.
Come to thing of it, those 2 mistells do apply to you too ; )
D33veeoss 2 years ago
I think everyone noticing this video should look for the debate between D'Souza and Dennett.
ournewskin 2 years ago
.....Hitchens didn't answer the man's question
oneENEMY 2 years ago
why is dinesh always not right on the spot
Nades129 2 years ago
Xtianity existed before the portugese inquisition when they converted thomasian xtians to catholicism.
muskier 2 years ago
"should i ventriloquize the question,im not sure everybody heard it?"-patronizing much?,the Tongan man had a mic in his hand for pete's sake.
pip275 2 years ago 2
It was hard for me to hear it. He was patronizing in the attitude after that statement, but it was still a legitimate thing to say.
purplefuzzythings 2 years ago
I understood the question perfectly
pip275 2 years ago 2
Well I didn't.
purplefuzzythings 2 years ago
Man this english "professor" is dumb!
Tonga has never been colonised, being the only country in the south pacifc to maintain its independence.
agatutekudasai 2 years ago
Tonga was a former British protectorate.
Not exactly "independence".
dthoan 2 years ago
Look up Wikipedia and read Tongan history.
Tonga has always been independent, with its own ancient monarchy and government.
Britain was only responsible for Tonga's defence.
agatutekudasai 2 years ago 2
New Zealand and Australian laws can only be passed with the final signature of the british crown.
That doesn't make them pocessions of the British crown.
agatutekudasai 2 years ago
What a dumbass Hitchens is. God said we have freedom of choice and only by His own will woulod he intervene but we are not to petition Him or expect Him to intervene... too bad he doesn't know a damned thing about GOd or the bible....dumbass.... irony if next year he converts hahahahahaha
RagingCaveman 3 years ago
the bible is full of bullshit. and its completely immoral.
theres genocide, rape, stonings, slavery in the old testament.
and theres load of evil shit in all the other religous books aswell like the quaran and torah.
deathstar367 3 years ago
can you prove the the bible is full of bullshit? If you are reading the old testamnet, you will never understand God. You need to read both testaments. All other religions ARE NOT true. They are ALL variations on the same theme. There is only one truth, one God, there can only be on faith. The stories of the old testamnent are not accounts of God behaving badly, they depict man behaving unGodly, misinterpreting man. Besides you have to know WHY God made man first of all. You need to know science
RagingCaveman 3 years ago
"all other religions are not true".
you have proof to say that jews, muslims buddist, hindus, shintos and the other gods are wrong. you dont even have proof backing your own religion.
the bible says the world is 6000 years old when every scientist in the world will say its 6 billions years old.
no, god actually ordered the extermination of the hittites. he killed egyptions. completely immoral.
deathstar367 3 years ago
Comment removed
RagingCaveman 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity is the sequel to Judaism. All other religions contain aspects of the same root, but none are the embodiment of the scientific reality except Christianity. The bible says the universe is 6 DAYS old, not 6000 years. Where the bible says "a day for God is like a thousand years to God ", Christians miss the "like" part. I say a thousand God years is a million years to us. The hitites and other 'extinct' civilizations are not gone, just dissipated, blended into new ones. Don't be silly.
RagingCaveman 3 years ago
if that is so then that would only make the world 6 million years old. lol god is still out by 5. 94 billion years.
hinduism, buddism, sikkism, shinto, and the hundreds of other religions have nothing in common.
the whole jesus story with him being sent on the cross, virgin birth and all that jazz was an old myth legend going round the mediteranean for many years long before jesus christ, differant versions of the story ect..... you do know this right? look it up if you dont beleive me.
deathstar367 3 years ago
You dork! YOu watched zeitgeist and did no other research. The Bible says "In the beginning was the Word". All those other versions of the same story are the countless interpretations of that Word throughout history. The story of the Jesus child was around before man, given to him by God. Other religions have a lot in common, too bad you have no clue since all you do is judge the world based on YT videos. Go read. Best one of all is your being so sure the world is SO old. You have proof of that?
RagingCaveman 3 years ago
i got that from the film religulous. no, because these stories came before jesus.
look, come on you have to admit that the stories coming from the bible are pretty backwards, petty and small minded? it just shows so obvious that it was man made.
deathstar367 3 years ago
I will concede absolutely that man has imposed himself on the Word, a heck of a lot. But, as I have always said, the truth within it about God, extracted, could fit on one page. To us the Bible seems hockey, because we are so much more advanced in our thinking but that acts against us as well. We think we know better, but that's not true. We are blinded by pride. We don't read between the lines because the lines are repulsive. But you ahve to consider the Old Testament and the New to get it....
RagingCaveman 3 years ago
The two will be totally misleading if separated. The old testament shows man at his worst. The new shows God at his best. The new and old together give tons of clues tothe science of God and for those who seek, they find it and now, in our age, science is so advanced that we are starting to understadn the fabric of matter, and in doing so we are finding that matter talks to us, leading us to the same truth that the human race started with, the Word of God, otherwise known as the knowledge of God
RagingCaveman 3 years ago
If the New Testament shows God at his best, then God is utterly immoral and contemptible. The idea of vicarious redemption is a disgusting example of the scapegoating. How is torturing an innocent to death for other people's past or as yet uncommitted crimes a) supposed to absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions, b) anything other than a primitive blood sacrifice from the infancy of civilisation? The central myth of Christianity undermines individual responsibility.
Slabbers 2 years ago
"How is torturing an innocent to death for other people's past or as yet uncommitted crimes a) supposed to absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions, "
This is incorrect. The bible nor anyone else says we are absolved of RESPONSIBILITY. It says we are absolved of judgement according to actions. This is where intent becomes important.
RagingCaveman 2 years ago
The stakes here are avoiding eternal torment after death are they not? And if you truly repent and accept the truth of Jesus' message, you will be forgiven and escape eternal punishment after death will you not? Responsibility is meaningless without consequences, and in the Christian worldview, belief ultimately frees people from the consequences of their actions. The difference between judgement and responsibility is meaningless in this context: the effect is to undermine personal morality.
Slabbers 2 years ago
No Christianity is not a license to kill. Read Romans, it explains that very thing. YOu are way off in your understanding. Read and ask for understanding, pretend there is a God and ask and don't look up in the air like he's "up there" somewhere.
RagingCaveman 2 years ago
Hm, you haven't adressed my arguments again: I never said that Christianity is a license to kill. Please do me the courtesy of responding to what I actually write. Which part of Romans are you referring me to? I have read the Bible repeatedly, and although it is logically incoherent in many respects, I think my summary of who escapes eternal torment in my previous posts is accurate. I would genuinely appreciate if you could demonstrate I am wrong about the criteria for avoiding eternal torture..
Slabbers 2 years ago
Besides which, you have ignored my central point, which is that to torture to death an innocent for the trangressions of others is immoral regardless of whether it is supposed to expiate responsibility or judgement - in either case, how is this supposed to work? Only if God accepts that blood sacrifices are an acceptable alternative to individual accountability. And it's worse than that: God supposedly created us in our current morally parlous state and didn't reveal his "truth" universally.
Slabbers 2 years ago
He di reveal the truth universally. The Word in the beginning was the complete word, all knowledge. We still have not comprehended the truth.
You are still accountable even forgiven in Christ because as it says "he who knows what's wrong, and choses to do it anyway, is worse of then a retard" (paraphrased) Read the bible and learn for yourself. All your answers are in there. You ask typical questions like all who never read it. Ask God about God, not men who don't know even themselves.
RagingCaveman 2 years ago
No, the "truth" was revealed to an illiterate community in the Middle East - not say, China, with a well established tradition of literature and civilisation. Even today, this message still hasn't percolated to many remote tribes around the world - two millennia later. Not to mention the, at minimum, hundred thousand years of modern humans who God presumably condemned to eternal torment before he told them how to avoid it. Some designer. Some revelation.
Slabbers 2 years ago
Also:
"to torture to death an innocent for the trangressions of others is immoral regardless of whether it is supposed to expiate responsibility or judgement "
It wasn't a human idea nor was Jesus just any guy. It was the idea that God would give up his life for his creation. Of course it is the illusion of death when God cannot be harmed but the body of Christ was. He suffered not torture but the nature of man, especially prejudice and pride.( ie: The nature of man makes guns deadly.)
RagingCaveman 2 years ago
It was God's creation wasn't it? Surely you, as an imperfect, limited fragment of God's brilliance, could easily come up with more equitable and fair system of free will and accountability? How about God gave us free will, told EVERYBODY about himself from the start, not just those lucky enough to hear and within the last two thousand years, made his laws unambiguous, gave us evidence that it was all true, and then judged us purely on our actions - that would be far more moral wouldn't it?
Slabbers 2 years ago
Again you use false pre-suppositions as premises. You assume his grace was not evident to anyone before Christ...ignoring so many verses it's funny. Romans 1:20-25 Psalm 19 etc. Basically HIS evidence is not to par with YOUR expectation of what evidence is acceptable to YOU. I suppose when YOU are God, you can create a system of free will & accountability. Not that YOU can harmonize that with a relative morality.
violetember 2 years ago
Your interpretation of the Bible is at odds with many of your fellow Christians. Unfortunately, even if you believe the Bible to be true, it is so vague and self-contradictory that there simply is no reliable way to determine exactly what God was trying to get across, hence all the schisms through the ages. People understand the Bible in different ways, and they come to their understanding of what it means through their innate human sense of right and wrong, and through their cultural heritage.
Slabbers 2 years ago
I'll take a stab at these...a) "uncommitted crimes" is a false presupposition. One would have to be perfect to fit into that category. Nobody but Jesus was. God seems to save judgement for children in several passages. & just because the idea of FORGIVENESS("vicarious redemption") discusts YOU doesn't make it a universal contemptible action.
b) Who put you in charge of deciding what actions constitute repentance? Sacrificing the best you have to offer(scapegoat) is God's choice. Who are you?
violetember 2 years ago
Violetember, a) Not so, there is a huge difference between saying someone will inevitably do something wrong in their life and prejudging them before the act. The "sin" might be telling a white lie to spare feelings or mass murder - yet apparently both fill God with a desire for punishment that can only be assuaged with the blood of his only son/himself. It is not the idea of forgiveness that is disgusting, it's the fact that a blood sacrifice is required before that forgiveness is forthcoming.
Slabbers 2 years ago
NOT if you have foreknowledge of those acts, which the Christian God claims to have. White lies are not in the Bible as a sin..bearing false witness is. There is a rudimentary difference. God does NOT desire to punish, he by nature cannot be in the presence of that which is contrary to his holyness. Hence the banishment of Satan & his followers. Hence atheists choices to NOT want to be with God being granted rather than God forcing them to love him.
violetember 2 years ago
I have never had a satisfactory answer as to how free will is compatible with an omniscient God. He created us, and he knows what we are going to do, yet he holds us responsible for our actions. It is one of the many things about God which simply do not make sense - the idea of God is incoherent. Also, an atheists does not make a decision to not want to be with God, they simply see no reason to believe God exists. Are you supposed to make yourself believe somehow? How woud you do that?
Slabbers 2 years ago
"satisfactory" is a VERY relative & objective term. To think there aren't compitent & intelligent scholars who've addressed that issue is committing intellectual fraud. "The problem of evil" is THE MOST addressed topic to atheists & yet they ignore the answers & recapitulate the question. Just because the answer doesn't fit YOUR arbitrary terms of satisfaction, doesn't mean it's without merrit. You make yourself arrogant & contemptuous.You don't even demonstrate basic theological understanding.
violetember 2 years ago
The Courtiers' Defence. The child cannot point out the Emperor's nakedness because she has no knowledge of the intricacies of Imperial Fashion... Besides which, I have read lots of theology, and I generally find it entirely circular - it really doesn't make any sense at all unless you already accept the truth of Christianity.
Slabbers 2 years ago
What is the difference between white lies and bearing false witness? This is the sort of hair-splitting linguistic tap dancing that allows theology to exist. The basic facts are, in God's universe created according to his wishes, those who don't believe in him are to be tortured for all eternity after they die. It is a system which God knew would condemn the majority of his creations to everlasting torment.
Slabbers 2 years ago
False witness is to condemn one falsely based on untrue witness. whereas a white lie would be to save emotional distress over trivial issues of which there are no legal ramifications. Use your common sense, I know you have some. God knew people would choose their own will over his. That's not his fault. NOW YOU are trying to lay your actions at God's feet?? Because he knew you would deny him, makes him responsible for your choice??? Dude...this is getting rediculous.
violetember 2 years ago
What's ridiculous about it? If the stakes are my eternal torment or not, God's decision to create me as an independent free-thinker, and his decision to offer only the Bible as evidence for his existence means he must've known that I would find this utterly unconvincing and thereby condemn myself to eternal suffering. I ask again, what am I to do? Try and make myself believe? How could I do that? Or is furiously trying to pretend you believe enough? Not much free will regardless...
Slabbers 2 years ago
The bible has many versus that speak of evidences for God, Romans 1:20-25, psalm 19, etc. There are books about evidences for God other than the bible. Your question why would God create someone he knew would choose to not love him is the only VALID question you've raised & is worthy of honest discussion between Christians & Athiests because it is a concept that seems to gnaw at our heartsrtings. I commend your honest confusion about this & encourage u to read books attempting to answer it.
violetember 2 years ago
How do you know this ?? Have you personally spoken to god, or have you spoken to the voices in your head ??? I think this whole idea of free-will is utter bull, because if I had a child and if I gave him/her the free-will and freedom of choice to do whatever the hell he/she wanted to do, i would be considered an irresponible parent, but when "god" does it to his "children", he gets no blame at all !!!! That is utter horseshit. The bible was written by illiterate and nescient bums.
akamola 2 years ago
It is also the idea that mere belief in Jesus and repentence is also enough to secure forgiveness - I think that lets us off the hook for our crimes too easily, thus is also morally reprehensible.
b) According to your worldview, I am thinking, independent person created in the image of God, and have been given reason, conscience and morality as part of my nature. I am therefore perfectly capable of forming an opinion about God's behaviour, and by Jesus' own standards, God's morality stinks.
Slabbers 2 years ago
You are invoking your own sense of justice against morals you don't even agree are universal. You are denying the author or morality for your own selfish motives to NOT be held accountable for your actions...THAT is the "reprehensible" act that is detestable & leads to hell. I think your presuppositions about biblical principles are unsound & devoid of theological understanding as understood by myself & ages upon ages of theologians. Your argument's conclusion rests upon false premises.
violetember 2 years ago
It think some morals are universal, I just don't accept they come from God and I don't think morality is ever simple. To say Idon't accept God-given morality because I am seeking to avoid responsibility is avoiding the arguments I have made all about responsibility - you are simply resorting to insults and bigoted stereotyping of me as a non-believer.
Slabbers 2 years ago
I am very well aware of the apologists interpretations of the Bible, and I think they are all utterly unconvincing. As far as I have seen so far, all the theological justifications for God and for belief in him only make a shred of sense if you already believe. It is obvious I don't share your understanding of the Bible: you could only reach the conclusions you do if you believe the Bible to be true.
Slabbers 2 years ago
I think that, without the blinkers of faith, it is self-evident that the Bible is manmade. Therefore it is your argument that is built on a false premise - that the Bible is what it says it is. My arguments are merely addressing what it clearly says in the Bible. Only one of our arguments depends on faith...
Slabbers 2 years ago
If that is true..what logical conclusion should we come to if millions of people who DID NOT believe in him, came to believe over time and/or scholarly investigations and analysis even with a scrutinous approach??? This evidence does render your "argument" above as FALSE, Unsound, un-cogent etc. Because many people in trying to disprove the bible HAVE indeed come to "faith" in it and it's claims.
violetember 2 years ago
It doesn't invalidate my arguement, I was merely talking about myself, I can't say why other people might believe - I really do try to understand, but I just can't. I find it very hard to accept that they really do believe - I don't see how they can. I tend to suspect them of desperately pretending they believe, furiously trying to convince themselves they do. Anyway, post hoc rationalisation is a powerful thing, I don't think it is evidence and skepticism that converts people...
Slabbers 2 years ago
b) cont. By my own worldview, I consider the idea of God to be not only wholly unsupported by any evidence at all, but to bear all the signs of having being a human invention. As such, any so-called divine morality is just as uncertain, complicated, conflicted and difficult as all human morality is. Morality is not a given, it must be constantly fought for, negotiated, questioned. To pretend God tells us how to live is to abdicate responsibility for ourselves and for our treatment of others.
Slabbers 2 years ago
"God tells us how to live is to abdicate responsibility for ourselves and for our treatment of others" En contraire...His moral standards are the means by which we Measure our treatment of others etc. Without such an "absolute" standard, human morality will always be relative & un-definted. You advocate measuring morality against an ever changing "concept".
violetember 2 years ago
D'Souza purposely misrepresents the Hindu caste system by stating if one is an untouchable "there's no way to go. You can't get out of it."
Hindus believe as one reincarnates more and more, they gain good or bad karma which dictates where they "karmically" begin in their next life. Thus, they will be born to a better "next life" as they improve their karma in this one.
Not gonna lie, sounds a tad bit less childish than Christian metaphysics but hey, all religions seem pretty much goofy to me :P
VivekisV 3 years ago
None of DSousa's arguments speak at all about the TRUTH of Christianity's claims. There's no reason to believe that secular humanism wouldn't have delivered similar results (except that humanists don't usually spread their message by the sword)
DSousa does not acknowledge Hitchens' message. It's not that CHRISTIANS haven't dutifully spread the message. If an allmighty creator wanted the message spread, why did he choose such terrible delivery method that took hundreds of years to reach Tonga?
jsampras3 3 years ago
OMG, the universal human rights come from Christianity!!! Hahahaha. Yeah, that's why they used slavery for centuries.
tansuturdag 3 years ago
Slavery was around LONG before Christianity in every part of the world. It was a normal part of society. Nowhere in the Bible just Christ every condone slavery. In fact, he denounces it. In fact you can thank Christianity, and its teachings that every man is equal under God, for being the major force behind ridding most of the world of slavery. Christianity has done more good in this world than any other force in history. You also have to remember that man is not perfect. Only God is.
craniumdesigns 3 years ago
Ok, so I got one part wrong. Christ never mentioned any opinion about slavery. Regardless, slavery was seen as a normal part of life up until the 17th century and was never really considered evil until then. The Bible talks about treating your slaves well. Only in the 17th century, when it became gradually a more evil concept, did ANYONE do anything about it. We see slavery as bad now, but I would argue that most people saw it as normal in ancient times, and not deplorable like today.
craniumdesigns 3 years ago
1) Christianity and Judaism never teach against slavery. In fact, God instructs the Jews to take slaves in ancient times. 2) God instructs genocide in the Old Testament. 3) There is no freedom of religion under Judaism. The OT says Jews are supposed to kill anyone attempting to teach them a different religion. 4) There is no gender equality under Christianity or Judaism. Women are to obey their husbands. 5) Polygamy is allowed under Christianity and Judaism. 6) Homosexuals are to be killed.
Brit5 3 years ago
There is no such teaching in Christianity that every man is equal under God. Don't lie my Christian friend! In that case, why would Christians support slavery for centuries? Which part of the US is more religious south or North? And which of them fought to continue slavery?
tansuturdag 3 years ago
lol do you know nothing of history? slavery existed in every nation christian or otherwise. in fact slavery existed before christianity existed. the north during the civil war was overwhelmingly christian. People are not equal. Some are stronger, faster, smarter, better looking, taller, funnier, darker skineed, healthier, and understand history better. However, in the "eyes of god" we are all equal. thats a christian belief. the U.S. is mostly a christian nation in the north,east,west, and south
metalnecromancer 2 years ago
The bible condones slavery. That is something i find a little odd seeing as how everyone claims that it was inspired by an all-knowing being. People are equal, what you listed (height, attractiveness) does not mean people are NOT equal, science doesn't demonstrate that anyone is superior to anyone else. We aren't even superior to animals.
Scjrd91 2 years ago
LMAO well idk if you read the bible or saw the Ten Commandments film but god did tell moses to free all the slaves. Science has proven some people to be smarter (Newton) stronger (Mike Tyson) better looking (Brad Pitt > the elephant man) taller (yao ming > me). You haven't proven what I commented earlier to be wrong. I am superior to my dog. We were both not born equal, but we do have equal rights under a just law.
metalnecromancer 2 years ago
The bible is a lot different than a movie. The last commandment forbids us to covet our neighbors possessions which includes house, wife, and slaves. Wife and slaves are possessions in the bible. Seems immoral. Science has not proved that anyone is better than anyone else, what you are saying is based on opinion. Attractiveness is based on opinion. How are you superior to your dog, scientifically? It's what you believe not what we know.
Scjrd91 2 years ago
lol if you don't really know what the commandments mean, you shouldn't talk about them. Don't interpret something the way you want it to be. Look, the neanderthals all died and we did not. We were naturaly better than them. Newton was smarter than any animal that is alive today. If you say you're no better than an animal fine, but speak for yourself. Humans are better than animals in soo many ways, and some humans are better than others. Its scientific fact. What science has proven otherwise?
metalnecromancer 2 years ago
I'm guessing you know nothing about your own religion or religion in general. Read the bible and don't just claim it is misinterpreted, IT'S THERE! You obviously know nothing about evolution, no one is better than anyone, talk to a biologist please. Humans are not better than animals, we are animals! Science clearly demonstrates that we are all under one kingdom, the animal kingdom. How does one trait equal superiority? It doesn't.
Scjrd91 2 years ago
who said I was religious? I've just read the bible and torah. "IT'S THERE!" again more claims. Show me. "you know nothing about... religion in general" oh and you must have a Ph.d in theology right? Evolution has clearly stated Man is superior to ape. We are the next progression of evolution that any monkey has yet to achieve. You're telling me that there is no difference between a monkey and a human? Not so, ask a biologist.
metalnecromancer 2 years ago
> again more claims.
Learn more about religion. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Exodus 20:17
Take a course in biology. Natural selection does not have a goal of creating the optimum individual; it is simply a process by which species adapt well enough to transmit their genes. It is not about perfection or superiority.
Scjrd91 2 years ago
LOL first of all you have yet to show any credentials that you have a degree in theology or anything else. Servant? yeah I have one who mows the lawn. Its called paying for services.
The selfish gene always seeks ways to improve itself even at the expence of others. When the more evolved dinosaurs died, the smaller ones took over by progessively evolving better due to the change in their enviroment. You're saying evolution doesn't do anything and just exists for nothing?
metalnecromancer 2 years ago
Read the quote again, it clearly says anything that BELONGS to your neighbor. Does the person who mows your lawn BELONG to you?
You need to read some books on evolution, it has nothing to do with PROGRESSION, animals of the past were not less fit or somehow worse than their other counterparts, they simply adapted to the circumstances they lived in at the time and evolution does not have a purpose, it explains the diversity of life. It only has purpose because you want it to.
Scjrd91 2 years ago
you "belong" to someone if you have a contract obligation. lol you say humans and monkeys are exactly the same. How is adapting to your enviroment not progression? Is it then regression? Natural selection would need to work backwards then.
metalnecromancer 2 years ago
No a contract does not equate to belonging to someone (AKA property).
Find me the quote where i said that a monkey and a human are EXACTLY the same. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to the more recent apes. When differences among animals affect their ability to survive and reproduce, then the animals with the favorable qualities will leave more offspring than others. The winners of natural selection move on and the losers don't, it's indifference.
Scjrd91 2 years ago
I can't believe how confidently this guy can lie. "Declaration of human rights in United nation are the direct legacy of Christianity?". Have you heard of Cyrus and his declaration of human rights that's kept in UN?
Men and women are equal? Have you read the Bible "Dr"?
"Dont associate with non-Christians. Dont receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10 - Just a tiny example. Thank you for "Unversalising" this message!
Parsayan 3 years ago
Once again, non-christians take a verse out of context to try and discredit the Bible. If you read the full text of 2 John 1:7-11, it is mentioning people who specifically teach against Christians beliefs, not regular non-believers, but attackers of the faith. You need to read every verse in it's context and interpret it correctly, not just pulling a verse out and saying "ah hah!". It doesn't work that way.
craniumdesigns 3 years ago
Haha. That's the same argument muslims say about the Quran. When Christians criticize the "violent" verses in the book, muslims say you have to look every verse in its context and interpret it correctly.
tansuturdag 3 years ago
Because it makes sense. If you heard someone yell "I'm gonna kill you!" and that's it, you might be alarmed. But what if they were telling a story and just quoting someone? It makes plenty of sense and reason to read and observe ANYTHING in its full context.
craniumdesigns 3 years ago
D'Souza rocks
rainmachine1 3 years ago
It seems to me rather convenient that D'Souza puts himself outside of the Bible. He realizes that no one can defend that sinking ship of fallacies, so he simply says "I wont mention the Bible in my arguments." I would be fine with this if he were a deist, but he is in fact declaring that the Christian God is real, so he absolutely has to defend what is considered the only true word of the god he is claiming exists. If he had to defend the claims that his religion makes he would be shot down.
JDBlessin 3 years ago
Nope. He is simply taking on the athiest intellectuals in a debate on their own ground without bringing the Bible into it.
TonLars 2 years ago
The Fact remains that he has to defend the bible and he know he cant, so he takes up the position of a Deist and from that position he argues.
JDBlessin 2 years ago
Youre pretty much right, but he does not need to defend the Bible. It has imperfections from men and translations as you know, but it is still what God intended for people to have. Any defense of the Bible wouldnt be satisfactory for an atheist since it requires faith and acceptance. He does indeed accept the Bible for its purpose. He can make his case very well without saying "the Bible says so" and instead argues on the same basis as the atheists.
TonLars 2 years ago
I haven't heard Dinesh's arguments in the 6 months since I made that comment, and I don't care enough to re-listen, I have no qualms with deism honestly, there's just no real reason to assume a God exists. And you cant defend the bible and there is no evidence that it was written by God originally.
JDBlessin 2 years ago
Theres plenty of reason to believe a God exists, and one can listen to D'Souza's comments for examples. The difference is, athiests dont take these things or considerations the same way, and instead brush them off or say its coincidental. Just a difference in perspective. And again, the Bible can be defended for what it is, which perhaps you dont understand.
TonLars 2 years ago
And why would you assume that the unedited and non translated version of the Bible was any better. People dont usually make things have more inconsistencies when they edit them, and translation would have nothing to do with scientific and historical fallacies, translating things doesn't horrifically damage the meaning of something unless you do it word by word which you can easily tell they didn't by reading the Bible.
JDBlessin 2 years ago
Youre simply underestimating how much different a text can be when re-written and translated over very long periods of time, by different people, with different thinking and interests, different languages, etc. But, the overall meaning is what matters most, and in its man made imperfections it is still what we have been given inspired of God.
TonLars 2 years ago
I like how D'Souza condones spreading his faith by the sword. Very Christian of him.
bandgeek5804 3 years ago