Is D'Souza living on the same planet as the rest of us?? The reason no one has written books on Unicorns is because Unicorns haven't bombed civilians, caused wars, violated human rights or tell people how they should live thier lives. I find D'Souza the weakest of the weak apologists of religion.
Those values he lists prior to 5:16 did not come into the world via Christianity. They existed beforehand. Christianity sometimes preaches the opposite of some of those values. Slavery did not happen because of Christianity, but the Bible was used for its justification. Scriptures were quoted on how to treat slaves, as laid out in the Old Testament.
@ColignyForever -but the Bible was used for its justification. Scriptures were quoted on how to treat slaves, as laid out in the Old Testament.
Yes, but note that this scriptures were regularly mis-quoted and misapplied out of context (in the American government sanctioned chattel slave system). The point of the bible slave codes was to regulat the degrading abuses of slave systems (read the Exodus acct of Hebrew slavery) & eliminate it. In the Bible slavery codes, slavery is is a type
Belief in unicorns does not influence politics or intrude upon the lives of people who do not believe in unicorns. No one is discriminated against because unicorns condemn them. No one in the past has been killed in the name of unicorns. The only two things God and unicorns have in common are 1. They are not real. and 2. They both come for virgins.
While I carry no brief for D'Souza,I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
Why be militant? How about pushing the wall of shite forced on the world for 2000-5000 years back into the stone age. It wasn't that long ago that someone was burned for disbelief. There is an awakening social drive to right the wrongs caused in the name of christianity. The belief by christians that it is a 'militant effort' is because they have historically stifled dissent rather than let people speak freely and they don't know how to let others have a different opinion.
@deveraux009 Also no one has ever knocked on my door asking.... "Have you heard the good word about unicorns?" or made me bow my head before dinner to thank a Unicorn for my food. Nor has someone ever killed someone because they believed in the wrong type of unicorn. what a ridiculous analogy, D'Sousa you are a turd.
"Focus on reason and evidence" (when talking about religion). This speech should last about 2 seconds because there is no evidence, and as for reason.... How embarrassing to even hint at reason/logic relating to religion.
Dinesh is like a locked up muslim girl in rural palestine. He is traumatized by his terrible cultural past in India. Then he discovered Christianity, slightly better than the caste system and cultural practice and squeezing of cow's testicles, but an sinister organization nontheless. So basically, he has done nothing more than jumping from a poorer system to a semi-poor system and he thinks he has found the ultimate answer to the universe; which is more aptly answered by atheistic physicists.
Unicorns don't star wars in the name of their existence. . .Unicorns don't hate homosexuals. Unicorns don't validate the conquering of one group over another because of their superior horn. And that's because Unicorns aren't real....
Militant religions are.
You are the dumbest smartest person in the world, D'Souza
Athens actually was based on slavery. There's not really a debate about that. How do you think the Athenians became so intellectually developed? It was because their slaves afforded them leisure time.
@Odysseus087 Read the bible, slavery is condoned in both the Old and New Testament. Killing babies was okay too as long as they were the "right" kind of babies.
@Cougar139tweak - sorry, but slavery is NOT at all condoned in the New Testament- anywhere. just plain wrong and misguided unless you are an ante-bellum slaver owner who wanted everybody to believe that just to help justify their greed and evil.
@shieldsff slavery is NOT at all condoned in the New Testament- anywhere. Sure it was....every Jot and tittle. :) Serve your masters well (Ephesians 6:5) and Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, (Titus 2:9)
I can find more if you like ....... wish you guys would read your own book once in a while.
@Cougar139tweak - wow.... you looked up a 'proof text", let's call that progress.... May I suggest that you read the entire relevant book(s) & use a concordance to understand the systemic theology of the subject. You may have a sense of satisfaction having 'proved your point', but nothing in life is a simple as it appears. Jesus also said seek and you will find., ..... sorry, but you are wrong, again.
@shieldsff Oh wow!! I just did read the whole book and your right! Praise Jesus!! With everything contridicting itself everything is possible, I can rape your daughter and marry her too, oh what a glorious book! You were right I've been looking at this all wrong. You got change for 50 sheckles? Also is she hot? If it's bad you say "That's taken out of context!!" okay give me the context because I've read the whole book you , halfway through the Bhagavad Gita and sorry way more moral so far
No you will not rape anyone! you horribly malign the BIble. It never endorses that & you will then certainly be subjected to massive legal & social consequences . Obviously, you are someone who has dark, sinful fantasies & turmoil- not that you are the only one in life who has struggled as such. Again, you remonstrate about pple turning you off-;when are you responsible for anything? Jesus said you must born again- that's what U NEED
@shieldsff Grrrrrrr..... Calm down, don't judge me you dirty christian! :) I have no "dark" fantasies, my rape inference was an attempt to show you the evil in your "good book". I've been in the presence of your so called "born agains" and I'm far from impressed. They do just as you do, judge others while lauding themselves with false modesty. Read your book and if you are honest with yourself you will come to the same conclusion. Don't let this mythology cloud your thinking.
OK, so much for all semblances of civility & rationality on UR part .
YOU:Let's see, incensed & obsessed with God, the Creator (u consider fictional) of the universe for having eliminated several particularly vile, evil, malevolent group of pple some 4 thousand + years ago. What could be wrong with that picture) ?
I'd hate to see what U intend 200 years from now to say the nations of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. who slaughtered millions of innocents; Not angry w/them?
@shieldsff I can see that satire completely eludes you, I was infering you were judging me and jokingly I "judged" you. My only issue is a fictional character in a book, I'm no more obsessed with "God" than I am with Thor, ...however ...crazy people who believe in Thor don't get voted into political office and make laws do they? Also Hitler was a catholic who oddly enough use Martin Luthers book "Of the Jews and their lies" as a blueprint for the "final solution" aka the Shoah.
Also Stalin and Mao wanted people to worship the state. Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, is that why they murdered millions? (also with the assistance of their christian societies, Russia was the cradle of Orthodox Christianity & Germans mostly Catholic) This did nothing to stop these atrocities, much like the Pope allowing his minions to moleste little boys and girls. I get tired of hearing how believeing in a sky daddy makes one a better person So far it seems Bad people do bad things the end
No, pls allow me- so clearly UR unable to distinguish among, Roman/Orthodox/ Reformed beliefs. UR diatribes here make clear that [any] objective examination & evaluation of the facts, the text, & the role of evil actors is meaningless to your detestable intolerance.Here's the good news;Jesus died for you ! Like Saul,U can makes hateful assertions & persecute those who have no personal animus against U; We know God can intervene in your life & one day U PERSONALLY WILL call JESUS as UR GOD
@shieldsff "Here's the good news;Jesus died for you !"
In doing this, what was the sacrifice that was made?? This question is in relation to the Trinity. I see no point in this statement. "role of evil actors is meaningless"what do you mean by this statement? I think you might be taking a lighthearted banter personally. What did I do that made me so unworthy that I might be tortured forever in hell? Could Hitler be in heaven? Could all the Jews that died in the Shoah (Holocaust) be in Hell?
@shieldsff So the Russians were not devout Christians? The Germans? Seems like Christian=Good Morals just doesn't fly. But neither does atheism (which is simply disbelief) It seems to be culture that causes "Evil" as well as enviroment and situations. Unfortunately evil is very subjective, I think this is a problem religion attempts to grasp but falls short. Our morals change as time passes, what was once acceptable is now considered evil or bad in many cases. Morality evolves as does everything
@shieldsff "so clearly UR unable to distinguish among, Roman/Orthodox/ Reformed beliefs.".... I don't worry myself with the "flavour" of one version of skydaddy vs another. Only stating that beliefs seemed to do nothing to derail the evil deeds of a aggressive communist state or facist German one. How have I persecuted? Stating my lack of belief and questioning yours is not persecution. Religion does little but act as a placebo for those afraid of death and afraid to say I don't know.
@Cougar139tweak - "Also Stalin and Mao wanted people to worship the state. Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, is that why they murdered millions? "
Ok, now I am getting it: his is more of your "special (i.e., non- objective) logic". what more can be said aside from thank you for your wantonly spurious and fatuous assertions
@shieldsff BTW You are the type of believer who turned me away from religion back when I was a practicing Southern Baptist.....Always "Faith and context" everytime I had an issue with a passage. Sorry but if these words were in anyother book then the one you call the Bible you would get together and burn them on sunday.
@Cougar139tweak--again, you LIE about the Law and the commandments,.... read the Torah, read the commandments:" But if a man find (come upon) a woman in the field (i.e., one who is vulnerable/ helpless) and the man forces her (attacks or assaults), then that man ONLY who attacked her shall be put to death; but, to the woman NOTHING shall be done to her"..... Clearly a woman who has been raped or assaulted is a victim, so Stop lying on God !!
Dinesh's first point about militant atheism is laughable and elementary. Last time I checked, belief in unicorns didn't have a stranglehold on people's minds, or get tax exemption, or influence our culture in any comparable way, as opposed to Christianity.
In his précis of atheist values Dinesh misses the most important. The value of critical thought. Taking nothing for granted and submitting any absolute statement to rigorous rational scrutiny. That is the single most important value of atheism, to which all others must pay homage.
why doesnt god regrow limbs for amputees when they pray? why is it when a person who has cancer prays and recovers it's somehow because of the prayer? the day i see a limb regenerate on a person who prayed for it with my own eyes is the day i fully embrace "god" till then, no dice.
what an idiot......how is making ppl understand what morality is....call it atheism,humanism,...whatever u want.....how is all this militant?.....wht a stupid jackass....
Haha every one of those values on the list came from the 18th century Enlightenment, a secular movement AGAINST the Christian orthodoxy that had held for EIGHTEEN HUNDRED YEARS that theocracy was the right system, women were inferior, slavery was OK, and reason and skepticism were the devil. And why wouldn't they? The Bible itself mandates these things. We only have modern values now because we IGNORE those parts of the Bible.
I cannot agree with most of the statements D'Souza makes. They are false generalizations, assumptions about morality, and the argument that somehow since certain religious institutions have forwarded some positive causes at certain points in history, this conveniently detracts from the issue that they may be bullshit.
Old Hitch is so desperate that he blames Countrys with no temple's on Christians?
Where the hell are the Christians in North Korea. Oh wait Kim Jon il came up with the idea of being worshiped like a God from Jesus. Bwahahhahahahhhhahahhahhhahhaahhaha
@Jmsadv Religious does not equal christianity. Hitchens is trying to compare religious actions. North Koreans "worship" the dear leader as if he was a god. Decent from the belief that he is a god means death-literally death. Decent from the Christian god means spiritual death. They thank him for everything they have and pray to him for everything they want. He is their savior, their father, their reason for being. Sound religious to me.
@111steven there's one problem here Steven, In Christinity, worshipping anyone else but God is not accpeted. Worshipping Kim jong il isn't recommended by the bible but hay, it's the christians fault right?
@Jmsadv If jesus/god was on earth as a king/leader, how would we interact with him? What would happen if we defected from his rule? A possible North Korea would evolve.
No. Atheism is not militant. Atheism, to the best of my knowledge, has not been responsible for the loss of one human life over the course of human history. The same can not be said about ANY other religion.
Are you serious?!?! Does the former USSR or Communist China ring a bell? In both cases Atheism was at the core of both such (... wait, what's the word ... oh yeah, it's...) MILITANT governments. While one could certainly argue that being militant is not inherent to atheism, one could NOT legitimately say that atheism was not a core philosophy / ideology of certain militant governments that caused incredible distruction of human life the world had never seen before.
Are you serious?!?! Does the former USSR or Communist China ring a bell? In both cases atheism was at the core of both such (... wait, what's the word ... oh yeah, it's...) MILITANT governments.
While one could certainly argue that being militant is not inherent to atheism, one could NOT legitimately say that atheism was not a core philosophy / ideology of certain militant governments that caused massive destruction of human life, of which, the world had never seen before.
@Alberio1 No, my point is not moot. ttiger5050 claimed that athiesm "has not responsible for the loss of one human life over the course of human history." Those are his words, not mine. My reply was directly responding to that claim. Your comment about the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades is an attempt to redirect attention from the main point because you do not have a logical response to the FACT that athiesm was a core philosophy of communist USSR and China.
@jtuturic Atheism is simply a rejection of a belief. Just imagine how you think of a religion you do not believe in...that's how atheists feel about every religion. If you're not convinced, you're not convinced...there's no agenda behind it. To link critical enquiry of religion to communism is non-sensical.
@jazz4 "To link critical enquiry of religion to communism is non-sensical." This statement of yours does not make sense. Every, yes EVERY, political government in the world's history has had the influence of religion. How can I state that emphatically without exaggeration? Simple. Governments are run by people and people have religious beliefs which inevitably affect how they think and act. That's just on an individual person level. In the case of China and USSR, it was policy, too.
@jtuturic You make out atheists are indifferent, communists. Not the case. What you're talking about is dogma. The issue with communism was communist dogma with megalomaniac, social totalitarians as its proclaimer. The problem was they were too much like religions, they were dogmatic systems of thought. Too little faith was not the problem, nationalism and political dogma were. "On a personal level" is implying that being an atheist is a negative character trait for civilisations.
@jazz4 You have to understand what atheism means. It is not even a philosophy, like you stated. You refer to China, but it is so much more complex than skepticism of religion. You have to look at the psychology and social forces in this society. China was organised like a cult, just like North Korea, they worshipped their leader. I think it's wrong to compare who did wrong and for what reasons. Religion should be held responsible for atrocities performed expllicitly for religious reasons.
@jtuturic That's why Atheists don't hold every religious person accountable for bad things religion has done. Atheism is a rational response to religion, it is not a derranged belief system with an agenda to destroy religion. It just asks of people to think logically like you would with anything else. Please don't misconstrual atheism. Apologies for the long response.
dinesh is throwing out some stuff that i gotta study on. christians (or westerns) rush to help africans after tsunami? values came into value because of christianity? natives having slaves? his voice is so damn annoying.
d'souza's opening about unicorns and why atheists bother is retarded.
if many politicians in "developed" countries like US believed in unicorns, if these leaders and millions of citizens lived their life according to the unicorn code which contained some seriously dodgy "morality" as well as copious harmful myth accepted as fact, if unicorns told people to rule over women and dress them as ninjas and kill homosexuals/non-believers, then unicorns would definitely come under the crosshairs.
@dinabio1 not really. if u equate unicorns with god, the analogy makes perfect sense. i think ur confusing god itself with the institution of christianity, which at points has been a gross misinterpretation OF god.. (i.e., christianity by 'christians' who are not true christians, by virtue of their hypocrisy and ignorance towards christ's teachings, the ten commandments, etc)
you talk about people who are not "true christians", probably because they interpret the bible differently from you. hey, if they can pull a passage and justify their actions with it, theyve done what they need to by religious standards.
if atheists wish to put an end to the confusion and potential refuge for evil that religion is, it is logical and totally understandable to go after god, from whom psychopaths draw their unquestionable justification. d'souza pretends he doesnt understand why.
{d'souza's opening about unicorns and why atheists bother is retarded}
"retarded"? However, I would think you've never recognized the slightest bit of retardation within the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument
If entire civilizations like the west and many institutions like America's Ivy League were due to Spaghetti Monsters then perhaps the comparison to Christianity wouldn't be nearly as exceedingly retarded
bullshit. you know that the flying spaghetti monster analogy is aimed at showing that the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved, not that it hasnt affected the course of history. dawkins, who makes the analogy, says over and over that he is only interested in whats TRUE. he argues against religion primarily cos its false. d'souza can hardly be excused in the same way, since his analogy is aimed at those who believe that god DOESNT exist whilst the burene of proof lies on his side
{if unicorns told people to rule over women and dress them as ninjas and kill homosexuals/non-believers, then unicorns would definitely come under the crosshairs}
Didn't you feel there was something peculiarly extrapolative about your argument?
Your comment is regarding Dinesh's statement & he's representing specifically Christianity. But you have to refer to another religion in order to make your point
wait wait wait... how is the scholars of athens supposed ignoring of sparta's intant raising any different that any western git who gives two shits about war in some 3rd world country today?
yeah... women where treated badly in Athens... and there where slavery... good thing christianity came right after rome and did no such ting! i mean, women instantly got equal right during the dark ages (not the name) there where no slaves! the pesants who's lives where the property of the kings and queens of europe... those where not slaves at all! yes thank ye gods for christianity!
"...the idea of individual dissent, the notion of personal dignity, the idea of equality, the equal dignity of men and women, an antipathy to oppression and equality and slavery, the idea of compassion as a social virtue. What's interesting is if you take a look at this list, you realize these values came into existence because of Christianity."
no worries. Maybe watch the video before raging against a comment. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but as somebody on my side I'd like to see you be measured about your responses.
I've seen it, we know that those things didn't come from Christianity, they have it in Confucianism, hindism, shinto, ect...
most religions have it.
What do you think about "atheist centers" its like a "church" for atheist but different, it combines library/community center/ science center and other things into one center for atheists. Do you think it's a good idea???
No, the idea seems ridiculous to me. Remember, that atheism is simply a response to a claim. I understand that a lot of us on youtube share similar ideals, as concepts like humanism and naturalism lead to atheism. But I would say that these are the ideals that we should unite under, the fact that we are atheists seems inconsequential to what we actually believe.
@Tcrowaf Yeah Tcrowaf, why didn't Stalin come up with these first? hahahahahhahahhahahhahhahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhaahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhaha
Because the golden rule predates Christianity and therefore Stalin! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah
I agree, it's a joke. Our values are largely based on the teachings of Greek philosophers and John Locke. Can you believe some people believe that we base our values on Christianity???? Morons. You would have to be a pretty ignorant of history to believe that.
@Tcrowaf Interesting how the Middle East is now rioting for the personal rights that we the West have and what Dinesh is talking about. Keep laughing moron.
@Jmsadv Are you implying that the Middle East is largely Christian? Bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah
@Tcrowaf Your more then welcome to put words into my mouth but you do at your own expense. Where the hell did you get the Middle East is largly secular from my comment about parts of the Middle East protesting their regime's? Protesting for things like liberty. Yes we have a seperation from chruch and state, but a country can have a religious population with a government that is apart from the church. In God we trust.. One nation under God... So help me God.. So secular are we???/
@Tcrowaf Obama attended the National prayer breakfest. “When Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time, we are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us, but whether we’re being true to our conscience and true to our God” This from are president. How secular are we Tcrow?
@Tcrowaf He's So right, though. it did come into existence because of Christianity. it's what dignified humans came up with to combat the 'divine word'.
I love it when Christians call atheists militant. Of all religions in the world it's the Abrahamic ones, Christianity and Islam, that are by far the most militant and have the vast majority of bloodshed on their hands.
If you've ever witnessed an occurrence for which there was absolutely no natural explanation available, then fine, believe in the supernatural. I have had no such experience, and so what's wrong with me or anyone else being skeptical of the existence of the supernatural? If, like St. Paul, I was on my way to torture Christians when all the sudden, Jesus appeared to me and told me to cut the shit, I'd convert in a heartbeat. Until that happens (it won't), I will believe only in what I've seen.
Well damn here i was expecting Hitchens to have a challenge for once with D'Souza's credentials. I'm not even half way through the man's opening statement and I can already see I will be disappointed.
The problems all religious people have when debating is that the more concrete claims they make, the weaker their case becomes. Ironically, the only thing they have going for them are the atheists' unwillingness to (unlike religious people) make correspondingly fantastical claims about something about which they know very little.
Do you have any evidence that "no body" believes in unicorns? There are many beliefs in many things in this world. The reason why books are written in an atheistic bigotry fashion against christianity and/or the great monotheistic religions, is because they are a major force in our society. "Unicorn" believers does not play such a role.
it was the irrational argument of atheism that he was pointing out. seems self evident why he said what he said about belief in unicorns. just making a joke of the absurdity of atheism. that's all it was! :) lighten up and enjoy the talk!
I believe my objection to the parody was valid; it was a blatant attack on atheism containing an entirely fallacious analogy.
Oh, and while I respect humor in debate, Dinesh actually believes - and expects his audience to believe - that his point was valid; thus I considered my response valid.
You can't be serious. Comparing Religion to Unicorns? Worst fucking analogy I've ever heard.
Do a large percentage of the earths population worship Unicorns? Does the belief in unicorns manifest in holy wars over the explicit doctrine entailed by the many versions of its holy text?
No. Why would you fucking write a book about it; you said it yourself.
If the worshiping of unicorns was, however, prevalent, and you were raised to believe in unicorns and their dogma, then yes. You would write.
it was simply a psuedo-analogy my friend. it was only a joke to point out the absurdity of the atheist worldview. surely you didn't think he was serious. :)
It is not absurd in the slightest. Logic is an entirely secular branch of philosophy, correct? Logic cannot disprove god, but neither can ANY evidence of his existence be validated. An argument from incredulity is not a valid one; just because you can't explain something, that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that doesn't rely on the supernatural.
Ok, so logic isn't a secular branch of philosophy. Logic is a framework for learning and solving problems. It's usable in any circumstance where information can be used to infer a solution based on observable information, patterns, or rules. If you claim that spiritual matters an non-logical, then there is no argument.
"Entirely secular" and "branch of philosophy" weren't intentionally referencing each other. I was pointing out that logic is secular, for our parrot friend here, and confirming it as a branch of philosophy - that it also serves as the framework for all rational thought, and that the concept of his god itself was a manifestation of antiquated pseudo-logical reasoning, is probably far beyond his comprehension.
Also, and ironically, the spiritual =/= logical claim cannot be made without evidence.
Logic is a discipline, not a philosophy. It also makes no claims about the root of power, either with people or spiritual beings. Spirituality relates to matters non-physical. I would propose that as logic is concerned with the objective and spirituality with the subjective, I would say the two don't have common ground on which to function. Obviously, there's no God, but we all enjoy pretending there is. That makes it a spiritual mater, not a logical one.
I was referring to formal logic retaining its roots in philosophy.
And I can accept that spirituality is subjective. Indeed, it's markedly obvious. However, many treat it as an objective matter and allude to it as such; this I cannot tolerate; every subjective observation has an objective cause, be it easily recognizable or ostensibly unfathomable.
It's funny that you would draw the correlation between what's objective and subjective, saying that the subjective has a basis in reality. I would only go so far as to say that there are lesser degrees of subjectivity asymptotically approaching objectivity. However, I agree wholeheartedly that pulling an idea from a subjective region constructed totally of perception into the real world, especially formal academic circles, borders on totally insane.
It was a crap analogy. If someone came to his door asking him to consider unicorn theology would he? Would he write a book? How about if Unicornists tried to teach that stuff right alongside of science textbooks? Would he write a book then? It becomes less of a joke when you compare it the way it should. That points out the absurdity of the religious worldview.
At least this "belligerent atheistic attack on religion" that D'Souza speaks of is conducted by words and conversation. Not bombs and manipulative proselytizing.
D'Souza seems to forget the atrocities of medieval, christian Europe which was based on slavery ( serfdom). Also, his point about the early scientific believers only believed because atheism was in direct conflict with the scientific beliefs at the time. His whole argument is based on falsehood, and cunningly picked evidences. Hitchens mopped the floor with him.
How can this guy actually believe that the values he listed came from Christianity? Were there no good people before Christianity? There certainly wasn't equal rights during Christianity's tyrannical reign in the Middle Ages.
basicly what he is saying is that, if you take the morals of a supernatural being out of the equation, then you remove the cut and dry fundamentals of right and wrong, and it turns into whatever society decides right and wrong is.
Which of course ignores the fact that those "cut and dry fundamentals of right and wrong" attributed to religious scripture are constantly manipulated and altered over time by society anyway.
I've always found it ironic that what religion offers is the promise of eternal reward (heaven/paradise) or threat of eternal punishment (hell) for adherence to or deviance from arbitrary dogma. This isnt "morality" at all...its pure self-interest.
right and wrong has always been determined by society; it's just that some individuals create dieties to project their values onto so that they can give them some backing. look at the way in which the "values" of the christian god have dramatically changed in the last 300 years, or in the last 50. the bible is unchanged, but society's values have changed, and god was required to change with them, if he was to remain moral.
That could well be. But if the supernatural being does not exist, the morals *are* in fact invented by humans and there is then no reason whatsoever why one should not improve upon them. Nor is it difficult; the bible is choke full of moral outrage - rape, ethnic cleansing, slavery, and so on.
8:57 "biology major Sam Harris"? Am I mistaken? I thought Sam Harris was best currently described as a neuro-scientist / philosopher / contemplative.
He may, in fact, have been a biology major, but isn't that a little belittling like saying Steven Hawking toys with numbers and telescopes? He seems to be a bit more than that.
Sam Harris didn't/doesn't blame Christianity for slavery. He simple points out that the morality which ended slavery did not come from the bible. Because the bible does not discourage slavery and was the primary source for rationalizing it's use by the slave holding South in America.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Harris changed his position quite a bit because of these theist debates and Hitchens is a great public speaker and debater but he gets own by DSouza on a regular basis.
Militant atheists? I tell you why no one attacks the belief in unicorns. Because believers in unicorns don't fly planes into buildings, they don't try and seeks to impose a universal morality, they don't rewrite our nation's history in favour of their ideology, they don't influence politicians and lawmakers, they don't label those with different lifestyles as less than equal, they don't impose themselves on public education, and they don't consider themselves above scrutiny. That's why! :P
I want this video on my 6650 fold phone.
damianfloyd1129 3 weeks ago
D'souzaphone? Are you zerious?
Tsnore 1 month ago
Guys also look up Hitchens vs the introducer, Olasky. Hitchens kicked the absolute shit out of him in a debate. Hitchens vs Olasky. Watch that also.
huwrj 1 month ago
This video went viral on Liberia
donnietodd89 2 months ago
this Hitchens God-hater got bitch slapped by the better man.
Seigu007 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
Is D'Souza living on the same planet as the rest of us?? The reason no one has written books on Unicorns is because Unicorns haven't bombed civilians, caused wars, violated human rights or tell people how they should live thier lives. I find D'Souza the weakest of the weak apologists of religion.
sufian2k6 8 months ago in playlist Religious Debate #2 4
Those values he lists prior to 5:16 did not come into the world via Christianity. They existed beforehand. Christianity sometimes preaches the opposite of some of those values. Slavery did not happen because of Christianity, but the Bible was used for its justification. Scriptures were quoted on how to treat slaves, as laid out in the Old Testament.
ColignyForever 8 months ago 5
@ColignyForever -but the Bible was used for its justification. Scriptures were quoted on how to treat slaves, as laid out in the Old Testament.
Yes, but note that this scriptures were regularly mis-quoted and misapplied out of context (in the American government sanctioned chattel slave system). The point of the bible slave codes was to regulat the degrading abuses of slave systems (read the Exodus acct of Hebrew slavery) & eliminate it. In the Bible slavery codes, slavery is is a type
shieldsff 5 months ago
Belief in unicorns does not influence politics or intrude upon the lives of people who do not believe in unicorns. No one is discriminated against because unicorns condemn them. No one in the past has been killed in the name of unicorns. The only two things God and unicorns have in common are 1. They are not real. and 2. They both come for virgins.
ColignyForever 8 months ago
While I carry no brief for D'Souza,I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff Thank you for the reference, shieldsff.
writersblock26 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 9 months ago
Why be militant? How about pushing the wall of shite forced on the world for 2000-5000 years back into the stone age. It wasn't that long ago that someone was burned for disbelief. There is an awakening social drive to right the wrongs caused in the name of christianity. The belief by christians that it is a 'militant effort' is because they have historically stifled dissent rather than let people speak freely and they don't know how to let others have a different opinion.
TheJascal 11 months ago
does anyone have the subject of the debate?
PrincepsNemesis 11 months ago
IDIOT, people don't try and force us to pray to unicorns, stupid D'Souza
deveraux009 11 months ago 2
@deveraux009 Also no one has ever knocked on my door asking.... "Have you heard the good word about unicorns?" or made me bow my head before dinner to thank a Unicorn for my food. Nor has someone ever killed someone because they believed in the wrong type of unicorn. what a ridiculous analogy, D'Sousa you are a turd.
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
Bravo D'Souza ! Christ lives :). Thank you
blopajmbar62 1 year ago
"Focus on reason and evidence" (when talking about religion). This speech should last about 2 seconds because there is no evidence, and as for reason.... How embarrassing to even hint at reason/logic relating to religion.
J0EuK556 1 year ago
Dinesh is like a locked up muslim girl in rural palestine. He is traumatized by his terrible cultural past in India. Then he discovered Christianity, slightly better than the caste system and cultural practice and squeezing of cow's testicles, but an sinister organization nontheless. So basically, he has done nothing more than jumping from a poorer system to a semi-poor system and he thinks he has found the ultimate answer to the universe; which is more aptly answered by atheistic physicists.
davidtheterminator 1 year ago 2
Unicorns don't star wars in the name of their existence. . .Unicorns don't hate homosexuals. Unicorns don't validate the conquering of one group over another because of their superior horn. And that's because Unicorns aren't real....
Militant religions are.
You are the dumbest smartest person in the world, D'Souza
gthang91582 1 year ago
Wouldn't it be nice if EVERYONE can come out with their own book?
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
@heartlessvietboy Yes, why don't, well, YOU!
wmotley11 1 year ago
America's writing is so balogny, it doesnt even have anything to do with the Cover Title.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
Hitchens does not understand Dinesh's points.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
Denish D'Souza Trumps all. God is Great.
Killavilla023 1 year ago
d'souza is such a slimy weasel.
anahaevia666 1 year ago
@anahaevia666 agreed.... its not his fault tho, his OCD is focused on god..
frackcha 1 year ago
Athens actually was based on slavery. There's not really a debate about that. How do you think the Athenians became so intellectually developed? It was because their slaves afforded them leisure time.
Odysseus087 1 year ago
@Odysseus087 Read the bible, slavery is condoned in both the Old and New Testament. Killing babies was okay too as long as they were the "right" kind of babies.
Cougar139tweak 11 months ago
@Cougar139tweak - sorry, but slavery is NOT at all condoned in the New Testament- anywhere. just plain wrong and misguided unless you are an ante-bellum slaver owner who wanted everybody to believe that just to help justify their greed and evil.
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff slavery is NOT at all condoned in the New Testament- anywhere. Sure it was....every Jot and tittle. :) Serve your masters well (Ephesians 6:5) and Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, (Titus 2:9)
I can find more if you like ....... wish you guys would read your own book once in a while.
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago
@Cougar139tweak - wow.... you looked up a 'proof text", let's call that progress.... May I suggest that you read the entire relevant book(s) & use a concordance to understand the systemic theology of the subject. You may have a sense of satisfaction having 'proved your point', but nothing in life is a simple as it appears. Jesus also said seek and you will find., ..... sorry, but you are wrong, again.
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff Oh wow!! I just did read the whole book and your right! Praise Jesus!! With everything contridicting itself everything is possible, I can rape your daughter and marry her too, oh what a glorious book! You were right I've been looking at this all wrong. You got change for 50 sheckles? Also is she hot? If it's bad you say "That's taken out of context!!" okay give me the context because I've read the whole book you , halfway through the Bhagavad Gita and sorry way more moral so far
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago
"I can rape your daughter and marry her too,',...
No you will not rape anyone! you horribly malign the BIble. It never endorses that & you will then certainly be subjected to massive legal & social consequences . Obviously, you are someone who has dark, sinful fantasies & turmoil- not that you are the only one in life who has struggled as such. Again, you remonstrate about pple turning you off-;when are you responsible for anything? Jesus said you must born again- that's what U NEED
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff Grrrrrrr..... Calm down, don't judge me you dirty christian! :) I have no "dark" fantasies, my rape inference was an attempt to show you the evil in your "good book". I've been in the presence of your so called "born agains" and I'm far from impressed. They do just as you do, judge others while lauding themselves with false modesty. Read your book and if you are honest with yourself you will come to the same conclusion. Don't let this mythology cloud your thinking.
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago
"...you dirty christian"
OK, so much for all semblances of civility & rationality on UR part .
YOU:Let's see, incensed & obsessed with God, the Creator (u consider fictional) of the universe for having eliminated several particularly vile, evil, malevolent group of pple some 4 thousand + years ago. What could be wrong with that picture) ?
I'd hate to see what U intend 200 years from now to say the nations of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. who slaughtered millions of innocents; Not angry w/them?
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff I can see that satire completely eludes you, I was infering you were judging me and jokingly I "judged" you. My only issue is a fictional character in a book, I'm no more obsessed with "God" than I am with Thor, ...however ...crazy people who believe in Thor don't get voted into political office and make laws do they? Also Hitler was a catholic who oddly enough use Martin Luthers book "Of the Jews and their lies" as a blueprint for the "final solution" aka the Shoah.
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago
Also Stalin and Mao wanted people to worship the state. Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, is that why they murdered millions? (also with the assistance of their christian societies, Russia was the cradle of Orthodox Christianity & Germans mostly Catholic) This did nothing to stop these atrocities, much like the Pope allowing his minions to moleste little boys and girls. I get tired of hearing how believeing in a sky daddy makes one a better person So far it seems Bad people do bad things the end
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago
No, pls allow me- so clearly UR unable to distinguish among, Roman/Orthodox/ Reformed beliefs. UR diatribes here make clear that [any] objective examination & evaluation of the facts, the text, & the role of evil actors is meaningless to your detestable intolerance.Here's the good news;Jesus died for you ! Like Saul,U can makes hateful assertions & persecute those who have no personal animus against U; We know God can intervene in your life & one day U PERSONALLY WILL call JESUS as UR GOD
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff "Here's the good news;Jesus died for you !"
In doing this, what was the sacrifice that was made?? This question is in relation to the Trinity. I see no point in this statement. "role of evil actors is meaningless"what do you mean by this statement? I think you might be taking a lighthearted banter personally. What did I do that made me so unworthy that I might be tortured forever in hell? Could Hitler be in heaven? Could all the Jews that died in the Shoah (Holocaust) be in Hell?
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago
@shieldsff So the Russians were not devout Christians? The Germans? Seems like Christian=Good Morals just doesn't fly. But neither does atheism (which is simply disbelief) It seems to be culture that causes "Evil" as well as enviroment and situations. Unfortunately evil is very subjective, I think this is a problem religion attempts to grasp but falls short. Our morals change as time passes, what was once acceptable is now considered evil or bad in many cases. Morality evolves as does everything
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago
@shieldsff "so clearly UR unable to distinguish among, Roman/Orthodox/ Reformed beliefs.".... I don't worry myself with the "flavour" of one version of skydaddy vs another. Only stating that beliefs seemed to do nothing to derail the evil deeds of a aggressive communist state or facist German one. How have I persecuted? Stating my lack of belief and questioning yours is not persecution. Religion does little but act as a placebo for those afraid of death and afraid to say I don't know.
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago
@Cougar139tweak - "Also Stalin and Mao wanted people to worship the state. Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, is that why they murdered millions? "
Ok, now I am getting it: his is more of your "special (i.e., non- objective) logic". what more can be said aside from thank you for your wantonly spurious and fatuous assertions
shieldsff 9 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 9 months ago
@shieldsff BTW You are the type of believer who turned me away from religion back when I was a practicing Southern Baptist.....Always "Faith and context" everytime I had an issue with a passage. Sorry but if these words were in anyother book then the one you call the Bible you would get together and burn them on sunday.
Cougar139tweak 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cougar139tweak--again, you LIE about the Law and the commandments,.... read the Torah, read the commandments:" But if a man find (come upon) a woman in the field (i.e., one who is vulnerable/ helpless) and the man forces her (attacks or assaults), then that man ONLY who attacked her shall be put to death; but, to the woman NOTHING shall be done to her"..... Clearly a woman who has been raped or assaulted is a victim, so Stop lying on God !!
shieldsff 9 months ago
Athens was based on slavery? What?
cowlark2000 1 year ago
D'Souza embarrasses himself....
ImBetterthanReligion 1 year ago
Dinesh's first point about militant atheism is laughable and elementary. Last time I checked, belief in unicorns didn't have a stranglehold on people's minds, or get tax exemption, or influence our culture in any comparable way, as opposed to Christianity.
MrElectroGizmo 1 year ago
In his précis of atheist values Dinesh misses the most important. The value of critical thought. Taking nothing for granted and submitting any absolute statement to rigorous rational scrutiny. That is the single most important value of atheism, to which all others must pay homage.
FLUSEM666 1 year ago
why doesnt god regrow limbs for amputees when they pray? why is it when a person who has cancer prays and recovers it's somehow because of the prayer? the day i see a limb regenerate on a person who prayed for it with my own eyes is the day i fully embrace "god" till then, no dice.
southsydney 1 year ago
"Biology major Sam Harris"
fail
freshhh1994 1 year ago
what an idiot......how is making ppl understand what morality is....call it atheism,humanism,...whatever u want.....how is all this militant?.....wht a stupid jackass....
natuankur 1 year ago
Haha every one of those values on the list came from the 18th century Enlightenment, a secular movement AGAINST the Christian orthodoxy that had held for EIGHTEEN HUNDRED YEARS that theocracy was the right system, women were inferior, slavery was OK, and reason and skepticism were the devil. And why wouldn't they? The Bible itself mandates these things. We only have modern values now because we IGNORE those parts of the Bible.
sam51092 1 year ago
I cannot agree with most of the statements D'Souza makes. They are false generalizations, assumptions about morality, and the argument that somehow since certain religious institutions have forwarded some positive causes at certain points in history, this conveniently detracts from the issue that they may be bullshit.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
"North Korea is the most religious country in the world"
Bwahahahhahahahhahahahhaahhahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahahahhahaahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahhaha
Old Hitch is so desperate that he blames Countrys with no temple's on Christians?
Where the hell are the Christians in North Korea. Oh wait Kim Jon il came up with the idea of being worshiped like a God from Jesus. Bwahahhahahahhhhahahhahhhahhaahhaha
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv Religious does not equal christianity. Hitchens is trying to compare religious actions. North Koreans "worship" the dear leader as if he was a god. Decent from the belief that he is a god means death-literally death. Decent from the Christian god means spiritual death. They thank him for everything they have and pray to him for everything they want. He is their savior, their father, their reason for being. Sound religious to me.
111steven 1 year ago
@111steven there's one problem here Steven, In Christinity, worshipping anyone else but God is not accpeted. Worshipping Kim jong il isn't recommended by the bible but hay, it's the christians fault right?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv If jesus/god was on earth as a king/leader, how would we interact with him? What would happen if we defected from his rule? A possible North Korea would evolve.
111steven 1 year ago
Contrarian versus conservative.
bigbrothersucksarse 1 year ago
Well we atheists dont belligerently detest unicorns, because they dont klill people
awsomewinecone 1 year ago
Im watching this and smiling just knowing Hitchens is going to (and i emphasize this word) DESTROY this fool!
Slugg329 1 year ago
@Slugg329 And he never did
Dhalsim06 1 year ago
@Dhalsim06 matter of opinion, I think he did.
seaniow 1 year ago
@seaniow "matter of opinion"
that's true
Dhalsim06 1 year ago
d'souza MUST have parts of his brain missing.
burkeyatm 1 year ago
No. Atheism is not militant. Atheism, to the best of my knowledge, has not been responsible for the loss of one human life over the course of human history. The same can not be said about ANY other religion.
My work here, is done.
Peace.
ttiger5050 1 year ago
@ttiger5050
Are you serious?!?! Does the former USSR or Communist China ring a bell? In both cases Atheism was at the core of both such (... wait, what's the word ... oh yeah, it's...) MILITANT governments. While one could certainly argue that being militant is not inherent to atheism, one could NOT legitimately say that atheism was not a core philosophy / ideology of certain militant governments that caused incredible distruction of human life the world had never seen before.
jtuturic 1 year ago
@ttiger5050
Are you serious?!?! Does the former USSR or Communist China ring a bell? In both cases atheism was at the core of both such (... wait, what's the word ... oh yeah, it's...) MILITANT governments.
While one could certainly argue that being militant is not inherent to atheism, one could NOT legitimately say that atheism was not a core philosophy / ideology of certain militant governments that caused massive destruction of human life, of which, the world had never seen before.
jtuturic 1 year ago
@jtuturic DERP. Your point is moot. Ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades?
Alberio1 1 year ago
@Alberio1 No, my point is not moot. ttiger5050 claimed that athiesm "has not responsible for the loss of one human life over the course of human history." Those are his words, not mine. My reply was directly responding to that claim. Your comment about the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades is an attempt to redirect attention from the main point because you do not have a logical response to the FACT that athiesm was a core philosophy of communist USSR and China.
jtuturic 1 year ago
@jtuturic Atheism is simply a rejection of a belief. Just imagine how you think of a religion you do not believe in...that's how atheists feel about every religion. If you're not convinced, you're not convinced...there's no agenda behind it. To link critical enquiry of religion to communism is non-sensical.
jazz4 1 year ago
@jazz4 "To link critical enquiry of religion to communism is non-sensical." This statement of yours does not make sense. Every, yes EVERY, political government in the world's history has had the influence of religion. How can I state that emphatically without exaggeration? Simple. Governments are run by people and people have religious beliefs which inevitably affect how they think and act. That's just on an individual person level. In the case of China and USSR, it was policy, too.
jtuturic 1 year ago
@jtuturic You make out atheists are indifferent, communists. Not the case. What you're talking about is dogma. The issue with communism was communist dogma with megalomaniac, social totalitarians as its proclaimer. The problem was they were too much like religions, they were dogmatic systems of thought. Too little faith was not the problem, nationalism and political dogma were. "On a personal level" is implying that being an atheist is a negative character trait for civilisations.
jazz4 1 year ago
@jazz4 You have to understand what atheism means. It is not even a philosophy, like you stated. You refer to China, but it is so much more complex than skepticism of religion. You have to look at the psychology and social forces in this society. China was organised like a cult, just like North Korea, they worshipped their leader. I think it's wrong to compare who did wrong and for what reasons. Religion should be held responsible for atrocities performed expllicitly for religious reasons.
jazz4 1 year ago
@jtuturic That's why Atheists don't hold every religious person accountable for bad things religion has done. Atheism is a rational response to religion, it is not a derranged belief system with an agenda to destroy religion. It just asks of people to think logically like you would with anything else. Please don't misconstrual atheism. Apologies for the long response.
jazz4 1 year ago
Womens' rights came from Christianity? Did he seriously say that??
Springheel01 1 year ago
dinesh is throwing out some stuff that i gotta study on. christians (or westerns) rush to help africans after tsunami? values came into value because of christianity? natives having slaves? his voice is so damn annoying.
wokkitout 1 year ago
d'souza's opening about unicorns and why atheists bother is retarded.
if many politicians in "developed" countries like US believed in unicorns, if these leaders and millions of citizens lived their life according to the unicorn code which contained some seriously dodgy "morality" as well as copious harmful myth accepted as fact, if unicorns told people to rule over women and dress them as ninjas and kill homosexuals/non-believers, then unicorns would definitely come under the crosshairs.
dinabio1 1 year ago
@dinabio1 not really. if u equate unicorns with god, the analogy makes perfect sense. i think ur confusing god itself with the institution of christianity, which at points has been a gross misinterpretation OF god.. (i.e., christianity by 'christians' who are not true christians, by virtue of their hypocrisy and ignorance towards christ's teachings, the ten commandments, etc)
eddymunsterlives 1 year ago
you talk about people who are not "true christians", probably because they interpret the bible differently from you. hey, if they can pull a passage and justify their actions with it, theyve done what they need to by religious standards.
if atheists wish to put an end to the confusion and potential refuge for evil that religion is, it is logical and totally understandable to go after god, from whom psychopaths draw their unquestionable justification. d'souza pretends he doesnt understand why.
dinabio1 1 year ago
@dinabio1
{d'souza's opening about unicorns and why atheists bother is retarded}
"retarded"? However, I would think you've never recognized the slightest bit of retardation within the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument
If entire civilizations like the west and many institutions like America's Ivy League were due to Spaghetti Monsters then perhaps the comparison to Christianity wouldn't be nearly as exceedingly retarded
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
bullshit. you know that the flying spaghetti monster analogy is aimed at showing that the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved, not that it hasnt affected the course of history. dawkins, who makes the analogy, says over and over that he is only interested in whats TRUE. he argues against religion primarily cos its false. d'souza can hardly be excused in the same way, since his analogy is aimed at those who believe that god DOESNT exist whilst the burene of proof lies on his side
dinabio1 1 year ago
@dinabio1
{if unicorns told people to rule over women and dress them as ninjas and kill homosexuals/non-believers, then unicorns would definitely come under the crosshairs}
Didn't you feel there was something peculiarly extrapolative about your argument?
Your comment is regarding Dinesh's statement & he's representing specifically Christianity. But you have to refer to another religion in order to make your point
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago 2
"These values came into the world because of christianity" 5:15
Lying for jeebuz never looked so disingenuous.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
Dinesh is no idiot, but he's evidently pretty good at acting like one.
rolyan3 2 years ago
wait wait wait... how is the scholars of athens supposed ignoring of sparta's intant raising any different that any western git who gives two shits about war in some 3rd world country today?
honestly what a tool
behemuth 2 years ago
yeah... women where treated badly in Athens... and there where slavery... good thing christianity came right after rome and did no such ting! i mean, women instantly got equal right during the dark ages (not the name) there where no slaves! the pesants who's lives where the property of the kings and queens of europe... those where not slaves at all! yes thank ye gods for christianity!
ignorant GIT
behemuth 2 years ago
"...the idea of individual dissent, the notion of personal dignity, the idea of equality, the equal dignity of men and women, an antipathy to oppression and equality and slavery, the idea of compassion as a social virtue. What's interesting is if you take a look at this list, you realize these values came into existence because of Christianity."
Bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah
Tcrowaf 2 years ago 21
yeah... like none of those where evident among the citizens of rome, or like it was present during middle age paris among the pesants
behemuth 2 years ago
@Tcrowaf
not really the Chinese knew about these.
TheNaturalistAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNaturalistAtheist
and many other cultures as well, it was a quote from D'souza not my words. Notice the quotation marks.
Tcrowaf 1 year ago
@
oh sorry, my eyes are bad and i hate wearing glasses, so it is hard to see them.
My bad.
TheNaturalistAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNaturalistAtheist
no worries. Maybe watch the video before raging against a comment. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but as somebody on my side I'd like to see you be measured about your responses.
Tcrowaf 1 year ago
@Tcrowaf
@Tcrowaf
I've seen it, we know that those things didn't come from Christianity, they have it in Confucianism, hindism, shinto, ect...
most religions have it.
What do you think about "atheist centers" its like a "church" for atheist but different, it combines library/community center/ science center and other things into one center for atheists. Do you think it's a good idea???
TheNaturalistAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNaturalistAtheist
No, the idea seems ridiculous to me. Remember, that atheism is simply a response to a claim. I understand that a lot of us on youtube share similar ideals, as concepts like humanism and naturalism lead to atheism. But I would say that these are the ideals that we should unite under, the fact that we are atheists seems inconsequential to what we actually believe.
Tcrowaf 1 year ago
@Tcrowaf
I heard the ideal from an atheist organization, it said that it would unite the community better to compete with religious temples.
I to think it is a little to much. It would help a lot for those closet atheist, but i agree.
TheNaturalistAtheist 1 year ago
@Tcrowaf Yeah Tcrowaf, why didn't Stalin come up with these first? hahahahahhahahhahahhahhahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhaahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhaha
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv
Because the golden rule predates Christianity and therefore Stalin! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah
Tcrowaf 1 year ago
@Tcrowaf Stalin didn't belive in either. Bhahahahhahhahahhahahahahhahaahahahahahahahahhahahhahahhahaahhahahahahahhaahhahahhahahahahahhaaaaaaahahahhahhahahhahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahhahahhah
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv
Stalin has nothing to do with this issue! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Tcrowaf 1 year ago
@Tcrowaf Yeah the Chinese, Stalin, and N. Korea have done so much to bring values into the world. What a joke!
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv
I agree, it's a joke. Our values are largely based on the teachings of Greek philosophers and John Locke. Can you believe some people believe that we base our values on Christianity???? Morons. You would have to be a pretty ignorant of history to believe that.
Tcrowaf 1 year ago
@Tcrowaf Actually, if you look at those values and then see that Japan's values which are as good are NOT based on christianity! :p
99minerkc 1 year ago
@Tcrowaf Interesting how the Middle East is now rioting for the personal rights that we the West have and what Dinesh is talking about. Keep laughing moron.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv Are you implying that the Middle East is largely Christian? Bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah
Tcrowaf 1 year ago
@Tcrowaf Your more then welcome to put words into my mouth but you do at your own expense. Where the hell did you get the Middle East is largly secular from my comment about parts of the Middle East protesting their regime's? Protesting for things like liberty. Yes we have a seperation from chruch and state, but a country can have a religious population with a government that is apart from the church. In God we trust.. One nation under God... So help me God.. So secular are we???/
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Tcrowaf Obama attended the National prayer breakfest. “When Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time, we are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us, but whether we’re being true to our conscience and true to our God” This from are president. How secular are we Tcrow?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv If we adhere to the constitution... very.
Tcrowaf 1 year ago
@Tcrowaf He's So right, though. it did come into existence because of Christianity. it's what dignified humans came up with to combat the 'divine word'.
deveraux009 11 months ago
D'Souza ya big eared charlie, I wish you'd shut your mouth.
jumpmonkey11 2 years ago
I love it when Christians call atheists militant. Of all religions in the world it's the Abrahamic ones, Christianity and Islam, that are by far the most militant and have the vast majority of bloodshed on their hands.
megamarsvin 2 years ago
If you've ever witnessed an occurrence for which there was absolutely no natural explanation available, then fine, believe in the supernatural. I have had no such experience, and so what's wrong with me or anyone else being skeptical of the existence of the supernatural? If, like St. Paul, I was on my way to torture Christians when all the sudden, Jesus appeared to me and told me to cut the shit, I'd convert in a heartbeat. Until that happens (it won't), I will believe only in what I've seen.
mrw21 2 years ago
Well damn here i was expecting Hitchens to have a challenge for once with D'Souza's credentials. I'm not even half way through the man's opening statement and I can already see I will be disappointed.
judenvagon 2 years ago 2
The problems all religious people have when debating is that the more concrete claims they make, the weaker their case becomes. Ironically, the only thing they have going for them are the atheists' unwillingness to (unlike religious people) make correspondingly fantastical claims about something about which they know very little.
BjornSurfar 2 years ago
good answer
eugdog106 2 years ago
lol DD uses that opening joke in lot of debates... lame.
oooBOOSHooo 2 years ago
why is it that when we talk to god we are said to be praying but when god talks to us we are said to be schizophrenic?
eugdog106 2 years ago
because praying isn't a delusion.
FSMhasRisen 2 years ago
because i talk to my dog all the time but if it started talking back to me, when only i could hear, i would be insane.
ericisaflamer 2 years ago
The US, arguably the most christian nation, also had slavery. Dinesh, is a fucking weasel.
SMSBJM1981 2 years ago
wow, dinesh is delusional. Western nations rush to help because western nations have money to help.
Its funny, there are some small civilizations in the world that have not heard of christianity yet they are not raping, pillaging, and murdering.
SMSBJM1981 2 years ago 2
Let's paraphrase D'Souza's dismissal of atheism:
"If you live in a society retarded by superstition and ignorance, why should that bother you?"
Good question.
thisnameisuniq 2 years ago 5
Don't need a book on not believing in unicorns because no body incorporates the belief in unicorns into our culture. Douchebag.
broadsta 2 years ago
Do you have any evidence that "no body" believes in unicorns? There are many beliefs in many things in this world. The reason why books are written in an atheistic bigotry fashion against christianity and/or the great monotheistic religions, is because they are a major force in our society. "Unicorn" believers does not play such a role.
drawthrough 2 years ago
Philosophy is truth, logic and ethics, and discussion around those; although some of the discussion over the years has been fairly verbose and vague.
cbmacs 2 years ago
D'Souza is such a sad case. Just a waste of space.
ghettowizard 2 years ago 2
Ugh. I give up. A child could pick apart his arguments.
Obversity 2 years ago
who? dinesh? a child...or rather, someone with childlike faith can understand them. :)
parakeethands 2 years ago
Moreover, If belief in unicorns WAS widespread, there would be atheists, similarly, asserting the silliness of it.
D'souza just instantly lost my respect, and I hope that of any other rational being listening to this babble.
Obversity 2 years ago
it was the irrational argument of atheism that he was pointing out. seems self evident why he said what he said about belief in unicorns. just making a joke of the absurdity of atheism. that's all it was! :) lighten up and enjoy the talk!
parakeethands 2 years ago
I believe my objection to the parody was valid; it was a blatant attack on atheism containing an entirely fallacious analogy.
Oh, and while I respect humor in debate, Dinesh actually believes - and expects his audience to believe - that his point was valid; thus I considered my response valid.
Obversity 2 years ago
You can't be serious. Comparing Religion to Unicorns? Worst fucking analogy I've ever heard.
Do a large percentage of the earths population worship Unicorns? Does the belief in unicorns manifest in holy wars over the explicit doctrine entailed by the many versions of its holy text?
No. Why would you fucking write a book about it; you said it yourself.
If the worshiping of unicorns was, however, prevalent, and you were raised to believe in unicorns and their dogma, then yes. You would write.
Obversity 2 years ago 2
it was simply a psuedo-analogy my friend. it was only a joke to point out the absurdity of the atheist worldview. surely you didn't think he was serious. :)
parakeethands 2 years ago
It is not absurd in the slightest. Logic is an entirely secular branch of philosophy, correct? Logic cannot disprove god, but neither can ANY evidence of his existence be validated. An argument from incredulity is not a valid one; just because you can't explain something, that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that doesn't rely on the supernatural.
Obversity 2 years ago
Ok, so logic isn't a secular branch of philosophy. Logic is a framework for learning and solving problems. It's usable in any circumstance where information can be used to infer a solution based on observable information, patterns, or rules. If you claim that spiritual matters an non-logical, then there is no argument.
ariuszarim 2 years ago
"Entirely secular" and "branch of philosophy" weren't intentionally referencing each other. I was pointing out that logic is secular, for our parrot friend here, and confirming it as a branch of philosophy - that it also serves as the framework for all rational thought, and that the concept of his god itself was a manifestation of antiquated pseudo-logical reasoning, is probably far beyond his comprehension.
Also, and ironically, the spiritual =/= logical claim cannot be made without evidence.
Obversity 2 years ago
Logic is a discipline, not a philosophy. It also makes no claims about the root of power, either with people or spiritual beings. Spirituality relates to matters non-physical. I would propose that as logic is concerned with the objective and spirituality with the subjective, I would say the two don't have common ground on which to function. Obviously, there's no God, but we all enjoy pretending there is. That makes it a spiritual mater, not a logical one.
ariuszarim 2 years ago
I was referring to formal logic retaining its roots in philosophy.
And I can accept that spirituality is subjective. Indeed, it's markedly obvious. However, many treat it as an objective matter and allude to it as such; this I cannot tolerate; every subjective observation has an objective cause, be it easily recognizable or ostensibly unfathomable.
Obversity 2 years ago
It's funny that you would draw the correlation between what's objective and subjective, saying that the subjective has a basis in reality. I would only go so far as to say that there are lesser degrees of subjectivity asymptotically approaching objectivity. However, I agree wholeheartedly that pulling an idea from a subjective region constructed totally of perception into the real world, especially formal academic circles, borders on totally insane.
ariuszarim 2 years ago
Of course, objectivity will always be relative.
Unless it's god's own perception of course...
=P
Obversity 2 years ago
It was a crap analogy. If someone came to his door asking him to consider unicorn theology would he? Would he write a book? How about if Unicornists tried to teach that stuff right alongside of science textbooks? Would he write a book then? It becomes less of a joke when you compare it the way it should. That points out the absurdity of the religious worldview.
thelordmemnoch 2 years ago 2
At least this "belligerent atheistic attack on religion" that D'Souza speaks of is conducted by words and conversation. Not bombs and manipulative proselytizing.
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago 2
thank God!!
parakeethands 2 years ago
D'Souza seems to forget the atrocities of medieval, christian Europe which was based on slavery ( serfdom). Also, his point about the early scientific believers only believed because atheism was in direct conflict with the scientific beliefs at the time. His whole argument is based on falsehood, and cunningly picked evidences. Hitchens mopped the floor with him.
sfmike20 2 years ago 2
from other debates he basically dismisses it as irrelavant and happened along time ago.
Yet something that supposedly happened even longer ago is more important to him.
Needless to say he's annoying =0
youjutsusha 2 years ago
Ugh, this first part isn't working for me. Is this the debate held at The Kings College?
rm1jagfan 2 years ago
How can this guy actually believe that the values he listed came from Christianity? Were there no good people before Christianity? There certainly wasn't equal rights during Christianity's tyrannical reign in the Middle Ages.
Onodera1980 2 years ago 6
basicly what he is saying is that, if you take the morals of a supernatural being out of the equation, then you remove the cut and dry fundamentals of right and wrong, and it turns into whatever society decides right and wrong is.
A7XApollo1 2 years ago
Which of course ignores the fact that those "cut and dry fundamentals of right and wrong" attributed to religious scripture are constantly manipulated and altered over time by society anyway.
I've always found it ironic that what religion offers is the promise of eternal reward (heaven/paradise) or threat of eternal punishment (hell) for adherence to or deviance from arbitrary dogma. This isnt "morality" at all...its pure self-interest.
Gonzo707 2 years ago
right and wrong has always been determined by society; it's just that some individuals create dieties to project their values onto so that they can give them some backing. look at the way in which the "values" of the christian god have dramatically changed in the last 300 years, or in the last 50. the bible is unchanged, but society's values have changed, and god was required to change with them, if he was to remain moral.
InnocentISay 2 years ago
That could well be. But if the supernatural being does not exist, the morals *are* in fact invented by humans and there is then no reason whatsoever why one should not improve upon them. Nor is it difficult; the bible is choke full of moral outrage - rape, ethnic cleansing, slavery, and so on.
dojohansen123 2 years ago
That's historical narrative not meant to be taken as moral lessons or commands.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
That's not DSouza's claim. Listen more closely.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
at about 5:30 minutes i realized this guy cannot debate lol
dh234 2 years ago
Indeed.
Ragnaros12345 2 years ago
8:57 "biology major Sam Harris"? Am I mistaken? I thought Sam Harris was best currently described as a neuro-scientist / philosopher / contemplative.
He may, in fact, have been a biology major, but isn't that a little belittling like saying Steven Hawking toys with numbers and telescopes? He seems to be a bit more than that.
analubalitious 2 years ago 3
A little quote minning by D'souza.
Sam Harris didn't/doesn't blame Christianity for slavery. He simple points out that the morality which ended slavery did not come from the bible. Because the bible does not discourage slavery and was the primary source for rationalizing it's use by the slave holding South in America.
valencehigh 2 years ago 5
i would like to see dinesh debate sam harris
chupacabra 2 years ago 7
there already was a debate...
Harris owns him... he was sooo funny...
but it was kinda unfair
Nades129 2 years ago
really? do you know if the debate is online anywhere/can you send me a link? i've been looking but i can't find it
chupacabra 2 years ago
i am so sorry, i made a mistake... it was harris and hedges...
Nades129 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Harris changed his position quite a bit because of these theist debates and Hitchens is a great public speaker and debater but he gets own by DSouza on a regular basis.
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
Militant atheists? I tell you why no one attacks the belief in unicorns. Because believers in unicorns don't fly planes into buildings, they don't try and seeks to impose a universal morality, they don't rewrite our nation's history in favour of their ideology, they don't influence politicians and lawmakers, they don't label those with different lifestyles as less than equal, they don't impose themselves on public education, and they don't consider themselves above scrutiny. That's why! :P
SkaAllison 2 years ago 14