Hitchens v. D'Souza - Jones County, Mississippi (Full Debate 1/13)

[TheGasLamp]

I was born in this county. Too bad I wasn't around to catch this debate. I'm sure there was nothing better going on considering how small it is. Thanks for the upload.

[MrLemex]

@hyobel What are you talking about? He blowen the other people in that debate out of the water; he defeated Boris Johnson before the guy even opened his blonde haired, Tory mouth.

[hyobel]

@MrLemex I guess you're one of those who likes claiming without seeing with their own eyes. I would say that Hitchens never had a chance to draw his sword in Question Time. He was then a blubbering in his shell who was unable to come out into the open because all guns were aimed at him.

[MrLemex]

@hyobel On the conterary, I enjoy Question Time, and I remember that one rather well: I can even remember what Hitchen's said, and can quote it for you if you like.

[hyobel]

I say, I have never seen Hitchens struggling to counter-argue in a debate. He looked like he swallowed his cheeky tongue, unable to substantially fight back D'Souza. Well done, Dinesh.

[opheliadies]

WHAT!? How did I miss this!? Christopher Hitchens at the college I currently attend!

[rubberbaby00]

Mississippi??

Hitchens has balls going to those backwoods...

[foxygrandpa1313]

haha i agree! even though i was at that debate because i live in jones county ha

[hardleecure]

he said he wanted a challenge :)

[ETworldjone]

its funny how some atheists are trying to spread their 'gospel of evolution' by borrowing the tactics from those they oppose.

throughout history the non-religious have tried to do this and more to paint theism negatively. But 'the reality' is that they have failed.

However, they've got the freedom to do it and therefore should do it because it turns out to be that actually people who were once uninterested in religious things are getting interested because of them. So, thank you atheists!

[F33bs]

"people who were once uninterested in religious things are getting interested because of them. So, thank you atheists!"

Oh please. Too bad you have no statistics to back that up, and all of the studies show it's the exact opposite.

"throughout history the non-religious have tried to do this"

What other era was atheism publicly espoused besides the present one and the very recent past?

Either you don't know history, or you're just bullshitting everyone on purpose. Probably both.

[ETworldjone]

firstly, show me the studies that prove otherwise. all ur doin' is making one-off unsubstantiated statements.

secondly, you need to learn the definition of history. recent past or past....its still history.

i dont have any reason to 'bullshit' anyone. probably, u r just revealing that thats what u do best!

[F33bs]

Sure, USA Today has a nice statistical chart on how atheism and irreligion has risen 20% in states like Vermont and New Hampshire.

Go see it for yourself.

And you said "throughout history," not "recent history." Don't bullshit me.

[NoCrispin]

You're the one making one-off unsubstatiated statements, very ironic hahahhaha.

[speedsk8r27]

That you could compare one to the other is laughable - people can choose any religion they want, or no religion. What they preach is different in the "Bible belt" to Saudi Arabia to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. By homework, should I read Hitchens and Dawkins and parrot what they opine, like what you've done? Very impressive. Lose the condescension, son, I've got the upper hand regarding education; and I heard you the first time about the SS slogan.

[Perrine234]

Dinesh needs to understand that as atheism has no holy book, NO ONE whomsoever, throughout history, has been killed in the "NAME" of atheism.

[jimroletter]

you just set up a straw man argument that doesn't hold true

[Perrine234]

Please enlighten us.

[accountbypass1]

Evidently, you don't understand what comprises a strawman argument. In fact, YOU are using a strawman argument by misrepresenting the opponent's argument and attacking said falsitiy.

[kenzojim]

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

[kenzojim]

The idea that since atheism has no "book" therefore no ohe has been killed inthe "name" of atheism doesn't hold in my opinion.

[Perrine234]

Why not?  Please explain.

[stevenstreet483]

I kill people in the name of unicorns. There is an indefinite amount of things I do not believe in that I could kill in the "Name" of. Atheism just means we do not believe there is such a thing as god. We could come up with another infinite amount of words for all the infinite amount of things I do not believe exist. Thats why this argument is stupid. You can not by any means ever kill someone in the "Name" of (whatever it is you dont believe in).

[accountbypass1]

People don't kill in the name of atheism. Period. No one shourts, FOR THE LACK OF A GOD! before blowing himself up or before going on a shooting rampage.

And when have you heard the contrary? When have you seen or heard of a person, doing something FOR god, or at least for his/her idea of god?

[mowriter]

accountbypass: People in DEMOCRACIES don't kill in the name of atheism. Arguably the COMmunist model was one in which an atheist dictatorship did just that. But in a free Democracy? You're completely correct.

[SoldierOfChrist110]

@accountbypass1 But in atheism there are no moral absolutes, and therefore atheists can do what they like. Religion has also caused people to do good and turn away from evil.

[speedsk8r27]

How about convoluted logic, then? Atheists claim that some exaggerated number have died in the name of religion. The believers then respond that atheism, or the lack of belief in God, central to Nazism and Communism, is responsible for millions of deaths. Talking about "in the name of atheism" is really immaterial.

[Perrine234]

People do things because of what they believe in, not what they DON'T believe in. Exactly zero people were murdered in the name of atheism.

[speedsk8r27]

Semantics. One could argue that if those atheist regimes had not been so, senseless killing may not have taken place. Read The Brothers Karamazov: "...without God, everything is permitted."

[Perrine234]

Pathetic excuse. With god, everything is permitted, because you can justify anything in his name.

[speedsk8r27]

Excuse? I'm not making excuses for atheistic disregard for life over history, you're making a very weak argument that they had no dogma or book to guide the mass murders. Please follow the argument. At any rate, let me think: Dostoyevsky versus angry internet atheist....tough call.

[mironowak]

Please do some homework before you write this fallacy.

Religion and nazism are totalitarian in their nature. They are both about controlling peoples actions and minds. They are both self appointed crowd controllers in service of those in power who sponsor and protect them. They are above the law because they claim to be the LAW. Priests/clerics in the name of political correctness became the untouchables from Saudi Arabia to "the Bible belt" in America.

GOTT MIT UNS - from the SS belt buckle.

[jgaltut]

The corollary is if you are an atheist and you decided to follow any religion, ask yourself, 'which good and bad actions would you be required to perform as a member of that religion'.

As a moral atheist, I can state unequivocally that there is NO religion that I have ever heard about that would make me a better person who does better deeds than I do now.

And every religion I know about would add ridiculous requirements, foolish customs and/or unearned guilt to my life, NO THANKS.

[jgaltut]

I like hitchens' challenge but my challenge is more personalized. You ask a religious person, 'if you stopped being religious which good deeds do you do now that you would stop doing, and also which bad or useless actions would you stop.'

Undoubtedly, they would still do all the good actions, but if they are honest they would realize that ceasing all the bad actions, wasted time, guilt, etc. would make their lives much better.

[Jakeblood240]

Your inability to separate yourself from your moral cultural influences is what allows you to be the moral person you claim to be.

Your question is loaded. It should be, "without the cultural influences you've inherited (by proxy), would you hold the same?"

I think the answer's "no" though is difficult to prove. Your incorrect assumption is that your morals were inherent to you at birth, there is less evidence of that versus your cultural western influence which is Judeo-Christian based.

[Blackwater578]

It's not Judeo-Christian based

[ThoughtfulAtheist]

SKIP THIS VIDEO GO TO 2...but wow D'souza is a dud. Nice opening joke....idiot (8:53 if you just wanna see the only part worth watching).

[draftube]

SKIP THIS PART

Skip this video, you won't miss much, hugely long intro, guy gets on stage and starts says he is glad to be here!

[Theologikos]

thank you for the upload!

[PhilosophyF]

Thank you, muchly, for watching.

[hagenttzd]

thanks a million gawds for uploading!

[PhilosophyF]

I appreciate it, thanks for watching.

[MercifulMing]

thanks for uploading this

[PhilosophyF]

I appreciate you watching.

[Jakeblood240]

Over 8min of intro...zzzzz

Anyone who cares, just move on to part two.

[draftube]

Holy cow, you weren't joking when you said that

[rothery86]

lol, this guy doing the introduction is a stereotype straight out of an Elvis movie.

[richardcadbury]

indian mr bean lol

[mironowak]

Religion & god are pathetic delusions useless in real life.

My godmother who survived KL Auschwitz (number 25541) confirmed that it was run mostly by German & AUSTRIAN (fact frequently forgotten) Christians in SS uniforms.

They had GOTT MIT UNS on their buckles. She kept repeating that there was no god in Auschwitz. She survived thank to her own stamina and self-reliance coupled with human solidarity between inmates and the "godless" Soviet soldiers who liberated her & a handful of survivors.

[speedsk8r27]

This life, void of God, is pathetic and useless. Look around you. No offense to your grandmother, but I'll take Elie Wiesel's word over hers.

[dallased25]

If life is void of god (which it is), then that is your judgement and doesn't change the fact of it. To me, it makes life that much more valuable, because you truly, only get one. No afterlife, just this, so you better make the absolute most of it.

[speedsk8r27]

You don't know that it is (void of God) any more than I know it isn't, so don't speak in absolutes to me. We're talking about belief, whether it's a "man in the sky" or that the complexity of the human mind came from nothingness. Get out of it what you can, but human nature is materialistic and a dead end. That much is clear.

[dallased25]

No....everyone dies...I'll give you that, but materialistic by nature....no. If that were true, then all animals would show a nature that is not altruistic, but unforgiving and brutal. It is clear that by working together and being kind is beneficial. We create purpose through this altruism and other acts. It's a by product of evolution. I'm sorry you can't find value in life without a big sky daddy to tell you how to enjoy it.

[speedsk8r27]

I'm sorry you're wasting what time you have here, debating believers. It's great that you're kind and desire harmony with the rest of mankind -- so why the condescension? I'm fascinated with the internet atheist movement, it's so flexible. They argue, for instance, that no murders have occurred in the name of atheism; there's no book, no dogma, belief in NOTHING. But in myriad blogs and comment sections, they want to convert people, like any good evangelist. The wordplay is priceless.

[dallased25]

Actually I enjoy it, not a waste at all. I choose to. Why the condescension? Mainly because I tire of believers telling me my life has no value without a god. That is more condescending than anything. Convert people...no, there's nothing to convert to. De-convert YES! I actually don't expect to de-convert people, I just want to get them thinking and challenge what they believe. I think the main thing is that the internet is the one forum we have where there is no threat of retaliation.

[xentech]

They just want people to be free thinkers, because it will benefit society and mankind. Furthermore, it's not a waste of time if you enjoy doing it.

[starflyer403]

I would argue that atheists are trying to "convert" if you like that term as a means of survival of our race. Religious people want to squandered the worlds resources, not act on greenhouse pollutants, and why? Because it's all accounted for by God is their answer. The end times are here so why conserve? And their basis for this is a book that they think was written by God vicariously through humans. So your answer is Survival. it's in our genes.

[speedsk8r27]

So, for eons, the inherent belief in a higher power has been swimming upstream against genetics? That's an interesting thought. What's absurd, though, is your assertion that believers are wont to "squandered [sic] the worlds resources." I believe Al Gore calls himself a Christian. I've never heard such a thing; I'm a biologist and environmentalist, and a Christian.

[starflyer403]

As a biologist, you should know that our genetics didn't poof into existence in a set way and that they evolved gradually. As we gained consciousness and looked at the world, we had to have an understanding which humans couldn't grasp and therefore made a higher power to explain it. So in turn, science has been swimming upstream against religion. The Anti-Global warming movement is based in Religion and you know it. Watch the Jesus camp documentary and watch them talk about global warming.

[starflyer403]

As a scientist, I'll have to take your word for it, you know that there isn't much debate on the effect of greenhouse gases on our environment. Why do the people of America NOT take your word for it as a professional? Turn on your tv and watch the preachers talk about this being the end time and because revelations says that wormwood will poison 3/4s of the world's drinking water then that means God has taken account of every drop of water. So take a long shower, its been accounted for.

[speedsk8r27]

As a PhD in biology, you don't need to tell me about genetics or CO2. Clearly you have some bizarre misconceptions about religion in general. You speak of your opinions on science and religion as if they were fact. If you knew your history, you'd know that the monestary was the cradle of science in the Middle Ages, and the Vatican endorses evolution, so it's hardly the adversarial relationship you describe, at least as far as Catholics are concerned; I can't speak for the "religious right."

[JemyM]

Rather than "cradle of science" I would say "storage of science". Middle east was the center for scientific progress during the middle ages. They continued what the ancient Greeks had started and made huge progress in most disciplines, like astronomy and medicine. 1195 is quoted as the year that golden era ended, when they expelled Ibn Rushd. Europe begun to open up to science in the 13th century, prior to that science was a side effect of religion rather than a primary focus.

[brickan2]

Aristoteles conceived a practical scientific method before the first abrahamic monastery was even built. Chinese naturalists and mathematicians explored the world in scientific ways before any european knew how to make wheels. The fist university in the entire world was raised by a secularist, Plato. Asserting that science has any base in religion is utterly ignorant. Read your history.

[Samuelthemule]

no, it's not actually, it's based primarily on the fact that the other planets are heating up at the same rate, proportional to their distance from the sun and their size, as the earth is, and the great corruption in all governments.

Nevermind that the jesus camp film is a horrendous piece of propaganda.

Also, that all those pushing for global warming are only going to profit from it, and the simple fact that imposing another tax won't do anything to solve the "problem".

[findelkind666]

If you are a biologist how can you possibly believe that christ has risen from the grave...And just because a politician calles himself a christian does´nt make him one...Show me one politician that was ever elected that said he is an athiest..Can´t happen in america today...That is the problem

[Samuelthemule]

Al gore profits from both sides of the global warming racket, and is set to become the first carbon tax BILLIONARE.

I wish people would realize you can call yourself whatever you like, especially if you dislike the movement, if you're going to do something atrocious, to tarnish it's reputation.