@MysteryoftheGods - I think Hitchens is tough to beat, he´s probably the best around, he makes his opponents nervous and makes them say foolish things.
@ruffomaldito On Youtube if you say anything to support a believer, you are attacked. You said, "Dinesh won this one quite easily"..I am surprised you didn't get hate mail.
@ruffomaldito You too. If you want an even better argument for God, look at Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens. They had 2 debates, both are on Youtube.
I cannot believe this was referred to as a debate. Dennett continued to refer to volumes of work that he had completed on the issue of morality, but never once expanded on this work. On the other hand, D'Souza made a clear and concise argument using claims made by Atheists. Atheists should be ashamed to place someone like Dennett on a stage to make their case. Mockery and mystery fail to make a strong case for one's side.
The question of where God came from is really a moronic question if you look up the definition of God. By definition, God does not need a creator, so you either believe there is a God or you don't, but to propose that God needs a creator is to completely misunderstand the topic being discussed because the question implies that the definition of God is incorrect. In this case, there is no point in debating because you're changing a commonly accepted definition in order to make your case.
@MrFreeLibertarian but if god is defined to be the creator, that definition doesnt involve him not being created. if you are willing to accept that one thing (god) could exist without having a creator, you have to admit the possibility of another thing (the universe) existing without having a creator.
@melonbarmonster hahaha d'souza was definitely more compelling in his presentation compared to dennett's uhhhhs and uhhhhmmmmms. i'm not christian btw ;)
@bebopuk88 if you believe that then you are easily deceived with high school rhetoric tactics and straw arguments. you must have had trouble following Dennetts argument. which i stress is down to his performance.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for atheists who complain about the contemptuous tone of D'Souza's remarks - though I am delighted it annoys you. Maybe you'll remember how it feels because this is typically how the atheist approaches the Christian: "Look, I know better than you. You're just an idiot." Most of the comments to these debates attest to this fact perfectly. If you want respect, extend it. Otherwise there is little room to complain.
Why wouldn't evolution be able to account, at least in part, for every single one of those things D'Souza insists it cannot account for? Stop baldly asserting things, you noisy, small-minded insect!
@PerilocutionAZ09 The purpose for a sebate is for one side to refute or rebutt the argument of the other side. Dennett had multiple opportunities to correct D'Souza, but he simply said "I cover those other alternatives in my books" rather than taking time to add to the debate discussion. This hardly strikes me as a man who shows conviction and knowledge of his work. I don't think he has an answer for D'Souza's argument. Dennett sounds like the small minded one here.
@PerilocutionAZ09 The purpose for a debate is for one side to refute or rebutt the argument of the other side. Dennett had multiple opportunities to correct D'Souza, but he simply said "I cover those other alternatives in my books" rather than taking time to add to the debate discussion. This hardly strikes me as a man who shows conviction and knowledge of his work. I don't think he has an answer for D'Souza's argument. Dennett sounds like the small minded one here.
@RobVicPer1 The question was asked multiple times and answered earlier in the debate. God created the rules of the universe so why would God be confined by the rules of this world? In this world, things must have a beginning but God created time so he isn't bound by it.
The idea that something comes out of nothing is absurd. If you are stupid enough to believe that propositiont, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell to you. Better yet, I would suggest that you stare at a vacuum for the rest of your life, waiting in expectation for the 'something' to appear.The universe and everything that we contact in this universe was called into existence by an intelligence that is independent from creation.
@MrEdgarsraven9 You fail to see the trap you lay for yourself with the "nothing comes from nothing" argument. While it's unknown as to what existed outside of all matter at the moment of the big bang, it is not argued that no matter existed. In fact, it's widely accepted that all of the matter we know of did exist, in highly compressed form. On the other hand, everything coming from nothing is EXACTLY what you claim if you assert a biblical creation story. You can't make that argument anymore.
"There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination." Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, 1967
"There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination." Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, 1967
D'Souza is not a stupid guy. He may be misguided but his arguments are well formulated and concise. I am grateful for guys of his ability because although they do not persuade me they do make me think. He should be shown some respect as opposed to terse little unfounded shots being thrown at him in the comment section.
@johneamer WAHT!!!???!!???! He basically ended his entire argument saying "...and don't feel bad about directing questions at me, it's just HUMAN F---ING NATURE"
Dinesh D'Souza Denish just converted me atheism is a easy way out you cant make the choice to say no and still think you will get the fruits of those who changed the way the live for god lord forgive them
Damn. I was really interested to hear the responses to the questions, but I keep forgetting what the questions were by the time D'Souza starts talking.
You morons! Dinesh could not possibly be more reasonable, more logical, and be a better debater regardless of what you think about his position. It is obvious to the unbiased observer that D'Zousa is so far above Dennett that this debate was laughable. Tufts should be embarrassed by this debate. Their professor was not very well prepared and was thoroughly outclassed.
You are completely and utterly delusional. D'Souza has "misspoken" more times on this than any other debate I have ever seen. He needs a lesson in history. D'Souza might be a better debater in general since he rambles on forever and makes you forget your own point, but his points hold no water whatsoever.
Well, no. He's actually very open minded. His closing statement even revolved around the perils of fundamentalism - both theistic and atheistic. And he's right. Saying that Christians who believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God and that all the answers of humanity are to be found in it to be "Christianity run amok." That hardly sounds like a Bible thumper.
Anyone else notice that Dinesh seems to scream and shout and insult until the last five minutes and then all of a sudden is meek and mild, leaving a pleasant, holy after taste...I guess he is used to dealing with people with weak minds and poor memories.
Given the track record of God and Satan, who's to say God isn't just a prolific slanderer, while Satan has such class and dignity he doesn't enter the arena of mind control? As Jim Jefferies said, you won't be greeted at the gates of Heaven by a big titted whore with a line of coke on her. Satan wouldn't punish you for being a "worldly" person, you'd be his boy. By Dinesh's heinous threat of damnation logic, though, you wouldn't be in Hell either if you rejected Satan.
I just finished viewing the entire debate and I have to say D'Souza won convincingly. I think any reasonable person can conclude religion is a man man institution, however, the case for a deistic creator is very strong.
Unfortunately D'Souza only seems to be good a Strawmen Bashing, and he seems to resort to prancing around like an idiot and talking like a five year old in the attempt to detract from avoiding answering the questions with any relevance. Other than that, then yeah he won hands down.....
So this god he made up exist outside of our dimension What an idiot. If there is an existence out side of us, where there is no beginning and no end, why would there have to be a creature living there? this "Filling the Void with Nonsense" is as old as man. We do not have the capacity to comprehend time, with out a beginning and end so it must be a god. Same as saying a 2 dimensional man can't perceive a 3rd dimension so there must be a god there.
But this is exactly what your religion teaches. It rained for billions of years on the rocks causing them to come alive. Sounds like a bad science fiction novel. Back to your church, class is dismissed.
@dqmorris , Don't just assume something is right because a brilliant person says so! Granted he PROBABLY is correct but research it to make sure! Too many people have faith in other people(or religion)without doing their homework(research)to confirm something is right!
btw, Its a shame watching superior brainpower such as mine go to waste on a bunch of suicidal lemmings whose only retaliation is to threaten to beat me up by debating in real-life but then again, youre the faggots who supplied the ammunition in the first place thats now being utilized to suplex your ugly faces into the canvas.
* It seems like Dinesh can't make up his mind on whether or not he's a deist or a (Christian) theist, frequently jumping between the two when convenient.
* I'm surprised to still see the "Hitler/Stalin/etc" argument, as some sort of charge against those who don't believe in a god.
* Same old metaphysical "you can't know it, therefore it's un-disprovable" argument gets dragged out, along with the "finely tuned universe" rubbish.
It's clear that D'Souza's a theist. But as stated from his opening statements, he wasn't going to try and use "biblical revelation" to help his arguments. It's natural that he would use deistic as well as theistic arguments for this reason. Thiestic arguments and diestic arguments share the very important axiom that the existance of a supernatural being is true. Theism simply takes deism a step further. So, a deistic arguement to an extent is in fact also a theistic one. Inconsistency, what?
@aardbeias Youre not only a talking monkey, but youre a horses ass as well.
Now dissapear with your lies back into your tree, before I launch you into a state of depression that finds you curled up underneath your hospital bed donning a bedpan on your head, you dolt
I don't think I've lied about anything. I've simply expressed an opinion of the arguments put forth by Mr. Dinesh. I've read some of the responses (nechristian and etjr) and I think they are reasonable.
Please leave the adhom attacks out of this thread. They are uncalled for and do not add anything to the discussion.
In response to the lack of "reason evolutionary concepts can not be applied to other fields" of which someone accused D'souza, he never said that evolution can't be applied to other fields, however, he did say and is right in saying that its use has overstepped it's place by Darwinists like Dennet and Dawkins to act as a superimposed answer to everything extending to ASPECTS of physics, astronomy and even biology where it has no established place.
Souza showed no reason evolutionary concepts can not be applied to other fields. Nearly his entire argument for gods existence could be summed up as "God did it." which is the weakest stance of any theist. Frankly though I thought neither debater really put up any strong evidence of much of anything and it was mostly a philosophical debate. Both highly intelligent individuals but it seemed, as most of these debates go, the core requirements were never fulfilled.
Go read one of D'Souza's books. You clearly do not understand his arguments, which in fact are not his arguments at all but reformulations of very old arguments both religious and secular in nature. I agree too that there was no "winner" but Dennet didn't really make any arguments at all. Just assertions and restatements of historical facts.
My question would have been how does the panel know that the application of evolutionary explanations are limited or extendable to the things they said?
And i guess I'd also like to ask the same question to the scientist D'souza quoted, Stephen Gould.
Welp, to the open-minded, well-educated observer, it should be obvious that D'Souza won this debate. I keep reading these venemous replies from atheists doubting his intelligence. If it is at all true that he isn't intelligent (he is very intelligent - and much more articulate than Dennett), then Dennett must be the epitome of stupidity...cuz he got his ass KICKED in this debate. Sweet, too, for Dinesh..doing it on Dennett's stomping grounds where he holds tenure-in front of his own students!
Welp, to the open minded, well-educated observer, it should be obvious! Obvious right? I disagree. Go back to grammar school please Mr. Well Educated "cuz", welp, your grammar is lacking.
To respond to what you said, no it is not obvious. D'Souza would have won had this been a cable news debate, but this is a collegiate debate where logic and evidence matters.
My grammar isn't lacking, silly boy. What is lacking, however is space. That "cuz" should have stood out to you amid the other polysyllabic (impressed?) nomenclature. It was done in the name of both space and sauciness, and if you look carefully enough, it was a resounding success. That being said, you're wrong. As far as evidence is concerned, neither party can provide adequate evidence to say yes or no. At least Dinesh will concede that, so he wins. Plus Dennett is a horrible debator.
It's funny, at first I was mad that Dan didn't rip him a new asshole. Then I realized that what he did was much more insulting in a passive way. What he did was not give credence to the wacky, unfounded, baseless statements that Dinesh made by entertaining them as serious assertions. Dinesh's aimless ramblings amount to nothing more than mental masturbation.....hey, I thought Christians weren't supposed to do that....
so the only options are that either Dan rip him a new a-hole or Dan strike him by a far more subtle yet damaging intellectual onslaught... how about the paradigm that Dan was so completely out of his depth that he was the one pooping out of his armpit before bed that night? Or is that possibility even more uncomfortable than that of a creator god? Coz when it comes to burden of proof, I know what I just saw in this debate
Dinesh kept bringing up the point that the crusades and the witch trials happened a long time ago and that the crimes of atheism are much more present. Well how does he explain the PRESENT statistics of LOWER divorce rates, crime rates, murder rates and so forth in Atheistic countries, like Sweden. And which country would he would rather have possession of a nuclear weapon, Iran or Sweden?
And yet his basic premises are indeed questionable because recent studies have shown that universe can indeed emerge from nothingness (ref. Lawrence Krauss). So his idea of fighting atheism is to propose a lazy God who works in ways which make it impossible for anyone to detect her making life all the more difficult for her followers.If God went through all that trouble to make sure that her identity cannot be discovered, what basis do you have to come forward and dogmatize your own views of her
"recent studies have shown that universe can indeed emerge from nothingness"
and can you even briefly summarize how that is logical? Do you understand that at all, or do you just point out that for every foolish claim, we can find someone who has made it?
@ComeLeVent Studies of the cosmic background radiation is giving out more and more evidence in favour of a flat universe. And one of the properties of a flat universe is that it can emerge from nothingness, i.e., from quantum fluctuations.
So D'Souza basically believes God twiddled the dials and fixed the fundamental constants of the universe and let evolution run its course from primeval simplicity to increasing complexity. That sounds more like a deistic argument. And to think of all the arguments that he could have chosen, he went for the one that completely eliminates the need for any sort of divine intervention. This would crumble the basic foundations of all Abrahamic religions for which he is so deeply rooting for.
I think that anyone who believes in Darwinian theory should appreciate the argument D'Souza is making. Starting from a simple premis of a diestic argument would give a solid basis for a more complex perception of God. And speaking of divine intervetion, the spark that might have ignited life arranging the incredibly improbable protien formation necessary for DNA seems interventive enough. And wouldn't a "story" in progess spanning billions of years make our existence all the more special?
Common descent of all life is a fact. How it happened is the extremely well supported Theory of Evolution. What is Darwinian theory and why would D'Souza talk about a Darwin who published in 1859 instead of the state of modern Biology? Why would belief be neccessary when evidence is plentiful? I think acceptance of Evolutionary Theory woud be a more accurate phrase. On what basis do you state that protein formation is incredibly improbable? Also DNA is not a protein.
Notice how nobody ever says anything specific about how Dinesh was wrong during the entire debate ? All I hear is Dinesh is some uneducated moron who accidentally showed up to a debate and won.
I guess if you are bias against Dinesh because you hate what he stands for (Christianity) then no matter what argument he makes, his points are invalid.
I can completely understand why someone would be an atheist; but why spend so much time negating something you don't believe in ?
He (Dinesh) has debated at harvard, yale, princeton and many others. I'm not sure what you mean by "low level."
For future reference, try to articulate your point by saying something relevant instead of something I'd expect to hear from a toddler.
Try to find one atheist who's debated Dinesh that didn't end up looking like special ed fred. You might disagree with Dinesh's position; but only a fool would suggest he's not good at debate.
Dinesh is good at giving soundbites and catchphrases. Facts and logic? He can't debate out of his way out of a wet paper bag. All Dinesh got is a passive agressive speculations. He's so dumb at his logic that his own very own arguments can destroy his own premise to begin with. Dinesh got handed to him by Hitchens. Hitchens made a fool out of Dinesh by even using a CS Lewis argument. All Dinesh is a snake oil sales person. Buy my oil or be damned.
i do believe that D'Souza is a great debater, yet he uses a lot of 'let me put that into a metaphor' or something along those lines. Either way his logic can be easily beaten if done by defining his logic and his techniques and showing where they are not full evidence nor do they give full answers. Nevertheless, Dennett did perform badly here, his worst performance I have personally ever seen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dinesh is smarter than his atheist opponents, it's just that simple. Dinesh could've argued that he was a superhuman android from the planet Kick Ass and he's have one the debate. This is an admission by me that it's not that Dinesh was correct, he's just smarter than any atheist he encounters.
I do believe in God for much the same reasons Dinesh does, but to see him debate is truly a thing of beauty.
Agree? I think this debate is in his own school in front of his own class. So he probably had more to do with it than just agreeing. At least that's what it looks like to me.
It's not like atheists, at least any I know, think "I'll reject the existence of something I actually believe exists." No, I have every reason to believe that it's a genuine lack of belief, genuine disbelief, not a "rejection" of some cosmic authority figure they privately believe exists.
It is so obvious D'Souza has been involved and influenced by politics. Constantly sidestepping and making straw-man arguments when asked a question. the circular irrational arguments are expected from a theist, but the deliberate confusing and illogical examples baffled me.
Please explain your reasoning. Influence by politics how? site examples; strawman arguments what? site examples; circular and irrational how? site examples and why are all these expected? Is he a theist? I do not think he wants governments controlled by a church but if you do please explain why he is a theist. Please do not make comments with out explaining yourself.
He never answers a question directly, always gives child-like illustrations, shouts and guestures like an evangelical christian and continually quotes his opponant out of context.
You just described yourself perfectly as you gave no examples for your comments. Did you people learn this in school? Have you ever written a paper and not given any reason as to why you stated what you stated in a paper? Punch your teacher for me please.
And he couldn't answer the woman could he? with the time keeper telling him he has 30 seconds don't forget he has to think about his answer so it is natural to forget some questions or he was trying to respect the time and at the same time give a good answer. come you guys the man did well why are you trying to make it seem like he didn't make sense or that he was being coy with his answers. He gave informed answers
i think he adressed the issues and then some. but i think most of the people their where looking for a human racionalised or an intellectual answer instead of a tale or example. Another thing is if you noticed most of the atheist questions were heated as if there main purpose was to make Dinesh look like a fool, they were not even trying to take it in, they just wanted to argue.
D'Souza came off swinging to disparage immediately, so he didn't create an aura of gentleness. he also has the burden of proving assertions just as Dennet does for his scientific theories. The topic of the debate was whether god was a reality or a figment of imagination. It is not Dennet's burden to disprove god.
@umbrocio That's exactly right. The students, like the commenters in this thread, were not interested in a discussion or in considering different ideas. Their minds were closed from the outset, and their goal was just to prove Dinesh wrong and make him look like an idiot. Not one of those kids had put the time into researching and thinking about these problems that Dinesh has over the course of his life. In debates like these respect is almost always the first thing to go out the window. Too bad
@dvc5797 One of the first questioners stood up and debunked Pascal's Wager, something that any first-year philosophy student should be able to do. The fallacy of that argument is nothing new, and I've seen D'Souza use it again and again. He gets through his arguments only because he's comfortable position on-the-fly, posing confident specific assertions about the nature and mind of God, then moments later defending those very assertions as if he were an agnostic deist.
I'm planning on taking pure mathematics and mathematical physics as major & minor, but I have no problems when it comes to Religion and Science. I personally hold, Universal Optimism, Intellectual Neutralism, Pragmatism, Rationalism and Panentheism. I agree to the point that evolution alone isn't the answer. There are people within the academic community that has the capability to accept or deny a Deity/ies. It's a matter of choice. I smell Scientific Imperialism on other fields.
D'Souza completely ignored the woman's question about why religions have been patriarchal, and have banned women from leadership historically. It was an almost 98% male dominated event with all but two questions asked by men. "He" is meerly seeing god in a male image.
Everything that exists must have a cause? Sure. What was the cause that made God exist? Another God? Oh my God! Fear causes religion. Wonder causes science.
Why was Dinesh given the opportunity to give a lengthy speech raising review of Dennett's books at the end when he was merely supposed to have one minute to respond to particular questions?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
lol..all the kids saying d'souza is dumb.."im smarter than him"..ROFL..he would own you..no contest..like all the kids at tufts university who "tried" to debate with him.
ROFL .. christopher hitchens claims that he is a formidable debater. thats why he is up there and your on youtube.You, who is no body wouldnt own anybody.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
dennett got owned..bad.. he is terrible.. i would never listen to him debate. Christopher hitchens is the best debater i have ever heard but D'souza held his own against hitchens. Every debate ive heard with hitchens except with d'souza he would win so easily. TWO THUMBS UP For D'souza
I don't think you watched the same series of videos if this is your conclusion. Wishful thinking at best. D'Souza's logic is strained with most of his statements. Or perhaps your confused which guy is D'Souza and which is Dennett??
D'souza says only a few hundred people were killed by Inquisition but fails to include all the religious massacres eg Cathards Hugenots Pogroms American native tribes and civilsations The Ulster Kashmir Palestine Shiite Sunni conflicts exist precisley because of their religious beliefs if there werent religious divides the conflicts would not exist. Everybody would live peacefully together
He would certainly have lost the vote if there had been one since he is a weak debator
Dinesh might be well-educated and well-spoken but when it comes to Darwinian evolution he's astonishingly ignorant. And he's shown himself to be very willing to distort the historical record for rhetorical effect. He's a tremendous disappointment.
You call it shouting, I call it yelling and screaming. Clearly, we agree on his "loudness". I also agree on his distortion of facts.
I am more and more inclined to think that he knows he is wrong, but that he also knows he would lose a major source of income and "worship" if he'd admit it.
My reason is this: I have trouble accepting that anyone with 10% of a brain could debate the people he does, and still be as unreasonable as he does.
I don't believe he does this to earn money, I think he genuinely believes in God. I've argued with Christians who don't make money from their arguments yet argue just like him.
Dinesh's arguments are massively common among the religious. They do not impress people with a scientific background, even an elementary one.
Dinesh is not an uneducated man. The likelihood that he will convince people of his ilk is remote. His fanbase must nearly by definition be among the uneducated and those catering to them. In my opinion, Dinesh is too educated to believe what he says.
it's impressing: for you Dinesh is unresonable who don't have much of a brain, who knows that's he's wrong but don't want to admit and highly educated.
you can't stop ur self from judge others right? well i'm sure it's some Darwenian effect
I love the threat of hellfire at the end of d'souza's asinine 'debate' if you can call that caricature of reasoning such, it was the cherry on the top of a entertaining series of circular reasoning and defiant use of god of the gaps reasoning.
Funny, but I've heard more compelling arguments from three year olds.
Good point. If God knows everything, then he should know the future. He would have been able to know what would happen to Jesus, before Jesus was born, he'd know what I'm about to type right this second. Judging by the amount of non Christians (and people who label themselves Christians, whilst living a non Christian life), I'd say that Jesus failed. God would have known this prior to Jesus, so why didn't he do something else? Couldn't he have left undeniable proof here, for us all?
Define "future" from the standpoint of something "before" this universe, "before" time's existence.
Define what you mean by "he would have been able" keeping in mind the unimaginable nature of "It" or "God".
I mean, if I base my view of god as a SIMPLY "self-aware" being with an opinion and a mind, no different than me, then yes, a lot of stuff makes no sense.
Look at some pictures from hubble and start there. They're so quickly trivialized. It's no joke!
Comment removed
huwrj 2 weeks ago
Part 14 of this debate has been deleted. Please reupload it, and post links here. Thanks.
BannorPhil 2 months ago
Where is number 14?!
santajimi 3 months ago
Why the heck did the videos stop? I wanted to see the book signing! jk
MysteryoftheGods 4 months ago
@MysteryoftheGods - Me too, but I think it was left to our "imagination".
ruffomaldito 4 months ago
@ruffomaldito Eh, I think Turek won those. In both he says at the end "Even if everything that Chris said is true, God could still exist"
MysteryoftheGods 4 months ago
@MysteryoftheGods - I think Hitchens is tough to beat, he´s probably the best around, he makes his opponents nervous and makes them say foolish things.
ruffomaldito 4 months ago
@ruffomaldito Then you'll be amazed with Turek.
MysteryoftheGods 4 months ago
I think both debaters were good. But in my opinion, Dinesh won this one quite easily.
ruffomaldito 4 months ago
@ruffomaldito Me too, but don't say that on youtube or people will attack you for having an opinion.
MysteryoftheGods 4 months ago
@MysteryoftheGods Don´t get it......I don´t recall having said that.
ruffomaldito 4 months ago
@ruffomaldito On Youtube if you say anything to support a believer, you are attacked. You said, "Dinesh won this one quite easily"..I am surprised you didn't get hate mail.
MysteryoftheGods 4 months ago
@MysteryoftheGods - Oh, I see what you mean......(Yeah, I´ll try to be more careful next time, lol !)......take care.
ruffomaldito 4 months ago
@ruffomaldito You too. If you want an even better argument for God, look at Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens. They had 2 debates, both are on Youtube.
MysteryoftheGods 4 months ago
@MysteryoftheGods ok....I will.
ruffomaldito 4 months ago
I cannot believe this was referred to as a debate. Dennett continued to refer to volumes of work that he had completed on the issue of morality, but never once expanded on this work. On the other hand, D'Souza made a clear and concise argument using claims made by Atheists. Atheists should be ashamed to place someone like Dennett on a stage to make their case. Mockery and mystery fail to make a strong case for one's side.
Smurfy0617 6 months ago
equal dignity for women?? what?????
varoshah 7 months ago
no 14?
iamFegor 8 months ago 11
The question of where God came from is really a moronic question if you look up the definition of God. By definition, God does not need a creator, so you either believe there is a God or you don't, but to propose that God needs a creator is to completely misunderstand the topic being discussed because the question implies that the definition of God is incorrect. In this case, there is no point in debating because you're changing a commonly accepted definition in order to make your case.
MrFreeLibertarian 10 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian but if god is defined to be the creator, that definition doesnt involve him not being created. if you are willing to accept that one thing (god) could exist without having a creator, you have to admit the possibility of another thing (the universe) existing without having a creator.
BozoTheBear 9 months ago
@Youdamana Hahahaha your full of shit
shandcunt 10 months ago
I can't stand D'Souza but Dennett got his ass kicked in this debate. LOL.
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
@melonbarmonster hahaha d'souza was definitely more compelling in his presentation compared to dennett's uhhhhs and uhhhhmmmmms. i'm not christian btw ;)
kckong3 10 months ago
@melonbarmonster only on a presentation front. denett is a dying old man. d'souza was trained to be an entertainer
bebopuk88 8 months ago
@bebopuk88 No if you know how to flow formal debates... obviously you do not, Dennett lost badly on everything but that.
melonbarmonster 8 months ago
@bebopuk88 if you believe that then you are easily deceived with high school rhetoric tactics and straw arguments. you must have had trouble following Dennetts argument. which i stress is down to his performance.
bebopuk88 8 months ago
@melonbarmonster Dennett pointed out all kinds of fallacies of D'Souza.
Fishqueen1972 8 months ago
Dinesh has the scientific scenario better than Dennett.
Youdamana 11 months ago
No Dinesh, the questions all came to you because you failed to pose cogent arguments and you failed to answer anything, really.
ImBackAJ20101 1 year ago
I have no sympathy whatsoever for atheists who complain about the contemptuous tone of D'Souza's remarks - though I am delighted it annoys you. Maybe you'll remember how it feels because this is typically how the atheist approaches the Christian: "Look, I know better than you. You're just an idiot." Most of the comments to these debates attest to this fact perfectly. If you want respect, extend it. Otherwise there is little room to complain.
dvc5797 1 year ago
Why do we keep incurring the Razor? lol That question was already asked addressed earlier in the debate.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
where is part 14
mystisme 1 year ago
Why wouldn't evolution be able to account, at least in part, for every single one of those things D'Souza insists it cannot account for? Stop baldly asserting things, you noisy, small-minded insect!
PerilocutionAZ09 1 year ago 6
@PerilocutionAZ09 The purpose for a sebate is for one side to refute or rebutt the argument of the other side. Dennett had multiple opportunities to correct D'Souza, but he simply said "I cover those other alternatives in my books" rather than taking time to add to the debate discussion. This hardly strikes me as a man who shows conviction and knowledge of his work. I don't think he has an answer for D'Souza's argument. Dennett sounds like the small minded one here.
Smurfy0617 6 months ago
@PerilocutionAZ09 The purpose for a debate is for one side to refute or rebutt the argument of the other side. Dennett had multiple opportunities to correct D'Souza, but he simply said "I cover those other alternatives in my books" rather than taking time to add to the debate discussion. This hardly strikes me as a man who shows conviction and knowledge of his work. I don't think he has an answer for D'Souza's argument. Dennett sounds like the small minded one here.
Smurfy0617 6 months ago
@Smurfy0617 well... i didn't hear dsouza answering the question either...
Darusdei 6 months ago
@PerilocutionAZ09 He's not an insect. He's a mammal. Half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee.
huwrj 2 weeks ago
@huwrj How am I getting responses to this still? Weird...
PerilocutionAZ09 2 weeks ago
How many times does he have to be asked where God came from before he actually answers the question?
The question must be one he really can't answer.
RobVicPer1 1 year ago 2
@RobVicPer1 He answered it perfectly cogently a couple of times. You didn't understand.
Youdamana 11 months ago
@RobVicPer1 are you stupid? lol. learn to follow logic and arguments.
melonbarmonster 11 months ago
@RobVicPer1 The question was asked multiple times and answered earlier in the debate. God created the rules of the universe so why would God be confined by the rules of this world? In this world, things must have a beginning but God created time so he isn't bound by it.
APUsoccer09 10 months ago
The idea that something comes out of nothing is absurd. If you are stupid enough to believe that propositiont, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell to you. Better yet, I would suggest that you stare at a vacuum for the rest of your life, waiting in expectation for the 'something' to appear.The universe and everything that we contact in this universe was called into existence by an intelligence that is independent from creation.
MrEdgarsraven9 1 year ago
@MrEdgarsraven9 You fail to see the trap you lay for yourself with the "nothing comes from nothing" argument. While it's unknown as to what existed outside of all matter at the moment of the big bang, it is not argued that no matter existed. In fact, it's widely accepted that all of the matter we know of did exist, in highly compressed form. On the other hand, everything coming from nothing is EXACTLY what you claim if you assert a biblical creation story. You can't make that argument anymore.
DocBlasto 11 months ago
*are
vvineeth4u 1 year ago
none of the debaters answered the last guy's question! WTF!
xoloxum 1 year ago
@xoloxum it was asked earlier by the 2nd asian guy, and D'souza answered with the "author and novel" argument.
outtaker 1 year ago
Where is part 14?
erlenmayr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination." Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, 1967
JoeBible 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination." Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, 1967
JoeBible 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeBible 1 year ago
D'Souza is not a stupid guy. He may be misguided but his arguments are well formulated and concise. I am grateful for guys of his ability because although they do not persuade me they do make me think. He should be shown some respect as opposed to terse little unfounded shots being thrown at him in the comment section.
johneamer 1 year ago
@johneamer WAHT!!!???!!???! He basically ended his entire argument saying "...and don't feel bad about directing questions at me, it's just HUMAN F---ING NATURE"
stainglassfox 1 year ago
6:05 Thats DOCTOR Dennett, not Mister motherfucker. You're the organizer? Fucking pathetic. Get your shit together fag.
Smood47 1 year ago
Feminist queer at 0:30.
Smood47 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza Denish just converted me atheism is a easy way out you cant make the choice to say no and still think you will get the fruits of those who changed the way the live for god lord forgive them
PAGoldenglovechamp06 1 year ago
Damn. I was really interested to hear the responses to the questions, but I keep forgetting what the questions were by the time D'Souza starts talking.
237b 1 year ago
You morons! Dinesh could not possibly be more reasonable, more logical, and be a better debater regardless of what you think about his position. It is obvious to the unbiased observer that D'Zousa is so far above Dennett that this debate was laughable. Tufts should be embarrassed by this debate. Their professor was not very well prepared and was thoroughly outclassed.
MrFreeLibertarian 1 year ago
You are completely and utterly delusional. D'Souza has "misspoken" more times on this than any other debate I have ever seen. He needs a lesson in history. D'Souza might be a better debater in general since he rambles on forever and makes you forget your own point, but his points hold no water whatsoever.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago 2
Geez Dinesh sounds like just another bible thumper now with his last speech.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
Well, no. He's actually very open minded. His closing statement even revolved around the perils of fundamentalism - both theistic and atheistic. And he's right. Saying that Christians who believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God and that all the answers of humanity are to be found in it to be "Christianity run amok." That hardly sounds like a Bible thumper.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
Anyone else notice that Dinesh seems to scream and shout and insult until the last five minutes and then all of a sudden is meek and mild, leaving a pleasant, holy after taste...I guess he is used to dealing with people with weak minds and poor memories.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
Given the track record of God and Satan, who's to say God isn't just a prolific slanderer, while Satan has such class and dignity he doesn't enter the arena of mind control? As Jim Jefferies said, you won't be greeted at the gates of Heaven by a big titted whore with a line of coke on her. Satan wouldn't punish you for being a "worldly" person, you'd be his boy. By Dinesh's heinous threat of damnation logic, though, you wouldn't be in Hell either if you rejected Satan.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
God respects your decision so much he lets you be tortured for it.
LordCustard 1 year ago 19
Golly, Dinesh; you should ease up on the meth!
23021955 1 year ago 2
I just finished viewing the entire debate and I have to say D'Souza won convincingly. I think any reasonable person can conclude religion is a man man institution, however, the case for a deistic creator is very strong.
revo1974 1 year ago
Unfortunately D'Souza only seems to be good a Strawmen Bashing, and he seems to resort to prancing around like an idiot and talking like a five year old in the attempt to detract from avoiding answering the questions with any relevance. Other than that, then yeah he won hands down.....
Fangfur 1 year ago
So this god he made up exist outside of our dimension What an idiot. If there is an existence out side of us, where there is no beginning and no end, why would there have to be a creature living there? this "Filling the Void with Nonsense" is as old as man. We do not have the capacity to comprehend time, with out a beginning and end so it must be a god. Same as saying a 2 dimensional man can't perceive a 3rd dimension so there must be a god there.
Bayhuntr 1 year ago
@Bayhuntr Yea lets all bow down to the altar of the living rocks you idiot
camaroontree 1 year ago
@camaroontree Rocks aren't living, and bowing down is your thing.
Bayhuntr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"@camaroontree Rocks aren't living,"
But this is exactly what your religion teaches. It rained for billions of years on the rocks causing them to come alive. Sounds like a bad science fiction novel. Back to your church, class is dismissed.
camaroontree 1 year ago
I would love to see this used car salesman debate an atheist who has some measure of communication skills.
An atheist no more rejects a god then they reject leprechaun.
We reject the drunk fool who says their are leprechauns.
Bayhuntr 1 year ago
Wow! If Steven Jay Gould said it, it must be right because he knows a lot more about biology than dennett. That's quite an appeal to authority.
dqmorris 1 year ago
u;ve been disqualified!
eddymunsterlives 1 year ago
@dqmorris , Don't just assume something is right because a brilliant person says so! Granted he PROBABLY is correct but research it to make sure! Too many people have faith in other people(or religion)without doing their homework(research)to confirm something is right!
99minerkc 1 year ago
"anticipating another filibuster from the left"
next time dont do a debate if ur going whine like a little bitch Dennett
TheWinepusher 1 year ago
btw, Its a shame watching superior brainpower such as mine go to waste on a bunch of suicidal lemmings whose only retaliation is to threaten to beat me up by debating in real-life but then again, youre the faggots who supplied the ammunition in the first place thats now being utilized to suplex your ugly faces into the canvas.
Hope this helps.
Seigu007 1 year ago
Comment removed
1826TJ 1 year ago
its amazing how anyone could side with this mumbling, stuttering atheist. Godless humans parasites.
Seigu007 1 year ago
atheists lose in the end.
Seigu007 2 years ago
@Seigu007 lol name a single argument daniel dennett didnt refute. I'll refute it and give you TWO that dinesh didnt answer.
Sorry but saying doesnt make it so.
boorens18 1 year ago
only if you consider rational integrity a loss
1826TJ 1 year ago
@1826TJ Thanks stooge. This response does more to destroy your credibility than anything I could have said.
Seigu007 1 year ago
that girl was hot, fashionable and smart.
amindbody 2 years ago
which one?
eugdog106 1 year ago
00:12 - 00:45
amindbody 1 year ago
Good debate and has anyone got a responce to Dinesh's statement that the principle of parsimony doesn't follow it's own rules?
etjr92 2 years ago
Just some comments on the Dinesh's arguments:
* It seems like Dinesh can't make up his mind on whether or not he's a deist or a (Christian) theist, frequently jumping between the two when convenient.
* I'm surprised to still see the "Hitler/Stalin/etc" argument, as some sort of charge against those who don't believe in a god.
* Same old metaphysical "you can't know it, therefore it's un-disprovable" argument gets dragged out, along with the "finely tuned universe" rubbish.
Keep it real.
aardbeias 2 years ago
It's clear that D'Souza's a theist. But as stated from his opening statements, he wasn't going to try and use "biblical revelation" to help his arguments. It's natural that he would use deistic as well as theistic arguments for this reason. Thiestic arguments and diestic arguments share the very important axiom that the existance of a supernatural being is true. Theism simply takes deism a step further. So, a deistic arguement to an extent is in fact also a theistic one. Inconsistency, what?
nechristianson 2 years ago
Hi, why do you think that the Goldilock's arguament as I call it is rubish, it seems pretty concrete to me.
etjr92 2 years ago
@aardbeias Youre not only a talking monkey, but youre a horses ass as well.
Now dissapear with your lies back into your tree, before I launch you into a state of depression that finds you curled up underneath your hospital bed donning a bedpan on your head, you dolt
Seigu007 1 year ago
I don't think I've lied about anything. I've simply expressed an opinion of the arguments put forth by Mr. Dinesh. I've read some of the responses (nechristian and etjr) and I think they are reasonable.
Please leave the adhom attacks out of this thread. They are uncalled for and do not add anything to the discussion.
aardbeias 1 year ago
In response to the lack of "reason evolutionary concepts can not be applied to other fields" of which someone accused D'souza, he never said that evolution can't be applied to other fields, however, he did say and is right in saying that its use has overstepped it's place by Darwinists like Dennet and Dawkins to act as a superimposed answer to everything extending to ASPECTS of physics, astronomy and even biology where it has no established place.
nechristianson 2 years ago
Souza showed no reason evolutionary concepts can not be applied to other fields. Nearly his entire argument for gods existence could be summed up as "God did it." which is the weakest stance of any theist. Frankly though I thought neither debater really put up any strong evidence of much of anything and it was mostly a philosophical debate. Both highly intelligent individuals but it seemed, as most of these debates go, the core requirements were never fulfilled.
daeamarth 2 years ago
Go read one of D'Souza's books. You clearly do not understand his arguments, which in fact are not his arguments at all but reformulations of very old arguments both religious and secular in nature. I agree too that there was no "winner" but Dennet didn't really make any arguments at all. Just assertions and restatements of historical facts.
barrysbody 2 years ago
Also go read Warrant and Proper Function if you want to see why evolutionary theory utterly destroys the very foundations of atheism.
barrysbody 2 years ago
My question would have been how does the panel know that the application of evolutionary explanations are limited or extendable to the things they said?
And i guess I'd also like to ask the same question to the scientist D'souza quoted, Stephen Gould.
intermender 2 years ago
Welp, to the open-minded, well-educated observer, it should be obvious that D'Souza won this debate. I keep reading these venemous replies from atheists doubting his intelligence. If it is at all true that he isn't intelligent (he is very intelligent - and much more articulate than Dennett), then Dennett must be the epitome of stupidity...cuz he got his ass KICKED in this debate. Sweet, too, for Dinesh..doing it on Dennett's stomping grounds where he holds tenure-in front of his own students!
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago 3
Welp, to the open minded, well-educated observer, it should be obvious! Obvious right? I disagree. Go back to grammar school please Mr. Well Educated "cuz", welp, your grammar is lacking.
To respond to what you said, no it is not obvious. D'Souza would have won had this been a cable news debate, but this is a collegiate debate where logic and evidence matters.
Captainrit 2 years ago
My grammar isn't lacking, silly boy. What is lacking, however is space. That "cuz" should have stood out to you amid the other polysyllabic (impressed?) nomenclature. It was done in the name of both space and sauciness, and if you look carefully enough, it was a resounding success. That being said, you're wrong. As far as evidence is concerned, neither party can provide adequate evidence to say yes or no. At least Dinesh will concede that, so he wins. Plus Dennett is a horrible debator.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
It's funny, at first I was mad that Dan didn't rip him a new asshole. Then I realized that what he did was much more insulting in a passive way. What he did was not give credence to the wacky, unfounded, baseless statements that Dinesh made by entertaining them as serious assertions. Dinesh's aimless ramblings amount to nothing more than mental masturbation.....hey, I thought Christians weren't supposed to do that....
2eelShmeal 2 years ago
so the only options are that either Dan rip him a new a-hole or Dan strike him by a far more subtle yet damaging intellectual onslaught... how about the paradigm that Dan was so completely out of his depth that he was the one pooping out of his armpit before bed that night? Or is that possibility even more uncomfortable than that of a creator god? Coz when it comes to burden of proof, I know what I just saw in this debate
happysappy21 2 years ago
I don't get much from Dinesh. I don't think he's that stimulating.
mathmexican4234 2 years ago
Dinesh kept bringing up the point that the crusades and the witch trials happened a long time ago and that the crimes of atheism are much more present. Well how does he explain the PRESENT statistics of LOWER divorce rates, crime rates, murder rates and so forth in Atheistic countries, like Sweden. And which country would he would rather have possession of a nuclear weapon, Iran or Sweden?
Jslegacy01 2 years ago
What is the marriage rate in sweden?
spootyrat 2 years ago
And I say this knowing I'm vulnerable to an ontological attack. Just defining something doesn't make it true.
vvineeth4u 2 years ago
And yet his basic premises are indeed questionable because recent studies have shown that universe can indeed emerge from nothingness (ref. Lawrence Krauss). So his idea of fighting atheism is to propose a lazy God who works in ways which make it impossible for anyone to detect her making life all the more difficult for her followers.If God went through all that trouble to make sure that her identity cannot be discovered, what basis do you have to come forward and dogmatize your own views of her
vvineeth4u 2 years ago 8
No it hasn't. Theists like William Lane Craig have shown Krauss' arguments to be bunk.
Kolbe19 2 years ago
@vvineeth4u
"recent studies have shown that universe can indeed emerge from nothingness"
and can you even briefly summarize how that is logical? Do you understand that at all, or do you just point out that for every foolish claim, we can find someone who has made it?
ComeLeVent 1 year ago
@ComeLeVent Studies of the cosmic background radiation is giving out more and more evidence in favour of a flat universe. And one of the properties of a flat universe is that it can emerge from nothingness, i.e., from quantum fluctuations.
vvineeth4u 1 year ago
@vvineeth4u lol her?? a feminist perhaps?
GHortaV 1 year ago
@vvineeth4u I need a citation for that statement. I would like to read it.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
So D'Souza basically believes God twiddled the dials and fixed the fundamental constants of the universe and let evolution run its course from primeval simplicity to increasing complexity. That sounds more like a deistic argument. And to think of all the arguments that he could have chosen, he went for the one that completely eliminates the need for any sort of divine intervention. This would crumble the basic foundations of all Abrahamic religions for which he is so deeply rooting for.
vvineeth4u 2 years ago 2
I think that anyone who believes in Darwinian theory should appreciate the argument D'Souza is making. Starting from a simple premis of a diestic argument would give a solid basis for a more complex perception of God. And speaking of divine intervetion, the spark that might have ignited life arranging the incredibly improbable protien formation necessary for DNA seems interventive enough. And wouldn't a "story" in progess spanning billions of years make our existence all the more special?
nechristianson 2 years ago
Common descent of all life is a fact. How it happened is the extremely well supported Theory of Evolution. What is Darwinian theory and why would D'Souza talk about a Darwin who published in 1859 instead of the state of modern Biology? Why would belief be neccessary when evidence is plentiful? I think acceptance of Evolutionary Theory woud be a more accurate phrase. On what basis do you state that protein formation is incredibly improbable? Also DNA is not a protein.
Dchellberg 2 years ago
This was not just D'Souza vs Dennet but also D'Souza vs most of the students! And yet, he totally owned them!
ckan27 2 years ago
not really
ceresWar 2 years ago 3
Totally!
spootyrat 2 years ago
Notice how nobody ever says anything specific about how Dinesh was wrong during the entire debate ? All I hear is Dinesh is some uneducated moron who accidentally showed up to a debate and won.
I guess if you are bias against Dinesh because you hate what he stands for (Christianity) then no matter what argument he makes, his points are invalid.
I can completely understand why someone would be an atheist; but why spend so much time negating something you don't believe in ?
brik9r 2 years ago
Um....yeah
He (Dinesh) has debated at harvard, yale, princeton and many others. I'm not sure what you mean by "low level."
For future reference, try to articulate your point by saying something relevant instead of something I'd expect to hear from a toddler.
Try to find one atheist who's debated Dinesh that didn't end up looking like special ed fred. You might disagree with Dinesh's position; but only a fool would suggest he's not good at debate.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb
brik9r 2 years ago
Dinesh is good at giving soundbites and catchphrases. Facts and logic? He can't debate out of his way out of a wet paper bag. All Dinesh got is a passive agressive speculations. He's so dumb at his logic that his own very own arguments can destroy his own premise to begin with. Dinesh got handed to him by Hitchens. Hitchens made a fool out of Dinesh by even using a CS Lewis argument. All Dinesh is a snake oil sales person. Buy my oil or be damned.
a012345 2 years ago 2
i do believe that D'Souza is a great debater, yet he uses a lot of 'let me put that into a metaphor' or something along those lines. Either way his logic can be easily beaten if done by defining his logic and his techniques and showing where they are not full evidence nor do they give full answers. Nevertheless, Dennett did perform badly here, his worst performance I have personally ever seen.
CritDragon 2 years ago 2
He's good at debating at his low level, yes.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dinesh is smarter than his atheist opponents, it's just that simple. Dinesh could've argued that he was a superhuman android from the planet Kick Ass and he's have one the debate. This is an admission by me that it's not that Dinesh was correct, he's just smarter than any atheist he encounters.
I do believe in God for much the same reasons Dinesh does, but to see him debate is truly a thing of beauty.
Atheism smells like pee.
brik9r 2 years ago
Not a fan of logic then I see...
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Why did Dennett agree to this "debate"?
barnesen 2 years ago 3
Agree? I think this debate is in his own school in front of his own class. So he probably had more to do with it than just agreeing. At least that's what it looks like to me.
copperblade 2 years ago
@barnesen I know. You shouldn't step up to a debate you can't win!
dvc5797 1 year ago
It's not like atheists, at least any I know, think "I'll reject the existence of something I actually believe exists." No, I have every reason to believe that it's a genuine lack of belief, genuine disbelief, not a "rejection" of some cosmic authority figure they privately believe exists.
gyniest 2 years ago 3
6:40
I was hoping he would give Dinesh a pacifier.
nemirn 2 years ago
why is she laughing when nobody said anything funny?
mellowtribe 2 years ago
It is so obvious D'Souza has been involved and influenced by politics. Constantly sidestepping and making straw-man arguments when asked a question. the circular irrational arguments are expected from a theist, but the deliberate confusing and illogical examples baffled me.
Analogcolor 2 years ago
Please explain your reasoning. Influence by politics how? site examples; strawman arguments what? site examples; circular and irrational how? site examples and why are all these expected? Is he a theist? I do not think he wants governments controlled by a church but if you do please explain why he is a theist. Please do not make comments with out explaining yourself.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
D'Souza is a great politition.
He never answers a question directly, always gives child-like illustrations, shouts and guestures like an evangelical christian and continually quotes his opponant out of context.
What an intellectually dishonest ass hole.
THEREASONABLE 2 years ago 24
politition lol!
VarialProductions 2 years ago
lol WORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD
ibreakkidslegs 2 years ago
You just described yourself perfectly as you gave no examples for your comments. Did you people learn this in school? Have you ever written a paper and not given any reason as to why you stated what you stated in a paper? Punch your teacher for me please.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
@THEREASONABLE I dont see that at all I think he broke it down so people like you can wrap your evolved ant like brain around it lol
PAGoldenglovechamp06 1 year ago
And he couldn't answer the woman could he? with the time keeper telling him he has 30 seconds don't forget he has to think about his answer so it is natural to forget some questions or he was trying to respect the time and at the same time give a good answer. come you guys the man did well why are you trying to make it seem like he didn't make sense or that he was being coy with his answers. He gave informed answers
umbrocio 2 years ago 2
i think he adressed the issues and then some. but i think most of the people their where looking for a human racionalised or an intellectual answer instead of a tale or example. Another thing is if you noticed most of the atheist questions were heated as if there main purpose was to make Dinesh look like a fool, they were not even trying to take it in, they just wanted to argue.
umbrocio 2 years ago
D'Souza came off swinging to disparage immediately, so he didn't create an aura of gentleness. he also has the burden of proving assertions just as Dennet does for his scientific theories. The topic of the debate was whether god was a reality or a figment of imagination. It is not Dennet's burden to disprove god.
Analogcolor 2 years ago
Comment removed
dvc5797 1 year ago
@umbrocio That's exactly right. The students, like the commenters in this thread, were not interested in a discussion or in considering different ideas. Their minds were closed from the outset, and their goal was just to prove Dinesh wrong and make him look like an idiot. Not one of those kids had put the time into researching and thinking about these problems that Dinesh has over the course of his life. In debates like these respect is almost always the first thing to go out the window. Too bad
dvc5797 1 year ago
@dvc5797 One of the first questioners stood up and debunked Pascal's Wager, something that any first-year philosophy student should be able to do. The fallacy of that argument is nothing new, and I've seen D'Souza use it again and again. He gets through his arguments only because he's comfortable position on-the-fly, posing confident specific assertions about the nature and mind of God, then moments later defending those very assertions as if he were an agnostic deist.
DocBlasto 1 year ago
I'm planning on taking pure mathematics and mathematical physics as major & minor, but I have no problems when it comes to Religion and Science. I personally hold, Universal Optimism, Intellectual Neutralism, Pragmatism, Rationalism and Panentheism. I agree to the point that evolution alone isn't the answer. There are people within the academic community that has the capability to accept or deny a Deity/ies. It's a matter of choice. I smell Scientific Imperialism on other fields.
PatrickLars 2 years ago
Dinesh has a great way of evading the need to answer questions by rambling on. I felt they didn't address the core issue s at all.
stemcgolf 2 years ago 11
D'Souza completely ignored the woman's question about why religions have been patriarchal, and have banned women from leadership historically. It was an almost 98% male dominated event with all but two questions asked by men. "He" is meerly seeing god in a male image.
AudreyBoston 2 years ago 6
what was dennetts last comment at 2:16? did he really lose an address?
tiove 2 years ago
Everything that exists must have a cause? Sure. What was the cause that made God exist? Another God? Oh my God! Fear causes religion. Wonder causes science.
foketesz 2 years ago 4
The entire chain of logic by D'Souza was false. And he was so shrill.
Just like the rest of those on his size
azzy314159 2 years ago 3
Why was Dinesh given the opportunity to give a lengthy speech raising review of Dennett's books at the end when he was merely supposed to have one minute to respond to particular questions?
MikeDrewYT 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol..all the kids saying d'souza is dumb.."im smarter than him"..ROFL..he would own you..no contest..like all the kids at tufts university who "tried" to debate with him.
kdd1228 2 years ago
I don't think Dinesh is dumb. He is merely dishonest.
BartBVanBockstaele 2 years ago 3
No, he wouldn't "own me" because his arguments are fallacious. I ALREADY "own" him.
whovian1971 2 years ago
ROFL .. christopher hitchens claims that he is a formidable debater. thats why he is up there and your on youtube.You, who is no body wouldnt own anybody.
kdd1228 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dennett got owned..bad.. he is terrible.. i would never listen to him debate. Christopher hitchens is the best debater i have ever heard but D'souza held his own against hitchens. Every debate ive heard with hitchens except with d'souza he would win so easily. TWO THUMBS UP For D'souza
kdd1228 2 years ago
I don't think you watched the same series of videos if this is your conclusion. Wishful thinking at best. D'Souza's logic is strained with most of his statements. Or perhaps your confused which guy is D'Souza and which is Dennett??
laertes0420 2 years ago
D'souza says only a few hundred people were killed by Inquisition but fails to include all the religious massacres eg Cathards Hugenots Pogroms American native tribes and civilsations The Ulster Kashmir Palestine Shiite Sunni conflicts exist precisley because of their religious beliefs if there werent religious divides the conflicts would not exist. Everybody would live peacefully together
He would certainly have lost the vote if there had been one since he is a weak debator
leonore35 2 years ago
@leonore35 "Everybody would live peacefully together" ROFLMAO!
dvc5797 1 year ago
Dinesh might be well-educated and well-spoken but when it comes to Darwinian evolution he's astonishingly ignorant. And he's shown himself to be very willing to distort the historical record for rhetorical effect. He's a tremendous disappointment.
hazydavey 2 years ago
Dinesh seems to be a very well read and intelligent man, yet I hate his shouting and mockery, as well as, his distortion of facts.
comicfan88 2 years ago
You call it shouting, I call it yelling and screaming. Clearly, we agree on his "loudness". I also agree on his distortion of facts.
I am more and more inclined to think that he knows he is wrong, but that he also knows he would lose a major source of income and "worship" if he'd admit it.
My reason is this: I have trouble accepting that anyone with 10% of a brain could debate the people he does, and still be as unreasonable as he does.
His loudness merely serves to hide it.
BartBVanBockstaele 2 years ago
I don't believe he does this to earn money, I think he genuinely believes in God. I've argued with Christians who don't make money from their arguments yet argue just like him.
amensure 2 years ago
The reason I think that, is this:
Dinesh's arguments are massively common among the religious. They do not impress people with a scientific background, even an elementary one.
Dinesh is not an uneducated man. The likelihood that he will convince people of his ilk is remote. His fanbase must nearly by definition be among the uneducated and those catering to them. In my opinion, Dinesh is too educated to believe what he says.
BartBVanBockstaele 2 years ago
it's impressing: for you Dinesh is unresonable who don't have much of a brain, who knows that's he's wrong but don't want to admit and highly educated.
you can't stop ur self from judge others right? well i'm sure it's some Darwenian effect
ObliviousTruth 2 years ago
He, like his ilk, all play devil's advocate.
ThaGMan51 2 years ago
I love the threat of hellfire at the end of d'souza's asinine 'debate' if you can call that caricature of reasoning such, it was the cherry on the top of a entertaining series of circular reasoning and defiant use of god of the gaps reasoning.
Funny, but I've heard more compelling arguments from three year olds.
kannako 2 years ago
I don't want your fucking heaven.
Religion is evil.
Rise up people!
VarialProductions 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No one born naturally as atheist. They became atheists because they choose to be an atheists and sadly to say, they are bound for eternal punishment!
milcrube 2 years ago
That's retarded. You're retarded.
What baby believes in God?
What baby believes in ANYTHING?
A baby is incapable of belief in things. All beliefs are introduced from outside. All babies are Atheists.
LordOmberus 2 years ago 3
Ultimately god respects your choice? Excuse me, didn't god knowingly created us knowing the outcomes before hand?
therock27374 2 years ago
Good point. If God knows everything, then he should know the future. He would have been able to know what would happen to Jesus, before Jesus was born, he'd know what I'm about to type right this second. Judging by the amount of non Christians (and people who label themselves Christians, whilst living a non Christian life), I'd say that Jesus failed. God would have known this prior to Jesus, so why didn't he do something else? Couldn't he have left undeniable proof here, for us all?
BassicFunktion 2 years ago
Define "knows" as "god" "does" it?
Define "future" from the standpoint of something "before" this universe, "before" time's existence.
Define what you mean by "he would have been able" keeping in mind the unimaginable nature of "It" or "God".
I mean, if I base my view of god as a SIMPLY "self-aware" being with an opinion and a mind, no different than me, then yes, a lot of stuff makes no sense.
Look at some pictures from hubble and start there. They're so quickly trivialized. It's no joke!
D33veeoss 2 years ago