Once again D'Souza exhibiting SEVERE RETARDATION: Fisher: "Christians bears a heavy responsibilty whether or not Hitler personally was a Christian." to which D'Souza starts spouting some garbage about Hitler hating Christianity. HERP DERP I'M NOT EVEN LISTENING TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERP DERP!!!
God created the Universe because everything needs a cause; well then who created God? Everything needs a creator right? Dinesh is a moron. And that is not an ad hominem attack: I gave you all a reason why Dinesh is stupid.
@IMPALEXANDERAVG Dinesh's argument is that everything that is material needs a cause. God is not material and therefore is exempt. William Lane Craig uses an alternate version saying that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist, he always existed, and therefore does not need a cause.
I am not on the christian apologists side, but I do believe it is important to understand their fallacious arguments so you can refute them properly. truth is not friendly to theists
Because someone says he loves his children and wife but beats them doesn't make him a person who loves them.The same, because someone says he is a Christian doesn't make him one if he doesn't live by Christian teaching or ideology on which "Christian"denominations parasite on.There are reference about hypocrisy of Church in Bible.The main point of debate is a massive hysteria evolved around claims of ideology and not ideology itself or personal fulfillment with moral beliefs.
Reading comments like:"Dinesh is chinless midget,shoot the bastard" "I hate..." "why anyone would dignify (Dinesh)with a debate".......By the comments seems that mostly atheists have a reason to watch this to insult because of their inner unfulfillment with which they display their aggression on anyone with different point of understanding than their own;as if there is suppose to be universal understanding which is a basic for any religious fundamentalism in which atheism is no exception.
@hapobelle You have picked up on a real attitude of hostility that some atheists have for people like dinesh, however your guess at why this hostility exists is way off base. It exists because atheists are generally very well educated on these subjects and have heard these same faulty arguments many times before and grow tired of the christian apologists bringing the same dishonest arguments to debates, in an attempt to convert those who are less educated. They have been shown to be wrong before
@hapobelle Recite your bible now, and you'll see how evil we can get! You have no idea how frustrating it is to talk to close-minded apologists like Dinesh. If he had the power you guys used to have, he would be burning us at the stake. "The inquisition killed 2.000" - obnoxious. The inquisition installed into society a fear of your neighbor and blind servility, while the church kept killing by the thousands and thousands. Dinesh knows this, so he has no morals and is dishonest. And chinless.
"Recite your bible now"YOUR?You send alluding messages to complete strangers for purpose of !?"You will see how evil we can get"WE?That is a portray of religious act."You have no idea how frustrating it is to talk to close-minded apologists";people who declare atheist often assume that if someone doesn't agree with them,have their opinion or approach he is a part of opposite we and you obviously don't know how annoying that is.
"The power you guys use to have";what does that mean,what is it referring to?You couldn't possibly pretend to think that most violence is committed in the name of organized religion;most rape,animal abuse,sexual abuse,domestic violence,children abuse,abuse of people with mental illness.....Am I suppose to cite numbers killed by those who were atheist or people who have been killed or suffer in the name of capitalism so you can have your computer,iPad,gasoline in car.....
@hapobelle I was agreeing with you: atheists can be sarcastic. I am just saying that it is not because of the 'inner unfulfillment' you presume, but because bible-reciting and intellectual dishonesty - of the kind that D'Souza is known for - is frustrating and leaves us no other way of venting that frustration. It is defensive, not aggressive. I do, however, agree that it is not okay. I always try to be decent and argue politely, as I do now. I ask you: do you recognize D'Souza's dishonesty?
How many suffer because prostitution is legalized in country you live in,80%prostitutes now in Holland are trafficked mainly from Eastern Europe.You live in overpopulated country that needs to import most food to sustain its population,did you think that those who worked to make that food are fairly paid or did your government make sure it is not and do let me mention that Holland was colonial imperialist find out what they did. This all world is dishonest.
I hate when Dinesh purports that Hitler,Himmler and Goebbels were rabid-atheists as fact, this guy needs to read up on his history. Just because u say something into a microphone it doesn't make it fact.
The host is terrible, he should have reminded Dinesh to stick to the actual topic of the debate. Singer didn't have to go to so much trouble to counter the pathetic pseudo-arguments that Dinesh has been blurting out
The anti-christian table talk by Hilter is bullshit (the english edition translated from a french translation by a fruit-cake french man is different from the original German)
where was Dinesh D'Souza being dishonest if may ask? just wanted to see if anyone else saw and hear what i did. also where was singer being dishonest because i saw that many times as well.
People like DIOP JR (who says that D'Souza is a joke) and xoloxum (who say he is a dumbass) are themselves the lesser thinkers. It is my belief that one should be truly honest if he or she is to have any credibility at all. Obviously D'Souza and Peter Singer both are extremely intelligent. To say otherwise is simply childish and dishonest. Furthermore, many people claim to be Christian, but clearly are not. Goebbels my have been raised a catholic but he left that religion in his adult life.
@mwoodward221 "Obviously D'Souza and Peter Singer both are extremely intelligent. To say otherwise is simply childish and dishonest."
I'm sure that D'Souza is intelligent, but that doesn't imply that his arguments have any merit. After all, he is in the business of selling security blankets to people who have bought into bronze age myth. His blatant dishonesty and plain idiocy(Such as suggesting that science abandon parsimony) in a variety of circumstances suggest fundamental incompetence.
@mwoodward221 You should also consider that we're talking about two mutually exclusive worldviews here. They are not both correct. They are also so different in so many fundamental ways that it's clear that at least one of the parties must be a complete moron to embrace it. One simply can't have it both ways here.
You should probably leave your "No true Scotsman" nonsense alone btw, until you're ready to accept that other people dismiss you as "clearly not being a christian".
@mwoodward221 Fact is, go back to the times of the inquisition and essentially 100% of today's Christians would be branded heretics. We don't hold that against you, but accept that you call yourself Christians. In the same way, you should accept the indisputable fact that Nazi Germany considered itself a Christian nation and their prosecution of Jews a continuation of 100s of years of Christian tradition, both among the Catholics and Protestants. Even Martin Luther was a rabid antisemite.
@mwoodward221 All that said, I agree that "one should be truly honest if he or she is to have any credibility at all."
D'Souza fails that test in such fundamental ways that I can't imagine why anyone would dignify him with a debate. I suppose it's a consequence of it both not being possible to be an intellectually honest apologist for any Abrahamic religion today and that these debates are an excellent way to sell books even for people who do have integrity and credibility.
D'Souza gets it wrong again. 1) Just because Hitler hated Christianity, that doesn't mean he was an atheist, which is the point. Atheism wasn't responsible for his vision of the master race, and he had the cooperation of prominent Christians in his rise to power and atrocities. 2) Goebbels was a staunch Catholic. 3) Himmler was an Aryan mystic, on the lines of Jorg Lans Liebenfels and Guido von List. This guy is a joke.
@Brainbuster1000 ... are you appealing to Friedrich Nietzsche "will to power" found within the construct of his 'ubermensch'? If so I would suggest you've accepted an illusion. You will undoubtedly become Chesterton's 'Modern Man in Revolt'.
How can the commentors on this site be so sure that Mr. D'Souza is wrong, making snide comments at his thoughtfull answers. I think that he has addressed the questions quite thoroughly, but I am watching the debates with an open mind. I have heard it claimed that it is the religious that are closed mined, I would argue that it is the opposite.
who says that the universe contains all materiality? there could easily be different types of materiality outside our universe. also dinesh's argument that something material was created by something immaterial is just bad as the argument the something was created out of nothing. it is exactly the same argument but dressed differently. dinesh is the definition of dishonest.
But you do exist. So therefore you are admitting to be so closed mined that you would not believe something you knew to be true because it came from Mr. D'Souza.
Singer does raise a valid point here. Earlier, Dinesh explained the morally correct behavior of atheists by pointing to the Christian culture in which they grew up. He can't have it both ways. Singer is also right in pointing to the Christian culture in which Nazism was nurtured.
Also, Dinesh D'Souza seems not to have heard of the competing ideo to the big bang theory: Steady state universe theory, which has had a new injection of life since the M81 galaxy made us question the nature of redshifts. Basically this theory implies that the universe is in fact infinate and little big bangs happen fairly commonly. Either way, both theories are pointing to multiple bangs with causation. By the way, science does say "we'll figure that out later -the later finds which he is using
Dinesh D'Souza says "we have no scientific reason to beleive there are other universes". That's funny, because he is trying to embelish his points using the big bang theory and referencing things Stephen Hawking has said - well maybe not "said". But if you take Hawking's theories (namely string theory) to their conclusions they infer that there are many seperate universes "bumping into" eachother, creating big bangs. As well as 11 dimensions in total. He has outdated physics information.
how can people not see that if you suggest the universe has a creator, that just means you apply all the questions you would apply to how the universe exists and came into existence to the "creator" of the universe. saying there is a creator simply raises more questions, if these folks were at all interesting in questioning
What is being debated is whether the universe has the fingerprints of a creator or not.
Who created God is not relevant to all these debates.
As DInesh argues it is like discovering an abandoned city on Jupiter. We may not know who build the city but there is evidence of intelligence. Just because we don't know the origins of the alien builders doesn't mean they don't exist.
It really comes down to what is the best explanation with the information at hand.
Did nobody tell Dinesh the title of the debate? He just talked misleadingly and stupidly about Singer's ethics, then argued the pointless who is better behaved - atheists or theists (I'm sick of this ridiculous argument). This was an effortless win for Singer, who was (as usual) logically consistent and made decent points.
Actually, I've watched and analyzed over a dozen William Lane Craig debates. I think I know a foundering, ignorant 'believer' when I see one. Even by (the low-hanging) Christian standards, Dinesh has a poor grasp of what constitutes logical argumentation, good evidence and actual reality.
Dinesh is so ridiculous. Peter Singer already refuted the idea earlier on in the debate of "there must be an immaterial cause". It is an unknown. A creator is a stretch of the imagination for so many reasons. He didn't even answer the guy's question.
Both sides r missing something. At the core is what it is to be human. We use beliefs as tools to make sense of the world around us and to hold up our self conception. We have first our desires, needs, aversions etc than we gather information that jives with them. If a person is a bigot they can turn to the 3 major religions. If a person is sympathetic to all they can find support in the same documents. As we see, an atheist can also shape info as needed. It is our neediness that is the crime.
A person is good or bad ,evil are loving has nothing to do with atheism or theism
i have seen many atheists who are loving and honest human beings and i had seen religious nuts who make fool of innocent beings and are hypocrate,vice versa ,many atheist are terrible.
hitler was an christain and he had belief in god,whenever he was attacked he said god had saved me and whatever i am doing i am doing it due to will of god
Magarmach09, u have not said anything that i disagree with. I think that in the arguement atheism vs theism we have the wrong participants ( theism and atheism). as I have been attempting to get people to understand, there is a reason why the great pioneers of the psychological profession rarely mention religion, it's because religion "sits atop" our personality as do all other beliefs. in tech terms, our personality is the operating system and all other beliefs serve as appplications.
ya you are right that our personality is the operating system and all our beiefs serve as application system.
but many times beliefs makes personality.there are some beliefs which we get from our parents and culture ,some are so deep rooted they shape whole persnoality of a man.
in muslim schools everything rubbhist is taught to the kids and they beleive they are 100 right %
so both belief shape personality and persnoality shape belief
Great point, but let's go back and "tunnel" (as Nietzsche would say) under the obvious. we r born into a world of values and we pick from amongst the choises without much rational thought. our reasons 4 picking them r often biological in that we want acceptance. after choosing we build a system of beliefs that serve to enforce and reenforce the core beliefs. as 4 religion shaping our personality, there is no plant where there is not a process to support its growth.
I should say that religion appeals to people who have a ready made home for its precepts. i am an agnostic myself since extremism rests on both sides ( atheism and theism). to share a funny example with u on the building of belief structures, i replied to a bigot and he replied back using crazy language but not saying anything about race. when i mentioned that i was black (SURPRISE!)w a masters in philosophy, my mispelling of genius as genious was proof of my inferiority! DEEP!
It doesn't really matter if Hitler was a believer or not, what matters is his use of religion (and other dogmas like it) to help him acheive his horrible motives. This is the problem with religion, it replaces logical thought with a pre-planned set of arguments created by those in power for the very purpose of keeping them in power and expanding their power.
What the hell is D'Souza babbeling about at 2:50? A book that talks about Hitlers beliefs? Hate to break it to you Dinesh, but there's another book, called "Mein Kampf" in which Hitler HIMSELF elaborates his beliefs. Take a look.
He might not have been striclty catholic, but he definitely was a theist believing that he was fulfilling divine will.
true. its just a shame they don't argue the truth of a religion by examining the reliability of the foundational documents instead of gaining cheap points by invoking Hitler as the exponent to what ever they are attacking. (not that i care lol)
foundational documents? They don't examine these because the question is not whether the religion is reliable based on its documents, but whether the fundamental premise on which the foundational documents of religion are based (existence of a god) is reliable.
the crux of the truth claims for pretty much all the monotheistic religions is whether the events purported in their foundational documents ie the bible, are true or not. these days most Christians ignore a large proportion of their scripture given the fact that its untenable in light of the developments in secular politics and the sciences. but they still have to retain the dogmas in order for it to mean. if Jesus was not resurrected then Christianity is false. simple as that.
these arguments as to whether secular ideologies are more evil and destructive when compared to religious world views is again irrelevant. even if it is the case that believing a religious dogma made you behave better it would in no way substantiate the authenticity of the belief. religion could be extremely useful for maintaining order and well being, but if its not true, then its not true. if the debate was about the utility of religion then i could understand raising the Usefulness argument
its irrelevant whether of not Hitler was a Christian or atheist. whatever the answer to this question is, it in no way answers the truth claims of the religion. why singer did not make this point, i dont know.
Dinesh is very critical of certain prominent atheists "stepping out of their labs" into fields of which they have no expertise. And then he goes off and talks about the origins of the universe and the best possible explanation. Maybe he should take heed to those who have a an updated expertise in this field. His understanding of contemporary cosmology seems fairly outdated. But that;s just my imperfect take on what I see as Souza's hypocrisy.
"stalin and hitler were atheists, therefore atheism and secularism is bad".
this tedious argument has been destroyed by dan dennett and sam harris when they debated dinesh, yet he disregarded their criticism and continued with it. singer also addressed this, but dinesh seems to be immune to criticism.
what muslim autrocosties over one million muslims dead in iraq and the last ten centuries the biggest murderers have all been and not decades but CENTURIES HAVE BEEN EITHER CHRISTIANS OR ATHIEST
Wow, D'Souza needs to do some more in-depth research on Hitler and the Nazi party. Comparing Hitler (and by extension, the entire Nazi regime's) pantheistic beliefs to atheism is ridiculous. And claiming that Hitler was intent on destroying the Christian religion is an outright fabrication. The Roman Catholic Church took no official stand on the Nazi's policies precisely because that guaranteed Hitler would leave them alone.
Yea the Catholic church no official stance. But 25% of Nazi officers were confessing catholics and the vatican helped many a Nazi escape Nuremberg trials.
Hitler was Catholic, Himmler was Catholic, Goering was Catholic! Indeed, if you look at all major players in the Nazi party you find only Catholics.
Hitler considered himself the second coming of Christ as psychologists have diagnosed him. He just didn't like the pacific claim that people ascribe to Jesus.
He was awed more with Jesus' scourge of the temple. No limp-wristed, 'nice', Christ would he be.
His only truck with the pope was that the pope doesn't trump Christ himself.
Hitler for the most part was an aetheist, he was no godly man. If anything, he used and manipulated the church because it was tool that could help him win over most of the people of Europe. D'souza's, as well as I, have read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is probably the best and most detailed account of Hitler and Nazi Germany.
C'mon, TheRise and Fall of the Third Reich was written by Christian apologist. Check out some real historians.
Hitler's ultimate goal was to conquer Russia and set up an Aryan utopia. All he said to the pope was don't get my way. The pope didn't because he was hopin' to get "God's kingdom on earth" set up out of the whole mess. "Hitler just might be the messiah!" The pope was bettin-that since they were all Catholics-in the end he could wrest control back to himself with united Christian world.
Furthermore, if Mohammed was able by predeterminism to pick the only woman to blood let at nine years old, why was it she suffered the now known medical consequences of being barren when taken too early?
Now I ask you why in the Torah women are witnesses to crimes and the list of witness is two, or three (only in the case of the death of a man when there are no male witnesses).
But Mohammed, peace be upon him per Matthew 10:28, requires holy revelation to find out that four witnesses are required for a rape to be prosecuted. This allowing many men to not fear thighing 6 yr olds and consumating marriage with 9 yr olds.
For no doubt Mohammed picked the only girl to blood-let at that age.
By yr 1000 AD, western Europe remained a scientific backwater compared to certain other civilizations, including those of Christian Byzantium & Islamic world.
Why is it that you can't see the Christian Byzantium Empire equal to the Islamic world, which likely got their knowledge from Christians considering their Koran is merely a rewrite of the same prophets only slandering them due to being Jews.
Joseph would have slept with Potiphar's wife had not the voice of God spoken out.
Skinner's right about morals & freedom. Wrong only on philosophy. Man is not a "caged ape," but rather able to condition more fully by thought then by action in environment. Still thought is controlled by external stimulus, but thought conditions more. Hence your free will is merely a sharpened discriminative control.
Ray, B. (1969) Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J. of the Exp. Analysis of Beh., 12, 539-550.
He 'infers' that since the universe contains all material beginnings-- therefore the universe has an immaterial, "super-powerful" creator. What a joke... suddenly "I don't know, lets find out" is herecy to Mr. D'Souza, and "we're not sure, God must have done it" is logical.
well how can an athiest be so sure god doesnt exist...if they admit to not knowing so much. How do atheists know that the unknown is actually a God? How do they know that creationism is actually right?
Didnt like this debate much at all. I am sick of seeing atheist attempting to defend not believing. The burden is always on the theist in these debates and they they need to leave it that way. |Atheist shouldn't even call themselves atheist anymore, its gives the theist a false foot hold.
As a theist I definitely think Peter Singer is the the best debater out of the atheists compared to guys like Hitchens, Harris, Dennet and the like. Although on a strictly debater perspective Dinesh is on a different level.
The hero worship of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, supported, by the way, by the naive left-wing in Europe and America for a long time. And do you want to know who pulled back the curtain on those frauds? John Paul II, the Pope of Rome. Which emperor has no clothes?
LOL The idea that "left" supported, worshipped as you say, Hitler is beyond patently absurd! This is akin to suggesting that creationists worship Charles Darwin.
In regard to Hitler, bad people have cynically used Christianity for their own ends for centuries. That doesn't tell in any way against Christianity itself. Last time I checked, Jesus said that we should love our enemies. I don't think Hitler and his minions were exactly with that program. On the other hand, Marx explicitly said that the critique of religion ("the opium of the masses") was the first step in bringing about communism. Therefore, atheism was central to Stalin's program.
Skinner's right about morals & freedom. Wrong only on philosophy. Man is not a "caged ape," but rather able to condition more fully by thought then by action in environment. Still thought is controlled by external stimulus, but thought conditions more. Hence your free will is merely a sharpened discriminative control.
Ray, B. (1969) Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J. of the Exp. Analysis of Beh., 12, 539-550.
Hitler believed in "Positive Christianity", so stfu Dinesh.
And Himmler was not an atheist, wtf.
If we see hieroglyphics, we assume that someone made them because we've seen other hieroglyphics before. Wrong again, Dinesh, definitely not guesswork.
Hitler gave a signed copy of Nietzsche to Mussolini. Christians were not innocent of avoiding atrocity as they behave based on conditioning and stimulus.
Hitler desired the elimination of Jews.
Peter Singer better think twice about a world without the Christian or Judeo-God because the Verichip will make man like Stalin's chicken, but it will make him like Hitler's Jew for the only way to prove the lack of that God is the elimination of Jews.
Verichip is powerful, but righteousness will win in the end. Zechariah 12:10 and the world and Jews will no longer speak of Moses for the deliverance that will come will be amazing.
mooktank, reality can be silly. The Bible writes about the whole world seeing two dead men on the streets and sending presents around the world in three days or less in celebration.
That is silly to anyone in 88 A.D. because the whole world can't see things at the same time nor deliver things so fast.
Predictions can seem silly. For instance, who in 520 B.C. would talk like Zechariah about their own Lord and Messiah that way as pierced and wounded by friends?
Where is the greatest killing going on today? Israel/Palestine. What if we didn't have islam or judaism in those places? Think of how bad that would be. LOL
bahramf, men behave lawfully based on the principles of behavior modification. Arabs hated Jews because Abraham cast out Ishmael & more recent stimulus.
Are we to blame that on Abraham's sacrifical religious belief system?
Are we to say Arabs are more effective killers due to a religious unification in cause? Is that God's fault or the writer of the Koran's fault?
Wait, people arent getting murdered in communist countries and regimes trying to wipe out religions in other countries?
They are not fighting over religion. They are fighting because of racism and ethnic hatred resulting from the exact results that AbaisScience has mentioned. Thanks for asking
Nonsense. christianity killed learning in the west. Europe made absolutely no intellectual progress from approximately 500 to 1500, when the church held dominance. It took contact with the islamic world to rediscover Greek philosophy and science.
As the intelligent design advocates demonstrate, christianity is out to kill learning again.
Early Middle Ages (AD 4761000) scientific research & teaching continued to be carried on in the Hellenistic side of the empire, in Greek.
Education of the laity survived modestly in Italy, Spain, & the southern part of Gaul, where Roman influences were most long-lasting.
Greek came from Greece which is in Europe, but note in 2nd paragraph the Roman Empire, Christian, maintained knowledge in the Middle Ages. Loss of knowledge was led by German vikings, or heathen barbarians.
In the 'Four Horseman' video, either Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris comments that Dinesh is a good debater. I took this to mean he has intriguing logical points, not that he panders to a simple-minded audience. I'm not finishing this lecture because I'm an hour into it and he hasn't said anything that stimulated new thoughts or questions for me. I feel extremely misled by Harris' (or Dennett's maybe) praise of him as a worthy debater.
I agree, Diinesh is obviously an intelligent man, but that is only necessary but not sufficient to make valid and solid philosophical arguments. I find many of his arguments inane and he seems hell bent to justify all his metaphysical baggage at whatever price to reason. Hes just another typical theist, however he knows enough just to really annoy you.
"Even if we accepted that our universe simply had to be designed by a designer, this would not suggest that this designer is the biblical God, or that He approves of Christianity. If intelligently designed, our universe could be running as a simulation on an alien supercomputer. Or it could be the work of an evil God, or of two such gods playing tug-of-war with a larger cosmos."
Yea Dinesh, all the evidence says hitler was a christian, his actions, the church celebrating him, the belt buckles and even hitlers own AUTOBIOGTRAPHY.
But you can find ONE book that supports your lie that he was an atheist and so thats it, all the other evidence can be thrown out.
Intelligent people wouldn't even have to debate the existence of a god if it wasn't for the thickies who posit the concept and keep cranking on about it, trying to control evrybody.
A. INTELLIGENT people would'nt have to debate the existence of GOD if it wasn't for atheist/dawrwinist/stalinist/homosexualist fucktards who think there smarter than God and we're not thickies unlike what you impLIE!!!!!!
Secondmost. I have drawn great strength from the spirit of Christ since the death of my cat (Gary) and just don't know where I'd be without my personal relationship with Jesus Christ our lord.
C. Ur precious science only gets U a 1st class ticket to HELL!!!
How do u know Gary didn't have soul? Are you a theologeon? Ur just an atheist who thinks he can talk outside his expertese on spirutal matters he knows NOTHING about!!!
One day Jesus is going to come down and lay a serious smackdown on sinners and I KNOW I'll see Gary again. Plus u cant debate at all ur just a typical atheist/stalinist and ur probly gay too which IS a choice and I think its *U* who don't have a soul I bet you like murder babies and Allzhimers patients like ur hero "Singer"!!!!
Have some respect! You are a monster to make light of the death of my cat this just what I would expect from an atheist/homosexualist who at the blink of an eye would probably like shove everyone who don't worship Darwin into a big furnace.
And I don't have a "phd" and don't need univerisity brainwashing to tell me whether Gary has a soul and what happened to "you can't take the bible literally" If Gary's just *dead* you'd like that, wouldn't you?
Plus where does it say in the bible that cats don't have souls? If you looked into Gary's eyes when I tell him about my day you'd understand it may sound crazy but cats have souls and I'm sure mr animal rights stalintist superstar up there would agree
Are U sure about that? When the lord took Gary broke down and sobbed (I'm not proud of that) telling my paster about it telling and even though before he said cats probably don't have souls that time he ASSURED me they do. But where in the BIBLE does it say they don't?? Hovind is 13 now which is old for a dog and if the lord should take him too and I'll never see HIM again either... I don't know... I just might lose my faith. What SHOULD I think?
Oh yeah, and about animals having souls - I'm no expert but I think the reason most of the religious say 'no they don't' is some thing to do with fear of the occult, witches with familiars, possession, that sort of thing;
but then again these were very superstitious people.
Also animals cannot talk (except a talking 4 legged snake and a donkey haha)
U still don't answer my points cuz u can't ur not as smart as you think you are (ur SURE not smater than God)but here's another. Where did everything come from stalinist, and how does the universe have order without God? How come the speed of light is ALWAYS 746 miles per and and only certain elements bond and so fourth??
Plus why would we have alltrueism without god? We CAN'T!!!
Ur talking about chaos theory and theoretical quantum theory. I know all about it. It just PROVES that God works in mysterious ways. If it was all just numbers and straight lines we couldn't have free will (there's a joke about that the punchline is "free-Will" i.e. let him go LOL)Science cant tell us where everything comes from, that's where thelogions step in. Science has it job like medicine and cell phones, and religion has the more important questions.
Those theories also make it clear that Einstein was wrong about 'God' not playing dice with the universe, it clearly is a universe full of probability and chance.
BTW did Neantherthals have souls? What do you think?
It's time to come clean, hopo; I've been pulling your leg. I am in fact an atheist and not a word I've said has been in earnest. You see, now and again I like to amuse myself by putting Poe's law to the test. Amazingly, despite my best efforts, no-one, as far as I can tell, ever gets wise.
It would indeed seem that when impersonating a fundamentalist pinhead, there is no threshold of stupidity beyond which one begins to sound implausible and arouse suspicion.
I'd thought that was what what you might have meant, but it seemed unlikely that you'd have guessed what I was up to on the first go -certainly nobody else seems to have done so. How did you know? Had you already seen some of my other comments or was this one just too over the top?
Another filthy liar. Goebbels was a strict catholic who spouted in a radio broadcast in April 1936: "We have a feeling that Germany has been transformed into a great house of God, including all classes, professions and creeds, where the Fuehrer as our mediator stood before the throne of the Almighty...." A Jew is for me an object of disgust. I feel like vomiting when I see one. Christ could not possibly have been a Jew. It is not necessary to prove that scientifically-- it is a fact."
What about the worst Nazi murderers who put millions to death. Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz wrote: "My father was really a bigot. He was very strict and fanatical. I learned that my father took a religious oath at the time of the birth of my younger sister, dedicating me to God and the priesthood. He directed my entire youthful education toward the goal of making me a priest. I had to pray and go to church endlessly, do penance over the slightest misdeed.."
He "believed deeply", took his religious duties seriously, and "was zealous as an altar boy."He also put a formal request to see a priest to make a confession before the execution; the request was granted. He also requested a priest's presence at the gallows.
Franz Strangl, the commandant of Sobibor and Treblinka death camps responsible for deaths of half a million Jews was a practicing, devout catholic as he states in an interview.
Josef Mengele also received a strict catholic upbringing. He identified himself as catholic. The "Evaluation of SS Captain Dr. Josef Mengele," dated 19 August 1944, prepared by the Auschwitz SS Physician's Office reads: ..."Dr. Mengele has an open, honest, solid character. He is absolutely reliable, upright and straightforward. He does not manifest any weakness of character, bad tendencies or cravings...He is a Catholic."
Statement of [SS-Untersturmfuehrer] Maximilian "Grabner, head of the [KL Auschwitz] Political Department statement at his trial. he was sentenced to death.
"I am a Roman Catholic and today still believe in God. I believe there must be such a thing as divine justice as well as justice on earth` I only took part in the murder of some three million people out of consideration for my family. I was never an anti-Semite and would still claim today that every person has the right to life."
It is a simultaneously scary and unflattering reflection on our species, to think that someone like Dinesh D'Souza is actually considered a philosopher and scholar.
D'Souza is normally a real asshole in his debates; once Singer showed that he wasn't going to be able to get away with his usual stuff, D'Souza actually came across as more civilized and thoughtful than normal. More people would respect him if he acted like that normally, instead of debating in a cheap and frantic manner.
I really like D'Souza, and I think he didn't win here. He could not come up with responses to Singer's three main points. First, how the Christian conception of a merciful and all-powerful god can coexist with evil towards innocents. Second, false specifics in the Bible, like Jesus saying people would see him return. Third, the sociological basis for adopting a specific religion (family, culture) undermining claimed divine reasons.
That would be difficult considering his points are based on rhetoric. While he may have seemed more 'thoughtful' he remained within his unreasonable claims. Much of his "so you are saying" style of arguing banks on people generally not being as comfortable with negation. Like most apologists, he resorts to slipping between 'a god', 'christian god', and 'our ability to conceive' framing to avoid answering directed questions (i.e. if the error is about one he jumps to the ambiguity of the other)
D' Souza only says "so you are saying" so he can be clear on what his opponent is saying. Duh. That's just a strawman u have no brain like a strawman. Plus ur stupid to tell him he can only discuss either 'a god' or a 'christian god' unlike u his great intelect can handle both plus he could probly discuss ANY subject after all the books he's read. At the very least its not like he's spuerego prick Richard Dawkins discussing profound theological matters he knows NOTHING about!!!!!
"The audience wants some Jerry Springer action..."
That's more true than he knows..
I actually think this audience is representative of the Springer audience.
fjoo 1 month ago
Once again D'Souza exhibiting SEVERE RETARDATION: Fisher: "Christians bears a heavy responsibilty whether or not Hitler personally was a Christian." to which D'Souza starts spouting some garbage about Hitler hating Christianity. HERP DERP I'M NOT EVEN LISTENING TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERP DERP!!!
TheGerogero 1 month ago
The leading figure around Hitler, Gorgols. Never heard of him!
Mujave 2 months ago
D'Souza should look into that english edition of Hilter's table talk - the original German is apparently significantly different.
macroman52 3 months ago
God created the Universe because everything needs a cause; well then who created God? Everything needs a creator right? Dinesh is a moron. And that is not an ad hominem attack: I gave you all a reason why Dinesh is stupid.
IMPALEXANDERAVG 5 months ago
@IMPALEXANDERAVG Dinesh's argument is that everything that is material needs a cause. God is not material and therefore is exempt. William Lane Craig uses an alternate version saying that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist, he always existed, and therefore does not need a cause.
I am not on the christian apologists side, but I do believe it is important to understand their fallacious arguments so you can refute them properly. truth is not friendly to theists
MrTechFox 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because someone says he loves his children and wife but beats them doesn't make him a person who loves them.The same, because someone says he is a Christian doesn't make him one if he doesn't live by Christian teaching or ideology on which "Christian"denominations parasite on.There are reference about hypocrisy of Church in Bible.The main point of debate is a massive hysteria evolved around claims of ideology and not ideology itself or personal fulfillment with moral beliefs.
hapobelle 5 months ago
Comment removed
hapobelle 5 months ago
Reading comments like:"Dinesh is chinless midget,shoot the bastard" "I hate..." "why anyone would dignify (Dinesh)with a debate".......By the comments seems that mostly atheists have a reason to watch this to insult because of their inner unfulfillment with which they display their aggression on anyone with different point of understanding than their own;as if there is suppose to be universal understanding which is a basic for any religious fundamentalism in which atheism is no exception.
hapobelle 5 months ago
@hapobelle You have picked up on a real attitude of hostility that some atheists have for people like dinesh, however your guess at why this hostility exists is way off base. It exists because atheists are generally very well educated on these subjects and have heard these same faulty arguments many times before and grow tired of the christian apologists bringing the same dishonest arguments to debates, in an attempt to convert those who are less educated. They have been shown to be wrong before
MrTechFox 4 months ago
@hapobelle Recite your bible now, and you'll see how evil we can get! You have no idea how frustrating it is to talk to close-minded apologists like Dinesh. If he had the power you guys used to have, he would be burning us at the stake. "The inquisition killed 2.000" - obnoxious. The inquisition installed into society a fear of your neighbor and blind servility, while the church kept killing by the thousands and thousands. Dinesh knows this, so he has no morals and is dishonest. And chinless.
whauffend 3 months ago
@whauffend
"Recite your bible now"YOUR?You send alluding messages to complete strangers for purpose of !?"You will see how evil we can get"WE?That is a portray of religious act."You have no idea how frustrating it is to talk to close-minded apologists";people who declare atheist often assume that if someone doesn't agree with them,have their opinion or approach he is a part of opposite we and you obviously don't know how annoying that is.
hapobelle 3 months ago
@whauffend
"The power you guys use to have";what does that mean,what is it referring to?You couldn't possibly pretend to think that most violence is committed in the name of organized religion;most rape,animal abuse,sexual abuse,domestic violence,children abuse,abuse of people with mental illness.....Am I suppose to cite numbers killed by those who were atheist or people who have been killed or suffer in the name of capitalism so you can have your computer,iPad,gasoline in car.....
hapobelle 3 months ago
@hapobelle I was agreeing with you: atheists can be sarcastic. I am just saying that it is not because of the 'inner unfulfillment' you presume, but because bible-reciting and intellectual dishonesty - of the kind that D'Souza is known for - is frustrating and leaves us no other way of venting that frustration. It is defensive, not aggressive. I do, however, agree that it is not okay. I always try to be decent and argue politely, as I do now. I ask you: do you recognize D'Souza's dishonesty?
whauffend 3 months ago
@whauffend
How many suffer because prostitution is legalized in country you live in,80%prostitutes now in Holland are trafficked mainly from Eastern Europe.You live in overpopulated country that needs to import most food to sustain its population,did you think that those who worked to make that food are fairly paid or did your government make sure it is not and do let me mention that Holland was colonial imperialist find out what they did. This all world is dishonest.
hapobelle 3 months ago
Dinesh: Please stop saying "if you will", if you will.
SarniaLute 7 months ago
Singer is being too nice to this chinless midget ! i say shoot the bastard!!
hossamgebeily 8 months ago
I hate when Dinesh purports that Hitler,Himmler and Goebbels were rabid-atheists as fact, this guy needs to read up on his history. Just because u say something into a microphone it doesn't make it fact.
MultiErgoproxy 9 months ago 4
9:19 "It is atheist guesswork to get around the idea of a creator?"
Is he kidding? What's the empirical data for God, then?
I was surprised he used that old hieroglyphic argument.
jessc1979 9 months ago
The host is terrible, he should have reminded Dinesh to stick to the actual topic of the debate. Singer didn't have to go to so much trouble to counter the pathetic pseudo-arguments that Dinesh has been blurting out
incaayoub 9 months ago
Dinesh's logic is serrrrr iously lackin' !hahahahahahahah
GRileaux 9 months ago
The anti-christian table talk by Hilter is bullshit (the english edition translated from a french translation by a fruit-cake french man is different from the original German)
macroman52 11 months ago
where was Dinesh D'Souza being dishonest if may ask? just wanted to see if anyone else saw and hear what i did. also where was singer being dishonest because i saw that many times as well.
SuperMarco7 11 months ago
Interesting that the idea to Mr. D'Souza atheists who are unwilling to embrace religious beliefs are considered by him as "rabid atheists".
He's intellectually dishonest at best.
esiosan 1 year ago
Ahhhh Singer you've fallen into his trap. This is silly! WHO CARES ABOUT HITLER!
Existentialisht 1 year ago
I'd like to choke D'Souza unconscious. God soaked fucktard.
InverStone 1 year ago
People like DIOP JR (who says that D'Souza is a joke) and xoloxum (who say he is a dumbass) are themselves the lesser thinkers. It is my belief that one should be truly honest if he or she is to have any credibility at all. Obviously D'Souza and Peter Singer both are extremely intelligent. To say otherwise is simply childish and dishonest. Furthermore, many people claim to be Christian, but clearly are not. Goebbels my have been raised a catholic but he left that religion in his adult life.
mwoodward221 1 year ago
@mwoodward221 "Obviously D'Souza and Peter Singer both are extremely intelligent. To say otherwise is simply childish and dishonest."
I'm sure that D'Souza is intelligent, but that doesn't imply that his arguments have any merit. After all, he is in the business of selling security blankets to people who have bought into bronze age myth. His blatant dishonesty and plain idiocy(Such as suggesting that science abandon parsimony) in a variety of circumstances suggest fundamental incompetence.
Gnomefro 11 months ago
@mwoodward221 You should also consider that we're talking about two mutually exclusive worldviews here. They are not both correct. They are also so different in so many fundamental ways that it's clear that at least one of the parties must be a complete moron to embrace it. One simply can't have it both ways here.
You should probably leave your "No true Scotsman" nonsense alone btw, until you're ready to accept that other people dismiss you as "clearly not being a christian".
Gnomefro 11 months ago
@mwoodward221 Fact is, go back to the times of the inquisition and essentially 100% of today's Christians would be branded heretics. We don't hold that against you, but accept that you call yourself Christians. In the same way, you should accept the indisputable fact that Nazi Germany considered itself a Christian nation and their prosecution of Jews a continuation of 100s of years of Christian tradition, both among the Catholics and Protestants. Even Martin Luther was a rabid antisemite.
Gnomefro 11 months ago
@Gnomefro Good use of Godwin's Law :)
incaayoub 9 months ago
@mwoodward221 All that said, I agree that "one should be truly honest if he or she is to have any credibility at all."
D'Souza fails that test in such fundamental ways that I can't imagine why anyone would dignify him with a debate. I suppose it's a consequence of it both not being possible to be an intellectually honest apologist for any Abrahamic religion today and that these debates are an excellent way to sell books even for people who do have integrity and credibility.
Gnomefro 11 months ago
D'Souza gets it wrong again. 1) Just because Hitler hated Christianity, that doesn't mean he was an atheist, which is the point. Atheism wasn't responsible for his vision of the master race, and he had the cooperation of prominent Christians in his rise to power and atrocities. 2) Goebbels was a staunch Catholic. 3) Himmler was an Aryan mystic, on the lines of Jorg Lans Liebenfels and Guido von List. This guy is a joke.
DIOPJR 1 year ago 3
how is God the most plausible explanation? what a dumbass
xoloxum 1 year ago
Comment removed
endunamis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Brainbuster1000 ... are you appealing to Friedrich Nietzsche "will to power" found within the construct of his 'ubermensch'? If so I would suggest you've accepted an illusion. You will undoubtedly become Chesterton's 'Modern Man in Revolt'.
endunamis 1 year ago
Peter is a great thinker, but fuck off with the Nazis! Isn't there any other examples he could use?
Oh and Dinesh is well out of his depth here...
tielec01 1 year ago
If atheists believe in the basic goodness of humanity, then why complain that out of that basic goodness religious belief has come?
endunamis 1 year ago
@endunamis Because of the danger of unquestioning obedience to authority.
Brainbuster1000 1 year ago
D'Souza clearly has very little if any philosophical training; this was a pretty embarassing spectacle.
Braves4321 1 year ago
7:50 There is so much wrong with this answer:
1: Does everything need a cause? No. Uncaused events are observed.
2: Is the creator unphysical? Maybe. But it might be the physical laws themselves. Doesnt need to be a person. Doesnt need to be metaphysical.
3: Is there anything outside of the universe? No. He stated himself thats how its defined. So God is not outside of it.
4: "The cause of the physicla is outside the physical". Oh and that cause has itself no cause right? wrong.
omnissient 1 year ago
How can the commentors on this site be so sure that Mr. D'Souza is wrong, making snide comments at his thoughtfull answers. I think that he has addressed the questions quite thoroughly, but I am watching the debates with an open mind. I have heard it claimed that it is the religious that are closed mined, I would argue that it is the opposite.
Japmax1 1 year ago 2
@Japmax1 You'd argue that atheists are more closed minded than theists? Then do so. This should be quite interesting.
If you claim that people who disagree with your doctrine will go to hell, please don't pretend to be open minded.
rolyan3 1 year ago
who says that the universe contains all materiality? there could easily be different types of materiality outside our universe. also dinesh's argument that something material was created by something immaterial is just bad as the argument the something was created out of nothing. it is exactly the same argument but dressed differently. dinesh is the definition of dishonest.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
D'Souza is so full of shit that I wouldn't believe him if he told me that he existed.
ikkoikki 1 year ago 3
But you do exist. So therefore you are admitting to be so closed mined that you would not believe something you knew to be true because it came from Mr. D'Souza.
Japmax1 1 year ago
@Japmax1 Again I apologize most profusely for attempting to be humorous. Better leave it to the experts.
ikkoikki 1 year ago
Comment removed
eugdog106 1 year ago
...Wait a second. Isn't there a difference between hieroglyphics and the world? Or am I missing something that D'Souza isn't?
LittleRose547 1 year ago
Singer does raise a valid point here. Earlier, Dinesh explained the morally correct behavior of atheists by pointing to the Christian culture in which they grew up. He can't have it both ways. Singer is also right in pointing to the Christian culture in which Nazism was nurtured.
lourak 1 year ago 2
whats with the shit Q and A style? Just put your hand up and ask a question. FARK!
dansnikolayevich 1 year ago
the whole hitler was a theist or atheist is not the point, it deflects from the real question does god exist.
RAMSEY1987 1 year ago 2
Also, Dinesh D'Souza seems not to have heard of the competing ideo to the big bang theory: Steady state universe theory, which has had a new injection of life since the M81 galaxy made us question the nature of redshifts. Basically this theory implies that the universe is in fact infinate and little big bangs happen fairly commonly. Either way, both theories are pointing to multiple bangs with causation. By the way, science does say "we'll figure that out later -the later finds which he is using
Rametetr 1 year ago 2
Dinesh D'Souza says "we have no scientific reason to beleive there are other universes". That's funny, because he is trying to embelish his points using the big bang theory and referencing things Stephen Hawking has said - well maybe not "said". But if you take Hawking's theories (namely string theory) to their conclusions they infer that there are many seperate universes "bumping into" eachother, creating big bangs. As well as 11 dimensions in total. He has outdated physics information.
Rametetr 1 year ago
that moderator is terrible!
timmy2x1977 2 years ago
I'm so fucking tired of people bringing up the Nazis all the time. Find a new example
forestskog 2 years ago
how can people not see that if you suggest the universe has a creator, that just means you apply all the questions you would apply to how the universe exists and came into existence to the "creator" of the universe. saying there is a creator simply raises more questions, if these folks were at all interesting in questioning
ahabthewhaler 2 years ago 4
Actually,
What is being debated is whether the universe has the fingerprints of a creator or not.
Who created God is not relevant to all these debates.
As DInesh argues it is like discovering an abandoned city on Jupiter. We may not know who build the city but there is evidence of intelligence. Just because we don't know the origins of the alien builders doesn't mean they don't exist.
It really comes down to what is the best explanation with the information at hand.
hypermonkey24 2 years ago
Rwanda was theists ... lol
truevoiceofsanity 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did nobody tell Dinesh the title of the debate? He just talked misleadingly and stupidly about Singer's ethics, then argued the pointless who is better behaved - atheists or theists (I'm sick of this ridiculous argument). This was an effortless win for Singer, who was (as usual) logically consistent and made decent points.
MrDarkbloom 2 years ago 13
Poor MrDarkBloom, you must not be use to how Believers debate ;)
Dinesh does a decent job of filling his part in responses which do not answer and ask questions which are not on topic!
psychointegrator 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually, I've watched and analyzed over a dozen William Lane Craig debates. I think I know a foundering, ignorant 'believer' when I see one. Even by (the low-hanging) Christian standards, Dinesh has a poor grasp of what constitutes logical argumentation, good evidence and actual reality.
MrDarkbloom 2 years ago 12
I think the chairs balls were dropping in this
ancalites 2 years ago
Singer says-
(With regards to God being outside of the known universe)
'I'm just saying that you don't get any extra points on that one.'
Priceless!
THEREASONABLE 2 years ago 49
@THEREASONABLE harry potter is also outside of the universe
MamaMario13 9 months ago
Dinesh is so ridiculous. Peter Singer already refuted the idea earlier on in the debate of "there must be an immaterial cause". It is an unknown. A creator is a stretch of the imagination for so many reasons. He didn't even answer the guy's question.
araless 2 years ago 29
Both sides r missing something. At the core is what it is to be human. We use beliefs as tools to make sense of the world around us and to hold up our self conception. We have first our desires, needs, aversions etc than we gather information that jives with them. If a person is a bigot they can turn to the 3 major religions. If a person is sympathetic to all they can find support in the same documents. As we see, an atheist can also shape info as needed. It is our neediness that is the crime.
genious4real 2 years ago
A person is good or bad ,evil are loving has nothing to do with atheism or theism
i have seen many atheists who are loving and honest human beings and i had seen religious nuts who make fool of innocent beings and are hypocrate,vice versa ,many atheist are terrible.
hitler was an christain and he had belief in god,whenever he was attacked he said god had saved me and whatever i am doing i am doing it due to will of god
Magarmach09 2 years ago
Magarmach09, u have not said anything that i disagree with. I think that in the arguement atheism vs theism we have the wrong participants ( theism and atheism). as I have been attempting to get people to understand, there is a reason why the great pioneers of the psychological profession rarely mention religion, it's because religion "sits atop" our personality as do all other beliefs. in tech terms, our personality is the operating system and all other beliefs serve as appplications.
genious4real 2 years ago
ya you are right that our personality is the operating system and all our beiefs serve as application system.
but many times beliefs makes personality.there are some beliefs which we get from our parents and culture ,some are so deep rooted they shape whole persnoality of a man.
in muslim schools everything rubbhist is taught to the kids and they beleive they are 100 right %
so both belief shape personality and persnoality shape belief
Magarmach09 2 years ago
Great point, but let's go back and "tunnel" (as Nietzsche would say) under the obvious. we r born into a world of values and we pick from amongst the choises without much rational thought. our reasons 4 picking them r often biological in that we want acceptance. after choosing we build a system of beliefs that serve to enforce and reenforce the core beliefs. as 4 religion shaping our personality, there is no plant where there is not a process to support its growth.
genious4real 2 years ago
I should say that religion appeals to people who have a ready made home for its precepts. i am an agnostic myself since extremism rests on both sides ( atheism and theism). to share a funny example with u on the building of belief structures, i replied to a bigot and he replied back using crazy language but not saying anything about race. when i mentioned that i was black (SURPRISE!)w a masters in philosophy, my mispelling of genius as genious was proof of my inferiority! DEEP!
genious4real 2 years ago
Anyone that has read Mein Kampf knows that Hitler himself was a devout Roman catholic, as well as the people that followed him.
RickysaurusNY 2 years ago
It doesn't really matter if Hitler was a believer or not, what matters is his use of religion (and other dogmas like it) to help him acheive his horrible motives. This is the problem with religion, it replaces logical thought with a pre-planned set of arguments created by those in power for the very purpose of keeping them in power and expanding their power.
HungryNomadicLion 2 years ago
What the hell is D'Souza babbeling about at 2:50? A book that talks about Hitlers beliefs? Hate to break it to you Dinesh, but there's another book, called "Mein Kampf" in which Hitler HIMSELF elaborates his beliefs. Take a look.
He might not have been striclty catholic, but he definitely was a theist believing that he was fulfilling divine will.
DancingInChains 2 years ago 2
true. its just a shame they don't argue the truth of a religion by examining the reliability of the foundational documents instead of gaining cheap points by invoking Hitler as the exponent to what ever they are attacking. (not that i care lol)
likeaslowburn 2 years ago 4
foundational documents? They don't examine these because the question is not whether the religion is reliable based on its documents, but whether the fundamental premise on which the foundational documents of religion are based (existence of a god) is reliable.
bdowns2 2 years ago
the crux of the truth claims for pretty much all the monotheistic religions is whether the events purported in their foundational documents ie the bible, are true or not. these days most Christians ignore a large proportion of their scripture given the fact that its untenable in light of the developments in secular politics and the sciences. but they still have to retain the dogmas in order for it to mean. if Jesus was not resurrected then Christianity is false. simple as that.
likeaslowburn 2 years ago
these arguments as to whether secular ideologies are more evil and destructive when compared to religious world views is again irrelevant. even if it is the case that believing a religious dogma made you behave better it would in no way substantiate the authenticity of the belief. religion could be extremely useful for maintaining order and well being, but if its not true, then its not true. if the debate was about the utility of religion then i could understand raising the Usefulness argument
likeaslowburn 2 years ago
its irrelevant whether of not Hitler was a Christian or atheist. whatever the answer to this question is, it in no way answers the truth claims of the religion. why singer did not make this point, i dont know.
likeaslowburn 2 years ago 2
Dinesh is very critical of certain prominent atheists "stepping out of their labs" into fields of which they have no expertise. And then he goes off and talks about the origins of the universe and the best possible explanation. Maybe he should take heed to those who have a an updated expertise in this field. His understanding of contemporary cosmology seems fairly outdated. But that;s just my imperfect take on what I see as Souza's hypocrisy.
redscooby99 2 years ago 8
dinesh is using eristics -
"stalin and hitler were atheists, therefore atheism and secularism is bad".
this tedious argument has been destroyed by dan dennett and sam harris when they debated dinesh, yet he disregarded their criticism and continued with it. singer also addressed this, but dinesh seems to be immune to criticism.
franzpolak 2 years ago 2
what muslim autrocosties over one million muslims dead in iraq and the last ten centuries the biggest murderers have all been and not decades but CENTURIES HAVE BEEN EITHER CHRISTIANS OR ATHIEST
OZMYMAN 2 years ago
yeah, go Dinesh
princessdiana71 2 years ago
you suck bitch
gunnarnizzler 2 years ago
Haha, now D'Souza suddenly cares about empirical evidence?
Converge88 2 years ago 5
The Roman Catholic Church took no official stance... and that means anything about Hitler's intentions?
Hitler "left people alone" as strategy. Alliances were made to be broken with strategic timing... by the Nazis.
jmterwil 2 years ago
Wow, D'Souza needs to do some more in-depth research on Hitler and the Nazi party. Comparing Hitler (and by extension, the entire Nazi regime's) pantheistic beliefs to atheism is ridiculous. And claiming that Hitler was intent on destroying the Christian religion is an outright fabrication. The Roman Catholic Church took no official stand on the Nazi's policies precisely because that guaranteed Hitler would leave them alone.
Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
youreawanker 2 years ago 7
Yea the Catholic church no official stance. But 25% of Nazi officers were confessing catholics and the vatican helped many a Nazi escape Nuremberg trials.
ICameFromApes 2 years ago 3
Hitler was Catholic, Himmler was Catholic, Goering was Catholic! Indeed, if you look at all major players in the Nazi party you find only Catholics.
Hitler considered himself the second coming of Christ as psychologists have diagnosed him. He just didn't like the pacific claim that people ascribe to Jesus.
He was awed more with Jesus' scourge of the temple. No limp-wristed, 'nice', Christ would he be.
His only truck with the pope was that the pope doesn't trump Christ himself.
ofinterest2007 2 years ago
Hitler for the most part was an aetheist, he was no godly man. If anything, he used and manipulated the church because it was tool that could help him win over most of the people of Europe. D'souza's, as well as I, have read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is probably the best and most detailed account of Hitler and Nazi Germany.
CHINESEBABOON 2 years ago
I believe that a number of popes, kings, queens, religious leader, christians have all manipulated the church.
daveshawkaz 2 years ago
C'mon, TheRise and Fall of the Third Reich was written by Christian apologist. Check out some real historians.
Hitler's ultimate goal was to conquer Russia and set up an Aryan utopia. All he said to the pope was don't get my way. The pope didn't because he was hopin' to get "God's kingdom on earth" set up out of the whole mess. "Hitler just might be the messiah!" The pope was bettin-that since they were all Catholics-in the end he could wrest control back to himself with united Christian world.
ofinterest2007 2 years ago
The point is Hitler didn't commit crimes to convert people into atheists, atheism had nothing to do with it.
That's why he killed jews, he clearly favored one religion - that's not a secular policy at all.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Furthermore, if Mohammed was able by predeterminism to pick the only woman to blood let at nine years old, why was it she suffered the now known medical consequences of being barren when taken too early?
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Now I ask you why in the Torah women are witnesses to crimes and the list of witness is two, or three (only in the case of the death of a man when there are no male witnesses).
But Mohammed, peace be upon him per Matthew 10:28, requires holy revelation to find out that four witnesses are required for a rape to be prosecuted. This allowing many men to not fear thighing 6 yr olds and consumating marriage with 9 yr olds.
For no doubt Mohammed picked the only girl to blood-let at that age.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
The Holy Roman Empire gave universities the title of Studium Generale.
The early Studia Generali were found in Italy, France, England, & Spain, and these were considered the most prestigious places of learning in Europe.
This list quickly grew as new universities were founded throughout Europe.
As early as the 13th century, scholars from a Studium Generale were encouraged to give lecture courses at other institutes across Europe.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
By yr 1000 AD, western Europe remained a scientific backwater compared to certain other civilizations, including those of Christian Byzantium & Islamic world.
Why is it that you can't see the Christian Byzantium Empire equal to the Islamic world, which likely got their knowledge from Christians considering their Koran is merely a rewrite of the same prophets only slandering them due to being Jews.
Joseph would have slept with Potiphar's wife had not the voice of God spoken out.
LAUGHABLE.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Skinner's right about morals & freedom. Wrong only on philosophy. Man is not a "caged ape," but rather able to condition more fully by thought then by action in environment. Still thought is controlled by external stimulus, but thought conditions more. Hence your free will is merely a sharpened discriminative control.
Ray, B. (1969) Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J. of the Exp. Analysis of Beh., 12, 539-550.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
He 'infers' that since the universe contains all material beginnings-- therefore the universe has an immaterial, "super-powerful" creator. What a joke... suddenly "I don't know, lets find out" is herecy to Mr. D'Souza, and "we're not sure, God must have done it" is logical.
judaserebus 2 years ago
well how can an athiest be so sure god doesnt exist...if they admit to not knowing so much. How do atheists know that the unknown is actually a God? How do they know that creationism is actually right?
They do not
bj07bran7 2 years ago
Didnt like this debate much at all. I am sick of seeing atheist attempting to defend not believing. The burden is always on the theist in these debates and they they need to leave it that way. |Atheist shouldn't even call themselves atheist anymore, its gives the theist a false foot hold.
cjunk351 3 years ago
Yes. The burden of proof is always on the claimant.
Research the "Null Hypothesis" if you're confused.
punnet2 2 years ago 2
Hitler searched for the spear of Longinus, the spear that supposidly pierced christ's side
jpc08109 3 years ago
As a theist I definitely think Peter Singer is the the best debater out of the atheists compared to guys like Hitchens, Harris, Dennet and the like. Although on a strictly debater perspective Dinesh is on a different level.
melonbarmonster 3 years ago
Whoa.... these two men are astounding debaters.
mrhyde911 3 years ago
Dinesh is really deluded, the argument that "cause of the universe = god" is a 100 % nonsequitur.
tmg291 3 years ago
The hero worship of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, supported, by the way, by the naive left-wing in Europe and America for a long time. And do you want to know who pulled back the curtain on those frauds? John Paul II, the Pope of Rome. Which emperor has no clothes?
xtrashed 3 years ago
LOL The idea that "left" supported, worshipped as you say, Hitler is beyond patently absurd! This is akin to suggesting that creationists worship Charles Darwin.
harmlesstree 2 years ago
In regard to Hitler, bad people have cynically used Christianity for their own ends for centuries. That doesn't tell in any way against Christianity itself. Last time I checked, Jesus said that we should love our enemies. I don't think Hitler and his minions were exactly with that program. On the other hand, Marx explicitly said that the critique of religion ("the opium of the masses") was the first step in bringing about communism. Therefore, atheism was central to Stalin's program.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Skinner's right about morals & freedom. Wrong only on philosophy. Man is not a "caged ape," but rather able to condition more fully by thought then by action in environment. Still thought is controlled by external stimulus, but thought conditions more. Hence your free will is merely a sharpened discriminative control.
Ray, B. (1969) Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J. of the Exp. Analysis of Beh., 12, 539-550.
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
Hitler believed in "Positive Christianity", so stfu Dinesh.
And Himmler was not an atheist, wtf.
If we see hieroglyphics, we assume that someone made them because we've seen other hieroglyphics before. Wrong again, Dinesh, definitely not guesswork.
dbzcoolman23 3 years ago 2
Hitler gave a signed copy of Nietzsche to Mussolini. Christians were not innocent of avoiding atrocity as they behave based on conditioning and stimulus.
Hitler desired the elimination of Jews.
Peter Singer better think twice about a world without the Christian or Judeo-God because the Verichip will make man like Stalin's chicken, but it will make him like Hitler's Jew for the only way to prove the lack of that God is the elimination of Jews.
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
Verichip is powerful, but righteousness will win in the end. Zechariah 12:10 and the world and Jews will no longer speak of Moses for the deliverance that will come will be amazing.
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
Come on. That's just silly.
mooktank 3 years ago
mooktank, reality can be silly. The Bible writes about the whole world seeing two dead men on the streets and sending presents around the world in three days or less in celebration.
That is silly to anyone in 88 A.D. because the whole world can't see things at the same time nor deliver things so fast.
Predictions can seem silly. For instance, who in 520 B.C. would talk like Zechariah about their own Lord and Messiah that way as pierced and wounded by friends?
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
Where is the greatest killing going on today? Israel/Palestine. What if we didn't have islam or judaism in those places? Think of how bad that would be. LOL
bahramf 3 years ago
bahramf, men behave lawfully based on the principles of behavior modification. Arabs hated Jews because Abraham cast out Ishmael & more recent stimulus.
Are we to blame that on Abraham's sacrifical religious belief system?
Are we to say Arabs are more effective killers due to a religious unification in cause? Is that God's fault or the writer of the Koran's fault?
Just my thoughts.
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
Wait, people arent getting murdered in communist countries and regimes trying to wipe out religions in other countries?
They are not fighting over religion. They are fighting because of racism and ethnic hatred resulting from the exact results that AbaisScience has mentioned. Thanks for asking
bmdmaal 3 years ago
If not for christianity, the Industrial Revolution would have started centuries earlier.
punnet2 2 years ago
If not for Christianity the Roman Empire and the heathen vikings would have been even worse than you think.
Who knows, but God the things you claim?
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Nonsense. christianity killed learning in the west. Europe made absolutely no intellectual progress from approximately 500 to 1500, when the church held dominance. It took contact with the islamic world to rediscover Greek philosophy and science.
As the intelligent design advocates demonstrate, christianity is out to kill learning again.
punnet2 2 years ago 3
Early Middle Ages (AD 4761000) scientific research & teaching continued to be carried on in the Hellenistic side of the empire, in Greek.
Education of the laity survived modestly in Italy, Spain, & the southern part of Gaul, where Roman influences were most long-lasting.
Greek came from Greece which is in Europe, but note in 2nd paragraph the Roman Empire, Christian, maintained knowledge in the Middle Ages. Loss of knowledge was led by German vikings, or heathen barbarians.
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
In the 'Four Horseman' video, either Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris comments that Dinesh is a good debater. I took this to mean he has intriguing logical points, not that he panders to a simple-minded audience. I'm not finishing this lecture because I'm an hour into it and he hasn't said anything that stimulated new thoughts or questions for me. I feel extremely misled by Harris' (or Dennett's maybe) praise of him as a worthy debater.
noonej 3 years ago 5
I agree, Diinesh is obviously an intelligent man, but that is only necessary but not sufficient to make valid and solid philosophical arguments. I find many of his arguments inane and he seems hell bent to justify all his metaphysical baggage at whatever price to reason. Hes just another typical theist, however he knows enough just to really annoy you.
1974freud 3 years ago 4
"Even if we accepted that our universe simply had to be designed by a designer, this would not suggest that this designer is the biblical God, or that He approves of Christianity. If intelligently designed, our universe could be running as a simulation on an alien supercomputer. Or it could be the work of an evil God, or of two such gods playing tug-of-war with a larger cosmos."
talicohen 3 years ago 2
Yea Dinesh, all the evidence says hitler was a christian, his actions, the church celebrating him, the belt buckles and even hitlers own AUTOBIOGTRAPHY.
But you can find ONE book that supports your lie that he was an atheist and so thats it, all the other evidence can be thrown out.
Not big dinesh. Not clever.
irishmauddib 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
A great man! Singer, that is.
If you like this kind of thing, check out the amazing new Czech film - highly praised by Dr. Singer himself - called COMING SOON.
Highly recommended!
iloveUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 3 years ago
Intelligent people wouldn't even have to debate the existence of a god if it wasn't for the thickies who posit the concept and keep cranking on about it, trying to control evrybody.
hopokuk 3 years ago
A. INTELLIGENT people would'nt have to debate the existence of GOD if it wasn't for atheist/dawrwinist/stalinist/homosexualist fucktards who think there smarter than God and we're not thickies unlike what you impLIE!!!!!!
Secondmost. I have drawn great strength from the spirit of Christ since the death of my cat (Gary) and just don't know where I'd be without my personal relationship with Jesus Christ our lord.
C. Ur precious science only gets U a 1st class ticket to HELL!!!
polymath7 3 years ago
LOL fucking atheist
Gary didn't even have a soul.
hopokuk 3 years ago
How do u know Gary didn't have soul? Are you a theologeon? Ur just an atheist who thinks he can talk outside his expertese on spirutal matters he knows NOTHING about!!!
One day Jesus is going to come down and lay a serious smackdown on sinners and I KNOW I'll see Gary again. Plus u cant debate at all ur just a typical atheist/stalinist and ur probly gay too which IS a choice and I think its *U* who don't have a soul I bet you like murder babies and Allzhimers patients like ur hero "Singer"!!!!
polymath7 3 years ago
So all it takes to convince you of the truth of Good News about Christ is the corpse of a dead pet?
Your own doctrine states that animals have no soul.
I don't know how Singer has reached his conclusions and he not my hero. I just agree that he is correct to reject the God-did-it hypothesis.
hopokuk 3 years ago
"corpse of a dead pet"
Have some respect! You are a monster to make light of the death of my cat this just what I would expect from an atheist/homosexualist who at the blink of an eye would probably like shove everyone who don't worship Darwin into a big furnace.
And I don't have a "phd" and don't need univerisity brainwashing to tell me whether Gary has a soul and what happened to "you can't take the bible literally" If Gary's just *dead* you'd like that, wouldn't you?
polymath7 3 years ago
Plus where does it say in the bible that cats don't have souls? If you looked into Gary's eyes when I tell him about my day you'd understand it may sound crazy but cats have souls and I'm sure mr animal rights stalintist superstar up there would agree
polymath7 3 years ago
The majority of mainstream churches and religions state clearly that it is only humans who have immortal souls, its chauvinism.
hopokuk 3 years ago
Are U sure about that? When the lord took Gary broke down and sobbed (I'm not proud of that) telling my paster about it telling and even though before he said cats probably don't have souls that time he ASSURED me they do. But where in the BIBLE does it say they don't?? Hovind is 13 now which is old for a dog and if the lord should take him too and I'll never see HIM again either... I don't know... I just might lose my faith. What SHOULD I think?
polymath7 3 years ago
I think you should make a value judgement.
hopokuk 3 years ago
Oh yeah, and about animals having souls - I'm no expert but I think the reason most of the religious say 'no they don't' is some thing to do with fear of the occult, witches with familiars, possession, that sort of thing;
but then again these were very superstitious people.
Also animals cannot talk (except a talking 4 legged snake and a donkey haha)
hopokuk 3 years ago
U still don't answer my points cuz u can't ur not as smart as you think you are (ur SURE not smater than God)but here's another. Where did everything come from stalinist, and how does the universe have order without God? How come the speed of light is ALWAYS 746 miles per and and only certain elements bond and so fourth??
Plus why would we have alltrueism without god? We CAN'T!!!
polymath7 3 years ago
The universe is in fact mostly chaotic rather than orderly.
Where does everything come from? That is a question for science not theologians.
hopokuk 3 years ago
Ur talking about chaos theory and theoretical quantum theory. I know all about it. It just PROVES that God works in mysterious ways. If it was all just numbers and straight lines we couldn't have free will (there's a joke about that the punchline is "free-Will" i.e. let him go LOL)Science cant tell us where everything comes from, that's where thelogions step in. Science has it job like medicine and cell phones, and religion has the more important questions.
polymath7 3 years ago
Those theories also make it clear that Einstein was wrong about 'God' not playing dice with the universe, it clearly is a universe full of probability and chance.
BTW did Neantherthals have souls? What do you think?
hopokuk 3 years ago
It's time to come clean, hopo; I've been pulling your leg. I am in fact an atheist and not a word I've said has been in earnest. You see, now and again I like to amuse myself by putting Poe's law to the test. Amazingly, despite my best efforts, no-one, as far as I can tell, ever gets wise.
It would indeed seem that when impersonating a fundamentalist pinhead, there is no threshold of stupidity beyond which one begins to sound implausible and arouse suspicion.
polymath7 3 years ago
You didn't catch me out on the first comment, polymath7.
That's why I said 'LOL fucking atheist'
About 3 comments you made after that then I was unsure.
You sounded too smart though, thanks, I haven't heard of Poe's Law. I'm learning.
hopokuk 3 years ago
'LOL fucking atheist'
I'd thought that was what what you might have meant, but it seemed unlikely that you'd have guessed what I was up to on the first go -certainly nobody else seems to have done so. How did you know? Had you already seen some of my other comments or was this one just too over the top?
polymath7 3 years ago
PiroNiro on your subscriptions.
& about a cat called Gary - too fucktarded.
"fucktard" I'm going to start using that word myself now.
hopokuk 3 years ago
"Joseph Goebbels was an atheist."--Dinesh
Goebbels was a roman catholic. Keep the debate honest Dinesh.
Onetimerule 3 years ago 3
Another filthy liar. Goebbels was a strict catholic who spouted in a radio broadcast in April 1936: "We have a feeling that Germany has been transformed into a great house of God, including all classes, professions and creeds, where the Fuehrer as our mediator stood before the throne of the Almighty...." A Jew is for me an object of disgust. I feel like vomiting when I see one. Christ could not possibly have been a Jew. It is not necessary to prove that scientifically-- it is a fact."
soshytoshi 3 years ago
What about the worst Nazi murderers who put millions to death. Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz wrote: "My father was really a bigot. He was very strict and fanatical. I learned that my father took a religious oath at the time of the birth of my younger sister, dedicating me to God and the priesthood. He directed my entire youthful education toward the goal of making me a priest. I had to pray and go to church endlessly, do penance over the slightest misdeed.."
soshytoshi 3 years ago 2
He "believed deeply", took his religious duties seriously, and "was zealous as an altar boy."He also put a formal request to see a priest to make a confession before the execution; the request was granted. He also requested a priest's presence at the gallows.
Franz Strangl, the commandant of Sobibor and Treblinka death camps responsible for deaths of half a million Jews was a practicing, devout catholic as he states in an interview.
soshytoshi 3 years ago
Josef Mengele also received a strict catholic upbringing. He identified himself as catholic. The "Evaluation of SS Captain Dr. Josef Mengele," dated 19 August 1944, prepared by the Auschwitz SS Physician's Office reads: ..."Dr. Mengele has an open, honest, solid character. He is absolutely reliable, upright and straightforward. He does not manifest any weakness of character, bad tendencies or cravings...He is a Catholic."
soshytoshi 3 years ago
Statement of [SS-Untersturmfuehrer] Maximilian "Grabner, head of the [KL Auschwitz] Political Department statement at his trial. he was sentenced to death.
"I am a Roman Catholic and today still believe in God. I believe there must be such a thing as divine justice as well as justice on earth` I only took part in the murder of some three million people out of consideration for my family. I was never an anti-Semite and would still claim today that every person has the right to life."
soshytoshi 3 years ago
Good job - I guess that settles the "Nazis were atheists" crap once and for all.
manzed 3 years ago
It is a simultaneously scary and unflattering reflection on our species, to think that someone like Dinesh D'Souza is actually considered a philosopher and scholar.
FilipeBrasAlmeida 3 years ago 8
D'Souza is normally a real asshole in his debates; once Singer showed that he wasn't going to be able to get away with his usual stuff, D'Souza actually came across as more civilized and thoughtful than normal. More people would respect him if he acted like that normally, instead of debating in a cheap and frantic manner.
thenademoncametohim 3 years ago 7
is this debate on how to be a nice person?
D'souza wins..thats all it matters
plus..D'souza isnt really that rude like you said he is..
HIL4 3 years ago
I really like D'Souza, and I think he didn't win here. He could not come up with responses to Singer's three main points. First, how the Christian conception of a merciful and all-powerful god can coexist with evil towards innocents. Second, false specifics in the Bible, like Jesus saying people would see him return. Third, the sociological basis for adopting a specific religion (family, culture) undermining claimed divine reasons.
MichaelDavisISTC 3 years ago
he did answer those questions..
go watch the whole debate
Han414 3 years ago
No, it's a debate about the existence of God.
A debate that Dinesh loses handily.
dbzcoolman23 3 years ago
u wish..
HIL4 3 years ago
Dinesh argues that mythology could guide us but not that it's the truth. He's not arguing the right point.
mooktank 3 years ago
That would be difficult considering his points are based on rhetoric. While he may have seemed more 'thoughtful' he remained within his unreasonable claims. Much of his "so you are saying" style of arguing banks on people generally not being as comfortable with negation. Like most apologists, he resorts to slipping between 'a god', 'christian god', and 'our ability to conceive' framing to avoid answering directed questions (i.e. if the error is about one he jumps to the ambiguity of the other)
kaksonen 3 years ago
D' Souza only says "so you are saying" so he can be clear on what his opponent is saying. Duh. That's just a strawman u have no brain like a strawman. Plus ur stupid to tell him he can only discuss either 'a god' or a 'christian god' unlike u his great intelect can handle both plus he could probly discuss ANY subject after all the books he's read. At the very least its not like he's spuerego prick Richard Dawkins discussing profound theological matters he knows NOTHING about!!!!!
Homo.
polymath7 3 years ago
Someone should've asked 'Souza if God could make a rock so heavy that eh couldn't lift it.
BAdoubleT 3 years ago
Or he should have asked a question which is even more profound: Can God microwave a burrito so warm that he couldn't eat it?
gluemoae 3 years ago 8
or even better ask if he watches the simpsons....
skedaddleMLS 3 years ago
Yeah, i know...
gluemoae 3 years ago
or ask God if He can make himself stronger to lift up the rock that He couldnt lift?
if your god cant even do that..why do you even call him god??
its a pretty dumb question to begin with..
HIL4 3 years ago
Wov. Dinesh seems to have greater knowledge about cosmology than any of the world's top theoretical physicists or cosmologists. Amazing.
I wonder how he came to make these incredible discoveries?
laurentius82 3 years ago 4