It amuses me to see the comments from people who are sitting at home on their computer calling two accomplished authors debating at a distinguished university "stupid" or "idiots". It's a kin to the overweight guy sitting at home in his recliner watching football, calling the quarterback a bum who can't play.
@JcbYoung I hope you see you're disparaging the purpose of philosophy, when you imply that philosophical concepts should not be discussed / critiqued by the wider community. I find it doubtful this debate would ever have happened if D'Souza and Dennett weren't willing to have strangers judge them for their ideas. Philosophy should not be compared with a sport or competitive task. The object of debating is not to win, but to find the truth, and by recording the debate; allow truth to propagate :)
@BloodGod60 I'm not sure why you thought I was "disparaging the purpose of philosophy", but I'm not. I totally agree that the purpose of philosophy is to critique and discuss ideas, but not to engage in ad hominem attacks, which if you read my original comment, that is what I was referring to. I'm all for criticizing ideas! It's the name calling and personal attacks that I think are ridiculous.
@JcbYoung While I get what you say, but Dinesh, from just about everythign I've seen, has a rather...inept argument in favor of his positions, religiously. I would of course never challenge him on POLITICAL knowledge, I'm sure he knows far more than I do, but when his arguments are of the same sort that's regularly debunked on a weekly public access channel...it's hard to take him seriously.
Truth is divisive, and mutually agreed upon segments of 'socially acceptable' teachings of religion does not ensure truth, nor does it convince of LONG-TERM harmony. It instead forces religious exposure on children, bypassing and undermining their parents, and gives diluted versions of it all. Till now, Dennet's giving a history of religion is at best irrelevant, and more likely a fallacious ploy attempting to show the absurdity of any one religion being true based upon sheer number and variety.
Dennet proposes that children be taught about all relgigins in school because he believes this will cause a decline in Christianity, which is the ultimate goal of atheists. Atheists don't much care about other religions, it's always Christianity they despise and wish to destroy.
@NephilimFree That is quite literally the dumbest thing I have ever read. Athiests do not believe in any god, regardless of what religion it is derived. We want children, and adults for that matter, to know of an alternative. This will advance our society. Believing archaic bull shit like religion only hinders us as a whole. Critical intelligent thinking will make that common knowledge to anyone with the ability to think in such a way. Perhaps you should do some "soul" searching.
@NephilimFree You're crazy. Atheists just reject claims in god, they don't necessarily hate anyone, by definition. I certainly don't hate Christians. However, how can you actually suggest that we limit our children's knowledge to one specific religion only? Why would you deny your child information about other religions? It looks like you feel threatened by notion of children having knowledge, and you took offense.
Awww, Nephy is still playing the victim card. Neph, the hatred directed towards you is because you're a reprehensible person, not because of your beliefs. You hit on women with your creepy stocking and BDSM fetishes -- including women half your age. And when you're called out on it, you scapegoat those women, most of whom are fellow Christians.
By the way, when are you suing Lef? If he forged the chat, what are you afraid of? Your legal threats are as impotent as your manhood.
I'm athiest, but for some reason, listening to Dennett talk makes me cringe. He has some really good ideas, but anytime I hear him giving a speech he sounds confused and unorganized.
@jordaniac89 on the contrary he knows exactly what he wants to say. he's just careful in how he says it and takes his own sweet time in saying it. always having the right slide the push of a button away.
@Seigu007 See previous comment, Testing truth claims is releatively easy.
This has worked for every other subject, the evidence and reason to believe any of the current god theory's is null or very poor.
the evidence for unicorns is also very poor. If you want to believe things on faith or on emotional whim then go for it. if you wanna talk about the truth of reality as we far as we as a species knows...then the "God exists and created everything" theory is a non starter.
@krizzia1000 heya fuckwit, are you going from video to video spamming your crappy fundamentalist website? good job bro, way to do gods work, going around annoying people with stupid rhetoric nonsense.
Testing God? after millions of years of different God theorys we still have no more or less proof but it seems every generation of humans has a few fuckwits like you that claim it needs to be investigated more.
what has Xtianity done after 2000yrs on this earth>? fckn nufin
@shandcunt If you visit valtorta.org and read all the free readings at the left side of the site you will surely 101 percent sure that you will change your idea that there is no God. God is real and He is so good to the nth power. I would rather pray to the good Lord that He may grant you the grace to know Him thereby you will love Him. How many atheists have learned that there is God and change their ideas. God loves you so much!
@krizzia1000 I went to valtorta.org and read what you told me to. I still believe there is no god, that website offers zero addtional support. The percent of atheists who convert to a religion much less christianity is virtually zero. What a rediculous statement. Once you stop believing in fairy tales its hard to go back. Could you imagine believing that the earth is flat, despite what you have learned. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Religion is not falling off in the sense of members. Where it is failing is political influence. Where its failure is complete is in explanation of natural phenomena.
@beksinski Its failure is complete in the explanations of natural phenomena? Please enlighten me with scientific explanations as to how the universe came into existence, how life started on this planet, and how this planet has DNA which is too complex to have evolved in the amount of time that this planet has been around. Religion can answer those questions, while science has not, nor probably will ever be able to, answer them.
@AstronomyGuru1 In fact... the only change I see is an increase in the number of people putting their FAITH in a religion called science. As an "astronomy guru", you of all people should know how much faith it takes to believe that the universe put itself perfectly together, on its own, out of nothing.
@AstronomyGuru1 Religion is falling off? I'm sorry but this is an ignorant statement. Some ancient civilizations were polytheistic from the start and some were monotheistic and if you look today some cultures are polytheistic and some are monotheistic. Looks like it hasn't changed that much.
Dennets idea isn't a bad one I must say. It does allow people to easily weed out the major religion or major sects of core religions that they don't agree with. There are so many religions that it seems like it might be complex to decide which religions can be included. You can't study every religion thoroughly, but I think that his idea isn't a bad one. And the fact that this man doesn't articulate well doesn't mean anything as long as you understand his argument (Dennet obviously)
Delete religion? God is the one being get rid of here. We will be living in Hell. Hell is a place where there is no God. They think that God is the reason of all these evil. But they are being deceived. If there is no God there would be no earth. God has HIs own plan if you think you can fathom that with your own intelligence you cannot as you cannot fathom universe. KIndly visit valtorta.org God is speaking. You will know that God is love. Love makes the world beautiful.
@krizzia1000 As an English Lit. student I can merrily say the writing on that website is utter dogrel. Boring and badly written. If you want devotional literature, try John Donne.
What happened to Dinshes continuation from part 1? If your going to post a debate don't leave out rebuttal. Does anyone no where to get an unedited version of this debate?
@benthemiester If you watch Dennet talking about Teaching religion in home school in the 1st video you'll see its cut off. That discussion is continued on this 2nd video (its even on the same power point screen.) I think that the Dinesh clip at the end of the 1st video is just a video transfer error. I'll bet, if we pay attention, we will see that same Dinesh clip somewhere else in the debate
The reality is that issue of why the US has more violent crimes is much more complex than Dennett and his extremely lazy thinking and overly simplistic conclusions that flow from it would like to believe. The simple fact that, as I mentioned before, there's such a vast number of Christians in the US and that the overwhelming majority of them are non-violent (just like the majority of every 'other' group here in the US) runs contrary to his retarded conclusions.
Huis point was, morally and ethically, the religious have absolutely no monopoly on us non-religious, contrary to the 'retarded conclusions' made by many of the theists
Dennett's insinuation that Europe (or the UK -- whichever he was talking about) has less violent crimes and whatnot because it's more secular (I don't know about that, but that's beside the point) is idiotic. Even if that were true, what would it attest to? That religion = violence or that people with different perspectives on life tend not to get along? To the former, why are the high-10's of millions of Christians in the US (probably more) no more or less violent thantherestof the population?
@SPACKlick Exactly. That is why topics like this are very delicate matters. I just wonder how they mention a religion that most people probably never heard of (John Frum) over some more relevant ones (Judaism. At least it got a cameo when he was talking about Hinduism). Then again, it is good to point out some less well known religions rather than just ignore them. I only wonder why Judaism usually gets the butt end of the stick in these discussions.
No, no, no. You don't get it. - Science works because it rejects theoretical dogma. This kind of militant jack booted atheism is actually bad for scientists, and generates hostility. – You need to go read The Blake-Feyerabend Hypothesis, by that Aussie guy, Timb Hoswell. – He tears religion and this kind of pop science apart.
dinesh isbasically a nerdy indian guy who went to the US and is trying to fit in I think he thinks that the only way to do that is by going right wing and being a Christian. He makes fun of his country of origin, and probably thinks that he is superior to other indians by being a christian and son on and so forth. Pathetic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this mumbling stuttering idiot and his minions are among the dumbest human shits on the planet. clueless american peons with an opinion living in a free thinking society on the bedrock of christian values.
@Seigu007 Oh, so atheists should move country just because a few hundred years ago the country was established on Christian values? *rolls eyes patronisingly*
I think that Nirvana in hinduism would actually make it a different branch of religion. Mista DD makes some mistakes sometimes so it is possible that he did such a mistake.
@jacobins3000 probably mispoke. Try focusing on the argument itself. That has literally zero bearing on whether his arguments are valid. Basically you just made a red herring fallacy. Trying to change the subject.
Please explain the reasons you believe him to be a genius. I have watched hours of dinesh when he debates against Hitchens and Dennett and it appears that he is outclassed.
Perhaps he is pretty good at biased interpretation but his arguments can be dissected by any intellectual able to see beyond the bias.
@Caeis I would have to say I am biased but I originally started from a neutral position. I didn't know who Hitchens, Dennett, and Dinesh were but after hearing their arguments, I was forced to choose sides. If I ignored the arguments and evidence, perhaps I could have maintained my original position but how can any rational human being turn off their mind.
Listen closely to their arguments. Any thiest arguments are arguments of evidence that support the thiest's holy book's assertions.
@Caeis con't.... A science argument is what can we deduce from the evidence.
Thiests have the methodlogy backwards. They ignore the evidence that proves their arguments are false and do not attempt to disprove or prove their arguments with experiments. It is impossible to the thiest argument that one can consider that they could be wrong. Science is founded in that assumption. Science does not work without assuming that everything could be wrong and must be tested and verified.
@Caeis con't... In conclusion, I would never ask anyone to care or believe my opinion. However, I assert that everyone should approach these questions with an open yet skeptical mind. Find your answers but getting your hands dirty with ALL the evidence, not just some evidence that may fit one argument (any scientific or theological). Only when you have all the evidence and facts should anyone start drawing conclusions AND EVEN THEN not accept it as the TRUTH but only asthe BEST UNDERSTANDING.
I would hope that my children would learn about all sorts of religions. Teaching just one and telling them that it's the only one seems almost abusive to me...you need to create a nurturing and loving environment where your child can learn and explore. How can I know that my child is Christian or Muslim or whatnot when he/she is only 6 or 7 years old?
The point of teaching your child just one religion is because you believe that one to be true. Would you teach your child that the earth could be round, but it could be also flat, or even a cube!? No, you would say, "some people might think the earth is flat, but we know that the earth is round." You teach him this because you believe it to be true.
The difference in your analogy, is that you can prove to your child the earth is round with facts. You can't prove to him your religion is true, you can only say you believe its true, but have no facts to support it.
@shady4life1991 You say we cannot prove our religion but more so with other truth about the earth which are not yet discovered. After million years the not true now will be true after million years. But God is real because I have tested and its true. I have prayed and I have answered by a good God. Have you ever tried to test God if He is real? Or you have judged already that He is not real therefore you throw all the possibility that He is real. God is speaking please visit valtorta.org.
@krizzia100 That WHOLE comment was just like white noise for me. You gave NO explanation for your god becuase there isn't one. Once you realize you have no good argument for your god, you'll realize why I don't accept it as real or any other god claim for that matter. Gods are born from the fear of the unknown, the darkness of the human experience, and the illusory necessity of a father figure or big brother. However comforting a god may be to some, the truth will always be god is imaginary.
Dennett wastes his time with all these random obscure facts about the world's religions throughout his opening. The topic is "Is God a Human Religion", and Dennett almost doesn't touch on this. Pretty pitiful.
He mentioned at the start of there being two topics. Those obscure facts were actually quite important, and I found it to be quite interesting and worth being noted.
His random facts may be interesting, but that doesn't make them relevant. This was supposed to be a debate about whether or not God is a human invention, not a lecture on world religions. Dennett wasted some good time with his opening speech, time he could have used to disprove God instead of blathering about John Frum, Ali and the Tree of Life (I mean, seriously, what the hell?). Say what you will about D'Souza, but at least he doesnt prance around the issue, like Dennett does.
I think it's pretty obvious that his "random facts" illustrate that God has been independantly invented, in rather colorful ways, all over the earth and throughout time. Does that not at all help prove that God is simply a figment of consciousness, therefore being "man-made."
He could have illustrated this point in a one-slide powerpoint in 30 seconds. Instead, he spends several precious minutes going over irrelevant and random minutiae from Ali to Ganesh to the freaking Tree of Life. Why did he waste so much time on this, he's a professor for crying out loud. An 8 year old could have pointed out these similarities, and it's not like the religionists deny them when they are so objective. Dennett should have made better arguments to disprove God.
Dennett is absolutely wise to propose teaching of 'non-toxic' versions of world religions (tenets in brief) to kids in ALL schools and in home schooling. World peace rests on inter-faith amity, and such a step will be a great step forward. Christian and Islam clerics being largely intolerant and aggressive with fanatic notion that theirs is the ONLY true religion,this idea may face some obstruction. My other comments are in reply to heart4moocows.
Dennett may not be mistaken in there: Nirvana and Moksha are both known in Hinduism. See Chapter II of Bhagavad Gita, traditionally believed to be the quintessential Vedas, for the reference to Nirvaana. Buddhism does not include Moksha in its tenets. Concepts of Nirvana in Hinduism and Buddhism have some hair splitting differences.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
dennett doesn't understand the religious mind. There is no way I would approve of teaching my kids about other religions except to teach my kids how bad and wrong those religions are, thats when I was a christian, a devout believer. religious people will agree to keep peace, but they believe their religion is TRUE, not a personal belief.
He understands the religious mind. He knows that it is illogical and closed. That is what he wants to change. No matter how sure you are that your way is the truth, there are about a billion others out there that feel the same about their own god, and you have just as much solid evidence as them- NONE. You are afraid of your kids having an objective opinion and it's as simple as that. My daughter is in a Catholic school just so she can get a feel for what religion is. She also believes in Santa.
"He knows that it is illogical and closed" , and if he knew that really, he wouldn't even bother trying to sell this idea and thinking that it will have some real effect.
I know it's not a very realistic idea, but perhaps if it started in the Netherlands or another extremely secular country it could catch on. At the very least, its implementation in at least one school system is bound to raise public awareness and that could end up freeing some minds.
Forgive me for reading your post wrong by the way. I know exactly what you mean with regard to devoted religious certainty as I went to both Lutheran and Catholic schools growing up.
LOL. I dont even know what the hell 'secular' is even meant to mean anymore. I live in Australia, its known to be secular, but yet its wall to wall theist.. Secular just means we allow all religions. which is at least not theocracy.
And when it comes to moderates. I doubt any religious person can really be called a moderate. If asked to compromise their religion, they will fight to death also. lol
Your first sentence wasn't exactly necessary...you have to admit that your original comment didn't exactly imply that was your stance.
But that aside, I do agree, and I can see how a comparative religion class could be dramatically twisted if the teacher had a bias or religion themselves.
Having taken comparative religion classes in Europe (where the curriculum was very fairly taught), I suppose I'm assuming that it would be the same here.
But hey, my posiiton is that religion is terrible. I dont want my kids to learn that its a case of each to their own. because religions are not truly about that anyway. And world view is important. My feelings are that any religious class usually is going to be run by a religious person (odds are), and they will still get across their particular slant, even if its the 'believe what ever you life' slant
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
OK it appears that by requiring 4th R he wants to "prove" that people are idiots and, therefore, must make up gods for some unexplained reason... and therefore the really smart ones become athiests... Dennett actually wants to take our children at an early age and force atheism down their throats... afterall, we parents don't really have the authority or responsibility to teach them any sort of truth. Dennett is dangerous
Not really. The truth or falsehood of the religions would not be taught. Which one is true? What 'truth' would you have us teach our children? Which religion is fact? How do you know? ... or is it faith? Nowhere is it mentioned that Dennett would force atheism on anybody. Teaching every religion without assertion of which is correct, might actually equip children to choose for themselves. Do you fear that they might choose something other than what you have chosen for yourself?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't trust Dennett, simply because of his verbage and his examples in this debate. The Chinese have "freedom of religion" (as long as it abides by their strict laws) and they tightly control religion education to minors. I fear THIS type of control is Dennett's adgenda. People of ALL faiths should have red flags popping us all over the place when listening to this character.
I've known about Dennett for a while and I've read a couple of his books. He certainly does not want to dispense with American freedom of religion. He has never said anything to that effect. It's not like he would have the power to do anything of the sort even if he wanted to, which I assure you he does not. I think as far as teaching religion in our science classes (creationism) goes, pretty much any scientist or rational thinker would be against that... or teaching religion as if it were true.
I'm sorry, but it is the religious who have schools where only one type of religion is taught? Correct? He is arguing against that type of tight control and towards more education of all world religions. Children don't know what you don't teach them. It's time that religions end their "tightly control[led] religio[us] education to minors." He does think your faith is irrational though, but then again, so do the majority of top scientists and philosophers. So its no surprise Dennett does too.
This is actually a pretty nice proposal, I've also thought that a way to diffuse the creationism debate was to just have religion courses in school; it allows for nonreligious to have an objective concept of religion, and for the religious to have their time in the sun.
Your concept of logic is turned around. When someone presents a story, biblical or otherwise, the default position is that it's a fairy tale. If *you* want to convince *me* that it's a true story....that burden is entirely yours to bear.
When did biblical messages become fairy tales? All i am asking is that you say its a fairy tale, but on what grounds? what proof? What absolute proof do you have tht God does not exist? DO you believe in absolute truth?
That depends what you mean by "biblical messages". If you mean that they are allegorical tales with a message about life...I can accept that.
If you mean that they are true historical events in every detail, then *you* are the one who bears the burden of support.
I don't need any grounds to reject unsupported claims.
Oh, and the bit about "absolute truth". I believe that there is an objective universe, and that we humans can only perceive it crudely, and approximately.
He still makes the assumption that god exists. The only evidence that we have for such existence is revelation and testimony. That evidence just does not cut it.
There are no independant accounts which support the events depicted in the bible. Perhaps some of the people existed, but we can reject all of the supernatural claims out of hand, as we would reject the supernatural claims of other myth stories.
They assume the existence of god without evidence and they cherry-pick the data theat they believe supports their claims.
I would like to see, just once, a creationist construct an experiment that had the potential of falsifying the creationist hypothesis. Tests of evolutionary theory always have the potential to falsify the claims of evolutionary theory. It always seems to pass the test.
you clearly dont know Hugh Ross. his entire creation model is built on tests that he has devoloped - tests that his colleages (non-theist or theists) believe are worthy tests to conduct. some of his stuff i think is even peer reviewed. so PLZ go learn about Hugh Ross (and creationism as well), or at least be more specific instead of repeating urself..
and if u want an "experiment that had the potential of falsifying the creationist hypothesis" read the adpendixes of Creation as Science - its notthing but tests and predictions..
.. and u didnt even tell me why u think "Who was Adam" is nonsense. Dont tell me u assumed it to be nonsense without having seen it.. it would be typical though lol
Also, I just watched a video in which Hugh Ross stated that "science" claims that intelligent life is only possible on earth, and nowhere else. This is completely false, the best that can be claimed is that intelligence seems unlikely.
Hugh Ross seems to simply be another creatard who does not, or will not take the time to understand what scientists actually claim.
Youre the one making the claim that a god exists and that the bible is the truth. So you need to back it up with evidence, but you cant, we all know that. So we call it fairy tales, based on that.
So, you are saying that you can claim anything that you like, and it must be accepted by others as true unless it is shown to be untrue?
That means that I can claim that no god[s] exist. I can claim that the human soul never survives the death of the brain. It is now incumbent on you to accept my claims as true, or provide me with evidence that *I would find compelling* which invalidate my claims.
You must be remarkably retarded to say that, or you have a pencil stuck in your brain somewhere, misdirecting your logical thought processes. Hey, I am going to claim that there is a planet 1 million light yrs from earth where the most advanced life forms are apes, and they've developed a means for interstellar travel. Now, because i claimed this, it is true, and if you think it's not true, you have to disprove it.
@kshackleton - I am glad you brought that up. I am so tired of people assuming that the theories of evolution in regards to the creation of life on this planet are scientific when in reality they are nothing more than fairy tales.
There is no such animal as a "theory of evolution in regards to the creation of life". The ideas about the origin of life fall under the banner of abiogenesis. I have read several hypotheses, but nobody, at least in scientific circles, has made any claim that they know how it happened.
DO you have any reason to believe the earth is round? I mean do YOU have any facts? why don't we just fall off? and don't BS me with some "gravity" video.
at the end of Part 1 Danesh had started to talk, the beginning of his opening statement. Now Part 2 starts with Dennett speaking. What happened to Danesh's opening?
Simply an editing problem. The format is that each is to be given 25 minutes for openning statements. Dennett hadn't spoken for hardly 5 minutes when the cuts came. Just ignore the very end of part 1. Part 2 continues with Dennett's 25 minutes of openning.
Out of all Protestants, he focuses on Mormonism, knowing that it is the easiest to discredit. Cheapshot to all Protestants. Why not bring up Lutheranism, God forbid everyone learn to read! Also, why not discuss the Christian movement to abolish slavery? The truth is that the anti Christian movement is none other than the anti-white movement. I've never heard someone insult a black Christian like Martin Luther the King! Isn't he a brainwashed fool like the other whites?...oh wait, he's black
Christopher Hitchens, in his "God Is Not Great" supports the American civil rights movement of the 1960s. He also, however, strongly criticizes Dr. King for his religious beliefs, pointing out that his religiously inspired quest for African-American rights caused the groundbreaking work of several Black, atheist, often communist civil rights pioneers to be ignored. Hitchens is certainly not anti-Black, but he is anti-religion, and doesn't spare King in his criticisms of faith.
u must read this. once u have started there is no turning back. a little 10 year old girl was raped and murderded in 1945. her body was not found until 1947. then a boy last week read this and did not copy and paste this message. the dead girl appeared in his room haunting him and killed him. if you do not copy and paste this onto 10 vidoes in 30 minutes the dead girl will apear in your room tonight and haunt you and kill you. well you
this is a chess match --- right now Reason has made a countermove. Religion is in check. They can't refuse this proposal; but if they agree with this they lose 99% of the leverage on young people and set themselves up for extinction. Well done Dan!
"Both denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) believe Jesus is the "messiah", the Son of God. How do you justify your statement?"
Mormons believe Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of the the hevenly Father and a heavenly mother. They believe He is our elder brother and not our Messiah. They also believe Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, who became the devil. These along with a lot of other false beliefs are in direct contradiction with the person of Jesus and who He said He was.
Christianity concedes that all religions, including Atheism, are man made. What is the point of this debate? To prove something that both atheists and theists agree with?
Pray do tell than...what the hell is it if not a religion...it certainly isn't science because there are scientists who are theists. It is indeed a religion based on 'Seinfeldism' a religion about nothing!
Religion is definded: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Faith is defined: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Darwinists are a group of people who believe in a cause, principle, or system of beliefs(e.g. evolution) held to with ardor and faith and have a firm belief in something for which there is no proof(e.g. evolution). Even Darwin himself was troubled by the lack of evidence.
Atheism is lack of belief in any God. It is not the opposite of religion. Interestingly, Buddhists, by definition, are atheists because they do not believe in any God.
Atheism is a system of philisophical belief which renounces the idea of an intelligent, omnipotent entity as the creator of existence. It is not a religion, just a system of belief. Much the same way as being Republican or Vegetarian (in some cases) is.
And SH1PIT we're discussing atheism here, not Darwinism. Back on topic, mate.
""Both denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) believe Jesus is the "messiah", the Son of God. How do you justify your statement?""
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is God's first creation the archangel Michael and denies his physical resurrection. They also believe there are two classes of people that will be saved by good works. Each class will gain a different salvation and there are only 144,000 people will be permitted into heaven. Again, these claims contradict Jesus' claims
"Atheism is lack of belief in any God. It is not the opposite of religion."
You're right atheism is not a religion just as theism is not a religion. One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs, is usually a firm believer in another set of beliefs.-- Phillip Johnson Naturalism, Darwinism or Evolutionism is the religion of atheists not atheism per se.. You're right, Buddhists are atheists.
It amuses me to see the comments from people who are sitting at home on their computer calling two accomplished authors debating at a distinguished university "stupid" or "idiots". It's a kin to the overweight guy sitting at home in his recliner watching football, calling the quarterback a bum who can't play.
JcbYoung 4 months ago
@JcbYoung I hope you see you're disparaging the purpose of philosophy, when you imply that philosophical concepts should not be discussed / critiqued by the wider community. I find it doubtful this debate would ever have happened if D'Souza and Dennett weren't willing to have strangers judge them for their ideas. Philosophy should not be compared with a sport or competitive task. The object of debating is not to win, but to find the truth, and by recording the debate; allow truth to propagate :)
BloodGod60 2 months ago
@BloodGod60 I'm not sure why you thought I was "disparaging the purpose of philosophy", but I'm not. I totally agree that the purpose of philosophy is to critique and discuss ideas, but not to engage in ad hominem attacks, which if you read my original comment, that is what I was referring to. I'm all for criticizing ideas! It's the name calling and personal attacks that I think are ridiculous.
JcbYoung 2 months ago
@JcbYoung While I get what you say, but Dinesh, from just about everythign I've seen, has a rather...inept argument in favor of his positions, religiously. I would of course never challenge him on POLITICAL knowledge, I'm sure he knows far more than I do, but when his arguments are of the same sort that's regularly debunked on a weekly public access channel...it's hard to take him seriously.
BigLundi 2 months ago
The John Frum thing was mentioned by Richard Dawkins too I think (in his book).
AraGuitar 5 months ago
Angel Moroni , the Angel of Morons...
Morclaw 5 months ago
Truth is divisive, and mutually agreed upon segments of 'socially acceptable' teachings of religion does not ensure truth, nor does it convince of LONG-TERM harmony. It instead forces religious exposure on children, bypassing and undermining their parents, and gives diluted versions of it all. Till now, Dennet's giving a history of religion is at best irrelevant, and more likely a fallacious ploy attempting to show the absurdity of any one religion being true based upon sheer number and variety.
poprockssuck87 7 months ago
Ha. John frum. Maybe our ancient religions saw aliens.
tatsumakisempyukaku 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Would it be unethical to change your name to John Frum, take an airplane with supplies, go to Tanna and steal the show?
Jerrez 8 months ago
Comment removed
Jerrez 8 months ago
Comment removed
Jerrez 8 months ago
Comment removed
Jerrez 8 months ago
Dennet proposes that children be taught about all relgigins in school because he believes this will cause a decline in Christianity, which is the ultimate goal of atheists. Atheists don't much care about other religions, it's always Christianity they despise and wish to destroy.
NephilimFree 8 months ago
@NephilimFree That is quite literally the dumbest thing I have ever read. Athiests do not believe in any god, regardless of what religion it is derived. We want children, and adults for that matter, to know of an alternative. This will advance our society. Believing archaic bull shit like religion only hinders us as a whole. Critical intelligent thinking will make that common knowledge to anyone with the ability to think in such a way. Perhaps you should do some "soul" searching.
SiNFEELIT 7 months ago
No, its just that christianity is a bigger threat inside America, but Islam is more dangerous outside America.
Also aren't you the one who got busted by thunderfoot going to escort and porn sites on your favorites.
justinsgil185 7 months ago
@justinsgil185 In your head only.
NephilimFree 7 months ago
No, no I saw the video that was you.
justinsgil185 7 months ago
@NephilimFree You're crazy. Atheists just reject claims in god, they don't necessarily hate anyone, by definition. I certainly don't hate Christians. However, how can you actually suggest that we limit our children's knowledge to one specific religion only? Why would you deny your child information about other religions? It looks like you feel threatened by notion of children having knowledge, and you took offense.
wownov83 6 months ago
@wownov83 Other religions prove themselves true with mountains of evidence and personal experience with God? LOL!
Bye bye.
NephilimFree 6 months ago
@NephilimFree Did you respond to the wrong person? What are you saying?
wownov83 6 months ago
@NephilimFree
Awww, Nephy is still playing the victim card. Neph, the hatred directed towards you is because you're a reprehensible person, not because of your beliefs. You hit on women with your creepy stocking and BDSM fetishes -- including women half your age. And when you're called out on it, you scapegoat those women, most of whom are fellow Christians.
By the way, when are you suing Lef? If he forged the chat, what are you afraid of? Your legal threats are as impotent as your manhood.
kafkaOTS 6 months ago
@kafkaOTS Neph is all words no action talk talk talk and leach of of Sharon
Toudiyama 6 months ago
@NephilimFree Religions prove themselves true with mountains of evidence and experience with what they think is god? LOL indeed
Toudiyama 6 months ago
that "John Frum" business is really sad.
hardinmichael1981 8 months ago
I'm athiest, but for some reason, listening to Dennett talk makes me cringe. He has some really good ideas, but anytime I hear him giving a speech he sounds confused and unorganized.
jordaniac89 9 months ago
@jordaniac89 on the contrary he knows exactly what he wants to say. he's just careful in how he says it and takes his own sweet time in saying it. always having the right slide the push of a button away.
hardinmichael1981 8 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 Archie Bunker: "Faith Meathead, is when you believe something that no onee in their right mind would believe."
sgtcrab1 9 months ago
@Seigu007 See previous comment, Testing truth claims is releatively easy.
This has worked for every other subject, the evidence and reason to believe any of the current god theory's is null or very poor.
the evidence for unicorns is also very poor. If you want to believe things on faith or on emotional whim then go for it. if you wanna talk about the truth of reality as we far as we as a species knows...then the "God exists and created everything" theory is a non starter.
shandcunt 10 months ago
Dan, please do something with your annoying ah ah ah ah speech, this from someone who agrees with you.
fidenful 10 months ago
@krizzia1000 heya fuckwit, are you going from video to video spamming your crappy fundamentalist website? good job bro, way to do gods work, going around annoying people with stupid rhetoric nonsense.
Testing God? after millions of years of different God theorys we still have no more or less proof but it seems every generation of humans has a few fuckwits like you that claim it needs to be investigated more.
what has Xtianity done after 2000yrs on this earth>? fckn nufin
shandcunt 10 months ago
@shandcunt no god? really? how do u know fuckwit? youre a loser
Seigu007 10 months ago
@shandcunt If you visit valtorta.org and read all the free readings at the left side of the site you will surely 101 percent sure that you will change your idea that there is no God. God is real and He is so good to the nth power. I would rather pray to the good Lord that He may grant you the grace to know Him thereby you will love Him. How many atheists have learned that there is God and change their ideas. God loves you so much!
krizzia1000 9 months ago
@krizzia1000 where is your evidence of god?
hnbsniper 9 months ago
@krizzia1000 I went to valtorta.org and read what you told me to. I still believe there is no god, that website offers zero addtional support. The percent of atheists who convert to a religion much less christianity is virtually zero. What a rediculous statement. Once you stop believing in fairy tales its hard to go back. Could you imagine believing that the earth is flat, despite what you have learned. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
MrKGatl 8 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 What is your definition of rationality?
I believe that the God of the Christian Bible created the universe. How do you think the universe came to be?
rugermeister380 10 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 I will go with the definition that faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
rugermeister380 10 months ago
Religion is not falling off in the sense of members. Where it is failing is political influence. Where its failure is complete is in explanation of natural phenomena.
beksinski 11 months ago
@beksinski Its failure is complete in the explanations of natural phenomena? Please enlighten me with scientific explanations as to how the universe came into existence, how life started on this planet, and how this planet has DNA which is too complex to have evolved in the amount of time that this planet has been around. Religion can answer those questions, while science has not, nor probably will ever be able to, answer them.
rugermeister380 10 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 In fact... the only change I see is an increase in the number of people putting their FAITH in a religion called science. As an "astronomy guru", you of all people should know how much faith it takes to believe that the universe put itself perfectly together, on its own, out of nothing.
rugermeister380 11 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 Religion is falling off? I'm sorry but this is an ignorant statement. Some ancient civilizations were polytheistic from the start and some were monotheistic and if you look today some cultures are polytheistic and some are monotheistic. Looks like it hasn't changed that much.
rugermeister380 11 months ago
Uh, why is Dinesh' opening statement missing?
njdeputter 11 months ago
@njdeputter It's at the end of the previous video. It got cut up wrong I guess.
WNxFish 11 months ago
I wasn't getting that vibe from Dennett. I doubt he was any more nervous of Dinesh than the usual opponent. I could be wrong though.
ndvak13 11 months ago
Dennett sounds really nervous...as well he should be facing a formidable opponent.
buitrami 11 months ago
John Frum!!! Fuck yeah im converting!!!!!! XD
funnystarchild 1 year ago 9
Dennets idea isn't a bad one I must say. It does allow people to easily weed out the major religion or major sects of core religions that they don't agree with. There are so many religions that it seems like it might be complex to decide which religions can be included. You can't study every religion thoroughly, but I think that his idea isn't a bad one. And the fact that this man doesn't articulate well doesn't mean anything as long as you understand his argument (Dennet obviously)
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
Hail Cargo!
All Hail John Frum!!
Over and out!!!
Mallaclllypse 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
She is my sister and become naughty benaughtyman.info
sadamalihansika 1 year ago
Why should children spend time learning religion---it is time that could go toward teaching science?
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
Mr. Dennet may be a very smart person, but he is a terrible speaker...
Mr. D´Souza is the other way around...
dietermauer 1 year ago
Delete religion? God is the one being get rid of here. We will be living in Hell. Hell is a place where there is no God. They think that God is the reason of all these evil. But they are being deceived. If there is no God there would be no earth. God has HIs own plan if you think you can fathom that with your own intelligence you cannot as you cannot fathom universe. KIndly visit valtorta.org God is speaking. You will know that God is love. Love makes the world beautiful.
krizzia1000 1 year ago
@krizzia1000 As an English Lit. student I can merrily say the writing on that website is utter dogrel. Boring and badly written. If you want devotional literature, try John Donne.
juikm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exodus 21:17, KJV:"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Daniel Dennett, mumbling, stuttering pointless drivel.
Seigu007 1 year ago
What happened to Dinshes continuation from part 1? If your going to post a debate don't leave out rebuttal. Does anyone no where to get an unedited version of this debate?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester If you watch Dennet talking about Teaching religion in home school in the 1st video you'll see its cut off. That discussion is continued on this 2nd video (its even on the same power point screen.) I think that the Dinesh clip at the end of the 1st video is just a video transfer error. I'll bet, if we pay attention, we will see that same Dinesh clip somewhere else in the debate
filorps 1 year ago
"this is what mormons believe". was i the only person who then went 'dum dum dum dum dum'
southsydney 1 year ago
The reality is that issue of why the US has more violent crimes is much more complex than Dennett and his extremely lazy thinking and overly simplistic conclusions that flow from it would like to believe. The simple fact that, as I mentioned before, there's such a vast number of Christians in the US and that the overwhelming majority of them are non-violent (just like the majority of every 'other' group here in the US) runs contrary to his retarded conclusions.
regresseur 1 year ago
@regresseur
Huis point was, morally and ethically, the religious have absolutely no monopoly on us non-religious, contrary to the 'retarded conclusions' made by many of the theists
freshhh1994 1 year ago
@regresseur
lol U called dan dennet retardrd.
you're retarded,LOL.
freshhh1994 1 year ago
Dennett's insinuation that Europe (or the UK -- whichever he was talking about) has less violent crimes and whatnot because it's more secular (I don't know about that, but that's beside the point) is idiotic. Even if that were true, what would it attest to? That religion = violence or that people with different perspectives on life tend not to get along? To the former, why are the high-10's of millions of Christians in the US (probably more) no more or less violent thantherestof the population?
regresseur 1 year ago
GRRRR, he passed up Judaism. I am now angry...
OyVey666 1 year ago
@OyVey666 This is the problem with this, there is not enough time to teach children about every religion, so how do you choose what to leave out?
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick Exactly. That is why topics like this are very delicate matters. I just wonder how they mention a religion that most people probably never heard of (John Frum) over some more relevant ones (Judaism. At least it got a cameo when he was talking about Hinduism). Then again, it is good to point out some less well known religions rather than just ignore them. I only wonder why Judaism usually gets the butt end of the stick in these discussions.
OyVey666 1 year ago
No, no, no. You don't get it. - Science works because it rejects theoretical dogma. This kind of militant jack booted atheism is actually bad for scientists, and generates hostility. – You need to go read The Blake-Feyerabend Hypothesis, by that Aussie guy, Timb Hoswell. – He tears religion and this kind of pop science apart.
CTY801CTY 1 year ago
with all his intelligence, if dinesh disouza couldnt conclude atheism as the only logical and rational outcome, he is an idiot
screenflicker1 1 year ago
dinesh isbasically a nerdy indian guy who went to the US and is trying to fit in I think he thinks that the only way to do that is by going right wing and being a Christian. He makes fun of his country of origin, and probably thinks that he is superior to other indians by being a christian and son on and so forth. Pathetic.
youngfart40 1 year ago
I'm joining the john frum religion hehehehehe
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
hmm i like dennett but he has totally avoided the proposition so far, i wonder here he is going with this?
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
He's heaping Dinesh into the deep sea of different religions that he, for the most part, has little knowledge of.
Dinesh is a conservative screamer, always has been. The dude was engaged to Laura Engram, if that helps shed light on his character.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 year ago
@MultiUniv3rsal
ha, yeah cheers we got there in the end!
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
I wish I went to Tufts so he could be my professor.
NinjaMatie 1 year ago
@NinjaMatie Why would you want to be indoctrinated into the church of breathing rocks?
camaroontree 1 year ago
Dennet, as usual, refuses to debate the decided upon issue and instead goes off on a tangent about something else.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this mumbling stuttering idiot and his minions are among the dumbest human shits on the planet. clueless american peons with an opinion living in a free thinking society on the bedrock of christian values.
Seigu007 1 year ago
@Seigu007 Oh, so atheists should move country just because a few hundred years ago the country was established on Christian values? *rolls eyes patronisingly*
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
@Alexdurrant7 im saying you should shoot yourself and get it over with. Ungreatful mother fuckers like you should move to Rawanda.
Seigu007 1 year ago
@Seigu007
You are behaving like a disgusting and selfish animal.
EdwardsComment 1 year ago
Jacobins I just did some cursory research and it appears some branches of Hinduism DO infact seek nirvana.
boorens18 1 year ago
And how many % of Hindus seek nirvana? Not even 1%.
Karma and Reincarnation is what has been taught for almost 2500 years in Hinduism.
Before that there was a concept of afterlife.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
I think that Nirvana in hinduism would actually make it a different branch of religion. Mista DD makes some mistakes sometimes so it is possible that he did such a mistake.
snofthndr 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did Dennett say that Hindus seek after nirvana?
I think he needs some religious education himself.
jacobins3000 2 years ago
@jacobins3000 probably mispoke. Try focusing on the argument itself. That has literally zero bearing on whether his arguments are valid. Basically you just made a red herring fallacy. Trying to change the subject.
boorens18 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dinesh D'Souza came to my church that guy is a genius
pizza123abc 2 years ago
Please explain the reasons you believe him to be a genius. I have watched hours of dinesh when he debates against Hitchens and Dennett and it appears that he is outclassed.
Perhaps he is pretty good at biased interpretation but his arguments can be dissected by any intellectual able to see beyond the bias.
BigDiamondCutter 2 years ago
Your statement there is just as biased as you claim him to be. Therefore, why should we care what you say?
Caeis 2 years ago
@Caeis I would have to say I am biased but I originally started from a neutral position. I didn't know who Hitchens, Dennett, and Dinesh were but after hearing their arguments, I was forced to choose sides. If I ignored the arguments and evidence, perhaps I could have maintained my original position but how can any rational human being turn off their mind.
Listen closely to their arguments. Any thiest arguments are arguments of evidence that support the thiest's holy book's assertions.
BigDiamondCutter 1 year ago
@Caeis con't.... A science argument is what can we deduce from the evidence.
Thiests have the methodlogy backwards. They ignore the evidence that proves their arguments are false and do not attempt to disprove or prove their arguments with experiments. It is impossible to the thiest argument that one can consider that they could be wrong. Science is founded in that assumption. Science does not work without assuming that everything could be wrong and must be tested and verified.
BigDiamondCutter 1 year ago
@Caeis con't... In conclusion, I would never ask anyone to care or believe my opinion. However, I assert that everyone should approach these questions with an open yet skeptical mind. Find your answers but getting your hands dirty with ALL the evidence, not just some evidence that may fit one argument (any scientific or theological). Only when you have all the evidence and facts should anyone start drawing conclusions AND EVEN THEN not accept it as the TRUTH but only asthe BEST UNDERSTANDING.
BigDiamondCutter 1 year ago
I would hope that my children would learn about all sorts of religions. Teaching just one and telling them that it's the only one seems almost abusive to me...you need to create a nurturing and loving environment where your child can learn and explore. How can I know that my child is Christian or Muslim or whatnot when he/she is only 6 or 7 years old?
LuxAurumque 2 years ago
The point of teaching your child just one religion is because you believe that one to be true. Would you teach your child that the earth could be round, but it could be also flat, or even a cube!? No, you would say, "some people might think the earth is flat, but we know that the earth is round." You teach him this because you believe it to be true.
saxydavis 2 years ago
@saxydavis
The difference in your analogy, is that you can prove to your child the earth is round with facts. You can't prove to him your religion is true, you can only say you believe its true, but have no facts to support it.
shady4life1991 2 years ago 8
@shady4life1991 You say we cannot prove our religion but more so with other truth about the earth which are not yet discovered. After million years the not true now will be true after million years. But God is real because I have tested and its true. I have prayed and I have answered by a good God. Have you ever tried to test God if He is real? Or you have judged already that He is not real therefore you throw all the possibility that He is real. God is speaking please visit valtorta.org.
krizzia1000 10 months ago
@krizzia100 That WHOLE comment was just like white noise for me. You gave NO explanation for your god becuase there isn't one. Once you realize you have no good argument for your god, you'll realize why I don't accept it as real or any other god claim for that matter. Gods are born from the fear of the unknown, the darkness of the human experience, and the illusory necessity of a father figure or big brother. However comforting a god may be to some, the truth will always be god is imaginary.
shady4life1991 10 months ago
belief does not = universal truth only biased internal reality. this is a trick of the mind.
stehoz87 2 years ago
How about a loving environment without religion at all?
rickenione 2 years ago
Dennett wastes his time with all these random obscure facts about the world's religions throughout his opening. The topic is "Is God a Human Religion", and Dennett almost doesn't touch on this. Pretty pitiful.
KajiCarson 2 years ago
He mentioned at the start of there being two topics. Those obscure facts were actually quite important, and I found it to be quite interesting and worth being noted.
Raherin 2 years ago
His random facts may be interesting, but that doesn't make them relevant. This was supposed to be a debate about whether or not God is a human invention, not a lecture on world religions. Dennett wasted some good time with his opening speech, time he could have used to disprove God instead of blathering about John Frum, Ali and the Tree of Life (I mean, seriously, what the hell?). Say what you will about D'Souza, but at least he doesnt prance around the issue, like Dennett does.
KajiCarson 2 years ago
I think it's pretty obvious that his "random facts" illustrate that God has been independantly invented, in rather colorful ways, all over the earth and throughout time. Does that not at all help prove that God is simply a figment of consciousness, therefore being "man-made."
KDH1288 2 years ago
He could have illustrated this point in a one-slide powerpoint in 30 seconds. Instead, he spends several precious minutes going over irrelevant and random minutiae from Ali to Ganesh to the freaking Tree of Life. Why did he waste so much time on this, he's a professor for crying out loud. An 8 year old could have pointed out these similarities, and it's not like the religionists deny them when they are so objective. Dennett should have made better arguments to disprove God.
KajiCarson 2 years ago
IRRELEVANT?!
The John Frum relegion should be enough .. yes.. but ALL of the facts (and yes, these are facts.. true events by humans) are relevant..
religion that doesn't survive toxic versions should simply not exist.. it's poison
Machimbombo 2 years ago
What's funny is, what cemented my non-belief the most is the Comparative Religion class.
StationaryTransient 2 years ago 6
Thats why Dennett's proposal makes a LOT of sense :) ... i wish it becomes true in the future
dravidanp 2 years ago
@StationaryTransient Bingo
Okami87 9 months ago
Dennett is absolutely wise to propose teaching of 'non-toxic' versions of world religions (tenets in brief) to kids in ALL schools and in home schooling. World peace rests on inter-faith amity, and such a step will be a great step forward. Christian and Islam clerics being largely intolerant and aggressive with fanatic notion that theirs is the ONLY true religion,this idea may face some obstruction. My other comments are in reply to heart4moocows.
MarjorieBakre 2 years ago
Dennett is mistaken about something. Nirvana is in Buddhism, not Hinduism. The Hindu equivalent is called Moksha.
heart4moocows 2 years ago
The two are generally considered to be equivalent.
manwaring 2 years ago
Dennett may not be mistaken in there: Nirvana and Moksha are both known in Hinduism. See Chapter II of Bhagavad Gita, traditionally believed to be the quintessential Vedas, for the reference to Nirvaana. Buddhism does not include Moksha in its tenets. Concepts of Nirvana in Hinduism and Buddhism have some hair splitting differences.
MarjorieBakre 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dennett doesn't understand the religious mind. There is no way I would approve of teaching my kids about other religions except to teach my kids how bad and wrong those religions are, thats when I was a christian, a devout believer. religious people will agree to keep peace, but they believe their religion is TRUE, not a personal belief.
cjunk351 2 years ago
He understands the religious mind. He knows that it is illogical and closed. That is what he wants to change. No matter how sure you are that your way is the truth, there are about a billion others out there that feel the same about their own god, and you have just as much solid evidence as them- NONE. You are afraid of your kids having an objective opinion and it's as simple as that. My daughter is in a Catholic school just so she can get a feel for what religion is. She also believes in Santa.
josephedwardperez 2 years ago 2
"He knows that it is illogical and closed" , and if he knew that really, he wouldn't even bother trying to sell this idea and thinking that it will have some real effect.
And for your information, I am atheist.
cjunk351 2 years ago
I know it's not a very realistic idea, but perhaps if it started in the Netherlands or another extremely secular country it could catch on. At the very least, its implementation in at least one school system is bound to raise public awareness and that could end up freeing some minds.
Forgive me for reading your post wrong by the way. I know exactly what you mean with regard to devoted religious certainty as I went to both Lutheran and Catholic schools growing up.
josephedwardperez 2 years ago
apology accepted. :)
LOL. I dont even know what the hell 'secular' is even meant to mean anymore. I live in Australia, its known to be secular, but yet its wall to wall theist.. Secular just means we allow all religions. which is at least not theocracy.
And when it comes to moderates. I doubt any religious person can really be called a moderate. If asked to compromise their religion, they will fight to death also. lol
cjunk351 2 years ago
"There is no way I would approve of teaching my kids about other religions"
Not a lot of confidence in the faith of your kids? Perhaps because there is no evidence to believe your religion is more accurate than other ones?
This is a very telling comment. Not much else to say. You've said all I could.
DJCeles 2 years ago 3
Fuck you. I have no religion. And i still dont want teachers (who are usually christians) teaching my kids their particular view of religion
cjunk351 2 years ago
Your first sentence wasn't exactly necessary...you have to admit that your original comment didn't exactly imply that was your stance.
But that aside, I do agree, and I can see how a comparative religion class could be dramatically twisted if the teacher had a bias or religion themselves.
Having taken comparative religion classes in Europe (where the curriculum was very fairly taught), I suppose I'm assuming that it would be the same here.
Probably not :(
DJCeles 2 years ago
sorry about the 'fuck you' my bad :(
But hey, my posiiton is that religion is terrible. I dont want my kids to learn that its a case of each to their own. because religions are not truly about that anyway. And world view is important. My feelings are that any religious class usually is going to be run by a religious person (odds are), and they will still get across their particular slant, even if its the 'believe what ever you life' slant
I think what we believe does matter
cjunk351 2 years ago
It's awesome he brought up the cargo cults. They're an interesting phenomenon. Simultaneously amusing, and tragic. :D
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
"amusing, and tragic. :D "
Perlustrate 2 years ago
LOL John Frum
baigandine 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OK it appears that by requiring 4th R he wants to "prove" that people are idiots and, therefore, must make up gods for some unexplained reason... and therefore the really smart ones become athiests... Dennett actually wants to take our children at an early age and force atheism down their throats... afterall, we parents don't really have the authority or responsibility to teach them any sort of truth. Dennett is dangerous
Amach74 2 years ago
Not really. The truth or falsehood of the religions would not be taught. Which one is true? What 'truth' would you have us teach our children? Which religion is fact? How do you know? ... or is it faith? Nowhere is it mentioned that Dennett would force atheism on anybody. Teaching every religion without assertion of which is correct, might actually equip children to choose for themselves. Do you fear that they might choose something other than what you have chosen for yourself?
noxidereus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't trust Dennett, simply because of his verbage and his examples in this debate. The Chinese have "freedom of religion" (as long as it abides by their strict laws) and they tightly control religion education to minors. I fear THIS type of control is Dennett's adgenda. People of ALL faiths should have red flags popping us all over the place when listening to this character.
Amach74 2 years ago
I've known about Dennett for a while and I've read a couple of his books. He certainly does not want to dispense with American freedom of religion. He has never said anything to that effect. It's not like he would have the power to do anything of the sort even if he wanted to, which I assure you he does not. I think as far as teaching religion in our science classes (creationism) goes, pretty much any scientist or rational thinker would be against that... or teaching religion as if it were true.
noxidereus 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but it is the religious who have schools where only one type of religion is taught? Correct? He is arguing against that type of tight control and towards more education of all world religions. Children don't know what you don't teach them. It's time that religions end their "tightly control[led] religio[us] education to minors." He does think your faith is irrational though, but then again, so do the majority of top scientists and philosophers. So its no surprise Dennett does too.
Darwin42ME 2 years ago 3
Haha, the title is alliterative...
azoriusherald 2 years ago 2
as a Catholic, Dennett makes some sense.
manofarms89 2 years ago
This is actually a pretty nice proposal, I've also thought that a way to diffuse the creationism debate was to just have religion courses in school; it allows for nonreligious to have an objective concept of religion, and for the religious to have their time in the sun.
pmentslenchanted 2 years ago
I like the idea as well.
Just as long as no religious fairy tales sneak into a science class.
TBlake34 2 years ago
He proposes that religion is taught in a special class on religious studies....not science.
It's ok to teach the fairy tales so long as no position is taken of their truth or falsity.
kshackleton 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fairy tales? DO you boys have any facts backing that up? I mean do YOU have any facts? Please don't point me to yet another atheistic video.
georigin 2 years ago
Your concept of logic is turned around. When someone presents a story, biblical or otherwise, the default position is that it's a fairy tale. If *you* want to convince *me* that it's a true story....that burden is entirely yours to bear.
Good luck with that.
kshackleton 2 years ago 46
When did biblical messages become fairy tales? All i am asking is that you say its a fairy tale, but on what grounds? what proof? What absolute proof do you have tht God does not exist? DO you believe in absolute truth?
georigin 2 years ago
That depends what you mean by "biblical messages". If you mean that they are allegorical tales with a message about life...I can accept that.
If you mean that they are true historical events in every detail, then *you* are the one who bears the burden of support.
I don't need any grounds to reject unsupported claims.
Oh, and the bit about "absolute truth". I believe that there is an objective universe, and that we humans can only perceive it crudely, and approximately.
kshackleton 2 years ago 17
@kshackleton
You want support? Check out the stuff by Hugh Ross on you tube and elsewhere, mate
Angmarr 1 year ago
@Angmarr
He still makes the assumption that god exists. The only evidence that we have for such existence is revelation and testimony. That evidence just does not cut it.
There are no independant accounts which support the events depicted in the bible. Perhaps some of the people existed, but we can reject all of the supernatural claims out of hand, as we would reject the supernatural claims of other myth stories.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
"There are no independant accounts which support the events depicted in the bible"
check "Who was Adam" on you tube
Angmarr 1 year ago
@Angmarr
More nonsense.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
Why
Angmarr 1 year ago
@Angmarr
They assume the existence of god without evidence and they cherry-pick the data theat they believe supports their claims.
I would like to see, just once, a creationist construct an experiment that had the potential of falsifying the creationist hypothesis. Tests of evolutionary theory always have the potential to falsify the claims of evolutionary theory. It always seems to pass the test.
Creationism? not so much.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton
you clearly dont know Hugh Ross. his entire creation model is built on tests that he has devoloped - tests that his colleages (non-theist or theists) believe are worthy tests to conduct. some of his stuff i think is even peer reviewed. so PLZ go learn about Hugh Ross (and creationism as well), or at least be more specific instead of repeating urself..
Angmarr 1 year ago
@kshackleton
and if u want an "experiment that had the potential of falsifying the creationist hypothesis" read the adpendixes of Creation as Science - its notthing but tests and predictions..
Angmarr 1 year ago
@Angmarr
.. and u didnt even tell me why u think "Who was Adam" is nonsense. Dont tell me u assumed it to be nonsense without having seen it.. it would be typical though lol
Angmarr 1 year ago
@Angmarr
Also, I just watched a video in which Hugh Ross stated that "science" claims that intelligent life is only possible on earth, and nowhere else. This is completely false, the best that can be claimed is that intelligence seems unlikely.
Hugh Ross seems to simply be another creatard who does not, or will not take the time to understand what scientists actually claim.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Youre the one making the claim that a god exists and that the bible is the truth. So you need to back it up with evidence, but you cant, we all know that. So we call it fairy tales, based on that.
numbcore 2 years ago
@kshackleton Actually the burden is on you to show that it is not true.
ZenMuadDib1 1 year ago
@ZenMuadDib1
So, you are saying that you can claim anything that you like, and it must be accepted by others as true unless it is shown to be untrue?
That means that I can claim that no god[s] exist. I can claim that the human soul never survives the death of the brain. It is now incumbent on you to accept my claims as true, or provide me with evidence that *I would find compelling* which invalidate my claims.
Thanks for that.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@ZenMuadDib1
You must be remarkably retarded to say that, or you have a pencil stuck in your brain somewhere, misdirecting your logical thought processes. Hey, I am going to claim that there is a planet 1 million light yrs from earth where the most advanced life forms are apes, and they've developed a means for interstellar travel. Now, because i claimed this, it is true, and if you think it's not true, you have to disprove it.
Mrmoc7 1 year ago
@kshackleton Spot on, sir.
FixedNewsChannel 1 year ago
@kshackleton - I am glad you brought that up. I am so tired of people assuming that the theories of evolution in regards to the creation of life on this planet are scientific when in reality they are nothing more than fairy tales.
rugermeister380 11 months ago
@rugermeister380
There is no such animal as a "theory of evolution in regards to the creation of life". The ideas about the origin of life fall under the banner of abiogenesis. I have read several hypotheses, but nobody, at least in scientific circles, has made any claim that they know how it happened.
kshackleton 11 months ago
DO you have any reason to believe the earth is round? I mean do YOU have any facts? why don't we just fall off? and don't BS me with some "gravity" video.
fhqwhgadz 2 years ago
Dennett's idea of teaching religion is the way its done in the UK...when i was in school anyway
blackchimp99 2 years ago
at the end of Part 1 Danesh had started to talk, the beginning of his opening statement. Now Part 2 starts with Dennett speaking. What happened to Danesh's opening?
NewDirection4us 2 years ago
Simply an editing problem. The format is that each is to be given 25 minutes for openning statements. Dennett hadn't spoken for hardly 5 minutes when the cuts came. Just ignore the very end of part 1. Part 2 continues with Dennett's 25 minutes of openning.
ofinterest2007 2 years ago 2
Out of all Protestants, he focuses on Mormonism, knowing that it is the easiest to discredit. Cheapshot to all Protestants. Why not bring up Lutheranism, God forbid everyone learn to read! Also, why not discuss the Christian movement to abolish slavery? The truth is that the anti Christian movement is none other than the anti-white movement. I've never heard someone insult a black Christian like Martin Luther the King! Isn't he a brainwashed fool like the other whites?...oh wait, he's black
shizaunilicious 2 years ago
Mormonism isn't any more stupid than Lutheranism. They are all equal parts bullshit (that is, 100%).
And when did the atheist movement become anti-white? Almost all famous atheists are white europeans...
Sandolainen 2 years ago
I believe christianity did more to promote slavery in the name of God than anything else did at the time!
william629 2 years ago
Christopher Hitchens, in his "God Is Not Great" supports the American civil rights movement of the 1960s. He also, however, strongly criticizes Dr. King for his religious beliefs, pointing out that his religiously inspired quest for African-American rights caused the groundbreaking work of several Black, atheist, often communist civil rights pioneers to be ignored. Hitchens is certainly not anti-Black, but he is anti-religion, and doesn't spare King in his criticisms of faith.
gfschudel 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
u must read this. once u have started there is no turning back. a little 10 year old girl was raped and murderded in 1945. her body was not found until 1947. then a boy last week read this and did not copy and paste this message. the dead girl appeared in his room haunting him and killed him. if you do not copy and paste this onto 10 vidoes in 30 minutes the dead girl will apear in your room tonight and haunt you and kill you. well you
really sorry to post this
Gandora 2 years ago
this is a chess match --- right now Reason has made a countermove. Religion is in check. They can't refuse this proposal; but if they agree with this they lose 99% of the leverage on young people and set themselves up for extinction. Well done Dan!
splendorfulguris 2 years ago
Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses are not Christians.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Both denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) believe Jesus is the "messiah", the Son of God. How do you justify your statement?
darqueniet 2 years ago
"Both denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) believe Jesus is the "messiah", the Son of God. How do you justify your statement?"
Mormons believe Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of the the hevenly Father and a heavenly mother. They believe He is our elder brother and not our Messiah. They also believe Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, who became the devil. These along with a lot of other false beliefs are in direct contradiction with the person of Jesus and who He said He was.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Christianity concedes that all religions, including Atheism, are man made. What is the point of this debate? To prove something that both atheists and theists agree with?
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Atheism is not a religion.
mark0205 2 years ago 2
Pray do tell than...what the hell is it if not a religion...it certainly isn't science because there are scientists who are theists. It is indeed a religion based on 'Seinfeldism' a religion about nothing!
camasta23m 2 years ago
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary,
Religion is definded: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Faith is defined: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Darwinists are a group of people who believe in a cause, principle, or system of beliefs(e.g. evolution) held to with ardor and faith and have a firm belief in something for which there is no proof(e.g. evolution). Even Darwin himself was troubled by the lack of evidence.
SH1PIT 2 years ago
Atheism is lack of belief in any God. It is not the opposite of religion. Interestingly, Buddhists, by definition, are atheists because they do not believe in any God.
Atheism is a system of philisophical belief which renounces the idea of an intelligent, omnipotent entity as the creator of existence. It is not a religion, just a system of belief. Much the same way as being Republican or Vegetarian (in some cases) is.
And SH1PIT we're discussing atheism here, not Darwinism. Back on topic, mate.
darqueniet 2 years ago
""Both denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) believe Jesus is the "messiah", the Son of God. How do you justify your statement?""
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is God's first creation the archangel Michael and denies his physical resurrection. They also believe there are two classes of people that will be saved by good works. Each class will gain a different salvation and there are only 144,000 people will be permitted into heaven. Again, these claims contradict Jesus' claims
SH1PIT 2 years ago
"Atheism is lack of belief in any God. It is not the opposite of religion."
You're right atheism is not a religion just as theism is not a religion. One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs, is usually a firm believer in another set of beliefs.-- Phillip Johnson Naturalism, Darwinism or Evolutionism is the religion of atheists not atheism per se.. You're right, Buddhists are atheists.
SH1PIT 2 years ago