I generally agree with Dan; but his point about how, "there shouldn't even be a debate if God's existence is so obvious," isn't really a good one. One could easily draw a parallel to creationists who debate against evolution.
It's important to notice that Barker concedes that he will change his mind if presented with the evidence, while D'Souza says his goal is only to disprove atheism. I think this clearly shows who is open minded and who is biased.
He does the dance of tautology and very bad semantics, the worst offence so far, speaking as a chemist, that scientific laws with man made laws. Such as misdirection.
"the experience of god, whether or not he is out there is as real a moral experiece as anything else that we can see in the world".hm... i think this remaind valid if you replace god with say... bugs bunny..
Your making claims that you do not support, Dan. How is omniscience and freewill mutually exclusive? God is all-knowing and exercises His will above all. Humans don't have freewill. If they did then this would contradict God's sovereignty.
Dan needs to learn the Constitution and what principles this country was founded on. The founders appeals to God in the Declaration of Independence. They assumed the moral principles that could only come from Christianity.
@YHWHisSovereign "How is omniscience and freewill mutually exclusive?" For the future to be knowable it have to be already determined. If the future is determined there are no true chooses. Thus making him utterly trapped and forced to carry out what ever the future is, unable to change it.
If it is even possible to know the future free will is an illusion.
@ybra He determined all things according to His own freewill. He could have chosen things to be different if He wanted. To suggest that His will isn't free anymore because He must do what He has determined, is absurd. How has He determined the future anyway, that is supposed to contradict freewill? By His freewill. So freewill contradicts freewill?
I'm trying to watch this debate again (I've seen it before) in its entirety, but I honestly don't think I'm gonna make it. D'Souza is just too difficult to watch/listen to.
In swedish we say what Dinesh is doing as "ordbajsa", hard to translate but it's something like "wordpooping". He's just talking so much but at the same time saying nothing.
Christian Fanatics are also idiots like the muslim fanatics. They simply fool people. They use the sceince which they ignored in the past. What the hell they are doing?
I think, when I listen to D'Souza my IQ goes down...
People are debating the existence of a god because of people like D'Souza; saying they have an imaginary friend name god who is all good (except for, in the bible, god is a homophobe, sexist, condones slavery, and a mass murder, of course).
No one is going around saying there are unicorns, and if you don't believe in this unicorn you are going to hell!
@Floridanon407 I'm not gonna try to describe what light is, my brother is a photonics engineer who has explained it to me in great detail, but I know I would butcher the explaination, use the wrong word, or do something else to botch your understanding. What I will say is that there's wave/ particle duality in light, and you can pretty much get away with calling it either in front of scientists, and they'll assume you know what's up.
Im Christian but I do agree with the last thing that Dan Barker said. Seperation of church and state is vital for both the church and the state. I would marched with any athiest in protests to try and get "In God we Trust" off of our money and God out of the pledge of allegiance
And again so typical of Christians: misinterpretation of an atheist's words. When Hitchens says "I'm an anti-theist" he no way means "I hate God". How COULD you hate something you don't even believe in? I've never seen an atheist being so dishonest (and there are more than enough atheist assholes)
D'Souza does a good job at defending something that cannot really be defended (because its demonstrably wrong). However there are many occasions when he resorts to straw man attacks and other somewhat intellectually dishonest tricks which indicate that maybe even he knows that he's wrong.
dinesh has obviously never read god is not great, the god delusion or the end of faith because he thinks they hate god. what an idiot someone put this child in time out
It's not true that we assume light travels everywhere at the same speed. In fact physicists say light changes speed where there is more mass in the universe. Mr Dinesh D'Souza has been misinformed. 0:45 seconds to 1:10
Im an atheist and the one thing Dan brings up always bothers me. That is the difference between Atheist and atheist. I don't believe there is a such thing as a capital A atheist. He says what these are also known as and personally I think that is what people should use. Those other terms (sub categories) are making a claim to something and thus are a belief. Mixing the two terms only leads to stereotyping.
i know it is difficult but we need, on BOTH sides to listen to what both men are saying and contemplate it, then decipher if it holds any validity. However, at the end of the day, as it has been so aptly put in the past, "for the believer there is more than enough evidence, for the nonbeliever there will never be enough."
I agree maybe there is a god ,but just because there is a god doesnt mean that god is found in any of the books of faith which says this is what god is, who god is & what god wants.
D'Souza is assuming that the god of his faith is the true god
he cant prove that his god is the so called creator which answers prayers etc.
there is no evidence the god of dogmas is a real god.
@xspettacolare The arguments for the existence of God and the arguments for the existence of the Christian God are indeed to be kept seperate. Once one establishes the existence of God, then one must ask the next inevitable question: Who is God? If youre up for some reading and have a strong intellect read Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler or easier reading The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
RIGHT there may be a god,but that doesnt mean what we think is god is god.
I dont believe god has anything to do with our lives.I dont believe in such a thing as gods will.
the question who is god? wehat is god? god is an idea; a concept. what people call god or think is god is really the higher self acting upon the lower self.
ive read alot about what god is & who is god etc for many years.
I have a theosophy education with a back ground in comparative faiths.
@xspettacolare if you wish to have email correspondance about this issue just reply to this and i will risk getting emailed by a thousand people by posting my email for you to see and speak with me. I would be more than happy to. U may be surprised to find out the evidence that exists for the Christian God.
I do not understand how you can say that he is a confused man when Barker has no way to explain his "lack of belief" in why God does not exist. He says that he knows that God doesnt exist yet he does not say how he knows that he is not real
You can tell Barker was a preacher, the 'Paul says' & "Jesus said' just rolls off his tongue so easy, he almost makes you think he's going to preach! Then he uses that same expertise to rip the whole thing to shreds. For a lifetime skeptic in religion like me, Barker is a 'gift from god'! lol
Dinesh holds his own and he does it well. Dan Barker is the one on the deference here. Stumbling over himself trying to rebut every statement that Dinesh utters. Plus Barker's arguments are typical. He mostly speaks off the top of his head.
@yegorletoff Not surprised, I guess, but always disappointed. I keep an open mind toward theist debaters, but usually after something that sounds like a logical beginning, they tend to slip into sermon mode, emotionally manipulating their audience while attacking their opponent with ad hominem barbs.
Why they are afforded any respect at all is a mystery.
I can't believe what I just heard. D'Souza just stole an atheist argument, almost word for word. Not only that, but he tried to attack Barker which, of course, makes no sense. You don't prove the opposition's point and then ask them to refute it.
I've noticed that D'Souza is referencing Hitchens a lot. Does he think by mentioning the man's name that stealing his argument is somehow less offensive?
I don't know how D'Souza has any credibility in academia. He is an embarrassment.
In what way do Christians "butt in" to our lives in this country? If this is about the definition of marriage or the "sanctity" of life regarding abortion I don't believe those are Christian problems so much as they are Humanistic problems. Homosexuality goes against evolution & so does abortion. Unless you abort "handicapped" babies, then it's an ethical issue of what type of persons life is valuable versus another.
Those matters are taken on solely for religious reasons, and not because of reason. Homosexuality has been studied in other species, so your claim of it being against evolution is factually incorrect. Whether it is an actual benefit or not is irrelevant, the fact is it occurs naturally and not just in humans. Creationism in schools is also a completely religious issue with religious zealots trying to interfere with scientific education. Stem cells are another issue, solely religious.
Just because something ocurrs in nature doesn't mean it benefits evolution. The concept of homosexuality is DETRIMENTAL to Evolution as it is defined as the propelling force for continuing a species. It has nothing to do with religion in the context of my argument. I'm saying "Religion" doesn't get "ownership" of the homosexual topic. They may be against if for thier own reasons. Think about the ISSUE & NOT whose taking the issue up.
Dinesh puts forward a weak and silly argument, that, despite not believing in Unicorns he is not compelled to write a book called "Unicorns are not great", therefore Dan Barker is part of an ulterior atheist movement and this is really all about hating God.
I don't remember any unicorns waging bloody crusades across this planet. The man just doesn't have an argument, only insults, shitty jokes, and head-fuck logic and obfuscation.
I think I'd enjoy punching his smug, chubby cheeks.
I difintely think Dinesh feels a bit slighted at having to debate Baker who is coming off as a mental midget. After taking on some of the most well thought out arguements of atheists made by some truly intelligent men, Dinesh shows his contempt for the lack of thoughtfulness shown by Baker.
What?? You obviously know nothing about Barker. He knows more about religion and the Bible than this Dinesh guy. Dinesh simply argues from emotion and circular logic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Barker knows someting about the bible...this is true...he is grounded in some evangelical literalist exegesis of the bible that is fringe in Christianity. Barkers knows no more about Catholicism or Bhuddism than any other layman. Dinesh specifically and intentionally avoids using scripture in his arguements in order to form them from reason and logic...and certainly NOT emotionalism or sentimentality. Are you not paying attention? Or are you intentionally distorting things just like Barker?
Dinesh twists things to fit his needs hoping that those of us who don't know the Bible as well as say, he or Barker, will take it for truth. No slavery in the Bible??? Dinesh will have you believe that. He maintains we are moral and virtuous because we Westerners are all influenced by Christianity?? What? Science is not based on faith! He made all these same arguments in another debate here in Minnesota in January. He doesn't seem to learn anything from his debates.
once again: Dinesh does not argue from a biblical standpoint...nor did he say there was no slavery in the bible. Try not to make things up please. And yes it is true that the history of Western Culture is the history of Christianty...that's a fact. True that Chrstianity evolved on the backs of Greek and Roman thought...but there wasn't a resugance of classicism until the Rennaisence. Considering the lame job Barker does of refuting Dinesh I'd say there isn't much to learn from the debate.
People in the audience make me cringe, Dinesh answered the question on theological grounds, he didn't even resort to the Bible. What more do you people who are like those in the audience want? You are amazingly relentless, and seemingly oblivious and its an epidemic, this short attention span and short sightedness. If you want to be something more than an ignorant militant idiot, actually consider Dinesh's points,
4:20 Dinesh, if unicorns were used to dictate to people what they can or cannot do, used to dictate morals, used to make claims about the universe and its nature, or used to justify atrocities.... then YES you would get such books written about it.
In other words you try to claim the difference is in the quality of the belief, that one is "fanciful" and the other is not. This is false.
The real difference is in what people DO with that belief.
D'Souza is a phenomenal speaker. I would want him arguing my side of any topic. But I think he's fundamentally dishonest about it. His argument at the beginning of this clip has very little bearing on the statement Barker just made.
You say we have to prove God scientifically in order to believe in him. I say to you prove o me God doesn't exist, that is much more difficult question.
This is a useless comment. We do not operate like this. People do not have to prove things wrong simply because you stated them to be true. Can you prove to me that there is no invisible green imp on your shoulder? No! Would one go into a bank manager and when asked to prove you can pay back a loan you reply "prove I cant"? No! Are people guilty until proven innocent? No!
So no, when YOU make a proposition YOU have to show its true. It is not up to other people to show the negative.
WHO SET UP THE PERAMETERS FOR THIS DEBATE? This is by far the worst setup for a debate discussing such in depth ideas.There simply is not enough time for either of the two speakers to make their points.
What's GOOD about the format is that the participants can't take it over for their own use. Putting people on the spot like this elicits the minimum amount of bullshit filler...
Skinner's right about morals & freedom. Wrong only on philosophy. Man is not a "caged ape," rather conditioning is completed by thought. Still thought is controlled by external stimulus, but thought conditions more. Hence your free will is merely a sharpened discriminative control. Thus, you can be judged without a free will.
Ray, B. (1969) Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J. of the Exp. Analysis of Beh., 12, 539-550.
I agree the format is crap. They give one speaker the first and last point by allowing them to make their point then giving the other speaker a rebuttal and then giving the first speaker another rebuttal. Why do they need the second rebuttal?
D'Souza's like a little terrier, isn't he? He hangs on for dear life and never lets go. I think he eventually just wears down his opponent. Even Hitchens says he's his best opponent. Yet he talks nonsense.
Dan Barker says there is nothing that could happen to change his mind on the Christian God. What if Zechariah 12:10 occurred? What if the raising of the dead for two men who were dead for three and a half days occurred per Revelations 11:8-12 would that change his mind?
Who would write of their Messiah as in Zechariah 12:10 prior to the cross?
Would man write of the whole world seeing things all at the same time prior to the internet and T.V., nuclear bombs, and verichip technology two thousand years prior to its' existence?
People from time that Revelations was written would think Revelations 9:16-19 impossible because there is no such army or there is no such thing as nuclear bombs with a TNT rating of 200,000,000 men as that was the TNT rating system prior to TNT, but now we could easily wipe out 1/3 of human population quickly.
Right AntonBatey, fear science for scientifically we all die. Bible says we all die too. Scary stuff indeed. Hell is not eternal fire, but the consumption of an eternal body & your soul. Hence it could be called an eternal punishment. Luke 12:5 equals Matt. 10:28. Christians talking of eternal torment are wrong. Which would you fear more dying or eternal fire? I'm saying expect dying. Are you ignorant about the fact you will die & I've somehow scared you with something you weren't expecting?
Redchango I'd love to hear miracle that you think can't scientifically happen written in the Bible.
I would like to give you the first miracle of the Bible. Genesis 1:1-2a "In the beginning God created the heaven & the Earth. And the Earth was without form, & void;"
No man would write those words unless he wanted to be considered a fool for matter (even water) has form and is not void.
E=mc^2 explains it. In it's first form Earth was pure energy prior to being converted scientifically.
LOL, Books are not witten about the lack of Unicorns in the world because they don't poke us in the ass with their horn unprovoked while we are minding our own business walking down the street.
Every part of Barker's life is about trying to prove that God does not exist. In that way, he has almost dedicated his life to God. It's strange. Why would he care so much? He isn't living life w/out God. He is obsessed with the non-existence of him. That doesn't sound like such a "freeing" way to live.
I suppose the one thing you can turn to, when any rationale critique can be made, is to make a personal moral judgement on his life. Its cheap and dirty.
You can tell an Atheist by how he speaks in an arrogant, smug, know-it-all, godless and bitter way, where the theist (DSouza) always has a contrasting enthusiasm and vitality.
He is classed as one of the elite, christian conservative thinkers of our time, is a national best seller many times over and has fucked ann coulter...match that!
"christian" and "thinkers" is an oxymoron to me. I suppose "conservative" and "thinkers" is nigh on an oxymoron as well though.
Surely the ann coulter fuckage is not really anything for anyone every to brag about? Apart from that surely there is no evidence for fuckage, she's an ugly whore.
National best seller. Well, I don't think I need to rebutt this at all, though if you want me to, let me know ;)
and if there is no God, why are is barker spending so much time debating? I mean it can go both ways that was an extremely one sided remark. And even so, the truth is extremely hard to defend. I wonder how many innocent people have been framed or convicted. Fact is, the truth is hard to defend, but just because it's difficult doesn't make it any of the less true.
"and if there is no God, why are is barker spending so much time debating?", dude thats like saying "if unicorns dont exist, why would you tell your children?"
Barker is qualified to debate since he used to be a preacher. I suppose you would like it if all the atheistic people shut up? But you can know for sure Christians will keep on shouting.
I almost wish there was an academic equivalent of the afterlife, modelled more or less on the Christian myth: in particular, eternal punishment for intellectual charlatans like D'Souza.
Hitchens explains why he is not just an atheist but an anti-theist. He not only doesn't believe in god, but is glad god doesn't exist. Dinesh says that he 'hates god'. How can he hate something that doesn't exist.
1. Claiming that energy needs a source is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.
2. Even if there IS some source, you have no reason whatsoever to assign intelligence, intention, or anything else to it. Let alone relate it to some infantile religious concept.
D'souza on the other hand isn't even putting up a fight. He should sit down and trade places with someone who has at least some experience dealing with atheists. I mean, this is pitiful.
Sorely disappointed in both speakers, Barker, a man with a 180+ IQ and member of the prometheus society. Studying the Bible was apparently not his thing when he was a Christian. Nor was American history, as there is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. You will only find it in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, and it was to be a one way wall, ensuring the govt stays out of the church, but church values remain in govt.
I generally agree with Dan; but his point about how, "there shouldn't even be a debate if God's existence is so obvious," isn't really a good one. One could easily draw a parallel to creationists who debate against evolution.
Walabinx 1 month ago
Whenever I hear D'Souza speak, all I can hear is a 5-year-old throwing a tantrum.
Steenhorst 2 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza vs. Dan Barker
It's important to notice that Barker concedes that he will change his mind if presented with the evidence, while D'Souza says his goal is only to disprove atheism. I think this clearly shows who is open minded and who is biased.
DBSpenser 2 months ago
D'souza is an agent from the Matrix on earth.
No one dodges bullets like he does.
He does the dance of tautology and very bad semantics, the worst offence so far, speaking as a chemist, that scientific laws with man made laws. Such as misdirection.
ardendogma 4 months ago
"the experience of god, whether or not he is out there is as real a moral experiece as anything else that we can see in the world".hm... i think this remaind valid if you replace god with say... bugs bunny..
zapopaul 6 months ago
Thank you for posting this, tothesource1.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Nice response by Dan
Walabinx 8 months ago
Your making claims that you do not support, Dan. How is omniscience and freewill mutually exclusive? God is all-knowing and exercises His will above all. Humans don't have freewill. If they did then this would contradict God's sovereignty.
Dan needs to learn the Constitution and what principles this country was founded on. The founders appeals to God in the Declaration of Independence. They assumed the moral principles that could only come from Christianity.
YHWHisSovereign 8 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign "How is omniscience and freewill mutually exclusive?" For the future to be knowable it have to be already determined. If the future is determined there are no true chooses. Thus making him utterly trapped and forced to carry out what ever the future is, unable to change it.
If it is even possible to know the future free will is an illusion.
ybra 8 months ago
@ybra He determined all things according to His own freewill. He could have chosen things to be different if He wanted. To suggest that His will isn't free anymore because He must do what He has determined, is absurd. How has He determined the future anyway, that is supposed to contradict freewill? By His freewill. So freewill contradicts freewill?
YHWHisSovereign 8 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign can god do something that is not part of the future that he have foreseen?
ybra 8 months ago
Interesting...
beverlypress 9 months ago
I'm trying to watch this debate again (I've seen it before) in its entirety, but I honestly don't think I'm gonna make it. D'Souza is just too difficult to watch/listen to.
multard 9 months ago 2
why don't these adjudicators stop dinesh taking 3x the allowed time for every speech?
BozoTheBear 11 months ago
Agnostic isn't just believing, it's believing its existence. So It's sad to hear that Dinesh doesn't believe in the existence of his brother.
Feldegast92 11 months ago
Comparing unicorns to god is bullshit, there isn't a collective worship of unicorns so why the hell would someone oppose worshipping of unicorns...
Feldegast92 11 months ago 3
In swedish we say what Dinesh is doing as "ordbajsa", hard to translate but it's something like "wordpooping". He's just talking so much but at the same time saying nothing.
Feldegast92 11 months ago
@Feldegast92
dinesh is a champion at logical fallacies. i think "ordbajsa" is "Proof by Verbosity"
10sodot 9 months ago
D'Souza is so full of crap it actually is quite entertaining. "The Unicorn Delusion" what an idoit!
chewroot 11 months ago
Part2: The motion of galaxies around one another
follows familiar Newtonian gravity. Gravitational lenses and
binary pulsar spin-downs reveal general relativity in the depths of
space. We could have lived in a Universe with different laws in
every province, but we do not. This fact cannot but elicit feelings
of reverence and awe.
Carl Sagan - Demon haunted world; Science as a candle in the dark - Chapter 15 - Newton's Sleep - page 260 UK edition
zapopaul 1 year ago
Part1:
the order of the Universe is not an
assumption; it's an observed fact. We detect the light from distant
quasars only because the laws of electromagnetism are the same
ten billion light years away as here. The spectra of those quasars
are recognizable only because the same chemical elements are
present there as here, and because the same laws of quantum
mechanics apply.
zapopaul 1 year ago
Disbelief in unicorns does not come with a threat of being tortured for all eternity.
jabom99 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza is youthful looking. I can't believe he is nearly 50, he looks like he's 20 something. Maybe there's a god keeping him young?
Darkeons 1 year ago
Christian Fanatics are also idiots like the muslim fanatics. They simply fool people. They use the sceince which they ignored in the past. What the hell they are doing?
khalidsayd 1 year ago
That last rebuttal to D'Souza's rebuttal IMO was the ultimate smackdown on D'Souza.
sorkia 1 year ago
I think, when I listen to D'Souza my IQ goes down...
People are debating the existence of a god because of people like D'Souza; saying they have an imaginary friend name god who is all good (except for, in the bible, god is a homophobe, sexist, condones slavery, and a mass murder, of course).
No one is going around saying there are unicorns, and if you don't believe in this unicorn you are going to hell!
cabiediger09 1 year ago
If there is a God it should not be debatable question about his existence 3:30, thump up
ManRic2 1 year ago 5
Poor Dinesh, he thinks he's talking to his ignorant minions. Sad little delusional man!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@wvguy8258 I did not know this - it explains a lot about Dinesh
metaserve 1 year ago
Did that idiot just seriously say that light is matter?
Darwin was right again, "Ignorance more often begets confidence, than knowledge."
Floridanon407 1 year ago
@Floridanon407 I'm not gonna try to describe what light is, my brother is a photonics engineer who has explained it to me in great detail, but I know I would butcher the explaination, use the wrong word, or do something else to botch your understanding. What I will say is that there's wave/ particle duality in light, and you can pretty much get away with calling it either in front of scientists, and they'll assume you know what's up.
adraim69 1 year ago
thanks for uploading :)
CheekyVimto08 1 year ago
@jgraham97mc
I would love to argue with D'Souza. Was your comment a comeback of some sort?
giggletronics 1 year ago
Im Christian but I do agree with the last thing that Dan Barker said. Seperation of church and state is vital for both the church and the state. I would marched with any athiest in protests to try and get "In God we Trust" off of our money and God out of the pledge of allegiance
thickhead11 1 year ago
"We believe in something if we don't know." The inimitable Dinesh D'Souza, ladies and gentlemen! (Did he actually just say that?)
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 year ago
And again so typical of Christians: misinterpretation of an atheist's words. When Hitchens says "I'm an anti-theist" he no way means "I hate God". How COULD you hate something you don't even believe in? I've never seen an atheist being so dishonest (and there are more than enough atheist assholes)
yegorletoff 1 year ago
Dude, what are you trying to say????
MrTlemon 1 year ago
YES, DINESH IS CONFUSED and STUPID.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
Dan B, how can you talk about knowledge when you are wrong about the very author of it, the source of it, the ONE who creates and defines reality??
gbologa 1 year ago
Dinesh is a joke. Why is this person even given a platform on which to speak? His arguments are childishly simple to expose as falsehoods.
giggletronics 1 year ago
Not to insult the mentally handicapped, but is D'Souza one of them?
ladypyramidhead 1 year ago
Dinesh isn't a young earth creationist is he? He sounded a bit like it when he was talking about how the speed of light can vary.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Einstein, he wasn't a crhistian .. he was a deist ... he don't belive in a bible god ...
D'Souza don't know what to say .. but he say's anyway just to have an answer ...
eminescinescu 1 year ago
here's a news flash THE PROOF IS ON ITS WAY- there's going to be a lot of people running to the rocks and caves!
windenergy777 1 year ago
wow god is a unicorn...never knew tht...
pyrobooy 1 year ago
D'Souza does a good job at defending something that cannot really be defended (because its demonstrably wrong). However there are many occasions when he resorts to straw man attacks and other somewhat intellectually dishonest tricks which indicate that maybe even he knows that he's wrong.
OJBaxter42 1 year ago
@OJBaxter42
GOOD POINT D'Souza is using the strewman attack.
the god of faith sounds too dumb to have created anything .
D'Souza uses modern science to try & prove to himself that his god which he believes in ie jesus is the true god.
good point. most folks here who are commenting didnt pick up on your statement.
keep it up.
he cant prove anything with his ideas about science. god is based on faith.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
dinesh has obviously never read god is not great, the god delusion or the end of faith because he thinks they hate god. what an idiot someone put this child in time out
rt36crazyfists 1 year ago
@rt36crazyfists
good point people of faiths tend to be childish about god.
they need to grow up, but they cant handle the truth they need a daddy god to take care of them.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
It's not true that we assume light travels everywhere at the same speed. In fact physicists say light changes speed where there is more mass in the universe. Mr Dinesh D'Souza has been misinformed. 0:45 seconds to 1:10
bluebyte101 1 year ago
@bluebyte101
right that's Albert Einstein said maybe light can show down bend or spead up.
it's not fixed.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
Im an atheist and the one thing Dan brings up always bothers me. That is the difference between Atheist and atheist. I don't believe there is a such thing as a capital A atheist. He says what these are also known as and personally I think that is what people should use. Those other terms (sub categories) are making a claim to something and thus are a belief. Mixing the two terms only leads to stereotyping.
Animeabe 1 year ago
i know it is difficult but we need, on BOTH sides to listen to what both men are saying and contemplate it, then decipher if it holds any validity. However, at the end of the day, as it has been so aptly put in the past, "for the believer there is more than enough evidence, for the nonbeliever there will never be enough."
paxchristi1 1 year ago
@paxchristi1
I agree maybe there is a god ,but just because there is a god doesnt mean that god is found in any of the books of faith which says this is what god is, who god is & what god wants.
D'Souza is assuming that the god of his faith is the true god
he cant prove that his god is the so called creator which answers prayers etc.
there is no evidence the god of dogmas is a real god.
that's all based on faith.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare The arguments for the existence of God and the arguments for the existence of the Christian God are indeed to be kept seperate. Once one establishes the existence of God, then one must ask the next inevitable question: Who is God? If youre up for some reading and have a strong intellect read Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler or easier reading The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
paxchristi1 1 year ago
@paxchristi1
RIGHT there may be a god,but that doesnt mean what we think is god is god.
I dont believe god has anything to do with our lives.I dont believe in such a thing as gods will.
the question who is god? wehat is god? god is an idea; a concept. what people call god or think is god is really the higher self acting upon the lower self.
ive read alot about what god is & who is god etc for many years.
I have a theosophy education with a back ground in comparative faiths.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
@xspettacolare if you wish to have email correspondance about this issue just reply to this and i will risk getting emailed by a thousand people by posting my email for you to see and speak with me. I would be more than happy to. U may be surprised to find out the evidence that exists for the Christian God.
paxchristi1 1 year ago
@paxchristi1
what ever you have to say about god that's your right no body is here to prevent anyone from posting what they wish.
we all have our own ideas. this is like a class room where everyone gives their ideas. no body should be banned from posting their ideas.
xspettacolare 1 year ago
Agreed, the moderators stink!
BadBehaviorInc 2 years ago
@BadBehaviorInc
I agree the moderators are condescending aholes who think they are better then us .
xspettacolare 1 year ago
D'sousa talks lots but says nothing, he twists and turns misusing works like rational, he is dishonest
peterb1968 2 years ago 8
@peterb1968
GOOD POINT D'sousa IS DISHONEST
xspettacolare 1 year ago 2
god, these moderators are idiots, give them more time to speak
TheWinepusher 2 years ago 3
Wow, Dan is just DESTROYING him.
I have not seen ANYONE-- not hitchens, not dennett, not dawkins-- smash D'Souza's position this hard.
Fantastic word economy, total philosophical clarity... wow. I've seen some of his other debates and wasn't impressed, but this is a real slaughter.
hymnofashes 2 years ago 5
He's such a retard. It's like debating a 10 year old.
JennyFarlopez 2 years ago 2
0:51 yet another God of the gaps argument
chessdawgz 2 years ago
I do not understand how you can say that he is a confused man when Barker has no way to explain his "lack of belief" in why God does not exist. He says that he knows that God doesnt exist yet he does not say how he knows that he is not real
EdumacatedSweetness 2 years ago
if you just when back to the first part of the debate videos he does explains his lacking belief of god and the reasons why he is atheist.
OnisionSupport 2 years ago
@EdumacatedSweetness He does he says "there is no proof show me the evidence and I may change my mind"
peterb1968 2 years ago
It's such a pleasure to listen to Barker. On the other hand, D'Souza is an equivalent of mental diarrhea.
borismihaljevic 2 years ago 3
Hicten does hate god because he see him as a dictator. Man, you guys need to do your homework 24 hour a day.
beeber2 2 years ago
You can tell Barker was a preacher, the 'Paul says' & "Jesus said' just rolls off his tongue so easy, he almost makes you think he's going to preach! Then he uses that same expertise to rip the whole thing to shreds. For a lifetime skeptic in religion like me, Barker is a 'gift from god'! lol
Gungfuwarrior 2 years ago
Comment removed
Gungfuwarrior 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
D'souza embarrased Barker terribly.
Esandero 2 years ago
Go take a logic class.
ThaGMan51 2 years ago
no he didnt, he is just changing subjects and twisting things and lieing.
iosuVakerizzo 2 years ago
Yeah! Barker certainly was embarrassed. He was embarrassed to be debating D'Souza.
I think he feels like a bully...
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
All you have to do is show Barker God and he will believe lol.
And the fact that the debate is happening shows atheism true? I feel sorry for Barker.
Esandero 2 years ago
i feel sorry for you
iosuVakerizzo 2 years ago
D'Souza is so CONFUSED! Silly man.
stellar876 2 years ago 36
D'Souza shouldn't be talking about Christopher Hitchens' antitheism if he doesn't understand what it is.
4:45 He says he THINKS that what Hitchens means by antitheism is that he HATES God rather than not believing in the concept of God.
Hitchens doesn't HATE God because hating something that doesn't exist is irrational. He has said this before. He hates RELIGION, not God.
Antitheism strives for the end of faith. Skeptical thinking and reason is what should replace it.
rubbershield 2 years ago 3
dinesh knows nothing about general relativity
moondoggie1327 2 years ago
*defense*
TalkingBonzi 2 years ago
Dinesh is all smoke-and-mirrors with a charismatic delivery. He is devoid of reason.
infideluxe 2 years ago 31
Dinesh holds his own and he does it well. Dan Barker is the one on the deference here. Stumbling over himself trying to rebut every statement that Dinesh utters. Plus Barker's arguments are typical. He mostly speaks off the top of his head.
TalkingBonzi 2 years ago
@infideluxe If he has charisma, then charisma makes me want to vomit.
flabbyhabbybabby1 1 year ago
@flabbyhabbybabby1 Also me.
infideluxe 1 year ago
@infideluxe Are you surprised? How could somebody be reasonable believing in a brutal Bronze Age horror tale?
yegorletoff 1 year ago
@yegorletoff Not surprised, I guess, but always disappointed. I keep an open mind toward theist debaters, but usually after something that sounds like a logical beginning, they tend to slip into sermon mode, emotionally manipulating their audience while attacking their opponent with ad hominem barbs.
Why they are afforded any respect at all is a mystery.
infideluxe 1 year ago
45 seconds? How can they talk of wanting a conversation as opposed to be debate and impose these over the top mandates on the speakers?
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago 2
Im confused... I thought Dan Barker was the former Preacher but Dinesh sounds more like a preacher himself
Nades129 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Denish has more logical explainations of rational things than Dan. I think DB is a RETARD preacher who offer his worthless soul to atheism.
milcrube 2 years ago
I can't believe what I just heard. D'Souza just stole an atheist argument, almost word for word. Not only that, but he tried to attack Barker which, of course, makes no sense. You don't prove the opposition's point and then ask them to refute it.
I've noticed that D'Souza is referencing Hitchens a lot. Does he think by mentioning the man's name that stealing his argument is somehow less offensive?
I don't know how D'Souza has any credibility in academia. He is an embarrassment.
jkl0031 2 years ago 6
Dinesh sets up a strawman. We can observe and perceive light. This is not true of gods.
hopokuk 2 years ago 3
d'souza was complete ad hom.
He still hasn't come up with anything other than "I believe".
ofinterest2007 2 years ago 3
Bwahaha "unicorns deliusioned"
princessdiana71 2 years ago
Dan Barker still looks like a minister
tighttritenight 2 years ago 2
Heh heh. Well, he admitted he still has the urge to try to take up a collection. ;)
Turandot29 2 years ago
Dinesh is the image of Penfold from Dangermouse! Lol.
nickyact1 2 years ago
w00t! Dan Barker
bawitback 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Go Dinesh
saqib09 2 years ago
In what way do Christians "butt in" to our lives in this country? If this is about the definition of marriage or the "sanctity" of life regarding abortion I don't believe those are Christian problems so much as they are Humanistic problems. Homosexuality goes against evolution & so does abortion. Unless you abort "handicapped" babies, then it's an ethical issue of what type of persons life is valuable versus another.
violetember 2 years ago
Those matters are taken on solely for religious reasons, and not because of reason. Homosexuality has been studied in other species, so your claim of it being against evolution is factually incorrect. Whether it is an actual benefit or not is irrelevant, the fact is it occurs naturally and not just in humans. Creationism in schools is also a completely religious issue with religious zealots trying to interfere with scientific education. Stem cells are another issue, solely religious.
camino1ca 2 years ago
Just because something ocurrs in nature doesn't mean it benefits evolution. The concept of homosexuality is DETRIMENTAL to Evolution as it is defined as the propelling force for continuing a species. It has nothing to do with religion in the context of my argument. I'm saying "Religion" doesn't get "ownership" of the homosexual topic. They may be against if for thier own reasons. Think about the ISSUE & NOT whose taking the issue up.
violetember 2 years ago
D'Souza surprisingly can argue.
pctopgs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dinesh is dominating Barker completely!
eastinc 2 years ago
Dinesh is getting crushed, he usually is a good debater, but he is poorly mismatched with Barker
jpc08109 3 years ago 4
Dinesh puts forward a weak and silly argument, that, despite not believing in Unicorns he is not compelled to write a book called "Unicorns are not great", therefore Dan Barker is part of an ulterior atheist movement and this is really all about hating God.
I don't remember any unicorns waging bloody crusades across this planet. The man just doesn't have an argument, only insults, shitty jokes, and head-fuck logic and obfuscation.
I think I'd enjoy punching his smug, chubby cheeks.
Valelacerte 3 years ago
I difintely think Dinesh feels a bit slighted at having to debate Baker who is coming off as a mental midget. After taking on some of the most well thought out arguements of atheists made by some truly intelligent men, Dinesh shows his contempt for the lack of thoughtfulness shown by Baker.
wjb67 3 years ago
sorry...Barker
wjb67 3 years ago
I completely agree...
murk4heart 3 years ago
What?? You obviously know nothing about Barker. He knows more about religion and the Bible than this Dinesh guy. Dinesh simply argues from emotion and circular logic.
nhallo 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Barker knows someting about the bible...this is true...he is grounded in some evangelical literalist exegesis of the bible that is fringe in Christianity. Barkers knows no more about Catholicism or Bhuddism than any other layman. Dinesh specifically and intentionally avoids using scripture in his arguements in order to form them from reason and logic...and certainly NOT emotionalism or sentimentality. Are you not paying attention? Or are you intentionally distorting things just like Barker?
wjb67 2 years ago
Dinesh twists things to fit his needs hoping that those of us who don't know the Bible as well as say, he or Barker, will take it for truth. No slavery in the Bible??? Dinesh will have you believe that. He maintains we are moral and virtuous because we Westerners are all influenced by Christianity?? What? Science is not based on faith! He made all these same arguments in another debate here in Minnesota in January. He doesn't seem to learn anything from his debates.
nhallo 2 years ago 3
once again: Dinesh does not argue from a biblical standpoint...nor did he say there was no slavery in the bible. Try not to make things up please. And yes it is true that the history of Western Culture is the history of Christianty...that's a fact. True that Chrstianity evolved on the backs of Greek and Roman thought...but there wasn't a resugance of classicism until the Rennaisence. Considering the lame job Barker does of refuting Dinesh I'd say there isn't much to learn from the debate.
wjb67 2 years ago
all dinesh does is bash Dan Barker
swissorangejuice 3 years ago
this dinesh figure is pretty stupid
swissorangejuice 3 years ago
If Dinesh is the best of the Christian apologists then religion is really in a bad way in this century.
jamer01 3 years ago
this Barker , really BARKS a lot , and he does not know ANYTHING about the basics of Christianity ,
He is an ignorant .
Probably being an atheist made him more money and fame that is why he is sticking to it like a puppy !
blooms125 3 years ago
Your statement shows your ignorance of Dan Barker. Read his book Godless and you'll find out just how much he does know about Christianity.
TritoneMcgee 3 years ago
Wow! Read up on Dan Barker. You have no idea how far back he goes with regard to Christianity. Like someone else suggested, read his book Godless.
poiuytrew2 3 years ago
LOL I am completely agree
murk4heart 3 years ago
CARM. ORG/ ATHEISM/WHY_BELIEVE. HTM
CONVERSIONDIARY. COM
(remove the
spaces please)
xtrashed 3 years ago
People in the audience make me cringe, Dinesh answered the question on theological grounds, he didn't even resort to the Bible. What more do you people who are like those in the audience want? You are amazingly relentless, and seemingly oblivious and its an epidemic, this short attention span and short sightedness. If you want to be something more than an ignorant militant idiot, actually consider Dinesh's points,
xtrashed 3 years ago
Ah I take it back, people changing their mind isnt the only evidence you have. Name calling is part or your repotoire too.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
4:20 Dinesh, if unicorns were used to dictate to people what they can or cannot do, used to dictate morals, used to make claims about the universe and its nature, or used to justify atrocities.... then YES you would get such books written about it.
In other words you try to claim the difference is in the quality of the belief, that one is "fanciful" and the other is not. This is false.
The real difference is in what people DO with that belief.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
D'Souza is a phenomenal speaker. I would want him arguing my side of any topic. But I think he's fundamentally dishonest about it. His argument at the beginning of this clip has very little bearing on the statement Barker just made.
daveycomet 3 years ago
You say we have to prove God scientifically in order to believe in him. I say to you prove o me God doesn't exist, that is much more difficult question.
ilope012 3 years ago
This is a useless comment. We do not operate like this. People do not have to prove things wrong simply because you stated them to be true. Can you prove to me that there is no invisible green imp on your shoulder? No! Would one go into a bank manager and when asked to prove you can pay back a loan you reply "prove I cant"? No! Are people guilty until proven innocent? No!
So no, when YOU make a proposition YOU have to show its true. It is not up to other people to show the negative.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
WHO SET UP THE PERAMETERS FOR THIS DEBATE? This is by far the worst setup for a debate discussing such in depth ideas.There simply is not enough time for either of the two speakers to make their points.
This is patheitc.
These are Harvard students who have set this up?
Gospelboy190 3 years ago 2
I hear that.
ldl21 3 years ago
What's GOOD about the format is that the participants can't take it over for their own use. Putting people on the spot like this elicits the minimum amount of bullshit filler...
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
Dan Barker,
Skinner's right about morals & freedom. Wrong only on philosophy. Man is not a "caged ape," rather conditioning is completed by thought. Still thought is controlled by external stimulus, but thought conditions more. Hence your free will is merely a sharpened discriminative control. Thus, you can be judged without a free will.
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
I agree the format is crap. They give one speaker the first and last point by allowing them to make their point then giving the other speaker a rebuttal and then giving the first speaker another rebuttal. Why do they need the second rebuttal?
drewd2 3 years ago
what a shitty format and moderators
deeniel 3 years ago
D'Souza's like a little terrier, isn't he? He hangs on for dear life and never lets go. I think he eventually just wears down his opponent. Even Hitchens says he's his best opponent. Yet he talks nonsense.
rotcafarg 3 years ago 2
He stands up pretty well to the opponent in the debate and he ties his hands prior to by saying I will not use the Bible in any way.
Einstein ran from the Bible, but proved the Earth has a beginning. That worried him a little as he knew of the Torah as he was a Jew.
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
Dan Barker says there is nothing that could happen to change his mind on the Christian God. What if Zechariah 12:10 occurred? What if the raising of the dead for two men who were dead for three and a half days occurred per Revelations 11:8-12 would that change his mind?
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
I bet it would change his mind. But it ain't going to happen, is it?
rotcafarg 3 years ago 2
Who would write of their Messiah as in Zechariah 12:10 prior to the cross?
Would man write of the whole world seeing things all at the same time prior to the internet and T.V., nuclear bombs, and verichip technology two thousand years prior to its' existence?
Look at Revelations 9:16-19 11:9-11 13:16-18
It ain't going to happen, but we sure are getting ready for it.
But do you think people will really want to eliminate all Jews on Earth? That could never happen as we are too civilized.
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
You're right, there's no way the words written in the Bible can be true. I guess the best bet is to just give up on my faith.
redchango 3 years ago
Redchango, reject the Bible & your eternal punishment is the loss of eternal life.
Mathematically speaking
Matthew 10:28 = Luke 12:5
Fire consumes things till they are no more.
People from time that Revelations was written would think Revelations 9:16-19 impossible because there is no such army or there is no such thing as nuclear bombs with a TNT rating of 200,000,000 men as that was the TNT rating system prior to TNT, but now we could easily wipe out 1/3 of human population quickly.
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
Hahaha, typical "Christian" reply, threatening people into beliving their bullshit.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
AntonBatey,
What am I saying to scare anyone?
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
When you said, "reject the Bible & your eternal punishment is the loss of eternal life".
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Right AntonBatey, fear science for scientifically we all die. Bible says we all die too. Scary stuff indeed. Hell is not eternal fire, but the consumption of an eternal body & your soul. Hence it could be called an eternal punishment. Luke 12:5 equals Matt. 10:28. Christians talking of eternal torment are wrong. Which would you fear more dying or eternal fire? I'm saying expect dying. Are you ignorant about the fact you will die & I've somehow scared you with something you weren't expecting?
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
Redchango I'd love to hear miracle that you think can't scientifically happen written in the Bible.
I would like to give you the first miracle of the Bible. Genesis 1:1-2a "In the beginning God created the heaven & the Earth. And the Earth was without form, & void;"
No man would write those words unless he wanted to be considered a fool for matter (even water) has form and is not void.
E=mc^2 explains it. In it's first form Earth was pure energy prior to being converted scientifically.
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
LOL, Books are not witten about the lack of Unicorns in the world because they don't poke us in the ass with their horn unprovoked while we are minding our own business walking down the street.
archraw 3 years ago
Dan Barker is still a preacher, he's just switched his tune.
condorito29 3 years ago
barker looks like an evil john malkovich...
alamedaxo 3 years ago
Every part of Barker's life is about trying to prove that God does not exist. In that way, he has almost dedicated his life to God. It's strange. Why would he care so much? He isn't living life w/out God. He is obsessed with the non-existence of him. That doesn't sound like such a "freeing" way to live.
Booya503 3 years ago
I suppose the one thing you can turn to, when any rationale critique can be made, is to make a personal moral judgement on his life. Its cheap and dirty.
Tris10 3 years ago
You can tell an Atheist by how he speaks in an arrogant, smug, know-it-all, godless and bitter way, where the theist (DSouza) always has a contrasting enthusiasm and vitality.
kamalgilkesk 3 years ago
Hm, thats not a biased opinion. HA.
kubush 3 years ago
just my opinion
kamalgilkesk 3 years ago
D'Souza is so clueless on... well... everything.
CaptChrisT 3 years ago
He is classed as one of the elite, christian conservative thinkers of our time, is a national best seller many times over and has fucked ann coulter...match that!
kamalgilkesk 3 years ago
"christian" and "thinkers" is an oxymoron to me. I suppose "conservative" and "thinkers" is nigh on an oxymoron as well though.
Surely the ann coulter fuckage is not really anything for anyone every to brag about? Apart from that surely there is no evidence for fuckage, she's an ugly whore.
National best seller. Well, I don't think I need to rebutt this at all, though if you want me to, let me know ;)
Maverician 3 years ago
and if there is no God, why are is barker spending so much time debating? I mean it can go both ways that was an extremely one sided remark. And even so, the truth is extremely hard to defend. I wonder how many innocent people have been framed or convicted. Fact is, the truth is hard to defend, but just because it's difficult doesn't make it any of the less true.
AcousticProject2010 3 years ago
"and if there is no God, why are is barker spending so much time debating?", dude thats like saying "if unicorns dont exist, why would you tell your children?"
mojorhythm 3 years ago
Barker is qualified to debate since he used to be a preacher. I suppose you would like it if all the atheistic people shut up? But you can know for sure Christians will keep on shouting.
hopokuk 3 years ago
"if there is no God, why are is barker spending so much time debating?"
If there is a God, why is Dinesh spending so much time debating?
kubush 3 years ago
lol cause so many people do believe in christians and it has negative effects on the world its not dogma,moron!!!
robaquarian 3 years ago
i dont get it. so did dan barker say that a god may exist? just not the christain god?
Most1988 3 years ago
and the last point made by Barker, to an applause no less, what i great thinker, D'souza is a loser
DanoDanny 3 years ago
D/Souza is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen.
dangerics 3 years ago 7
Amen.
I almost wish there was an academic equivalent of the afterlife, modelled more or less on the Christian myth: in particular, eternal punishment for intellectual charlatans like D'Souza.
WolfusAndronicus 3 years ago 6
I know. He is either dishonest, genuinely delusional, or simply stupid. As incredible as each possibility is, one (or more) must be true.
Cotdail 3 years ago
Hitchens explains why he is not just an atheist but an anti-theist. He not only doesn't believe in god, but is glad god doesn't exist. Dinesh says that he 'hates god'. How can he hate something that doesn't exist.
AlmightScoop 3 years ago 3
"How can he hate something that doesn't exist" --
Whoosh! Just slightly over the heads of theists. -- LOL
detlevi 3 years ago
I hate Santa Claus, he didn't even bother to leave me any presents for the last 20 years.
hopokuk 3 years ago 3
My last comment was refering to this comment..
1. Claiming that energy needs a source is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.
2. Even if there IS some source, you have no reason whatsoever to assign intelligence, intention, or anything else to it. Let alone relate it to some infantile religious concept.
BSintolerant 3 years ago 2
D'souza on the other hand isn't even putting up a fight. He should sit down and trade places with someone who has at least some experience dealing with atheists. I mean, this is pitiful.
RawChristianSuperman 3 years ago
Sorely disappointed in both speakers, Barker, a man with a 180+ IQ and member of the prometheus society. Studying the Bible was apparently not his thing when he was a Christian. Nor was American history, as there is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. You will only find it in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, and it was to be a one way wall, ensuring the govt stays out of the church, but church values remain in govt.
RawChristianSuperman 3 years ago
dan barker is not as smart as stephen hawking or he would not have lost to dinesh in this debate
kamalgilkesk 3 years ago