D'Souza is a twat. Look at that. "Thank you." Obnoxious and obvious that he does not understand any aspect of Science, and cannot due to his need for wish-thinking.
We can only exist in a universe in which we can live. Therefore, arguing about that fact that we can exist in this universe is pointless, because it's obviously true. If it were false, we simply wouldn't exist.
Fine-tuned universe? What? We can not observe a different universe that is somehow magically tweaked. It's not even testable. This is like saying "If things were at all different, nothing would exist. And because we do indeed exist, the way things are objectively lead to a God. And a loving one at that.
Fine-tuned universe? What? We can not observe a different universe what is somehow magically tweaked. This is like saying "If things were different, then nothing would exist. And because we do indeed exist, the way things are objectively leads to a God...no a loving God....no only my God.
Electroweak force??? WTF is that??if you are talking about fundamental actions in physics go back to the textbooks,or better yet, go back to High School D'souza. Quit believeing in virgin births and magical zombies and that their spit mixed with clay will cure the blind. Who could possibly believe this crap after age 11 or 12. Sorry folks this is no more compelling than Zeus or Thor. Even if the message is positive it doesn't make it anymore real than any other fairy tale.
This "particular" nature of our Earth, it's perfect setting, has less to do with a devine creator and more to do with an infinitely expanding universe. There are without a doubt other planets just like Earth out there. And in fact, scientists have recently discovered a planet which seems to support life millions of light years away. So....oops. We are not alone, I guess. Plus we found water on Mars and the Moon.
Einstein: I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages..." - New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4. Ronald W. Clark (pp. 413-414)
Einstein: Interviewer: “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?” Einstein: “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.” - The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929
@ledvonj Einstein is making an assertion, so yes, it's an argument. There is a premise, and a conclusion: which are the base ingredients of argumentation.
Premise: The words of Jesus in the Gospels feel like they belong to a real person.
Conclusion: Jesus was a historical, real person.
If you don't see the argument here, you are just as daft as the non-sequitur that Einstein is trying to pass off.
@F33bs uncertain and shady... argumentation has also reason, source, CORE. For what one responds! So is feeble and weird and funny write here only about a premise and conclusion. CAUSE I did not write about problem with historical Jesus! The source, core was something fully else!
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
@StrongAgnostic1 The smartest man to live speaks of a God, Maybe not the God that the Jewish faith talks about, but still a God. Why would a Agnostic put up a quote of a man who believed in any God? In other words your hurting your own point that God does not exist.
He used the term God symbolically as a label for the comprehensibility and order of the universe. You'll have to put up a more empirical effort than that to establish Einstein's theism. Agnostics don't make the claim that a god or gods do not exist.
That kind of statement is steeped in that sort of ignorance. Einstein was brilliant, indeed...but he was not omniscient. Quantum mechanics has refuted that idea beautifully, and thank goodness for it. There's a tremendous amount of power on the other side of that statement.
Wow....that last question really stumped the ole stump Hitchens didn't it? It would be wise of him to admit his ignorance and just say "I don't know." But that would be too honest, eh? Books to sell! Get em while they're hot! Religion poisons EVERYTHING...including your last meal. There's no afterlife. Hope you enjoyed it.
@TheDreamMechanic Actually, Hitchens didn't even break a sweat in slamming that ball right back into to Dinesh's court. His answer to that question is both eloquent and remarkable in its quickness.... "a chasm of tautology yawns beneath the feet of all those who make this argument" . Hitchens embodies a truly inspiring synergy between a facility with words an incisive, natural sense for the rhythms of argument and dialectic.
If nebulous yammering is "slamming that ball right back into Dinesh's court", then yeah. You're right.
Again, he provided no answer. Very difficult for these atheistic (and theistic believers alike) to admit that they don't know something. In Dinesh's defense, although annoying, at least he can admit that he doesn't know...but infers a divine presence. He asked a simple question, and received no real answer.
It's okay. It's not the end of the world. Just an observation.
ayn rand refutes this fine tuning argument so well, check it out. hitchens shoud be able to refute this just as well but unfortunately doesnt.
also if it is implausible that something comes out of nothing then surely it just as implausible that something material comes out of something immaterial (which is what dinesh claims god is).
seriously we should start naming logical fallacies after dinesh.
hey dinesh, look i can do this to as well. well instead of god the trix rabbit runs the show. it is also an illuminati conspiracy which was headed by bugs and bunny and all this happened outside our universe. oh ya and michael moore is also part of the illuminati type organization, and let one rip after a cheeseburger binge and that resulted in our universe. now dinesh prove me wrong.
Not really, I can't name a scientific law without exceptions however the laws of science are observable to the naked eye in the computer you are using, the medicine that hospitals would administrate to you in a medical emergency. I can't name a biblical verse that can have any cause or effect in my life except to make me ponder on it's truth.
what bothers me is i am completely uninterested in what any theist has to offer on the subject, i seek not their counsel in things moral or judicial...but numbers are gullible and therefore the gullible are in high number..and so they seem to think they have a right to rule us all.
christians have alot of evidence to back up their claims, from wat uve typed, u have nothing. where are ur logical arguments aganist god? christians have plenty, the ontological argument, the kalam cosmological argument, the contigency argument, the argument from consciousness, the argument from desire, the teleological argument. wheres ur evidence?
if this argument is so weak then how come no athiest has been able to refute it. all they do is argue an unverifiable and untested multiverse theory. instead of just calling the argument "weak" y dont u refute it.
@TheWinepusher The world is watched over by a great pink unicorn in the sky who lives on a rainbow and looks down up on us with love and bemusement..Refute that!
@rddaos it's terrible...of course WE would like to think there is a reason for our being - having developed a consciousness that has until very recently been utterly self centered...that is both the universe and JESUS F CHRISTs reason for being is ME/US and OUR consciousness...The idea of NOT being the center of the universe is a tough stage to get through in child development and basically it seems very farking few of us EVER develop past it.
Jane even seemingly selfish acts are carried out for selfish reasons. A man rescues a drowning child because being kind toward children is gratifying to him.
dinesh ,why do you insist on talking through your ass,,,,,what created god,,,,,,,,,,,,can you answer that,if man is born,what gave birth to this god you keep going about,oh i forgot delusional man gave god his place of the scheme of things
Fundamentalist Islam and all the problems that accompany it (jihadi terrorism, extreme sexism, bigotry, suicide murder, cultism, etc.) are symptoms of the plague of faith. Christianity saying "we're not like that anymore" gives all faiths a respectability they do not deserve. In effect christianity is a cover for evil and people ought to be discouraged from believing such vile nonsense or lending it any credibility whatsoever.
Ugh. Read the New Testament and tell me how Christianity was ever sexist (Christ gave a woman the first opportunity to witness; how about Mother Teresa) murderous (the disciples on the other hand were murdered; Christ admonishes "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" as he heals the ear of the very man come to lead him to his crucifixion) bigamous ("All humans are equal in Christ"). Christianity was never "like that" and isn't an excuse for all faiths. It is about Jesus Christ.
foremost atheists would explain these supposed occurences and phenomenons that people claim to experiences. Not that this topic in debate would prove or disprove the existence of God but it would still make for a good debate topic. I guess I for one am particularly interested in this because of my firsthand experience with astral projection and my claim that it must be of the supernatural realm. Just something I thought some of you may one to touch on here. Cheers
Though I am a "believer" (however having some doubts of my own at times) I guess I consider myself a fan of Hitchens as I enjoy his debates and his works. That being said, I thought I would bring up a new area of discussion for all of us to discuss here. That is the following, I have always thought it would be interesting if a believer were to mention the ouija board, astral projection, premonitions, etc in a debate. I have yet to witness this but it would be interesting to see how one of
Hitchens was off in this debate. He is great and I like listening to him but he is becoming redundant in his debates with D'Souza regardless of the exact topic . D'Souza did pretty good in this one.
It wouldn't be a debate. Anyone who says wearing condoms is worse than having aids has absolutely no basis, respect or understanding of logic or science.
Dinesh mentions star systems 500 million lyrs away, and postulates the laws there. Inflation theory states that as we approach the big bang(13.7 billion light years), the spped of spacetime itself varies. This fact was not revealed to us in the bible, and we didnt guess it either. Dinesh is confusing science with guesswork, and falsifiability with faith...
The point is that we can measure the speed of light 1000 and yes... still never be able to say "we KNOW the speed of light won't change. But thats not how science works. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Only says the current evidence points to the fact that the speed of light probably won't change tomorrow. Thats it!
Haha, pretty absurd, I know. Einstein was a deist at the very most, and often only used the concept of a supreme creator metaphorically to describe the beauty of the cosmos.
It is highly improbable that evolution happened, in the way it did, and WE of all creatures a branch of primate happen to become the dominant species of this planet.
But it is FAR more improbable to suggest that a space faring Jewish zombie or any variation of that empowered us to achieve this by some divine right.
Problem with the argument of "everything is so fine tuned that if it wasn't we wouldn't exist" Is someone has to ask, So what if we didn't exist? an infinite number of things don't exist.
Its like winning a lottery, Ofcourse its highly improbable that YOU would be the winner, But there is no chance that there is NOT a winner, and for that winner it is seen that the fact that he's won is highly improbable.
The fact we happen to win existance, doesn't turn improbabilities into Impossibilities.
@zinizterz ... week point in this argumentation... cause winning in a lottery - you CANNOT compare with such complexicity - as we can see (but we see, know something about only cca 5% of the universe; 95% - dark matter and energy = we know nothing) in the universe!!! And remember: you must have still SOMEONE who prepares balls in a lottery (numbers) and someone who can WIN! :)
What's the difference, i'm not comparing complexity.... I'm comparing probability. The chance of winning a lottery is very very low, the chance of existing is also, (from what we know) very very low. From where we're standing now they're BOTH very very improbable.
By saying someone needs to put the balls in, you've taken the comparison too far.
@zinizterz OK, but: It is practically impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build even a single molecule of protein purely by chance, because the amount of matter that must be shaken together to produce this feat would be millions of times the matter in the observable universe. Furthermore, for such a chance to occur on earth would require almost infinite time (10on243 years!). we are considering merely a single protein molecule
@zinizterz The Universe (repeating: we know nothing at all - dark matter and energy), the Life by chance and Consciousness??? Such complexity! Other options? I think, Davies Paul is so close: "Why does something exist instead of nothing?" In the end of his book (Cosmic Jackpot) he writes about some kind of "religious faith" in him... Other options: God only - creator out of matter and time... but multi-universes (weak) and Matrix world or computer simulations? (but where do the players begin?)
Then what created God. If you're going to say God was always, there, why not simply say molecules were always there? Rather than invent a "God'.
Speaking scientifically you're not solving the problem of "what created us", you're throwing a blanket over it with the word "GOD" written on the blanket, and saying the problem is solved.
The religions of the world suggest things that are very very improbable, more improbable than the universe coming together by chance.
@zinizterz ...why not simply say molecules were always there? CAUSE the universe has a beginning (time, matter, energy). Today, we know it. Molecules had beginning. They all did not existed. About "God" we do not know, if, he exists, that he must have beginning. In spiritual view, many say, that he is eternal. I believe, is possible that exists mental representation "god" - something from our heads only. But also, that may be exists REAL God. Outside classical religion. In the end we all believe
@zinizterz ... week point in these argumentation... cause winning in a lottery - you CANNOT compare with such complexicity - as we can see (but we see, know something about only cca 5% of the universe; 95% - dark matter and energy = we know nothing) in the universe!!! And remember: you must have still SOMEONE who prepares balls in a lottery (numbers) and someone who can WIN! :)
why does this guy think he's clever. I mean his smugness seems to indicate that he thinks he's winning but for the most part he seems to be mud slinging.
I love how they always try to say Einstein was a theist...... as if even if he were (which he was not) that would in anyway prove gods existance..... oooh a smart person believes it, so god must be real.... what a joke.
someone published quotes long ago, while he was still alive that made him appear religious but those quotes were later found to be fraudulent. Einstein did not believe in a personal God who interacts with his creation.
Not only that, but let's grant that what D'souza is proposing were possible...
...even if so, all it says is that we wouldn't have THIS universe. It makes no statement on the possibility that we would have a different, but equally "fine-tuned" one.
He's a very skilled debater, but his arguments are pure shit. I wonder how he doesn't get steamrolled in every debate, especially against Hitchens.
The problem is that if you change one physical law, ALL the others change in such a way that they can no longer exist.
I do, however, agree with you that the supposed precision of the universe is inevitable in any system. It's not the universe that is precise - It's 'fine-tuning' that comes from the universe simply existing. Aside from the fact we simply label it with precision, you cannot have gravity increase and time stay the same.
I find it interesting that in watching these debates and delving into the world of secular humanism against religion I've not only strengthen my resolve against religion but my understanding of religion. It is easy to point out the absurdities and weakness in Religious philosophy but to see the strength is more difficult and honorable.
"...The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this...." Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind. 1954
Very theist, he fail so hard that he needs to skip his own point.
Apparently D'Souza thinks it takes faith to assume the laws of physics are universally consistent....slyly trying to build some false credibility to his argument.
No, all it takes to assume the laws are consistent is practical reason, which is the basis for the scientific enquiry that has elevated the world above the dark ages of ritualised, coercive religions.
omg this idiot first claimed galileo to be a "devout christian" and now tries to claim einstein as a theist... does religion rid you totally of conscience!? it would appear so.
@earthypig Seriously .... I mean honestly why hasn't anyone pointed out that in Galileo's time... you HAD to believe or you were dead? The Church was all powerful, right? Is it me or did the first guy make some stupid points in this?
I love your comment: Does religion rid you totally of conscience? it would appear so.
Hitchens is very well spoken and made some very good points.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hitches side-stepped the question. The universal intelligibility of reality--which must be the starting point for all science--is a mystery that calls out for an explanation. Why should it be the case that laws of tremendous mathematical complexity should obtain at both the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels? Science can't dispute this, precisely because it rests on it. I think that a very reasonable explanation is that these laws are the work of a supreme personal intelligence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If the Bible made several assertions, one after another, that you have found out to be false, either historically or philosophically, or in the existential realm, and you continue to see that kind of systemic contradiction and failure, then you have reason to believe that I can not really trust this document. It is not in keeping with history, or indeed reality. The historicity and accuracy of the Bible has been confirmed by archaeology and other secondary resources, extra-biblical!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bruce Metzeger who is a scholar from Princeton made the comment, he said' After you take the 20,000 lies of the New Testament, it is safe for any scholar to say there is at least a 99.6% accuracy. No ancient document, none, has that kind of accuracy, and the kind of documentary support that the Bible has. Over 5000 documents!
Bruce Metzger (who WAS a Biblical scholar) studied the Bible and its origins. He was NOT a historian or archaeologist. What would you expect him to purport?
"The Bible is historically reliable because it was taken from other, older documents?" So what.
Let's not confuse the history of the documents with history. If you can't see the difference, well, that explains a lot.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you really believe that the Bible is just a book of fiction and mythology YOU give me proof that the Bible is not historically reliable. It seems to me that you are the one believing in mythology, sorry. There is no ancient, document, none, that has the documentary support that the Bible has! Not to mention the archaeology, the other historical witnesses, secondary resources etc. extra-biblical
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I use to think Hitchens was smart until I read his book. When he discusses area's that I do not know much about he seems convincing but in an area that I have studied much, the Historical Jesus, he shows his total ignorance. He makes so many blunders in his section on the New Testament in his book that it is hard to take him seriously in anything.
worst of all are his baseless conclusions, the old "million-mile ruler" argument, and his crowd control methods, trying to appear to have won an argument that had never been made. science does not make a living on being certain, only on being testable. this is really quite underhanded for him. the way he describes the "settings" of the universe seems aimed at implying this is the only way a universe could exist. these statements are utterly useless.
"the way he describes the "settings" of the universe seems aimed at implying this is the only way a universe could exist." -
If he wasn't so shallow, he wouldn't be there. It's what he lives on. Linguistic sleights of hand always dazzle the credulous with their brilliance.
Magicians never suspend the constraints of matter though they may appear to do so convincingly. Doing the 'magic' is easy. Falling for it is easy. Seeing through it is rare.
Is that a compliment? I'm likely just be searching for it but i can hope for things, can't I? I find it funny how little we realise that myths aren't just stories, they're tools for creating certain opinion and directing the attention of the beleivers towards the goals of the storytellers. It is a sad how little we actually question, not just, if it's true or not, but if so, what is this story, this beleif, actually trying to get me to do?
LOL - I have no idea but I do think you're dead on target. The 'storyteller' notion is also dead on target in my view. I mean, that's what Bible 'stories' are - stories - which in my view CAN be informative in the way any allegory CAN be useful. The utility invariably depends on how keenly the precepts are first abstracted and then synthesized into a story whose structure reflects common situations encountered by humans in their lives.
For instance; the stories of Oedipus and Electra are, in one aspect, cautionary tales of the pitfalls of failing to grow out of and beyond any childhood infatuations with a parent that one may have developed as a child. It's not necessary for an Oedipus or Electra to have ever existed for the precepts to have been abstracted and synthesized into those tales of caution. Odysseus need not have existed to formulate Homer's epic allegorical poem.
Hansel and Gretel need not have existed to illuminate the triumph of selflessness over selfishness. It's an allegory, a parable, a paradigm. There's nothing 'sacred' about ANY story. It's a story - period. The Vedas are as useful as The Torah as The Bible as The Koran, as Hans Christian Anderson as Jonathan Swift as The Brothers Grimm.
and at 8:10, that's not an argument. we've enver experienced a universe different from this one so how can we postulate on the feasibility of life or something like it in that universe? you might as well say that something you've never experienced is impossible. guess that sex is impossible to a virgin, right? idiot.
i'm sick of how this guy keeps using hume's principle of the uniformity of nature argument. the past / experienced has always resembled the future / not-yet-experienced, and we have as of yet no reason to expect that it will not. we admit that the expectations may not be met, but it is USELESS to suggest that you have good reason to BELEIVE that the expectations will encounter some surprise event (miracle.)
Whoa, that's (Hume's uniformity notions) a bit like injecting actual thinking into the conversation. Don't you fear ruining some perfectly base driveling?
Shame on you, you evil, evil atheist. You're only allowed to choose between 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' - they're what's on the menu - suffer! It's god's will.
- ROFLMAO
PS; I suspect that on the functioning of 'morals', Hume may have been on to something.
i didn't mention morals, i'm simply talking about his assertion regarding the uniformity of the laws of nature. his beleif in miraculous events (he claims) stems from the recognition of chance events occuring outside the predictable norms. Hume's works aside, the principle is still the same. his faith ii miracles is unfounded in anything but faith, ergo illogical. postulating that you have "good reason" to beleive something that can only be proven when tested is useless, unless tested.
No, I know you didn't mention morals. I was just referring to one of Hume's favorite subjects.
I agree about the whole miracle thing. Considering what the definition of miracle(s) is, there could never be anything but faith assigning 'cause'. Miracles, by definition, aren't subject to testing. As to the 'laws' of nature; they're descriptive, not prescriptive. Conflation of the two senses of 'law' leads only to confusion.
I think the point hitchens makes in the first half of this clip yet does not actually say, is that Atheism does not come with a pre-packaged set of morals, let alone morals based on a very different time and place. furthermore, I cannot see how D'souza, clever as he is can with a spectacle-adjustment flat-out lie, saying "that's why Einstein was a theist." I cannot see the logic in this false and utterly useless statement.
"that's why Einstein was a theist." is, if you read enough of what he actually said and wrote, an outright fabrication - a bit like gods are a fabrication, considering their archetypal form was usually referential to common aspects of human nature.
Also the definition of 'morals' ends any debate except for those who don't know the definition.
If athiests truely do not believe in God then why even bother with Christianity? Christianity isn't hurting anyone but yet you seem to be doing everything in your power to try and bring it down and show that your right and were wrong.
"If athiests truely do not believe in God then why even bother with Christianity?" -
Could it possibly be because Christians are hellbent on bothering with everyone who doesn't buy into their demands? Could it be because of the assault on science? Could it be because of the Christian (and other evangelical religions) have a rich history of oppression in the name of their god and their 'right' religion?
'Not hurting anyone'? My ass! It's clearly kept you from an education.
Yeah kept me from an education, how educated of you to make assumptions about someone you know nothing about very educated. Here's a scenario. You don't spend your time messing with Christians and all that happens is you might have someone try and talk to you about Jesus every now and then, wow how terribly inconvenient for you. The Christian faith has the best track record as far as atrocities. The atrocities of the Catholics do not count seeing as they have different beliefs and religion.
"Catholics do not count seeing as they have different beliefs and religion." -
I'm beginning to suspect you don't know the history of the Christian dogma at all. If you're suggesting that only Protestants are Christian, you may have failed to notice that the 'Protestant' sects are all less than 500 years old (since around 1522, the date Luther's translation of The New Testament published).
oh I know that protestants are technically new but more precisely they are a return to the truth. See in the beginnings of Christianity it was merely follow what Jesus taught and believe in Him. Then the romans came in and polluted it and turned it into religion. Catholics are not christians, they may claim it but hey so do several others who actually arent. Claiming something and truth are very differnt things. Just like you probably won't accept my claims as truth but doesn't make false.
"Catholics are not christians, they may claim it but hey so do several others who actually arent." -
Dream on. Without the Catholic dogma there'd be no Protestants. Without Jewish dogma there'd be no Christians. Without Zoroastrian dogma, there'd be none of the monotheistic religions that exist today. But, . . . YOU are surely possessed of the ONLY true religion.
Sorry to say but that's the definition of the most breathtaking possible ignorance. Wear it proudly.
Thats like saying thered be no bread with out sara lee. The Christians are christians because of Christ's ressurection not because of catholic dogma. Catholics simply distorted it and protestants did their best to return to the way Christ wanted.
no just cause you say it or believe it doesn't make it true, I know you'll try to turn that around on me but the difference is my knowledge is more relevant seeing as I am a Christian and I have what some would call an intimate or inside knowledge of the subject.
"I am a Christian and I have what some would call an intimate or inside knowledge of the subject." -
Well, thanks for playing along as the ultimate demonstration of Christian stupidity. That was fun, wasn't it? If we keep it up though, people will begin to think you really ARE just an ignorant backwater 6th grader trying to cobble together some support for the lame beliefs of his 18th century clan in Appalachia. Good job playing along though. Thanks.
"The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew." quote from luther there and you can't just use the fallacies of men to devalue God. Thats the difference men are imperfect and God is perfect. Look at what Jesus said not what men say.
In his 'Von den Jüden und iren Lügen' Luther writes that Jews:
are a "base, whoring people . . no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."
are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"
synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut . ."
should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.
In Luther's 'Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi' (1543) he also advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time." He also wrote "We are at fault in not slaying them."
some people want to give up their freedom in exchange for some kind of man-made religion... I'm glad I'm not one of them
Sconezeta 2 weeks ago
D'Souza is a twat. Look at that. "Thank you." Obnoxious and obvious that he does not understand any aspect of Science, and cannot due to his need for wish-thinking.
undisputedgreatest 1 month ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens
We can only exist in a universe in which we can live. Therefore, arguing about that fact that we can exist in this universe is pointless, because it's obviously true. If it were false, we simply wouldn't exist.
DecayConstant 2 months ago
meaning is a human invention
kokopelli314 6 months ago
I'm listening to this with my eyes closed, and I can't help but think that it sounds like Christopher Hitchens is debating Elmer Fudd.
SnorkyTheInept 6 months ago 2
Einstein WAS NOT A THEIST.
blahbl4hblahtoo 8 months ago 2
im an atheist and a "homosexualist" (not to be confused with "homosexual")
MamaMario13 10 months ago
Fine-tuned universe? What? We can not observe a different universe that is somehow magically tweaked. It's not even testable. This is like saying "If things were at all different, nothing would exist. And because we do indeed exist, the way things are objectively lead to a God. And a loving one at that.
Skepgnostic 10 months ago 2
Fine-tuned universe? What? We can not observe a different universe what is somehow magically tweaked. This is like saying "If things were different, then nothing would exist. And because we do indeed exist, the way things are objectively leads to a God...no a loving God....no only my God.
Skepgnostic 10 months ago
Electroweak force??? WTF is that??if you are talking about fundamental actions in physics go back to the textbooks,or better yet, go back to High School D'souza. Quit believeing in virgin births and magical zombies and that their spit mixed with clay will cure the blind. Who could possibly believe this crap after age 11 or 12. Sorry folks this is no more compelling than Zeus or Thor. Even if the message is positive it doesn't make it anymore real than any other fairy tale.
Cougar139tweak 10 months ago
dinesh is pretty impressive here, as is hitchens; good debate
persianhero666 11 months ago
heres a strong argument for creationism, spontaneous generation
MrWowyoursad 1 year ago
HITCHENS IS WAY TO SMART FOR THIS FOOLS.
Bluelincolnpark 1 year ago
Dinesh got owned. Hitchens FTW!
magnusjsolberg 1 year ago
This "particular" nature of our Earth, it's perfect setting, has less to do with a devine creator and more to do with an infinitely expanding universe. There are without a doubt other planets just like Earth out there. And in fact, scientists have recently discovered a planet which seems to support life millions of light years away. So....oops. We are not alone, I guess. Plus we found water on Mars and the Moon.
gthang91582 1 year ago
Doubted.
zinizterz 1 year ago
Dinesh is better here...
ledvonj 1 year ago
Einstein: I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages..." - New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4. Ronald W. Clark (pp. 413-414)
ledvonj 1 year ago
Einstein: Interviewer: “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?” Einstein: “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.” - The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929
ledvonj 1 year ago
@ledvonj That's a blatant argument from emotion.
F33bs 1 year ago
@F33bs That is NOT an argument at all, you are muddy... but only a quotations for muse about the topic Einstein and...
ledvonj 1 year ago
@ledvonj Einstein is making an assertion, so yes, it's an argument. There is a premise, and a conclusion: which are the base ingredients of argumentation.
Premise: The words of Jesus in the Gospels feel like they belong to a real person.
Conclusion: Jesus was a historical, real person.
If you don't see the argument here, you are just as daft as the non-sequitur that Einstein is trying to pass off.
F33bs 1 year ago
@F33bs uncertain and shady... argumentation has also reason, source, CORE. For what one responds! So is feeble and weird and funny write here only about a premise and conclusion. CAUSE I did not write about problem with historical Jesus! The source, core was something fully else!
ledvonj 1 year ago
Dinesh is such a slippery snake.
lector0003 1 year ago
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
—Albert Einstein[97]
StrongAgnostic1 1 year ago
@StrongAgnostic1 The smartest man to live speaks of a God, Maybe not the God that the Jewish faith talks about, but still a God. Why would a Agnostic put up a quote of a man who believed in any God? In other words your hurting your own point that God does not exist.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv
He used the term God symbolically as a label for the comprehensibility and order of the universe. You'll have to put up a more empirical effort than that to establish Einstein's theism. Agnostics don't make the claim that a god or gods do not exist.
StrongAgnostic1 1 year ago
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
-Albert Einstein
StrongAgnostic1 1 year ago
@StrongAgnostic1
He rejected quantum mechanics. Til his dying day.
That kind of statement is steeped in that sort of ignorance. Einstein was brilliant, indeed...but he was not omniscient. Quantum mechanics has refuted that idea beautifully, and thank goodness for it. There's a tremendous amount of power on the other side of that statement.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
Wow....that last question really stumped the ole stump Hitchens didn't it? It would be wise of him to admit his ignorance and just say "I don't know." But that would be too honest, eh? Books to sell! Get em while they're hot! Religion poisons EVERYTHING...including your last meal. There's no afterlife. Hope you enjoyed it.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
@TheDreamMechanic Actually, Hitchens didn't even break a sweat in slamming that ball right back into to Dinesh's court. His answer to that question is both eloquent and remarkable in its quickness.... "a chasm of tautology yawns beneath the feet of all those who make this argument" . Hitchens embodies a truly inspiring synergy between a facility with words an incisive, natural sense for the rhythms of argument and dialectic.
axl170 1 year ago
@axl170
If nebulous yammering is "slamming that ball right back into Dinesh's court", then yeah. You're right.
Again, he provided no answer. Very difficult for these atheistic (and theistic believers alike) to admit that they don't know something. In Dinesh's defense, although annoying, at least he can admit that he doesn't know...but infers a divine presence. He asked a simple question, and received no real answer.
It's okay. It's not the end of the world. Just an observation.
TheDreamMechanic 1 year ago
Aww, that so cute. He said red dwarf.
JimbobOMG 1 year ago
ayn rand refutes this fine tuning argument so well, check it out. hitchens shoud be able to refute this just as well but unfortunately doesnt.
also if it is implausible that something comes out of nothing then surely it just as implausible that something material comes out of something immaterial (which is what dinesh claims god is).
seriously we should start naming logical fallacies after dinesh.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
hey dinesh, look i can do this to as well. well instead of god the trix rabbit runs the show. it is also an illuminati conspiracy which was headed by bugs and bunny and all this happened outside our universe. oh ya and michael moore is also part of the illuminati type organization, and let one rip after a cheeseburger binge and that resulted in our universe. now dinesh prove me wrong.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi are you simple?
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@Jmsadv are you retarded? do you have a point/ argument? or are you just trying to spout lame insults?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Dinesh wasn't intelligent he wouldn't be invited to these debates. He is respected by Hitchens and is an excellent debater.
You disagree with him? Congradulations. Don't let your girlish emotions get in the way of your objectivitiy and logic.
It makes no sense for Dinesh to reinvent his arguments every debate he conducts. Sure he may change things here or there but thats about it.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
I feel bad for D'souza. How many wedgies did this guy receive as a child?
TheLawgdawg 1 year ago 2
Einstein wasn't a Deist. He was a Pantheist. He didn't even believe in a creator God.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago 4
Hitchens actually intellectually disembowels D,Souza by 1:15
Vidar1979 1 year ago
D'Souza is so silly,its like he as the brain of a child.
adlerbr12 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@adlerbr12 If Dinesh wasn't intelligent he wouldn't be invited to these debates. He is respected by Hitchens and is an excellent debater.
You disagree with him? Congradulations. Don't let your girlish emotions get in the way of your objectivitiy and logic.
It makes no sense for Dinesh to reinvent his arguments every debate he conducts. Sure he may change things here or there but thats about it.
Jmsadv 1 year ago
@wvguy8258 Lack of belief and belief in not are 2 different things.
MPaulHolmes 1 year ago
Desouza got Hitch slapped on the Einstein point.
setmedic 1 year ago 2
Not really, I can't name a scientific law without exceptions however the laws of science are observable to the naked eye in the computer you are using, the medicine that hospitals would administrate to you in a medical emergency. I can't name a biblical verse that can have any cause or effect in my life except to make me ponder on it's truth.
rainbowspite222 1 year ago
Not at all.
NidisListenstoShit 1 year ago
haha, hitch slapped, i likes that.
wokkitout 1 year ago
what bothers me is i am completely uninterested in what any theist has to offer on the subject, i seek not their counsel in things moral or judicial...but numbers are gullible and therefore the gullible are in high number..and so they seem to think they have a right to rule us all.
CityzenJane 2 years ago
christians have alot of evidence to back up their claims, from wat uve typed, u have nothing. where are ur logical arguments aganist god? christians have plenty, the ontological argument, the kalam cosmological argument, the contigency argument, the argument from consciousness, the argument from desire, the teleological argument. wheres ur evidence?
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
@TheWinepusher just like to point out that some of the best reasons FOR atheism were made by Thomas Aquinas...feel free to search it up...
V4ntag3p0int 1 year ago
@V4ntag3p0int, yea i know, the 5 ways to know God's existence by Aquinas, thats wat i was talkin about
TheWinepusher 1 year ago
Dinesh always reverts to the "fine-tuned universe" argument, one of the weakest arguments for creationism.
rddaos 2 years ago 16
if this argument is so weak then how come no athiest has been able to refute it. all they do is argue an unverifiable and untested multiverse theory. instead of just calling the argument "weak" y dont u refute it.
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
@TheWinepusher The world is watched over by a great pink unicorn in the sky who lives on a rainbow and looks down up on us with love and bemusement..Refute that!
CityzenJane 2 years ago
@CityzenJane
Please do not take the name of the great pink unicorn in vain. Some of us may be offended and seek retribution on your heathen hide!
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
@rddaos it's terrible...of course WE would like to think there is a reason for our being - having developed a consciousness that has until very recently been utterly self centered...that is both the universe and JESUS F CHRISTs reason for being is ME/US and OUR consciousness...The idea of NOT being the center of the universe is a tough stage to get through in child development and basically it seems very farking few of us EVER develop past it.
CityzenJane 2 years ago
Jane even seemingly selfish acts are carried out for selfish reasons. A man rescues a drowning child because being kind toward children is gratifying to him.
rddaos 2 years ago
einstein was an atheism
mystisme 2 years ago
dinesh ,why do you insist on talking through your ass,,,,,what created god,,,,,,,,,,,,can you answer that,if man is born,what gave birth to this god you keep going about,oh i forgot delusional man gave god his place of the scheme of things
deanommamad 2 years ago
Why does Hitchens continually bring Islam into this conversation? It's a debate about Christianity, not religion at large.
3684541 2 years ago
Fundamentalist Islam and all the problems that accompany it (jihadi terrorism, extreme sexism, bigotry, suicide murder, cultism, etc.) are symptoms of the plague of faith. Christianity saying "we're not like that anymore" gives all faiths a respectability they do not deserve. In effect christianity is a cover for evil and people ought to be discouraged from believing such vile nonsense or lending it any credibility whatsoever.
darkmiles22 2 years ago
Ugh. Read the New Testament and tell me how Christianity was ever sexist (Christ gave a woman the first opportunity to witness; how about Mother Teresa) murderous (the disciples on the other hand were murdered; Christ admonishes "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" as he heals the ear of the very man come to lead him to his crucifixion) bigamous ("All humans are equal in Christ"). Christianity was never "like that" and isn't an excuse for all faiths. It is about Jesus Christ.
3684541 2 years ago
Do anybody knows what is the name of the author of the book that Hitchens mentions. Thanks
radimirns 2 years ago
@radimirns
If you mean the book that hitchens mentions at around 8:43 then it's called "God. The failed Hypothesis" By
Victor J. Stenger.
snakesocks 2 years ago
victor j. stenger - "god, the failed hypothesis"
zapopaul 2 years ago
foremost atheists would explain these supposed occurences and phenomenons that people claim to experiences. Not that this topic in debate would prove or disprove the existence of God but it would still make for a good debate topic. I guess I for one am particularly interested in this because of my firsthand experience with astral projection and my claim that it must be of the supernatural realm. Just something I thought some of you may one to touch on here. Cheers
77bogart 2 years ago
Though I am a "believer" (however having some doubts of my own at times) I guess I consider myself a fan of Hitchens as I enjoy his debates and his works. That being said, I thought I would bring up a new area of discussion for all of us to discuss here. That is the following, I have always thought it would be interesting if a believer were to mention the ouija board, astral projection, premonitions, etc in a debate. I have yet to witness this but it would be interesting to see how one of
77bogart 2 years ago
Christian / Islamic / Judaic idea of free choice:
"Believe in me, or you will die an eternal death."
I can't believe that these jokers exist, to this day. Stupidity is persistent, isn't it?
yt2vinay 2 years ago
I meant, Christians.
Hitler was Catholic. Stalin went to the seminary. Mussolini had a similar Catholic background.
yt2vinay 2 years ago 2
Hitchens was off in this debate. He is great and I like listening to him but he is becoming redundant in his debates with D'Souza regardless of the exact topic . D'Souza did pretty good in this one.
77bogart 2 years ago
i love that christ is in hitchens name.
oooBOOSHooo 2 years ago
Einstein was an atheist pantheist, probably.
theprophetofperhaps 2 years ago
christopher is a jackass
harddriver123 2 years ago
Yes, Christopher is a jackass, and displays a great amount of hubris. In saying that, he is also correct, and therefore can afford to be a jackass.
eurisko67 2 years ago
Einstein was a theist? I thought Hitch said this bloke was one of the better educated and intelligent antagonists of atheism.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
Comment removed
MauricXe 2 years ago
Einstein was at most a deist. Most would consider him an agnostic.
MauricXe 2 years ago 9
He sure as shit wasn't a theist.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
I'd pay good money to see Hitchens debate the Pope.
capeverdevideo 2 years ago
It wouldn't be a debate. Anyone who says wearing condoms is worse than having aids has absolutely no basis, respect or understanding of logic or science.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
Dinesh mentions star systems 500 million lyrs away, and postulates the laws there. Inflation theory states that as we approach the big bang(13.7 billion light years), the spped of spacetime itself varies. This fact was not revealed to us in the bible, and we didnt guess it either. Dinesh is confusing science with guesswork, and falsifiability with faith...
ezelite 2 years ago
The point is that we can measure the speed of light 1000 and yes... still never be able to say "we KNOW the speed of light won't change. But thats not how science works. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Only says the current evidence points to the fact that the speed of light probably won't change tomorrow. Thats it!
VarialProductions 2 years ago
Lol. Einstein a theist?
ScarletandCreme32 2 years ago 27
@ScarletandCreme32
No. He was not.
pallab1234 1 year ago
@ScarletandCreme32
Haha, pretty absurd, I know. Einstein was a deist at the very most, and often only used the concept of a supreme creator metaphorically to describe the beauty of the cosmos.
StrongAgnostic1 1 year ago
It is highly improbable that evolution happened, in the way it did, and WE of all creatures a branch of primate happen to become the dominant species of this planet.
But it is FAR more improbable to suggest that a space faring Jewish zombie or any variation of that empowered us to achieve this by some divine right.
zinizterz 2 years ago 3
Problem with the argument of "everything is so fine tuned that if it wasn't we wouldn't exist" Is someone has to ask, So what if we didn't exist? an infinite number of things don't exist.
Its like winning a lottery, Ofcourse its highly improbable that YOU would be the winner, But there is no chance that there is NOT a winner, and for that winner it is seen that the fact that he's won is highly improbable.
The fact we happen to win existance, doesn't turn improbabilities into Impossibilities.
zinizterz 2 years ago
Comment removed
ledvonj 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zinizterz ... week point in this argumentation... cause winning in a lottery - you CANNOT compare with such complexicity - as we can see (but we see, know something about only cca 5% of the universe; 95% - dark matter and energy = we know nothing) in the universe!!! And remember: you must have still SOMEONE who prepares balls in a lottery (numbers) and someone who can WIN! :)
ledvonj 1 year ago
@ledvonj
What's the difference, i'm not comparing complexity.... I'm comparing probability. The chance of winning a lottery is very very low, the chance of existing is also, (from what we know) very very low. From where we're standing now they're BOTH very very improbable.
By saying someone needs to put the balls in, you've taken the comparison too far.
zinizterz 1 year ago
@zinizterz OK, but: It is practically impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build even a single molecule of protein purely by chance, because the amount of matter that must be shaken together to produce this feat would be millions of times the matter in the observable universe. Furthermore, for such a chance to occur on earth would require almost infinite time (10on243 years!). we are considering merely a single protein molecule
ledvonj 1 year ago
@ledvonj
I won't address your probability calculations, but i will say that It's still the most likely scenario.
What other options do we have?
zinizterz 1 year ago
@zinizterz The Universe (repeating: we know nothing at all - dark matter and energy), the Life by chance and Consciousness??? Such complexity! Other options? I think, Davies Paul is so close: "Why does something exist instead of nothing?" In the end of his book (Cosmic Jackpot) he writes about some kind of "religious faith" in him... Other options: God only - creator out of matter and time... but multi-universes (weak) and Matrix world or computer simulations? (but where do the players begin?)
ledvonj 1 year ago
@ledvonj
Then what created God. If you're going to say God was always, there, why not simply say molecules were always there? Rather than invent a "God'.
Speaking scientifically you're not solving the problem of "what created us", you're throwing a blanket over it with the word "GOD" written on the blanket, and saying the problem is solved.
The religions of the world suggest things that are very very improbable, more improbable than the universe coming together by chance.
zinizterz 1 year ago
@zinizterz ...why not simply say molecules were always there? CAUSE the universe has a beginning (time, matter, energy). Today, we know it. Molecules had beginning. They all did not existed. About "God" we do not know, if, he exists, that he must have beginning. In spiritual view, many say, that he is eternal. I believe, is possible that exists mental representation "god" - something from our heads only. But also, that may be exists REAL God. Outside classical religion. In the end we all believe
ledvonj 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zinizterz ... week point in these argumentation... cause winning in a lottery - you CANNOT compare with such complexicity - as we can see (but we see, know something about only cca 5% of the universe; 95% - dark matter and energy = we know nothing) in the universe!!! And remember: you must have still SOMEONE who prepares balls in a lottery (numbers) and someone who can WIN! :)
ledvonj 1 year ago
why does this guy think he's clever. I mean his smugness seems to indicate that he thinks he's winning but for the most part he seems to be mud slinging.
youjutsusha 2 years ago 2
I love how they always try to say Einstein was a theist...... as if even if he were (which he was not) that would in anyway prove gods existance..... oooh a smart person believes it, so god must be real.... what a joke.
vedder530 2 years ago 3
Appeal to authority is a theists staple argument. They love that one, even when they are incorrect.
sfmike20 2 years ago 2
What's the book that Hitchens is talking about at 8:40? I can't understand the author's name. Could someone please help me out? Thanks.
LibidoErgoSum 2 years ago
totally owned at 7:21.....haha.
unchie979 2 years ago
someone published quotes long ago, while he was still alive that made him appear religious but those quotes were later found to be fraudulent. Einstein did not believe in a personal God who interacts with his creation.
magichanzz 2 years ago
8:45
The laws of physics are each because of the other.
You cannot actually change the parameters of that universe because physics themselves cannot behave any other way, by their very nature.
molewizard 2 years ago 2
Not only that, but let's grant that what D'souza is proposing were possible...
...even if so, all it says is that we wouldn't have THIS universe. It makes no statement on the possibility that we would have a different, but equally "fine-tuned" one.
He's a very skilled debater, but his arguments are pure shit. I wonder how he doesn't get steamrolled in every debate, especially against Hitchens.
MusicalAdrian 2 years ago
I disagree to a point.
The problem is that if you change one physical law, ALL the others change in such a way that they can no longer exist.
I do, however, agree with you that the supposed precision of the universe is inevitable in any system. It's not the universe that is precise - It's 'fine-tuning' that comes from the universe simply existing. Aside from the fact we simply label it with precision, you cannot have gravity increase and time stay the same.
Agreed that D'Souza is shit though.
molewizard 2 years ago
He was a deist... that is correct on Hitchen's part.
SpaceGod101 2 years ago
einstein a theist?
caioma87 2 years ago
Not the Abrahamic God, that's for sure.
meinsla 2 years ago
He's an athiest, but said there was a possiblity that a deistic god made the universe.
Ragnaros12345 2 years ago
Best debater to face to Hitchens
safetheory 2 years ago
lol how so?
FatherofMan25 2 years ago
he is a good speaker and skilled debater leaving aside the fact that his theories are totally wrong.
unchie979 2 years ago
He is good at attacking the weaker arguments of Hitch, and he's got punch.
I'm not saying he's perfect, just a lot better than the other ones.
To be fair to D'Souza, he's defending the indefensible.....
safetheory 2 years ago
good point
PapaMagnum 2 years ago
The universe's not finely tuned to meet our needs. Every living thing (through evolution) has adapted to its environment not the other way around.
"Mankind is the puddle, marveling at how perfectly the pothole conforms to its shape."
SkaAllison 2 years ago 5
I find it interesting that in watching these debates and delving into the world of secular humanism against religion I've not only strengthen my resolve against religion but my understanding of religion. It is easy to point out the absurdities and weakness in Religious philosophy but to see the strength is more difficult and honorable.
VarialProductions 2 years ago 3
recognizing the limits of reason you must also recognize the limits of faith.
bertinotti 2 years ago 3
D'Souza "And that why Einstein was a theist"
Failed so hard:
"...The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this...." Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind. 1954
Very theist, he fail so hard that he needs to skip his own point.
jotatsu 2 years ago 9
Apparently D'Souza thinks it takes faith to assume the laws of physics are universally consistent....slyly trying to build some false credibility to his argument.
No, all it takes to assume the laws are consistent is practical reason, which is the basis for the scientific enquiry that has elevated the world above the dark ages of ritualised, coercive religions.
lonerook860 2 years ago 3
I love when Hitchens spanks Dinesh with respect to Einstein.
bertinotti 3 years ago 5
"Christopher, you're a little, umm... Ok moving on.." XD
hobbes71002 2 years ago
Yes, that was funny. He was his daddy on that one.
spaceboy1250 2 years ago
omg this idiot first claimed galileo to be a "devout christian" and now tries to claim einstein as a theist... does religion rid you totally of conscience!? it would appear so.
earthypig 3 years ago 20
@earthypig Seriously .... I mean honestly why hasn't anyone pointed out that in Galileo's time... you HAD to believe or you were dead? The Church was all powerful, right? Is it me or did the first guy make some stupid points in this?
I love your comment: Does religion rid you totally of conscience? it would appear so.
Hitchens is very well spoken and made some very good points.
WritingJenny73070 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitches side-stepped the question. The universal intelligibility of reality--which must be the starting point for all science--is a mystery that calls out for an explanation. Why should it be the case that laws of tremendous mathematical complexity should obtain at both the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels? Science can't dispute this, precisely because it rests on it. I think that a very reasonable explanation is that these laws are the work of a supreme personal intelligence.
xtrashed 3 years ago
Agnostaxian, Hitchens doesnt blunder because he's smart enough not to take the New Testament as historical text, it's just literature!!!
yongngu88 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If the Bible made several assertions, one after another, that you have found out to be false, either historically or philosophically, or in the existential realm, and you continue to see that kind of systemic contradiction and failure, then you have reason to believe that I can not really trust this document. It is not in keeping with history, or indeed reality. The historicity and accuracy of the Bible has been confirmed by archaeology and other secondary resources, extra-biblical!!
xtrashed 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bruce Metzeger who is a scholar from Princeton made the comment, he said' After you take the 20,000 lies of the New Testament, it is safe for any scholar to say there is at least a 99.6% accuracy. No ancient document, none, has that kind of accuracy, and the kind of documentary support that the Bible has. Over 5000 documents!
xtrashed 3 years ago
Bruce Metzger (who WAS a Biblical scholar) studied the Bible and its origins. He was NOT a historian or archaeologist. What would you expect him to purport?
"The Bible is historically reliable because it was taken from other, older documents?" So what.
Let's not confuse the history of the documents with history. If you can't see the difference, well, that explains a lot.
luerwulf 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you really believe that the Bible is just a book of fiction and mythology YOU give me proof that the Bible is not historically reliable. It seems to me that you are the one believing in mythology, sorry. There is no ancient, document, none, that has the documentary support that the Bible has! Not to mention the archaeology, the other historical witnesses, secondary resources etc. extra-biblical
xtrashed 3 years ago
"If you really believe that the Bible is just a book of fiction and mythology YOU give me proof that the Bible is not historically reliable" -
Sorry. That's not how it works. You assert the Bible is historically reliable - you provide the evidence.
That's how it works.
You may not like it but the way it is doesn't care whether you like it or not.
luerwulf 3 years ago 10
to xtrashed: much to your chagrin, I must concur with luerwulf.
the burden of proof lies with those who make the CLAIM, especially when they make extraordinary claims.
otherwise every deranged lunatic would be running around making all kinds of deranged lunatic claims without offering a shred of evidence.
earthypig 3 years ago 18
It's a crime that anyone should, in this day and age, need to defend themselves for not buying into this religious horseshit.
luerwulf 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I use to think Hitchens was smart until I read his book. When he discusses area's that I do not know much about he seems convincing but in an area that I have studied much, the Historical Jesus, he shows his total ignorance. He makes so many blunders in his section on the New Testament in his book that it is hard to take him seriously in anything.
agnostaxian 3 years ago
Dinesh D'Souza is the male version of ann coulter.
thesimpsons2345 3 years ago 6
but sexier
WKaliber1 3 years ago
Actually,you are not that far off.He did in fact have a relationship with Coulter,that is if his Wikipedia bio is accurate.
ossiorn 3 years ago
worst of all are his baseless conclusions, the old "million-mile ruler" argument, and his crowd control methods, trying to appear to have won an argument that had never been made. science does not make a living on being certain, only on being testable. this is really quite underhanded for him. the way he describes the "settings" of the universe seems aimed at implying this is the only way a universe could exist. these statements are utterly useless.
325982668 3 years ago 4
"the way he describes the "settings" of the universe seems aimed at implying this is the only way a universe could exist." -
If he wasn't so shallow, he wouldn't be there. It's what he lives on. Linguistic sleights of hand always dazzle the credulous with their brilliance.
Magicians never suspend the constraints of matter though they may appear to do so convincingly. Doing the 'magic' is easy. Falling for it is easy. Seeing through it is rare.
luerwulf 3 years ago 3
Is that a compliment? I'm likely just be searching for it but i can hope for things, can't I? I find it funny how little we realise that myths aren't just stories, they're tools for creating certain opinion and directing the attention of the beleivers towards the goals of the storytellers. It is a sad how little we actually question, not just, if it's true or not, but if so, what is this story, this beleif, actually trying to get me to do?
325982668 3 years ago 2
"Is that a compliment?" =
LOL - I have no idea but I do think you're dead on target. The 'storyteller' notion is also dead on target in my view. I mean, that's what Bible 'stories' are - stories - which in my view CAN be informative in the way any allegory CAN be useful. The utility invariably depends on how keenly the precepts are first abstracted and then synthesized into a story whose structure reflects common situations encountered by humans in their lives.
luerwulf 3 years ago 3
For instance; the stories of Oedipus and Electra are, in one aspect, cautionary tales of the pitfalls of failing to grow out of and beyond any childhood infatuations with a parent that one may have developed as a child. It's not necessary for an Oedipus or Electra to have ever existed for the precepts to have been abstracted and synthesized into those tales of caution. Odysseus need not have existed to formulate Homer's epic allegorical poem.
luerwulf 3 years ago 4
Hansel and Gretel need not have existed to illuminate the triumph of selflessness over selfishness. It's an allegory, a parable, a paradigm. There's nothing 'sacred' about ANY story. It's a story - period. The Vedas are as useful as The Torah as The Bible as The Koran, as Hans Christian Anderson as Jonathan Swift as The Brothers Grimm.
Now, watch the outrage at the comparisons fly.
luerwulf 3 years ago 3
"reminds me of the letter Rolland Romaine wrote Sigmund Freud. Romaine stated that Freud misinterpreted what he meant by religion." -
Correct in my view but . . so far from the awareness of the mob as to be unreachable by it's members.
luerwulf 3 years ago
and at 8:10, that's not an argument. we've enver experienced a universe different from this one so how can we postulate on the feasibility of life or something like it in that universe? you might as well say that something you've never experienced is impossible. guess that sex is impossible to a virgin, right? idiot.
325982668 3 years ago 2
i'm sick of how this guy keeps using hume's principle of the uniformity of nature argument. the past / experienced has always resembled the future / not-yet-experienced, and we have as of yet no reason to expect that it will not. we admit that the expectations may not be met, but it is USELESS to suggest that you have good reason to BELEIVE that the expectations will encounter some surprise event (miracle.)
325982668 3 years ago 2
Whoa, that's (Hume's uniformity notions) a bit like injecting actual thinking into the conversation. Don't you fear ruining some perfectly base driveling?
Shame on you, you evil, evil atheist. You're only allowed to choose between 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' - they're what's on the menu - suffer! It's god's will.
- ROFLMAO
PS; I suspect that on the functioning of 'morals', Hume may have been on to something.
luerwulf 3 years ago 2
i didn't mention morals, i'm simply talking about his assertion regarding the uniformity of the laws of nature. his beleif in miraculous events (he claims) stems from the recognition of chance events occuring outside the predictable norms. Hume's works aside, the principle is still the same. his faith ii miracles is unfounded in anything but faith, ergo illogical. postulating that you have "good reason" to beleive something that can only be proven when tested is useless, unless tested.
325982668 3 years ago
No, I know you didn't mention morals. I was just referring to one of Hume's favorite subjects.
I agree about the whole miracle thing. Considering what the definition of miracle(s) is, there could never be anything but faith assigning 'cause'. Miracles, by definition, aren't subject to testing. As to the 'laws' of nature; they're descriptive, not prescriptive. Conflation of the two senses of 'law' leads only to confusion.
luerwulf 3 years ago
I think the point hitchens makes in the first half of this clip yet does not actually say, is that Atheism does not come with a pre-packaged set of morals, let alone morals based on a very different time and place. furthermore, I cannot see how D'souza, clever as he is can with a spectacle-adjustment flat-out lie, saying "that's why Einstein was a theist." I cannot see the logic in this false and utterly useless statement.
325982668 3 years ago 2
"that's why Einstein was a theist." is, if you read enough of what he actually said and wrote, an outright fabrication - a bit like gods are a fabrication, considering their archetypal form was usually referential to common aspects of human nature.
Also the definition of 'morals' ends any debate except for those who don't know the definition.
There's no explaining shallow thinking.
luerwulf 3 years ago 4
If athiests truely do not believe in God then why even bother with Christianity? Christianity isn't hurting anyone but yet you seem to be doing everything in your power to try and bring it down and show that your right and were wrong.
delbert0504 3 years ago
"If athiests truely do not believe in God then why even bother with Christianity?" -
Could it possibly be because Christians are hellbent on bothering with everyone who doesn't buy into their demands? Could it be because of the assault on science? Could it be because of the Christian (and other evangelical religions) have a rich history of oppression in the name of their god and their 'right' religion?
'Not hurting anyone'? My ass! It's clearly kept you from an education.
luerwulf 3 years ago 2
Yeah kept me from an education, how educated of you to make assumptions about someone you know nothing about very educated. Here's a scenario. You don't spend your time messing with Christians and all that happens is you might have someone try and talk to you about Jesus every now and then, wow how terribly inconvenient for you. The Christian faith has the best track record as far as atrocities. The atrocities of the Catholics do not count seeing as they have different beliefs and religion.
delbert0504 3 years ago
"The atrocities of the Catholics do not count seeing as they have different beliefs and religion." -
So now Catholics aren't Christians. Won't THEY be surprised to hear it. That's not arrogant OR ignorant at all.
Don't look now but your education's showing - again - all the way from the cloakroom.
luerwulf 3 years ago
"Catholics do not count seeing as they have different beliefs and religion." -
I'm beginning to suspect you don't know the history of the Christian dogma at all. If you're suggesting that only Protestants are Christian, you may have failed to notice that the 'Protestant' sects are all less than 500 years old (since around 1522, the date Luther's translation of The New Testament published).
luerwulf 3 years ago
oh I know that protestants are technically new but more precisely they are a return to the truth. See in the beginnings of Christianity it was merely follow what Jesus taught and believe in Him. Then the romans came in and polluted it and turned it into religion. Catholics are not christians, they may claim it but hey so do several others who actually arent. Claiming something and truth are very differnt things. Just like you probably won't accept my claims as truth but doesn't make false.
delbert0504 3 years ago
"Catholics are not christians, they may claim it but hey so do several others who actually arent." -
Dream on. Without the Catholic dogma there'd be no Protestants. Without Jewish dogma there'd be no Christians. Without Zoroastrian dogma, there'd be none of the monotheistic religions that exist today. But, . . . YOU are surely possessed of the ONLY true religion.
Sorry to say but that's the definition of the most breathtaking possible ignorance. Wear it proudly.
ROFLMAO
luerwulf 3 years ago
Thats like saying thered be no bread with out sara lee. The Christians are christians because of Christ's ressurection not because of catholic dogma. Catholics simply distorted it and protestants did their best to return to the way Christ wanted.
delbert0504 3 years ago
"Catholics simply distorted it and protestants did their best to return to the way Christ wanted" -
Like I said, dream on.
Oh, the Sara Lee thing - doesn't really work - too provincial.
luerwulf 3 years ago
no just cause you say it or believe it doesn't make it true, I know you'll try to turn that around on me but the difference is my knowledge is more relevant seeing as I am a Christian and I have what some would call an intimate or inside knowledge of the subject.
delbert0504 3 years ago
"I am a Christian and I have what some would call an intimate or inside knowledge of the subject." -
Well, thanks for playing along as the ultimate demonstration of Christian stupidity. That was fun, wasn't it? If we keep it up though, people will begin to think you really ARE just an ignorant backwater 6th grader trying to cobble together some support for the lame beliefs of his 18th century clan in Appalachia. Good job playing along though. Thanks.
luerwulf 3 years ago
"protestants did their best to return to the way Christ wanted." -
So tell me about Martin Luther's vitriolic hatred of Jews. I'm guessing that also goes along with being, er, . . 'Protestant'?
luerwulf 3 years ago
"The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew." quote from luther there and you can't just use the fallacies of men to devalue God. Thats the difference men are imperfect and God is perfect. Look at what Jesus said not what men say.
delbert0504 3 years ago
In his 'Von den Jüden und iren Lügen' Luther writes that Jews:
are a "base, whoring people . . no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."
are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"
synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut . ."
should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.
luerwulf 3 years ago
In Luther's 'Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi' (1543) he also advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time." He also wrote "We are at fault in not slaying them."
- Nice Christian values.
luerwulf 3 years ago
Luther may have been an early 'Christian of Convenience' but, as you've clearly shown, he was certainly not the last.
This is fun isn't it? Showing off your triumph of pent up testosterone over the education you never got.
luerwulf 3 years ago
"Catholics are not christians, they may claim it but hey so do several others who actually arent." -
I take it then that, since Dinesh D'Souza is Roman Catholic, he's not a Christian.
luerwulf 3 years ago
depends he might be but unless he has repented and put his faith in Jesus he is not, most catholics believe in simily confessing and theyll be fine
delbert0504 3 years ago
It's clear you've shown yourself to be the most abject possible moron who's intent on stayin