Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza, debate at CU-Boulder (Part 2 of 13)

[hunga224]

Dinesh D'Souza=Indian Mr Bean.

[mojo972]

Dinesh D'Souza is truly an atrocious little rat-fink of a man

[symelian]

there is no argument against slavery anywhere in the bible ...

[adknerr]

And you only need to go 4 chapters in to find that justification for slavery, at Genesis 9:25-27.

The next book, Exodus, goes into great deal about how slaves are to be kept and owned... and pretty much right after the 10 commandments are basically listed out.

[youjutsusha]

everytime this guys opens... he says something about his pants.... its not funny

[T3rraBahamut]

but its a classic

[Havokreator]

More than 500 years before Christ was even born, Buddhism flourished in India, and one of its main teachings was compassion. So Dinesh's argument that compassion was only a christian idea is absolute B.S. And for those who don't know Buddhism is an atheist religion( almost paradoxical isn't it?) so it was not founded on the basis of a mighty sky daddy always following us around. And that's one of the many examples of compassion in other cultures. What a load of crap this guy's spouting...

[princessdiana71]

Dinesh is awesome!!! thanks for defending christians!

[owenline]

Well done D'Souza!  Good Argument

[luerwulf]

"Hitchens and I are debating with the same weapons" - D'Souza

At least he's consistent: He never stops his wishful thinking.

[mrhyde911]

Don't taste me bro!

[flagsandstaff]

15-minute opening = way, way tooooo long.

[rahulagrawal1487]

d'souza brings almost nothing new to the debate. its almost as if he's reading out his previous debate speeches for a fresh audience

[fuckgodfuckyou]

No, i agree, he NEVER brings anything new to the debate!! Lets face it, their is no God, Religion is a waste of time, and theirs no evidence or need, to believe in something which deliberately makes itself look non-existent to prove its existent!!

So basically dinesh is playing a game of football against himself, and still being able to loose, everytime.

[shaybshay]

Dinesh lost me when he said he will argue with reason.

[chosetec]

Hinduism, Buddhism promotes as much, or more compassion than Christianity does. Does that make them the one true religion?

Christianity promotes science? wtf?

[akamola]

Well, Gregor Mendel would'nt have revolutionised genetics if he did'nt become a catholic priest, since his monastery provided him with all the equipment and resources that he needed. You know what, you may be right, cause thats the only example i can think of !!!!!!!!

[Jakeblood240]

Alexander Fleming, Andreas Vesalius, Erwin Schrodinger, Nicolaus Copernicus....

Honestly there are too many to even list. You guys should do your homework.

[chosetec]

The fact that there are scientists who are Christian is a far cry from saying Christianity itself promotes science. It is more often that scientific discoveries fly in the face of religious belief. Take evolution, heliocentricism - the church is the last to accept these scientific discoveries. Show me a Bible verse that promotes free thought, experimentation, and open inquiry, then I might believe that Christianity promotes science.

[Gungfuwarrior]

THIS IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD. Not only the SPECIFIC scriptures endorsing slavery, but the curse of ham? This guys is a monumental idiot.

[adknerr]

Indeed. How about what the president of the confederate states Jefferson Davis said, on record to Senate, on Feb 14th 1850.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."

He is quite accurate in this statement. Obviously he is wrong, because the BOOK IS FALSE.

[Klytemnest]

Wow, this is supposed to be the brilliant Dinesh D'Souza? His argument is patheticly weak and fallacious. Was it Christianity that abolished slavery in Europe? No. It was the advent of a new economic system, called feudalism. And as Sam Harris explained in his book, the slaveholders were on the winning side of a theological argument. So, let's not pretend that Christianity is what ended slavery.

[prebenfisk]

You are so right. If i were a christian (thank god im not) i would be insulted to have this guy pretend to state my case. He shows the immense amount of stupidity it takes to believe and still think you can defend it with reason.

[CoachPike01]

Not exactly.

When one selects ONLY a single aspect of an entire system or culture, one gets very close to bigotry.

I hope you are not suggesting that a morality that hinged on Christianity was not necessary for the downfall of slavery. If you are, you miss D'souza's argument which was one of culture...not of Christianity alone.

Sam Harris missed the point as well.

[adknerr]

"a morality that hinged on Christianity "

It was certainly 'a morailty'... you need to stop right there from saying where it came from. Just because there were a great deal of good and reasonable people that faught against slavery, does not require they did it IN THE NAME of their religion. Because the organized church and the text it is based on quite clearly state the opposite and embrace slavery, I think that link you have put forward is bleak at best.

[Jakeblood240]

Wow. That's a beautifully crafted piece of spin you've created there. Feudalism ended slavery? LOL. I guess the Emancipation was a non-christian feudal induced conspiracy? lol. Oh, and the parts about God within...again, nothing to do with it.

Try reading something outside of your anti-religious comfort zone...you might touch some truth.

[Jakeblood240]

Also, to clarify, Christianity was the first movement to question slavery on a moral ground, outside economics or social practicality as you seem to suggest. Listen and learn.

[adknerr]

You have no idea what it was like to live in the south preslavery when scripture was used consistantly to SUPPORT the idea of slavery.

It's clearly stated in the Old Testament in Leviticus and is not removed in the New. Paul clearly states slaves to obey and their owners to not release them but to 'treat them justly'.

Now, I think you are hard pressed to attack the bible if you feel that black/white racisms is sanctioned however. Weak sauce here, but generic slavery is abolutely there.

[PhilosophyF]

"You have no idea what it was like to live in the south preslavery when scripture was used consistantly to SUPPORT the idea of slavery."

...neither do you.

[adknerr]

Excuse me but it's very easy to document where the bible (ie Christianity) was used to continue and support the act of slavery. I know this by reading history.

I'm sure a great deal of good Christians were against slavery at the time, but saying that there were against it in the name of their holy book is utterly rediculous.

The bible says NO WHERE that slavery is bad, but rather supports it in both the old testament (quite clearly) and continues to have language of acceptance in the new.

[PhilosophyF]

Excuse /me/, but that wasn't what you said--and if you want to drift and distance yourself from that, let's be clear about the fact that you're intending to do so.

If you're going to argue with someone who says makes an assertion about how there is history in the Church of fighting slavery (true) with a ridiculous comment like "you don't know what it was like back then", then you deserve--regardless your intentions--to be outed as making an inconsequential emotional point.

[adknerr]

OK, you win on taking that quote out of context. Congrats.

It's quite clear, both history and the bible, have clearly stated it's case for accepting slavery and not diminishing it. If you cannot accept that, you simply cannot accept facts.

[PhilosophyF]

I have no issue with the idea that slavery was backed by Christians, and scripturally.

If pointing out your making silly emotional pleas to back your point is out of context, then guilty. But you might consider it wise advice if you'd like to be more reasonable in the future.

[emailgarbage20]

adknerr - you assert that the Bible says nowhere that slavery is bad. One of the primary themes in the Old Testmant is the escape of the Israelites from slavery to the Egyptians. God parts the Red sea to enable the Israelites liberation from slavery.

Of course, slavery was a common practice in history until certain Christians fought it (I grant that others defended it). Nonetheless, in addition to the example of the Israelites, slavery is inconsistent with the golden rule.

[adknerr]

You are clearly interpreting a metaphore of Exodus, not it's entirety, by handpicking just the modernly acceptable portions. The full story states that the Jews were allowed, in fact instructed, to kill anyone that stands in their way to their promised land and enslave those who they didn't kill, especially the virgins, for their own purposes AND take their land. This entire time God is their side.

This is clearly madness to believe in. If you start hand picking versus, the book falls.

[emailgarbage20]

I was replying to your assertion that the Bible says nowhere that slavery is wrong and that the old testament supports it. I put the example of the enslavement of the Israelites as an example against your claim. I concede that Christians were on both sides of this issue. Even so, I remember my American History professor telling the class that the abolitionists were Christian fundamentalists that most of us in the class wouldn't have liked!

[adknerr]

And I retorted your converting the story of Exodus into an anti-slavery story is weak at best (since it involves ENSLAVING the people they didn't kill) and still does not excuse the quite clear definitions of why slavery is accepted in both old and new testaments (Leviticus/Paul/etc).

The Christians that were on abolitionist side were the progressives, not the othodox/fundamentalists. Take the bible literally and it's clear slavery is ok and justified by God... a failing proposition.

[adknerr]

Sorry I really couldn't let it go, but thanks to you I've refreshed reading up on the book of Exodus. Please direct your reading to chapter 21 where it explicitly discusses exact ways you can own slaves, including other Hebrews, sons and daughters, and even take on extra wives. Seriously please re-read this story and then please never use Exodus ever again as a story of anti-slavery.

If you'd like to use the metaphore of it, like MLK did, that's fine, just preface it that way.

[Newton1692]

Read Seneca.