Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D'Souza, debate at CU-Boulder (Part 10 of 13)

[pining4apple]

D'Souza is an ass 

[pining4apple]

D'Souza is an ass

[xqeenx]

wow. this audience is full of complete morons. they must all be religious and unable to comprehend that Hitchens is winning the debate by a mile.

[foxymrfox]

What utterly confuses me is that for those who believe in a deity, surely the discoveries of science take them closer to knowing the design of god (supposing it exists). It seems to me that the devotion to a specific faith and it's accompanying historical suppositions is the religious argument's downfall. Though science may point to doctrines being untrue, it does not eradicate the 'God'. What do they care about more, God or prophets?

[GamePiglet]

Dinesh really is completely outclassed here .. what a joker...

[BillKiernan]

i'm at 2:00 and am anticipating a massive ownage being that Dinesh just left himself wide open.

[Unbeginner]

It is easy to see trough Dinesh D'Souza's arguments to me. They have been a failure to support his cause in this video.

But unlike Hitchens I do not think I could easily explain to other people in the room why what he said was ridiculous. I would feel some sort of pressure to fail fo no reason.

[symelian]

how can science answer philosophical questions? - can i solve an electrical problem with carpentry?

idiotic point....

[mymentor]

D'Souza, as usual, is incapable of saying anything without resorting to an ad hominem - pathetic.

[adknerr]

Totally. Dinesh was absolutely terrible here today. I really don't see how people say this is Hitchen's best religious debating foe.

Hitchens says very clear statements and argument and Dinesh misinterprets it time and time again, repeating it incorrectly and incoherently, presumably to hold onto his base in the crowd. Nice tactic for the weak, but anyone with a shred of logic and honestly should think less of you now.

Example, the one page of Spinoza comment. WTF Dinesh.

[jcnednasluvchile]

Daaaaammmmmnn, Dinesh got his ass SPANKED!

[grungefreak10]

I have said it many times before and I will say it again; Religion is an agent of social control. If it were a fact that being Non-Religious inevitably led you to be a criminal it wouldn't prove that religion is correct. It would only prove that society needs to be controlled.

[agentssith]

Great metaphor by Hitchens: "Religion is fossilized philosophy"

[luerwulf]

I must be laboring under the delusion that in the 'after life', barring some form of temporary preservation, you decompose. That's pretty much like . . dead - if things are still working that way.

[bcmalloy]

The concept of doing something after death is simple denial - if something could be done after death then death would not be DEATH

so live it up brother....

[luerwulf]

"if something could be done after death then death would not be DEATH"-

Precisely.

[lonerook860]

I shivered when DiSouza quoted Wittgenstein to reinforce his anti-scientific arguments for Christanity. What a nerve.

[flagsandstaff]

"Most fascists were Catholics." It is true that Hitler's and Mussolini's murderous legions were indeed Catholic. Shouldn't that give any Catholic pause for thought? Even just for a minute or two?

No one has committed such atrocities in the name of atheism or secularism. But woe betide all those brave enough throughout history - and especially today - to dispute the Catholic authority. I was raised Roman Catholic.

[adknerr]

The woman asking the question has never heard Hitchen's burrowed line:

Evil people will generally do evil things, good people will generally do good things, but to get a good person to do something truely wicked... that takes religion.

Defending an organized religion's atrocities that are done in the name of that religion for its purposes, as not the fault of the religion, is epic stupidity.

[goldgoku3264]

can we define what religion is? I can tell you what Christianity is. it means to follow Christ.

so by your logic, your saying tell people to do good things, and when they do evil instead, that somehow disproves the validity of the teachings of the religion?

[adknerr]

I'm sorry but you're going to have to flush out that definition a little further. Commonly to be a Christian also requires belief that Christ is the son of God, the only evidence of is the words in the bible. You therefore must believe in ALL of the bible otherwise you are using some other indepentent criteria other than faith to pick what is true or not. If this is the case fine, JUST USE THAT, the book is not needed. If not, you also must follow the evil things said in the bible.

[goldgoku3264]

yes i agree we are supposed to follow all of the Bible. the problem is; people read the surface and don't understand it's meaning. for example. Jesus said if your hand causes you to sin, cut if off, or if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. ( now if i watch porn that doesn't mean i should pluck out my eyes, it means i should get rid of the source of my porn. the computer.) and no, there are many independent sources for Christ's existence.

[adknerr]

Indeed, we are coming to an agreement :) You are translating the words into a symbollic meaning, using proper reason and logic, just as you should. Well now, once you stop taking the words literally, you really dont need the words at all, because your reason is all you need. Afterall, who's to say if the entire virgin birth is not something symbollic or even the resurrection? Sorry to slippery slope it, but indeed it's required for this faith-based argument.

[goldgoku3264]

you may be right.... however, Jesus said before-hand that he spoke in parables, not all the time, but He did it because the people that were listening wanted to kill Him. if you go on here and tell people on the commentary that porn is bad, they will all critisize you. The Bible is my standard by which many people live by... other-wise your living by the standards of the people that deem whatever they may as good.

[adknerr]

Well so far I feel fine with your taking of the meaning of the bible. Unfortunately there are many many terrible things said in the pre-Christ old testament that I dont think anyone that's being reasonable can turn into a positive symbolic parable. There's plenty in the New as well, but I won't digress.

To my original post, I just think you are innately good, not because of your religion. Being religious does not make you good. And also religion can trick good people into doing bad things.

[mtklima]

D'souza is a complete idiot repeating old an idiotic arguments. Embarrassing to watch. Hitchens should refuse to waste time with these morons.

[chalky23]

That woman who asked the question is an idiot.

[Gungfuwarrior]

Yeah, all those guys were HERMETIC ALCHEMISTS, thye recieved their insights from EGYPT & mystery schools like Freemasonry & Rosicrusianism, NOT their believe in yahweh & christianity. They were persecuted & killed by the believers of christianity! D'Souza is a dumbass. People need to do more research before spouting idiotic crap.

[prebenfisk]

You said it yourself:

"People need to do more research before spouting idiotic crap. "

[Gungfuwarrior]

So your implying that the men he reffers to were NOT hermetic alchemists? That most of them are not freemasons? That people like Plato & Pythagoras DIDN'T sit out in front of the pyramids for years to learn their secrets? Have you read any Plato? He says this himself!

[Gungfuwarrior]

Or lets go a little more mordern, Copernicus, Issac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci were not hermetic alchemists? Galileo was NOT persecuted by the church for his science? Please tell me.

[prebenfisk]

Relax little friend. I think you can tell the meaning of my comment if you think really, really hard.

[Gungfuwarrior]

Sorry, I just am used to people saying that's bullshit when they haven't ever looked it up or even heard about it.

[Hooya2]

D'Souza's entire argument is based on the fallacy that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. That's utter bullshit. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. If we spent years searching for transitional fossils and never found any, that would be evidence against evolution; if we spend years searching for life on Mars and never find any, that is evidence such life doesn't exist. Why do theists pretend that their religion is somehow special?

[Hooya2]

Science has answered those questions; theists just refuse to accept the answers.

We have no purpose; humans are here because we survived when less adapted creatures didn't.

Nothing comes after death except the failure of the mind and the decay of the body.

Theists:

Refusing to accept the answers logic demands since 50,000 BC.

[Boreas74]

D'Souza falls back on the argument from authority. Hitchens is too polite in not calling him on it.

[adstanra]

absolutely, many of these philosophers have been classified in a derogatory way as "pagans" for centuries. Claiming Plato and Aristotle for your side is terribly disingenius..these great men tried to understand the great questions without regard to diety..antways, Hitchens answered well here.

[Myndir]

Actually, Plato and Aristotle DID have deities (Plato's god is an essential part of his philosophy and Aristotle's Prime Mover is equally important for his) but they certainly didn't look for answers to philosophical problems by appealing to records of the communications of these deities.

What's more, Plato came up with the Euthyphro dilemma, which still poses a HUGE problem for most religions to this day. I say most, because it really doesn't apply for Buddhism, as far as I can tell.

[emailgarbage20]

The theist's answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is that God's nature is the good. Therefore, his commands are necessarily good. If so, then the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma.

Buddhism, by contrast, asserts that those who are evil in this life will be reincarnated in a less desirable circumstance. This represents a novel resolution to the problem of evil. It means that those children, for example, who suffer from cancer are at fault due to their actions in a prior life.