Dude, Michael Shermer is the ONLY guy that has the sense of humor and the self confidence to debate with the irritatingly flawed reasoning of D'Souza without loosing his cool... So much respect for Shermer.
I'm SO glad that the whole thing is here. So many TH-cam videos [Fora TV, for example] are just teasers and you have to PAY if you want to see the whole thing. Bravo for the free availability of information!
This is great debate. great job to Dinesh... " I believe this life that we have now is only a transition to another level of consciousness... I can't accept that when we die, the life that we have experienced, struggled to build and live will just ease to exist".
Why is it so hard to believe that when your dead,you cease to exist.If you can’t imagine it,try to imagine what life was like before you were born. Exactly the same.
Love how any debate with Dinesh D'Souza is always quickly whittled down to pure logic and reason. His points and statements always leave no room for bigotry and dogma. What an intelligent guy. Both of them, actually.
morals come from understanding, that you are part of society and society is part of you, so you try to aim your actions for success of both parts, not just selfish and harming others :)
Spot on! I am capable of proving this starting from the axioms of an individual's self interest. In fact the intertwining of people's self interest is what makes the economic system humans have and the bases of all interactions (cooperative, competitive or negotiable).
That was great! I may disagree with D'Souza on a lot of things, I think he's about as good as it gets when it comes to defending religion. But Shermer obviously wins my heart ;)
I guess you didn't realize that nearly all of D'Souza's arguments were based on logical fallacies and even outright distortions of history. People like him thrive in formal debates because individual claims are never examined for accuracy.
In defence of my friend Prox .. the trolls below pride themselves on the fallacy that atheism is intellectual enlightenment. Shermer is an agnostic staying hip buy pushing the unidentifiable evidences. Dinesh is proving to be a most excellent polemicist of the highest order.
In another debate, Christians were accused of being hypocritical, and Dinesh said it wasn't hypocrisy, it was that Christian's "...fall short of higher ideals." Some egos aren't regulated by shame.
The human value question, I think, is simple. If we as a society decided, in general without specifics, that some people aren't as valuable as others. We then could not ensure that we wouldn't be one day be chosen as someone lacking in value.
D'souza is an incredibly well composed man (as was Shermer), giving very articulate answers, even if they are not to the listeners approval. I applaud him for his coherent and rational defense of an ever increasing unpopular belief. AND GOD BLESS ALL YOU ATHEISTS AND BELIEVERS ALIKE.
The trouble with debates like this is that nowadays most people have already made up their mind before the debate begins. That said, I would like to see a debate between Shermer or some other skeptic vs. a non-Traditional religion theist; a monist or something that goes beyond "historical" all-too-human gods.
Great thinking by Michael Shermer. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens
Dinesh's entire argument summed up: I'm so very ignorant of so very much. But, unlike scientists, I'm far too lazy to do the hard work required to answer these mysteries. Also, I'm deeply uncomfortable with admitting that I do not know something. Therefor, to settle my discomfort, I'm going to pretend there is an answer, which conveniently happens to be what I already believe. It's so much easier than actually putting in the blood sweat and tears doing the hard work to actually find the answers.
particles are able to "change position-move" because they have energy, which is "entropy always increase", that is ultimate time point of view. you can only interact if you are outside that system. if you are at absolute zero, you cannot interact ever, unless something which has time-energy-movement, can touch you and change your state. if we had stationary(including quantum particles) universe, then where would we put time if the universe will never change ?
Fantastic, you respond to my claim by backing it up with further evidence, cheers! Just for fun, why dont you try defining your terms? lets start with 'Life' please.
I would like to see someone in one of these debates turn the tables on theists when they talk about the odds of the formation of the universe. What would they think the odds of an omniscient being who can create universes and set laws of physics forming? I would wager that they would be infinitesimally smaller.
1200 A.D. ... "The world is flat." "The world is round." "But you don't know that." "You're right, I don't." "So, isn't it true that it really could be flat?"
An interesting feature of the TH-cam generation is that we can see such debates re-played and re-configured almost ad nauseam. In that context, it is somewhat like watching the same magic trick over and over again. On one hand, I suppose one can admire the slick performance that D’Souza delivers. On the other hand, when you know how the trick is done…. It is hard to be impressed beyond an academic interest in the art of the performance
If religious people were more like Dinesh we could just call it a tie and wait for new evidence to arrive. But religious people are not even remotely as reasonable and educated as him.
This entire debate falls apart - at least in holding my interest - when it becomes a contest about the existence of "god" and the accurateness of pure science. This is an endless, tired, unproveable debate. It seemed that it might have gone into an area of actual value, but never gets there: the real influence or value of religion - because it is far from zero. I am a non-believer, and I can see the merits currently and historically, along with the problems. There's a discussion or debate I'd love to hear from these "intellectuals".
09:07 Where not a how or what but more not as closed as who. 09:59 Why is an open question. 12:15 Do those... if so Why..? Closed and open. 14:03 Is it ...? Closed Tells a lot about the 2 debaters.
Just the fact that ONLY (apparent) non-believer comments have been voted to the top makes me feel SO much better about the world I live in and its future... WHEW!!!
I thought it was pretty clear that D'Souza won the debate. I guess calling him arrogant and a liar must be coming from the frustration of that fact. Excellent debate! Thanks for posting.
Michael makes a very underestimated point, in that man has always introduced an”intelligent agent” throughout most of history to explain the unexplainable.And it has been shown time and time again that we were wrong.Its built into our evolution that we create these “phantom agents,it helped us to survie.We should be EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL of the “phantom agent” hypothesis.Especially when we have actual evidence to the contrary of intelligent design.
I think the format of this debate was excellent, I wish all debates had a lengthy sections where the debaters got to actually talk to each other. I think both debaters were amicable even though while I don't like Dinesh personally on account of his hypocrisy (walking around lecturing about conservative Christian values while engaging in adultery at the same time) and I don't like his arguments because I think they're wrong and his positions are self contradictory. A bonus was Shermer was great.
I can respect that its a vast argument. But, I've extensively looked into this argument and have concluded that there is NO WAY you can draw objectivity from subjectivity. Its like trying to say "what is the center of the universe?" when every point is both the center and peripheral at the same time. NO ONE gets their morality from "reason". Instead, reason backs up what people already belief after-the-fact. At best their arguments always come back to a type of pre-supposed quasi-belief.
`you can ask why until it's infinity and if discussion is about believing, you can talk forever and prove anything. time can end or begin, because time is just particles moving in space, and that's only way to be aware of that time exists.
@QuantumGh0st The reason to think there is no afterlife is based on the fact that everything we know that constitutes oneself: our senses, our memories, our emotions, our sense of self is entirely reliant on our brains. It is based on that fact that we can rightly infer that once the brain is no longer functional, we cease altogether. This is not "a leap of faith"- at least not even close to one that states that we continue on to some plane that ignores the laws of physics.
I agree with everything you said except " time is just particles moving in space," Particles are able to change position because time exists and it is our indirect way of knowing there must be a dimension that organizes events in a continual and successive order. But time is not that movement. At absolut Zero with no particle movement, time does not appear to stop because you can interact with that system at any "time" you want
D'Souza is one of those special people who illustrate how being educated does not make one intelligent. In these kinds of debate, the theist approaches everything with the attitude that they already know the answer to the question. The skeptic or scientist [should] always present evidence where there is evidence for a claim, or, rightly, admit, "I don't know," when there is no evidence. Theists can never admit they don't know; they seem to think if they ever admit they don't know something, their entire world will fall apart.
it is not that the theist knows everything. The idea is that rationality only yields probabilistic knowledge at best largely because you can never reach completeness....such as Tarski-Godel incompleteness theorem. Clearly, if this is true in numbers, it is even more the case in physics where you add space, time and other dimensions and uncertainty is compounded
@yoonsangdcho you are absolutely correct, the theists don't know, but you also can't deny the usual, arrogance and air of superiority, they bring believing that they do know..dd has that tone to a t..
Faith is not irrational. Everything in science at some point needed an act of transcendence which required faith when the evidence was not there to support their belief. To acquire new evidence, we need acts of transcendence.I believe science is pointing us towards God, and that he is the final frontier.
It IS arrogant to deny the existence of every possible god. However, disproving a specific god is entirely possible. The one that Hitchens and Dawkins refute is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god that actively alters reality for its followers. Such a god is easily disputed.
It's because he's an Indian-american-rightwing-christian, a very uncommon mix, he appears at a first glance therefore to be a maverick and this is why people pay attention.
Wow... for a "deep thinker" Dinesh seems to have a pretty shallow understanding of Machiavelli and Nietzsche. Oh well, at least he's a master of avoiding every single fucking question asked of him.
This is the problem with these kinds of debates. Logical and rational people like Shermer don't have the debate skills like Dinesh. The skills presenting of misleading logical (or illogical rather) trains of thoughts and making them seem like they make sense.
I don't feel that Dinesh is correct about religion enhancing art. I find religiously inspired art repulsive in content; but the artistry of the artists is what is beautiful. You don't need religion as a prerequisite for artistic talent. He's making it seem like artistry itself couldn't exist without religion. That's totally false. An atheist artist can paint a portrait just as breathtakingly as a religious artist can. Also, religious inspiration doesn't trump secular inspiration in the same way. He makes it seem as if only religiously inspired art can be considered worthy of our admiration. This is totally bogus.
Ok, you are right. Just because he and millions of others believes it doesn't mean it's correct. When we have good reason and evidence to believe that something exists we shouldn't need faith. It should just be apparent. If we believe it merely because we hope it's true or that it's consoling somehow that's just gullibility or wishful thinking.
Everybody copied from ancient vedas and other folk lores and don't admit that they stole from it because of their strong allegiance to their religion. Well, today's young generation is super smarter than yesterday's youth.
Julian Barbour "does time exist" and Sean Carrol "the arrow of time". I agree I need more proof for my claim, but you too, at least for this conversation to continue, or to disprove what I said or what you said. Maybe there is no need, but it is interesting :)
Dinesh, thank you for reaffirming my atheism.
and confirming my religious beliefs :)
And thanks for affirming not using your brain..
@@saps1768 And thank you all
?
Dude, Michael Shermer is the ONLY guy that has the sense of humor and the self confidence to debate with the irritatingly flawed reasoning of D'Souza without loosing his cool... So much respect for Shermer.
I think what I appreciate most about your debating style is your humility and your ability to admit "we don't know yet [ but are working on it ]"
What's great is that these guys are friends.
Great Guys! Shermen and Dinesh should debate most often! I learn a lot! I think inside us fight all positions every day!
D'Souza's evasion concerning the amputee question was absolutely pathetic. He had already lost the debate but that just nailed the lid on it.
I'm SO glad that the whole thing is here. So many TH-cam videos [Fora TV, for example] are just teasers and you have to PAY if you want to see the whole thing.
Bravo for the free availability of information!
How to win a debate against Dinesh D'Souza. Sit Quietly and just let him keep talking.
I love Michael Shemer!
This is great debate. great job to Dinesh...
" I believe this life that we have now is only a transition to another level of consciousness... I can't accept that when we die, the life that we have experienced, struggled to build and live will just ease to exist".
Why is it so hard to believe that when your dead,you cease to exist.If you can’t imagine it,try to imagine what life was like before you were born.
Exactly the same.
Do all dogs go to heaven? Beetles? Bacteria? Why do we choose to assume humans are so different from other life forms?
Love how any debate with Dinesh D'Souza is always quickly whittled down to pure logic and reason. His points and statements always leave no room for bigotry and dogma. What an intelligent guy. Both of them, actually.
what debate did you watch? Several times D'Souza left it off where he just hid behind blind belief and stayed lightyears away from critical logic.
Pure logic? Really? He contradicts himself several times. Faith is believing in something you have no evidence for. Science doesn't do that!
Jesus hates people who assert logic as a human raison d'etre. LOL. Dinesh is deconstructing that premise.
D'Souza is a pseudointellectual at best 🤣
I love both of them.
morals come from understanding, that you are part of society and society is part of you, so you try to aim your actions for success of both parts, not just selfish and harming others :)
Spot on! I am capable of proving this starting from the axioms of an individual's self interest. In fact the intertwining of people's self interest is what makes the economic system humans have and the bases of all interactions (cooperative, competitive or negotiable).
19:39, "what are you talking about?" - exactly!
Ian M hitchens never said that to dsouza.
@@vanguard4065 because Hitchens is smarter than any of these fools lol
@@ivespoken8902 Hitchens? You mean Peter? If you are referring to Chris, you are so far out in the boonies it isn't funny.
19:39
If D'Souza were a superhero he would be named Srawman.
Good debate both men are respectable instead of shouting informal fallacies at each other.
Very informative.
That was great! I may disagree with D'Souza on a lot of things, I think he's about as good as it gets when it comes to defending religion. But Shermer obviously wins my heart ;)
Why should I lower myself to accepting a set of standards lower than the ones I already hold?
You've not only characterized Dinesh perfectly, but Christian apologetics as a whole as well.
Despite of the hostile atheist troll audience which is typical, dinesh destroyed the poor atheist.
Your posts shows you are an idiot!
I guess you didn't realize that nearly all of D'Souza's arguments were based on logical fallacies and even outright distortions of history. People like him thrive in formal debates because individual claims are never examined for accuracy.
In defence of my friend Prox .. the trolls below pride themselves on the fallacy that atheism is intellectual enlightenment. Shermer is an agnostic staying hip buy pushing the unidentifiable evidences. Dinesh is proving to be a most excellent polemicist of the highest order.
there something about Dinesh that makes everyone really pay attention and look ,and litsen awesome :)
it is good to see these subjects debated without someone blowing up or screaming. or screaming while blowing up.
In another debate, Christians were accused of being hypocritical, and Dinesh said it wasn't hypocrisy, it was that Christian's "...fall short of higher ideals." Some egos aren't regulated by shame.
Well said!
The human value question, I think, is simple. If we as a society decided, in general without specifics, that some people aren't as valuable as others. We then could not ensure that we wouldn't be one day be chosen as someone lacking in value.
Dinesh and Zachariah are super speaker of Indian history.
D'souza is an incredibly well composed man (as was Shermer), giving very articulate answers, even if they are not to the listeners approval. I applaud him for his coherent and rational defense of an ever increasing unpopular belief. AND GOD BLESS ALL YOU ATHEISTS AND BELIEVERS ALIKE.
The trouble with debates like this is that nowadays most people have already made up their mind before the debate begins. That said, I would like to see a debate between Shermer or some other skeptic vs. a non-Traditional religion theist; a monist or something that goes beyond "historical" all-too-human gods.
53:24 haha..."Shermer thinks I'm making his case so he's getting excited"...
57:50 maybe it has to do with democracy...I don't really know, but maybe...
Dinesh D'Souza will make a good case study as to how ignorance becomes famous.
Its not that non-believers have no morality, its that they have no rational basis for morality. Two different things.
Great thinking by Michael Shermer. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens
Dinesh's entire argument summed up:
I'm so very ignorant of so very much. But, unlike scientists, I'm far too lazy to do the hard work required to answer these mysteries. Also, I'm deeply uncomfortable with admitting that I do not know something. Therefor, to settle my discomfort, I'm going to pretend there is an answer, which conveniently happens to be what I already believe. It's so much easier than actually putting in the blood sweat and tears doing the hard work to actually find the answers.
And it's what makes me feel kinda sad. I guess I'm a sucker, but I'm still happy to be one. God Bless.
particles are able to "change position-move" because they have energy, which is "entropy always increase", that is ultimate time point of view.
you can only interact if you are outside that system. if you are at absolute zero, you cannot interact ever, unless something which has time-energy-movement, can touch you and change your state. if we had stationary(including quantum particles) universe, then where would we put time if the universe will never change ?
Fantastic, you respond to my claim by backing it up with further evidence, cheers!
Just for fun, why dont you try defining your terms? lets start with 'Life' please.
Being kind, nice, sweet, etc only matters if God exists.
You do not get to complain about anyone or anything unless God exists.
I think that´s a great argument, put simply. Otherwise, it´s all Alexander the Great and Roman Emperor hack and slash. It still is a lot like that.
I stand corrected - Sorry for the typo!
Yep!
I would like to see someone in one of these debates turn the tables on theists when they talk about the odds of the formation of the universe. What would they think the odds of an omniscient being who can create universes and set laws of physics forming? I would wager that they would be infinitesimally smaller.
1200 A.D. ...
"The world is flat."
"The world is round."
"But you don't know that."
"You're right, I don't."
"So, isn't it true that it really could be flat?"
D'Souza won the debate!
I stand corrected- Thank you! Sorry for the typo.
i came for the music
An interesting feature of the TH-cam generation is that we can see such debates re-played and re-configured almost ad nauseam. In that context, it is somewhat like watching the same magic trick over and over again. On one hand, I suppose one can admire the slick performance that D’Souza delivers. On the other hand, when you know how the trick is done…. It is hard to be impressed beyond an academic interest in the art of the performance
the question at 52 minutes destroys.
where is part 1-3 lol, i found it
"Giving this vast abyss of ignorance or lack of knowledge"... oh Dinesh, for you, this is sooo true.
That’s not really an argument against Dinesh now is it?
If religious people were more like Dinesh we could just call it a tie and wait for new evidence to arrive. But religious people are not even remotely as reasonable and educated as him.
Where are the first 3 parts?
Oh we grasp the idea. As Zach has demonstrated, the idea is wrong, but we do understand it. (Good job, Zach.)
Little mess up in one previous statement I made. I meant to say "I wasn't referring to the entire debate"
Maybe I missed something, but why is D'Souza quoting Dawkins, then asking Shermer to account for those quotes?
This entire debate falls apart - at least in holding my interest - when it becomes a contest about the existence of "god" and the accurateness of pure science. This is an endless, tired, unproveable debate. It seemed that it might have gone into an area of actual value, but never gets there: the real influence or value of religion - because it is far from zero. I am a non-believer, and I can see the merits currently and historically, along with the problems. There's a discussion or debate I'd love to hear from these "intellectuals".
There was a great comment on the Washington Monthly website which described Dinesh perfectly as “Ann Coulter without the balls”.
09:07 Where not a how or what but more not as closed as who.
09:59 Why is an open question.
12:15 Do those... if so Why..? Closed and open.
14:03 Is it ...? Closed Tells a lot about the 2 debaters.
Yeah. Right.
Just the fact that ONLY (apparent) non-believer comments have been voted to the top makes me feel SO much better about the world I live in and its future...
WHEW!!!
I thought it was pretty clear that D'Souza won the debate. I guess calling him arrogant and a liar must be coming from the frustration of that fact. Excellent debate! Thanks for posting.
whats up with Shermers suit? those sleeves are short. his shirt sleeves are much longer
Michael makes a very underestimated point, in that man has always introduced an”intelligent agent” throughout most of history to explain the unexplainable.And it has been shown time and time again that we were wrong.Its built into our evolution that we create these “phantom agents,it helped us to survie.We should be EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL of the “phantom agent” hypothesis.Especially when we have actual evidence to the contrary of intelligent design.
4:25--This parameter is explained by inflationary cosmology.
I think the format of this debate was excellent, I wish all debates had a lengthy sections where the debaters got to actually talk to each other. I think both debaters were amicable even though while I don't like Dinesh personally on account of his hypocrisy (walking around lecturing about conservative Christian values while engaging in adultery at the same time) and I don't like his arguments because I think they're wrong and his positions are self contradictory. A bonus was Shermer was great.
Glad I read some of the comments; enough to know I'm not watching this debate.
I can respect that its a vast argument.
But, I've extensively looked into this argument and have concluded that there is NO WAY you can draw objectivity from subjectivity. Its like trying to say "what is the center of the universe?" when every point is both the center and peripheral at the same time.
NO ONE gets their morality from "reason". Instead, reason backs up what people already belief after-the-fact. At best their arguments always come back to a type of pre-supposed quasi-belief.
D'souza = 1
Schermer = 0
Good debate and no disrespect to Schermer but I feel D'souza really dominated this particular debate
Dinesh’s arguments are much more comprehensive and logical.
3:40 "I think you'd be better off confessing a little ignorance on this one."
Congratulations D'Souza, you've just summed yourself up perfectly!
22:44
`you can ask why until it's infinity and if discussion is about believing, you can talk forever and prove anything.
time can end or begin, because time is just particles moving in space, and that's only way to be aware of that time exists.
@KaraRvn is that the biggest point you wanted to refute? WHY?
@QuantumGh0st The reason to think there is no afterlife is based on the fact that everything we know that constitutes oneself: our senses, our memories, our emotions, our sense of self is entirely reliant on our brains. It is based on that fact that we can rightly infer that once the brain is no longer functional, we cease altogether. This is not "a leap of faith"- at least not even close to one that states that we continue on to some plane that ignores the laws of physics.
I may be wrong, but didn't Machiavelli not actually support those ideas, but rather write a book with those principles using satire?
Dinesh is super.
And who are you to judge him?
Dinesh,like many other apologists, is really good....at dodging questions
Because youre too stupid to understand it
I agree with everything you said except " time is just particles moving in space,"
Particles are able to change position because time exists and it is our indirect way of knowing there must be a dimension that organizes events in a continual and successive order. But time is not that movement. At absolut Zero with no particle movement, time does not appear to stop because you can interact with that system at any "time" you want
"What is he talking about ????" Ha Ha Ha awesome Question from audience...
Dinesh D'Souza claim that Hitchens knows little about theology and HISTORY! WOW!!!
You can call Hitchens many things, but ignorant on history??? Wow!
I enjoyed the tap dancing on both sides!
D'Souza is one of those special people who illustrate how being educated does not make one intelligent. In these kinds of debate, the theist approaches everything with the attitude that they already know the answer to the question. The skeptic or scientist [should] always present evidence where there is evidence for a claim, or, rightly, admit, "I don't know," when there is no evidence. Theists can never admit they don't know; they seem to think if they ever admit they don't know something, their entire world will fall apart.
it is not that the theist knows everything. The idea is that rationality only yields probabilistic knowledge at best largely because you can never reach completeness....such as Tarski-Godel incompleteness theorem. Clearly, if this is true in numbers, it is even more the case in physics where you add space, time and other dimensions and uncertainty is compounded
@yoonsangdcho you are absolutely correct, the theists don't know, but you also can't deny the usual, arrogance and air of superiority, they bring believing that they do know..dd has that tone to a t..
We must face it,we cant fight religion,its a perfect imperfection.
Faith is not irrational. Everything in science at some point needed an act of transcendence which required faith when the evidence was not there to support their belief. To acquire new evidence, we need acts of transcendence.I believe science is pointing us towards God, and that he is the final frontier.
Mr. D'souza, please answer the questions about why God dos not grow back limps with a straight forward answer
I realize the typo; Imperial should have been empirical. SORRY
59:38 i kinda hate to admit it but this tune gets pretty catchy
1:00:28 bow-Chika-wow-wow.
It IS arrogant to deny the existence of every possible god. However, disproving a specific god is entirely possible. The one that Hitchens and Dawkins refute is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god that actively alters reality for its followers. Such a god is easily disputed.
Whenever I watch a debate with Dinesh D'Souza, I feel so depressed.
your mind is too weak to reason, just a follower of what is universal and love, some call it being a sheep ;)
It's because he's an Indian-american-rightwing-christian, a very uncommon mix, he appears at a first glance therefore to be a maverick and this is why people pay attention.
Wow... for a "deep thinker" Dinesh seems to have a pretty shallow understanding of Machiavelli and Nietzsche.
Oh well, at least he's a master of avoiding every single fucking question asked of him.
This is the problem with these kinds of debates. Logical and rational people like Shermer don't have the debate skills like Dinesh. The skills presenting of misleading logical (or illogical rather) trains of thoughts and making them seem like they make sense.
If Dinesh attributed miracles to unicorns, it would sound silly, yet be just as logical as attributing miracles to a god.
I don't feel that Dinesh is correct about religion enhancing art. I find religiously inspired art repulsive in content; but the artistry of the artists is what is beautiful. You don't need religion as a prerequisite for artistic talent. He's making it seem like artistry itself couldn't exist without religion. That's totally false. An atheist artist can paint a portrait just as breathtakingly as a religious artist can. Also, religious inspiration doesn't trump secular inspiration in the same way. He makes it seem as if only religiously inspired art can be considered worthy of our admiration. This is totally bogus.
Ok, you are right. Just because he and millions of others believes it doesn't mean it's correct. When we have good reason and evidence to believe that something exists we shouldn't need faith. It should just be apparent. If we believe it merely because we hope it's true or that it's consoling somehow that's just gullibility or wishful thinking.
Everybody copied from ancient vedas and other folk lores and don't admit that they stole from it because of their strong allegiance to their religion. Well, today's young generation is super smarter than yesterday's youth.
Julian Barbour "does time exist" and Sean Carrol "the arrow of time". I agree I need more proof for my claim, but you too, at least for this conversation to continue, or to disprove what I said or what you said. Maybe there is no need, but it is interesting :)
hahaha... shermer handled that beautifully @ 3:27
Yes, and it seems very plausible. We are in a way following that trend. The only thing stopping a lot of scientists from creating a new
Dinesh looks like pakistani version of Mr.Bean.
+ImplosiveCat he is indian... so Indian version of Mr. Bean would work.
This made my day lmao!!!