These formal debates don't go anywhere. There is always something that is left unaddressed or an important counter argument that isn't made because they have to "move on". Just take off their leashes and let them go at it!
Fantastic!! I love it that NO ONE in the audience laughs at Shermer's jokes, especially the original sin joke("they've all been taken"), he takes it on the chin and continues on.
I think the rebuttal to "Can you be good without God?" in response to Dinesh could have been "Well, Dinesh you said that Christianity is a source of good that unbelievers are not aware of. Ok, but that doesn't indicate there is a god behind it considering the possibility that Christianity is just a man-made creation; then that further supports the idea that good can exist without God". Dinesh's argument basically didn't require God to exist, only the principles of Christianity.
Same here, I also agree that Creationism and Evolution actually support each other. God and science work well; God creates and science explain how he did it.
A rare moment of seeing D'Souza make a good point, the bi lingual one. It shows some tolerance and a bit of understanding. Hope it continues, just started watching..
Excellent video! Loved the use of Mormonism as a reference to the absurd and indefensible. As a former believer of Joseph's Myth, it is refreshing to see that ideas, all ideas be they religious or otherwise are up for debate; nothing is off limits, especially those ideas cloaked in faith. The arrogance & certainty of D'Souza & the moderator once again confirms to me how correct Nietzsche was, "Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit" Keep up the great work Mr. Shermer!
"When i give up my seat to an old lady, I'm not doing it because she'll give up her seat to me next week"... no... but you're doing out of a case of both empathy for her elderly condition and out because when you get to her age, you would like someone to do that for you.
"The best thing that happened to Religion in the modern era is America and the Seperation of Church and State!" -Shermer Amen to That!!! And this is why I'm convinced there is no real threat of a re-integration of Church and State. Too many religious people like me believe it's wrong!
Dinesh D'Souza...omg. I can't tell if he actually believes what he is saying, or if he truly lacks rational thought. How could she introduce him as a "very great mind?" But then again, many people all over the world are genuinely poor thinkers. I guess he could be sincere. I could out-debate him using nothing but logic.
I'm so grateful now that when I was a student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, we were taught NOT to roll our eyes and scoff. The goal was to educate a generation that believed history, poetry, science and spirituality are not mutually exlusive. The definition of an open mind was all encompassing. I don't think a professor that scoffed at science or religion woud survive long there. Survival of the fittest required people to NOT assume the hundreds of millions are all dolts.
In "Predictably Irrational" author Dan Ariely highlights studies he did that show when people are exposed to ethical reminders (like having the 10 commandments posted, or being reminded of an "honor code" before taking an exam), their ethical behavior markedly improves. What we can draw from this study is I think, is that we need to make sure to stress ethical thought and make it a big part of life, even as we try to dismantle the negative effects of religion.
@delataylor Notwithstanding my prior comments about definitions, these are my experiential definitions: faith is a conviction based on associated experiences, e.g. ecosystems : belief in god.-or- ecosystems :theory of living systems, Science is a systematic approach for acquiring knowledge that requires adherence to specific considerations and methods.
@gplus46 Forgive me as I must have missed it. What is the exemplary evidence that you provided for faith being used a portion of the data for a current, generally accepted scientific theory?
@ColibriAnna08 - I said that was reciprocation was one reason, the other being empathy, which is true. I never intended to come across that i knew the motives to the good people do, i was just responding to Dinesh's comments that rociprocation doesn't play any part, which of course it does, in a direct way of someone doing the same for you, or on a personal way, where you feel good because of what you've done or have generated some positive karma for yourself (or whatever you wish to call it)
@ColibriAnna08 OK, I listened to it again, Shermer's response that I was referring to starts at 24:30. So Shermer makes the point that "only works if you actually are a moral person". I do not see the flaw in this. I do not think that is absurd or presumptuous. I do not see why you mention the issue of whether donations are anonymous or not since Shermer is making the point that the result will a truly moral person. And having watched it again my opinion of D'Souza's response is reinforced.
@Razgrits Castro was raised a Catholic, but probably remained an agnostic atheist all his life. In a recent interview by the Italian newspaper "Corriere della sera", his daughter claimed that he was returning to Jesus Christ, and she was not at all amazed about it because she said, he was brought up all his youth by priests. So the fact that she claims that he was returning, indicates that he was previously away from religion.
valid point, however I am a bit confused with all this tho' . I mean it won't matter how you live your life (do all the crazy things) but as long as you are a believer you're fine. On the other hand if you helped alot of people and did good things but you're an atheist ...when you die you kind of going to hell because you didn't believe. I think the religion should cover this one up as well otherwise christianity's (on top of many) flaws will have another one. I am an atheist by the way.
you know, for the first time ever, i am actually getting upset at the theological speaker. never did this before. always listened to both sides...carefully, and backup the parts that i didn't catch. the theological tend to speak VERY quickly, because they have a whole speech memorized typically, and one that requires a lot of mental gymnastics. what they say isn't easy logical or easy to explain, so they have to really get through it. but wow, i am actually upset at the stuff dsouza is saying!
Without sin, there are no morals. Therefore the morals that religion supposedly teaches us, justifies sin. You gotta love the inconsistency of religion.
Hello NimbusDX, No it not just you. I have found that D'Souza`s dishonest tactic is common among many theists as they generally cannot back their claims; so they limited to such approaches in both formal debate and phone conversions. Katalyzt
@gplus46 I have never stated that science is perfect. "science, cannot always correct itself" - Give me one example of how science cannot correct itself. Warning: don't use an example of something that science once did or thought that we now know is wrong, because that would be an example of SCIENCE CORRECTING ITSELF.
@Zhylo What does 2010 have to do with believing in God? Has God been disproven? Not believing in God is a more rational thought than believing? Why? I'd love to hear it.
Whether they're special or not is irrelevant as it pertains to what I'm talking about. And just what religion do you think I have? And what about the religious people that don't think their religion is special? "Religions are religions" and dogs are dogs, and cats are cats, and people are people. A little redundancy never hurt anyone.
@delataylor I mentioned that classical physics has essentially been replaced with quantum and relative physics. Einstien's static universe was also debunked. And I've said I don't believe faith exists without evidence. so I'm not going to answer a question with your definition. What I started with is that science involves faith, which again, is not necessarily an absence of evidence. I've already stated that ppl accept science on faith because they don't have the means etc to confirm it.
science doesnt require any type of faith. i wish people would understand that. everytime someone says that science or atheism is its own religion i wanna punch the monitor
Dinesh contradicts himself. He says one reason why god would be invented would be cosmic justice; later on he says "I can see why we would invent heaven, but why would we invent hell?"
@delataylor Seasonal cycles are among the many diverse systems that comprise the world and one can observe order in these systems which are generally reliable. Therefore, it is a fair argument to attribute such a massive design to a subtle intelligent force. The answers science has revealed are merely how it works, and origin theories which are guesses at best. A theory involves faith in the theory, this is obvious because many are flawed, period. Therefore, it takes faith to accept theories.
Mr. Shermer, I agree with many of your assessments -- but there's an inherent difference between respecting people's personal beliefs, and not being able to question those beliefs in honest debate. This was a DEBATE. It's wrong to assume unicorns are a delusion -- but give believing in god a pass of 'sanity'. It is not a question of militantly de-converting the religious; it is a question of helping humanity evolve by reason, logic, and critical observation and thinking.
@gplus46 Wonderful work, it is I that is "bent on STARTING an unnecessary battle" now? You started this argument with me when you replied to my comment with: "science is based on faith."
I'm really disappointed with Michael Shermer's performance in this debate. I could have done a better job debating D'Souza myself, who makes so many ridiculous assumptions and illogical arguments that Shermer should have been able to mop the floor with him. With the Unicorns, for example. How could D'Souza compare atheist literature to anti-unicorn literature, but not compare the billions of religious texts to billions of pro-unicorn texts? Shermer didn't even call him out on this.
Dinesh won this debate...he made better points...Shermer was all over the place and neglected a lot of big points...and I'm an atheist....but in terms of pure debate Dinesh won
Here's how dangerous, Mr. Shermer, religion can be... D'Souza likes to claim he is a 'modern' Christian, who understands the modern universe, by using his 'bilingual' script... yet, he puts down evolution and upholds an intelligent design argument in this debate. THIS is religious fundamentalism. It is this creeping in that happens... taking away one's faculties, taking away progress... often leading into messianic attitudes from religious leaders/apologists, etc.
@AlejandroSanchez3000 proposes simply that the expansion of this infinitely small point, known as a singularity expanded and still expands. The big bang is the period during which it expanded most.
I haven't watched the video at this point, so I will go out on a limb and post my thoughts before the video can sway me either for or against religion. I know there were wars that are believed to have been based on "religion". Such as the crusades. The other side of that is that it was seen not as a religious war but as a land grab that needed to be corrected. The tenets from the old testament are the basis of law for most of todays established governments, so that gives credibility to their value as concepts to be embraced by modern society. IF someone detonates a bomb in the name of their god, that is a travesty. That indicates their god dislikes his own children. There is a text in the bible I heard quoted once that might make a good litmus test of whether a religion can add something of value to society or if it might be a pariah. As with a fruit tree, you will know them by their "fruit". If an apple tree produces sweet, edible apples, than it adds to our lives. But if a tree brings forth fruit that is neither tasteful nor healthy, than it does NOT add to the quality of life. In my humble opinion it is the same with religion. Now, I will watch the video and add an edit after this sentence if I choose to do so.
@Katalyzt Sadly, I think you are correct. I watch so many debates just like this one, and I always start them with the hope that this time will be the time that the theistic side is honest. Each time, I hope to hear something (anything!) from a theist that I have not heard before. Each time, I hope to hear something that actually poses a legitimate challenge to my beliefs, and each time I am always disappointed.
@Riku996 Yes I know about the dark ages, but my question was in what way did it attacked science and left a significant mark in history? or are you not understanding the question?
If someone has faith, but doesn't use the faith to make decisions (i.e., Romney not using the Mormon faith for political descisions), is the faith even relevant?
gotta say, this is one of the best religious debater I've seen. I think he was the best i this debate. Still the fact that the atheist here was not to par in my opinion, doesn't mean he was right on everything. Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris would have owned him.
@AlejandroSanchez3000 the polls are all over the web and youtube, it was presented also by eugenie scott in some of her conferences, I find it incredible that an informed person like you has not come across it yet.
@130adi I don't "exclude christianity" from religions with some valid teachings-- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is valid. Shermer has spoken highly of some hindu-buddhist-taoist concepts. All religions produce superstitious cult offshoots, but Eastern philophies are very useful for skeptics and secular humanists: "Being and non-being arise mutually", etc.
It's funny hearing how Dinesh D'Souza argues that any rabbit that would believe in an afterlife would be eaten alive, yet fails to realize the implications of the very same argument, when it comes to his faith.
@gplus46 This wouldn't be a matter of merely giving up, but of recognizing one's epistemic limits; lack of current evidence is one thing, but lack of any means to determine what constitutes evidence for supernatural claims proves a more permanent hindrance..
I the same. Even Dinesh's several contradictions in studies and after his own prior statements. But I watched it all. It's actually funny Shermer often ignores any of Dinesh's claims or even contradictions. Shermer just articulates and clarifies his own positions with evidence. I think it reveals Dinesh as someone who just uses rhetorical fallacies especially hyperbole. Dinesh ends up conveying emotion is more important than reason. Shermer shows reason is confident; has and needs no fear.
@gplus46 And how exactly would this occur? Even if we were to dismiss all possible naturalistic explanations of a 'miraculous' event, this still doesn't get us any closer to explaining what supernatural force was involved and how. Without prior-justified metaphysical truths as frames of references, there's no way to tell how this metaphysical-to-empirical operates; but then... how does one verify the frame of reference even? It's pointless.
The question about morality without religion? I live in Estonia, the least religious country in the world, and we don't go around killing and raping each other. We give money to the red cross and donate blood and help the ones in need just like people in any normal country. Western culture just does not need religion in the twenty first century, it's just blocking the way of science and further development of the global society.
Shermer: "Social bonding ... All that has nothing to with the bacterial flagellum of a cell, or the DNA structure, or the fine tuneness of the universe. People don't go to church to hear these arguments for God's existence ... " Yet, the heart of those concerns is articulated in that great hymn, "How Great Thou Art!"
@Planjane69 "The reason why someone bashing religion is because they don't want to take responsibility for their lives, just enjoying life how they wanted to." But you're not taking responsiblity for your life, you're placing the credit or blame to the supernatural (i.e. fictional). And why is enjoying life as you want to automatically a bad thing? "The reason for rejecting religion are not intellectual more personal. deal with this. " for rejecting which religion?
@gplus46 No, this is giving me the benefit of the doubt: "science is based on faith" -The very first comment from gplus46 to delataylor and gplus46 is still trying to defend it. If you would like to remove it and state something slightly different, again, PLEASE PROCEED and I will most likely have nothing further to say to you.
I'm assuming by the US govs definition of atheism you mean the US supreme court ruling that atheism should receive equal protection as religion under the establishment clause. In which case, you would be correct that it should be seperated from the state, but incorrect that it is a religion. The definition of atheism is heavily disputed and at its least inclusive definition would match yours. However, the definition I provided was not fallacious as it was merely a more inclusive definition.
You're right most of the time. But if fallacy is all that is being presented it is okay to dismiss it. Especially if its obvious. Just let it fall flat on its face. The expression less is more comes to mind when facing false logic.
He says the great thinkers of ancient Greece had no value of life because they allowed ppl to leave their sick children out in the cold to die. Resources were less plentiful and they didn't have the supports or technology to assist sick children. Children were resources but not if too dependent were a liability that could endanger the whole family.
I appreciated both parties, they made pretty good cases. Although, I think Dinesh attributed values to Christianity that would be more accurately attributed to the enlightenment.
@delataylor Ugh! Again, a definition doesn't necessarily yield understanding. In something as complicated as a theory a definition is like a teaser to a movie. It gives you a glimpse so you can make a choice to check it it out or not. So its best to just speak to the part of the theory that will highlight the point, which I'm sure I've addressed in a previous response.
+Tecolote Alcón I tend to trust Henry Kamen, who backs up D`Souza. He is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and world authority on the Spanish Inquisition . He worked decades on the this topic and comes to the result, that the high numbers of deaths have been inflated on purpose by anticatholic authors (Kamen is jewish btw). Most of the information people have of the inquisition is a myth - for example extreme torture, thousand or millions killed. The same way people think Napoleon was a small man (we know today he was of average height). Both are still held has true facts
He is talking about the general numbers. He is not just "one" historian, but the know expert, who wrote the peer reviewed "The spanish Inquisition. A Historical Revision" (Fourth edition is the most recent one). "[...] [Kamen] reaffirms his comtemtiom that an all-powerfull, torture-mad Inquisition is largely a 19th-century myth." - Richard L. Kagan, New York Times. Many of the myth about the catholic Inquisition were created/exagerated during the time of the prostetant Reformation, the rule of Napoleon, who tried to control/destroy the church and later the Enlightenment. The image of the Inquisition that most modern people hold, is just not what alligns with historical facts.
@gplus46 No... without the means to determine what constitutes evidence for supernatural claims, WE lack any way to verify them authoritatively if they were to be proffered.
@delataylor Ah you are starting to listen, but I'm saying more than just the overall limitations of science. I'm advocating for the understanding that religious faith and scientific faith are similar, but I don't place judgement on the degree of value placed on either in this conversation. It is obviously not a worthless conversation as many people are also concerned about the link and similarities between R and S.
@gplus46 "I'm not going to answer a question with your definition." MY definitions of faith and of science are THE definitions. I copied and pasted from the dictionary. If you would like to redefine them, use different words or amend your starting comment, please proceed. However, if you want to maintain that science is equivalent to faith, especially in the middle of a discussion between Christianity and science, you must answer the questions honestly or remove yourself from the conversation.
The entire premise of this debate is idiotic. To say "more good" or "more evil" completely depends upon what somebody's concepts of Good and Evil are. There is no universal agreement as to what Good and Evil are.
These formal debates don't go anywhere. There is always something that is left unaddressed or an important counter argument that isn't made because they have to "move on". Just take off their leashes and let them go at it!
Fantastic!! I love it that NO ONE in the audience laughs at Shermer's jokes, especially the original sin joke("they've all been taken"), he takes it on the chin and continues on.
I think the rebuttal to "Can you be good without God?" in response to Dinesh could have been "Well, Dinesh you said that Christianity is a source of good that unbelievers are not aware of. Ok, but that doesn't indicate there is a god behind it considering the possibility that Christianity is just a man-made creation; then that further supports the idea that good can exist without God". Dinesh's argument basically didn't require God to exist, only the principles of Christianity.
I love how the moderator closes this debate with her own little sermon. Can anyone say 'poor taste'?
Same here, I also agree that Creationism and Evolution actually support each other.
God and science work well; God creates and science explain how he did it.
A rare moment of seeing D'Souza make a good point, the bi lingual one. It shows some tolerance and a bit of understanding. Hope it continues, just started watching..
Excellent video! Loved the use of Mormonism as a reference to the absurd and indefensible. As a former believer of Joseph's Myth, it is refreshing to see that ideas, all ideas be they religious or otherwise are up for debate; nothing is off limits, especially those ideas cloaked in faith.
The arrogance & certainty of D'Souza & the moderator once again confirms to me how correct Nietzsche was, "Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit"
Keep up the great work Mr. Shermer!
"Joseph's Myth" lol nice one
Wow, way for the moderator to remain impartial at the end. She practically started a sermon.
I am curious to find out which of this two guys will have a bigger surprise when they die.
Great quote. Thanks for the prompt reply!
good point
"When i give up my seat to an old lady, I'm not doing it because she'll give up her seat to me next week"... no... but you're doing out of a case of both empathy for her elderly condition and out because when you get to her age, you would like someone to do that for you.
Shermer is awesome. He really helped me question some of those ideas that I used to hold as truth like astrology and even god.
Shermer makes too many jokes, then again his comedic answer "yes" to the question of the debate is the most profound point made by either speaker.
"The best thing that happened to Religion in the modern era is America and the Seperation of Church and State!" -Shermer
Amen to That!!!
And this is why I'm convinced there is no real threat of a re-integration of Church and State. Too many religious people like me believe it's wrong!
Certainties are often the most dangerous enemies of the truth.
I was under the impression tha D'Souza was a brilliant and capable contender. I see now how wrong I was.
/how
18:18 he says there are 60 million atheist in america 3 times. look what she says.
Dinesh D'Souza...omg. I can't tell if he actually believes what he is saying, or if he truly lacks rational thought. How could she introduce him as a "very great mind?" But then again, many people all over the world are genuinely poor thinkers. I guess he could be sincere. I could out-debate him using nothing but logic.
Thank you...
I enjoy debates because I enjoy good philosophy but I am starting to tire on religious debates and D'Souza is an excellent reason why.
I'm so grateful now that when I was a student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, we were taught NOT to roll our eyes and scoff. The goal was to educate a generation that believed history, poetry, science and spirituality are not mutually exlusive. The definition of an open mind was all encompassing. I don't think a professor that scoffed at science or religion woud survive long there. Survival of the fittest required people to NOT assume the hundreds of millions are all dolts.
In "Predictably Irrational" author Dan Ariely highlights studies he did that show when people are exposed to ethical reminders (like having the 10 commandments posted, or being reminded of an "honor code" before taking an exam), their ethical behavior markedly improves. What we can draw from this study is I think, is that we need to make sure to stress ethical thought and make it a big part of life, even as we try to dismantle the negative effects of religion.
@gplus46
Poisoning the well, an ad-hom fallacy. Is my question causing you some trouble? I can clarify it if you'd like.
@gplus46 (cont.) Now, name one current and overall accepted example in science where "faith" is used as part of the data.
@maestro4110 Michael shermer is need more teaching from Dinesh D' Souza.Dinesh D' Souza winner and he prove that God is True
@delataylor
Notwithstanding my prior comments about definitions, these are my experiential definitions:
faith is a conviction based on associated experiences, e.g. ecosystems : belief in god.-or- ecosystems :theory of living systems,
Science is a systematic approach for acquiring knowledge that requires adherence to specific considerations and methods.
I'd love to be able to do this.
@gplus46 Forgive me as I must have missed it. What is the exemplary evidence that you provided for faith being used a portion of the data for a current, generally accepted scientific theory?
love is timeless truth.
agreed
@ColibriAnna08 - I said that was reciprocation was one reason, the other being empathy, which is true. I never intended to come across that i knew the motives to the good people do, i was just responding to Dinesh's comments that rociprocation doesn't play any part, which of course it does, in a direct way of someone doing the same for you, or on a personal way, where you feel good because of what you've done or have generated some positive karma for yourself (or whatever you wish to call it)
@ColibriAnna08 OK, I listened to it again, Shermer's response that I was referring to starts at 24:30. So Shermer makes the point that "only works if you actually are a moral person". I do not see the flaw in this. I do not think that is absurd or presumptuous. I do not see why you mention the issue of whether donations are anonymous or not since Shermer is making the point that the result will a truly moral person. And having watched it again my opinion of D'Souza's response is reinforced.
@Razgrits Castro was raised a Catholic, but probably remained an agnostic atheist all his life.
In a recent interview by the Italian newspaper "Corriere della sera", his daughter claimed that he was returning to Jesus Christ, and she was not at all amazed about it because she said, he was brought up all his youth by priests.
So the fact that she claims that he was returning, indicates that he was previously away from religion.
amen to that brother
Thanks for synching the audio. =)
valid point, however I am a bit confused with all this tho' . I mean it won't matter how you live your life (do all the crazy things) but as long as you are a believer you're fine. On the other hand if you helped alot of people and did good things but you're an atheist ...when you die you kind of going to hell because you didn't believe. I think the religion should cover this one up as well otherwise christianity's (on top of many) flaws will have another one. I am an atheist by the way.
Why don't people look at how religions behaved when they had power? then ask do we want them to have power?
Oops, I see in the description that his name is Dinesh, not Ginesh. Sorry.
you know, for the first time ever, i am actually getting upset at the theological speaker. never did this before. always listened to both sides...carefully, and backup the parts that i didn't catch. the theological tend to speak VERY quickly, because they have a whole speech memorized typically, and one that requires a lot of mental gymnastics. what they say isn't easy logical or easy to explain, so they have to really get through it. but wow, i am actually upset at the stuff dsouza is saying!
Without sin, there are no morals. Therefore the morals that religion supposedly teaches us, justifies sin.
You gotta love the inconsistency of religion.
@delataylor
I agree that science is based on faith, which is the same required for everything.
He's got a cool hat. Gotta give him props for that.
Hello NimbusDX,
No it not just you. I have found that D'Souza`s dishonest tactic is common among many theists as they generally cannot back their claims; so they limited to such approaches in both formal debate and phone conversions.
Katalyzt
i just realised how long this video is
@gplus46 I have never stated that science is perfect.
"science, cannot always correct itself" - Give me one example of how science cannot correct itself. Warning: don't use an example of something that science once did or thought that we now know is wrong, because that would be an example of SCIENCE CORRECTING ITSELF.
@Zhylo What does 2010 have to do with believing in God? Has God been disproven? Not believing in God is a more rational thought than believing? Why? I'd love to hear it.
Whether they're special or not is irrelevant as it pertains to what I'm talking about. And just what religion do you think I have?
And what about the religious people that don't think their religion is special?
"Religions are religions" and dogs are dogs, and cats are cats, and people are people. A little redundancy never hurt anyone.
Has there been any event where Dinesh did not bring his "podium, pants" joke?
@delataylor
I mentioned that classical physics has essentially been replaced with quantum and relative physics. Einstien's static universe was also debunked.
And I've said I don't believe faith exists without evidence. so I'm not going to answer a question with your definition. What I started with is that science involves faith, which again, is not necessarily an absence of evidence. I've already stated that ppl accept science on faith because they don't have the means etc to confirm it.
science doesnt require any type of faith. i wish people would understand that. everytime someone says that science or atheism is its own religion i wanna punch the monitor
This is certainly more productive than a Dawkins vs. O'Reily "debate".
Was thinking the same thing.
Dinesh contradicts himself. He says one reason why god would be invented would be cosmic justice; later on he says "I can see why we would invent heaven, but why would we invent hell?"
@delataylor
Seasonal cycles are among the many diverse systems that comprise the world and one can observe order in these systems which are generally reliable. Therefore, it is a fair argument to attribute such a massive design to a subtle intelligent force. The answers science has revealed are merely how it works, and origin theories which are guesses at best.
A theory involves faith in the theory, this is obvious because many are flawed, period. Therefore, it takes faith to accept theories.
Mr. Shermer, I agree with many of your assessments -- but there's an inherent difference between respecting people's personal beliefs, and not being able to question those beliefs in honest debate. This was a DEBATE. It's wrong to assume unicorns are a delusion -- but give believing in god a pass of 'sanity'. It is not a question of militantly de-converting the religious; it is a question of helping humanity evolve by reason, logic, and critical observation and thinking.
@gplus46 Wonderful work, it is I that is "bent on STARTING an unnecessary battle" now? You started this argument with me when you replied to my comment with: "science is based on faith."
I'm really disappointed with Michael Shermer's performance in this debate. I could have done a better job debating D'Souza myself, who makes so many ridiculous assumptions and illogical arguments that Shermer should have been able to mop the floor with him. With the Unicorns, for example. How could D'Souza compare atheist literature to anti-unicorn literature, but not compare the billions of religious texts to billions of pro-unicorn texts? Shermer didn't even call him out on this.
@Melchior40 What would it be called then?
Dinesh won this debate...he made better points...Shermer was all over the place and neglected a lot of big points...and I'm an atheist....but in terms of pure debate Dinesh won
Here's how dangerous, Mr. Shermer, religion can be... D'Souza likes to claim he is a 'modern' Christian, who understands the modern universe, by using his 'bilingual' script... yet, he puts down evolution and upholds an intelligent design argument in this debate. THIS is religious fundamentalism. It is this creeping in that happens... taking away one's faculties, taking away progress... often leading into messianic attitudes from religious leaders/apologists, etc.
@AlejandroSanchez3000 proposes simply that the expansion of this infinitely small point, known as a singularity expanded and still expands. The big bang is the period during which it expanded most.
Who's the moderator, anyone know?
@Melchior40 I was referring to your comment about the existence of God.
I haven't watched the video at this point, so I will go out on a limb and post my thoughts before the video can sway me either for or against religion.
I know there were wars that are believed to have been based on "religion". Such as the crusades. The other side of that is that it was seen not as a religious war but as a land grab that needed to be corrected.
The tenets from the old testament are the basis of law for most of todays established governments, so that gives credibility to their value as concepts to be embraced by modern society.
IF someone detonates a bomb in the name of their god, that is a travesty. That indicates their god dislikes his own children.
There is a text in the bible I heard quoted once that might make a good litmus test of whether a religion can add something of value to society or if it might be a pariah.
As with a fruit tree, you will know them by their "fruit". If an apple tree produces sweet, edible apples, than it adds to our lives. But if a tree brings forth fruit that is neither tasteful nor healthy, than it does NOT add to the quality of life. In my humble opinion it is the same with religion.
Now, I will watch the video and add an edit after this sentence if I choose to do so.
@Katalyzt Sadly, I think you are correct. I watch so many debates just like this one, and I always start them with the hope that this time will be the time that the theistic side is honest. Each time, I hope to hear something (anything!) from a theist that I have not heard before. Each time, I hope to hear something that actually poses a legitimate challenge to my beliefs, and each time I am always disappointed.
@Riku996 Yes I know about the dark ages, but my question was in what way did it attacked science and left a significant mark in history? or are you not understanding the question?
"Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit"
Oh my, how does that translate into english?
If someone has faith, but doesn't use the faith to make decisions (i.e., Romney not using the Mormon faith for political descisions), is the faith even relevant?
gotta say, this is one of the best religious debater I've seen. I think he was the best i this debate.
Still the fact that the atheist here was not to par in my opinion, doesn't mean he was right on everything. Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris would have owned him.
@AlejandroSanchez3000 the polls are all over the web and youtube, it was presented also by eugenie scott in some of her conferences, I find it incredible that an informed person like you has not come across it yet.
Seriously, the answer is evil, everyone should know this one by now. *moving on*
@130adi I don't "exclude christianity" from religions with some valid teachings-- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is valid. Shermer has spoken highly of some hindu-buddhist-taoist concepts. All religions produce superstitious cult offshoots, but Eastern philophies are very useful for skeptics and secular humanists: "Being and non-being arise mutually", etc.
The format is too restrictive, it blocks real discussion.
It's funny hearing how Dinesh D'Souza argues that any rabbit that would believe in an afterlife would be eaten alive, yet fails to realize the implications of the very same argument, when it comes to his faith.
@gplus46
This wouldn't be a matter of merely giving up, but of recognizing one's epistemic limits; lack of current evidence is one thing, but lack of any means to determine what constitutes evidence for supernatural claims proves a more permanent hindrance..
I the same. Even Dinesh's several contradictions in studies and after his own prior statements. But I watched it all. It's actually funny Shermer often ignores any of Dinesh's claims or even contradictions. Shermer just articulates and clarifies his own positions with evidence. I think it reveals Dinesh as someone who just uses rhetorical fallacies especially hyperbole. Dinesh ends up conveying emotion is more important than reason. Shermer shows reason is confident; has and needs no fear.
@gplus46
And how exactly would this occur? Even if we were to dismiss all possible naturalistic explanations of a 'miraculous' event, this still doesn't get us any closer to explaining what supernatural force was involved and how. Without prior-justified metaphysical truths as frames of references, there's no way to tell how this metaphysical-to-empirical operates; but then... how does one verify the frame of reference even? It's pointless.
The question about morality without religion? I live in Estonia, the least religious country in the world, and we don't go around killing and raping each other. We give money to the red cross and donate blood and help the ones in need just like people in any normal country. Western culture just does not need religion in the twenty first century, it's just blocking the way of science and further development of the global society.
Universal self awareness ? What makes you aware of this ?
Darth Vader: "Is Religion a FORCE for Good or Evil in the World?..what a dull question... it should be: -Do you believe in Force?-"
Shermer: "Social bonding ... All that has nothing to with the bacterial flagellum of a cell, or the DNA structure, or the fine tuneness of the universe. People don't go to church to hear these arguments for God's existence ... " Yet, the heart of those concerns is articulated in that great hymn, "How Great Thou Art!"
@Planjane69 "The reason why someone bashing religion is because they don't want to take responsibility for their lives, just enjoying life how they wanted to." But you're not taking responsiblity for your life, you're placing the credit or blame to the supernatural (i.e. fictional). And why is enjoying life as you want to automatically a bad thing? "The reason for rejecting religion are not intellectual more personal. deal with this. " for rejecting which religion?
@gplus46 No, this is giving me the benefit of the doubt:
"science is based on faith"
-The very first comment from gplus46 to delataylor and gplus46 is still trying to defend it. If you would like to remove it and state something slightly different, again, PLEASE PROCEED and I will most likely have nothing further to say to you.
I'm assuming by the US govs definition of atheism you mean the US supreme court ruling that atheism should receive equal protection as religion under the establishment clause. In which case, you would be correct that it should be seperated from the state, but incorrect that it is a religion. The definition of atheism is heavily disputed and at its least inclusive definition would match yours. However, the definition I provided was not fallacious as it was merely a more inclusive definition.
You're right most of the time. But if fallacy is all that is being presented it is okay to dismiss it. Especially if its obvious. Just let it fall flat on its face. The expression less is more comes to mind when facing false logic.
michael shermer is great, particularly in his articulation. If only he had more conviction
He says the great thinkers of ancient Greece had no value of life because they allowed ppl to leave their sick children out in the cold to die. Resources were less plentiful and they didn't have the supports or technology to assist sick children. Children were resources but not if too dependent were a liability that could endanger the whole family.
I appreciated both parties, they made pretty good cases. Although, I think Dinesh attributed values to Christianity that would be more accurately attributed to the enlightenment.
@delataylor Ugh! Again, a definition doesn't necessarily yield understanding. In something as complicated as a theory a definition is like a teaser to a movie. It gives you a glimpse so you can make a choice to check it it out or not. So its best to just speak to the part of the theory that will highlight the point, which I'm sure I've addressed in a previous response.
He's waaaaayyy off on the Spanish inquisition. In Europe, Mexico, and the southern usa its on the magnitude of well over 30,000 ppl.
+Tecolote Alcón
I tend to trust Henry Kamen, who backs up D`Souza. He is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and world authority on the Spanish Inquisition . He worked decades on the this topic and comes to the result, that the high numbers of deaths have been inflated on purpose by anticatholic authors (Kamen is jewish btw).
Most of the information people have of the inquisition is a myth - for example extreme torture, thousand or millions killed. The same way people think Napoleon was a small man (we know today he was of average height). Both are still held has true facts
He is talking about the general numbers. He is not just "one" historian, but the know expert, who wrote the peer reviewed "The spanish Inquisition. A Historical Revision" (Fourth edition is the most recent one).
"[...] [Kamen] reaffirms his comtemtiom that an all-powerfull, torture-mad Inquisition is largely a 19th-century myth." - Richard L. Kagan, New York Times.
Many of the myth about the catholic Inquisition were created/exagerated during the time of the prostetant Reformation, the rule of Napoleon, who tried to control/destroy the church and later the Enlightenment.
The image of the Inquisition that most modern people hold, is just not what alligns with historical facts.
Where is Hitchens here?
@AlejandroSanchez3000 Then why is it that the more atheists a country has the better it ranks on the peace index?
@gplus46
No... without the means to determine what constitutes evidence for supernatural claims, WE lack any way to verify them authoritatively if they were to be proffered.
@delataylor
Ah you are starting to listen, but I'm saying more than just the overall limitations of science. I'm advocating for the understanding that religious faith and scientific faith are similar, but I don't place judgement on the degree of value placed on either in this conversation. It is obviously not a worthless conversation as many people are also concerned about the link and similarities between R and S.
@gplus46 "I'm not going to answer a question with your definition." MY definitions of faith and of science are THE definitions. I copied and pasted from the dictionary. If you would like to redefine them, use different words or amend your starting comment, please proceed. However, if you want to maintain that science is equivalent to faith, especially in the middle of a discussion between Christianity and science, you must answer the questions honestly or remove yourself from the conversation.
i have never flagged anyone for spam before, but this kinda makes sense. it sure does clean up all the shit he is copying and pasting.
The entire premise of this debate is idiotic. To say "more good" or "more evil" completely depends upon what somebody's concepts of Good and Evil are. There is no universal agreement as to what Good and Evil are.
@plightweisgoff
"hardly a blind hope" I can agree with that, but it is also hardly a view on a clear sunny day with 20/20 vision.
@gplus46
And how would one consider this god at its 'most basic', if we haven't the verified tools to do so?