Same. I listen to them at home, when I drive... hahaha it's fun for the brain!

same here...is it not good ? i mean i have been watching these kinda debates for a month now and is there any problem?

I think its good for people to listen to debates!! Informative and thought provoking. At the very least its entertaining :)

Cassie D thanks

Enjoy your discoveries! :)

That sounds amazing. I would really love to know were you got that information so that I can confirm it for myself. If that is indeed the case that is brilliant.

Thank for your comment

m.facebook.com/DSouzaDinesh/posts/192608960832520 It feels weird to find out who Hitchens was after he was already dead. I'm watching all his videos but have put off the ones where he looks sick ☹️

Blane Gillum: Why? I would suggest his debate with William Dembski. Probably one of his most powerful endings to a debate ever. Allso i would like to point out how immoral it is for Dinesh, to use Hitchens death, to proselytize, when Hitchens showed how much he despised it when he was alive.

...especially when he then goes on to be exposed and discredited, at least as regards any kind of moral high ground, or biblical/Catholic family values are concerned. That's long before we get to his psychotic dominionism and exceptionalism. One has to wonder whether he was hired by Reagan partly through tokenism, and partly through his espousal of an extremist religious position, which also proves that sectarian divisions vanish between "people of faith" if confronted by the choice between people of other faiths and atheism, a bit similar to how the last archbishop of Canterbury must have been thinking when he suggested sharia be allowed for islamists in the UK in direct opposition to the laws of the lands. What a dozy cunt...but then he's the A of C, so hey! He must be right and even if he's not, hey! His heart is in the right place... All of which is utter bullshit. Resist islamism and all dominionist fanatics while you still can.

Actually in the wild they have been recorded lifting the leg of a buffalo so that her wounded sister can eat the soft flesh in the inner thigh.

Hahahaha

Which debate were you watching? Because Dinesh said that lions wouldn't wipe out an entire population of antelopes unlike humans who wipe out entire populations of their own species. He said that lions compete for dominance, survival of the strongest but they don't go around systematically wiping out ALL lions. Atheists always like to misrepresent the facts because as the famous atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel admitted; "they have a cosmic authority problem". To quote Dinesh D'Souza again; "You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts."

@@Locutus.Borg. Shimpanzee did exteminate de rival tribe. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/ioGibWmIaaqp06c.html

@@Locutus.Borg. How does this advance the argument at all, for either side? The fact that humans go to war is not a testament to whether or not God exists, although if you'd like to attribute it to such, why would the omniscient, omnipotent being with the power to intervene just stand by and watch? Also if you'd like to talk about war with regards to religion, the facts are not on your side (and as Dinesh said, you are not entitled to your own). Certainly terrible acts can be committed by both religious people and atheists or those of ambiguous beliefs. Atheists in history have been responsible for violence, yes, but the cause of that violence was not to spread their atheism but as a response to some other bias, such as nationalism. Have you ever heard someone start a war or commit a terrorist act on the basis of "I'm going to spread the atheist movement to the heathens!" or carry a sign that says "Science hates the gays" or "atheism says homosexuality is wrong" and then go shoot up a gay nightclub? The Bible's representation of slavery as acceptable is still being used to this day by radical fundamentalists to justify killing black people, which we see daily now in the news. Now have you ever heard someone start massive violence in the name of spreading [Christianity, Catholicism, Islam]? You cannot truthfully answer no. While humans would almost certainly still be violent if religion had never existed, in the world we live in it has been the primary cause for many and a contributing cause to many more wars, acts of genocide, acts of terrorism, and acts of mutilation and murder. Also, in truth the word atheism should not exist. It's like saying you're a-astrology or a-flat-earth or a-reiki-healing. Religion makes incredulous claims, based on insubstantial evidence, and some people find the justifications to be too implausible to give the claim any credit. If I say I saw a unicorn and have a book that says unicorns are real (pick a child from almost any area on earth and they can probably tell you they've heard and read about unicorns), you would tell me that I don't have enough evidence and that you don't believe me. Does that make you part of a group called a-unicorn-ists? And do I then get to attribute acts of violence to all the a-unicorn-ists in the world by lumping them together based on their a-unicorn-ness? No, I don't. Which isn't the case for religion, as members of these groups have committed acts of violence explicitly at the wish of their deity or to punish those who would claim a different deity. So please tell us how the false analogy of the lions advances your argument for God.

Hitchens has got style.

I couldn´t agree more! However ... after having seen many of Christopher Hitchens debates I had a sense that this might not have been his best. There where various situations where - in other debates- he would crush his opponent with the arguments D´Souza gave. Nevertheless, even when he was not "in shape", he was still great.

Simply the best

Yes he's definitely dammed now but not God uses Dinesh to change his mind. I pray for this man's precious soul. It's hard to change an intellectualist's mind.

hitler drew a crowd from speaking , words dont care who speak them,

Naturally. The religious make awful arguments because they are arguing from an invalid position

Really? Can you explain to me how many g3nd3rs their are?

@@FM-dm8xj gender has nothing to do with religion. Or unicorns.

@@Steve-kj9tx So unicorns have something do with religion? Answer the question please.

Your A assuming its bad, and B assuming that society doesnt already contain a huge anti religion bias

But did he ever answer the question?

@@reidveryan9414 yes ? lol

But wasn't the question why evolution would bring forth a value such as brotherhood? I mean, it's obvious that Hitchens could've answered that question in about 2 seconds, because the question is absolutely idiotic.

@@MrMasterKaio this is how idiots learn, they want others to tell them the answers to everything by being stupid.

@@alanyuan1049 Then answer the question if you can. All any of you, or Hitchens ever said was that it was a stupid question. If it's so easy. Answer it.

I did notice that. Like on the infinite question. He first says that infinite it not what we would call infinite but never says what he thinks infinite is then. And after that he just answers something entirely different unrelated to the question. Funny really how people take him seriously.

It's not easy trying to explain the idea of God... but it's easy to say it's just stupid, it's just make believe.

@@aakkoin Then what is god? Is he the god of the bible? And if you think he is then you argue for the god of the bible instead of what ever image you have of him that is not in the bible.

@@@redholm "Then what is god?" is a pretty deep question, you have to buy me a beer

@@aakkoin Nah. I don't drink.

yes i agree...his interupting Hitch many many times...but I dont recall him doing it to Dinesh...

@@bisatheos6941 I've watched many debates with Christopher. He actually interrupts the other debaters a lot. I haven't watched this debate in a while, but in one debate between Chris and Dinesh, Dinesh had to actually say to Christopher, "It's my time, it's my time."

Any debate suggestions ?

@@Anicius_ you can look for the four horsemen (it comes separated into hour 1 and hour 2) and anything with any of them is generally quite good . of course this is just my opinion.

@@elysiansembry3285 theres a full two hour version too

@@Anicius_ would you mind please giving me the link ?

Honestly, more like theism..at least deism isn't as arrogant and rigid.

nice word .... 'aunicornist')

Laura Meszaros Im sorry but it seemed to me the other way around. So Maybe be we are both bias.

Not really. He dodged several questions.

@@CaveCanem74 His rebuttal to what he referred to as hitchens "stronger arguments" was very weak in the closing minutes of the video. 99% of people follow the religion of their parents and locality, and to say lions wouldn't commit genocide point as an explantation to why people have wars/evil.... I think he's babbling quite badly at that point.

@@addz17 you really didnt pay any attention did you... the only reason why we are the only beings Who create wars and genicide and things of the sort, is because we have a moral dimensión, a concience or a soul if you will.

🎯

Christopher is proof that being born somewhere doesn't determine faith. It might determine nominalism, but he himself is an atheist born in a Christian country, at least at the time when he was born.

​@@jesusistheonlygodamen3406Well but if you're honest, it does heavily influence it, otherwise all religions would be evenly spread around the world

How did Hitchens trick you into thinking he was great? Just a loud and bitter man. Hopefully Hitchens did repent before he left this world. I have no desire to see him suffer. One thing that differs christians from non believers is the love for thier enemies, and desire for undeserved mercy. We've all sinned and still do. If anyone asked why God can send anyone to Hell is the exact same for why a country can send a criminal to prison. Hell is spiritual prison, and sin is the spiritual crime. Is it loving for someone not to punish a murderer that killed a family? No of course not. Well sin is bad because all sin has destructive nature to either the sinner or an innocent victim that gets caught in the sinners net. All sin destroys something. Lying decieves and warps someone's reality, and then they act on that false reality and get hurt. Fornication devalues people, and their relationships, stealing take away earned reward and incentives etc. Sins are not listed arbitrarily.

Hitchens himself considered D'Souza a formidable opponent in debate.

@Blast You're free to believe that Hitchens was being dishonest when speaking about D'Souza to others.

@Blast I'm taking about his comments on D'Souza. You're free to believe he was being dishonest.

@Blast It's not that hard to follow. Hitchens spoke positively of D'Souza. Don't let it keep you up at night.

Hate you! 😉

was the "is there an afterlife" debate in Westwood CA))@@lizhughes2852

@@5150Rockstar Hitchens is engaged in that at present I would think and I don't think he is doing too well on that front.

Locutus Borg He is being judged by his “loving” creator, you mean?

@@Stevethethird677 Read Matthew 21:33-46 "The Parable of the Tenants" www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021%3A33-46&version=NIV Specifically _"But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”_ Hitchens has brought judgment on himself. God was loving enough to allow His precious Son to die for Hitchens and his sins but Hitchens chose to reject God's grace. Worse, he chose to blaspheme and lead others from accepting God's grace.

I like that first question thrown to Dinesh. He was asked if he believes it is immoral to send atheists and believers of other religions to hell. That is interesting, whether you interpret hell as torment, or simply no after life, that is a good moral question. Dinesh simply said "i dont know what happens after death". What a lame answer to a decent question.

@@zachwillson7645 A better answer is that if you are an atheist and you don't believe in either heaven or hell why does it matter? Perhaps Hitchens can answer that one now?

@@Locutus.Borg. What a stupid response. 'Well in your world view hell doesn't exist so why does it matter?' That could then be the answer to every question about god no? "Is god good" "Well in your opinion he doesn't exist so why does it matter?" That would be your answer? Glad you weren't up there to embarrass religion even more. If in my opinion it doesn't exist, but in yours it does, that doesn't mean i can't ask questions about your opinion on what you believe exists, where did you get that weird ass rule from?

@@Locutus.Borg. surely not

In no small part due to the actions of the debater featured here, Dinesh D'Souza

@@jamesmulville8682 Agreed, D'Souza is yet another foul adherent of Trumpism -- no matter how dedicated that monster is to the destruction of American democracy and prosperity!

Hitchens was wrong a great deal when he spoke about Fascism or the Third Reich. On this issue D'Souza has a superior understanding of the true motives of the Fascists - German or Italian.

@Joshua McGillivray I don't doubt it. Hitchens contradicts himself in his own statements.

William Lane Craig depends on the inability of his audience to suss out logical fallacies which his opponents are too moral to use. If you can name a point where he trounces his opponent without a fallacious argument, I'll eat my hat.

Generalization fallacy then an ad hominem. If you can state how your response adds anything beneficial to this discussion, I'll eat a second hat--after you provide a point where he trounces his opponent without a fallacious argument. Note as well that I don't hate Craig. I think he deliberately misleads people, but hate is reserved for people who do things like rape children.

By the standard definition of discussion, this qualifies. If you're making up definitions, sure, it may not The sincerity of the statement is not a requirement for an argument being an ad hominem, nor the offence of the receiving party (none taken, by the way). Only that it be used in place of arguing the point being raised The guy is a doctor (of Theology, which I imagine would be pretty closely tied with Philosophy) and directly mentions fallacies by name. Moreover, he engages in very public debates; preparation would include looking for counter-arguments to his own points. There is not a chance in Hell that he doesn't recognize the fallacies he puts forth But, since you're not interested in discussion, have fun trolling

What question was not answered?

@@isaacfox4222 Can God die?

In reality though Hitchens kept talking for as long as he pleased. It was only Dinesh D'Souza who was inconvenienced as Hitchens was given almost four times as long to make his points and he was allowed to dodge answering difficult questions which D'Souza picked him up for at least three times.

this goofball host is Larry Taunton, an evangelical Christian who wrote a book called 'The Faith of Christopher Hitchens'. He claimed that Hitchens flirted with Christianity after his diagnosis with cancer. He also claimed to be his friend, which pissed Lawrence Krauss off

Worst debate moderator in America.

@@mmmnuts5645 thank you for sparing me from making that point. What a immoral and disgusting guy that is.

Ask Dinesh D'Souzaf if he has ever had a wet fart i.e. shit his pants by accident. If he has then why does he believe in an intelligent designer?!

Yup. Your summation of his argument might actually be more convincing

Fool

Mike Rodgers Dinesh is quite the fool.

@@michaelryan6342 you are quite the fool.

Mike Rodgers Accusations without facts nor explanation are hollow words.

The creator always wins, he spent a life time railing against the Creator only to be taken from cancer of the voice a coincidence, I think not, life and death is in the power of the tongue. That what I read

I truly haven't seen many debates in which the before-and-after vote resulted in the atheist side losing. The only one I've come across so far is a Lennox vs Hitchens one from 2008 where Lennox won the motion, even though I must say, Hitchens was still nonetheless at his best.

What do you mean by the word evil?

You’re right. Poor hitchens never stood a chance.

@@henryfarris9641 goodness, i don't know which is worse, religion or your sheer incompetence

Ha! Funny! But true.

It's a shame when people pay more attention to reputation rather than the debate itself. Unlike Dawkins, Hitchens can't seem to hold a consistent intellectual debate. At least he sounds credible in this one, the one with Peter on the other hand was a complete train wreck where he even resorts to blatantly twisting the truth.

@@elysiansembry3285 his lack of reading skills.

Absolutely correct. Dinesh keeps attributing altruistic, even apparently group survival-threatening, behaviour to only humans when this happens often in other social mammals. Meerkats are an excellent example of many of these behaviours.

Amen!

Good Lord have mercy on your soul, that you see yourself as that, to be in any position as to impugn God Almighty (the very definition of perfection), and assume you are so morally constituted as to be more lofty in your own pursuits, than the Lofty One Himself. That one cannot see the hubris in those kinds of claims is beyond ony sane person. Your soul is in grave danger dear narcissis. Step back from the pool.

What are the sins of God? You ignorant child?

Sarah Thomas Did you read the Bible? Promotes permits and outlines rules for slavery. Maybe he should have softened pharaohs heart instead of purposely hardening it, maybe if he had chosen to soften it he wouldn’t have killed all those innocent first borns that did nothing wrong. To name only a couple examples of many

Let me rephrase before what I say is taken out of context, maybe if god had softened pharaohs heart instead of choosing to harden it, god then would have had no reason to kill all the innocent first born sons in the entire city for no other reason than he wanted to and he could. Unless you think killing innocent children is ok?

The sin of unbelief is not of dosage of logic, as you are illogically mislead into believing. We don't applaud when an unbeliever like militantly atheist Christopher Hitchens, makes insidiously clever sounding statements, which embrace self-destructive life style choices. Smoking himself into a cancerous state, losing his God-given health to an agonizing self-inflicted disease, and dying a horrible death is an example for that. My mother died from cancer and she was a long-term smoker. That horrendous disease withered her down to skin and bones, and robbed her of her very life. I suspect the same thing occurred with Mr. Hitchens. I don't have much sympathy or respect for people who embrace such vile corrupt, ungodly infuriating vice, that needlessly causes such mass numbers of our species...such absolutely needless (and avoidable) negative stress, pain and tragedy!!

@The Bibliognost No, it's hardly possible that one can agree with the absurdity of Christianity. The arguments against Christianity exist as truth, be it Hitchens, Dillahunty, Ehrman, or any one of dozens of articulators of those truths that present them. Hitch is just more entertaining than most, if not all. It's because he unashamedly mocks those who adhere to the obvious weaknesses of Christian apologetics.

@The Bibliognost I'm going to make this really simple. When it comes to matters of our origin, I adhere to the only three words that make any sense: I don't know. Christians purport to know what none of us do. The Bible is just one of humanity's lame attempts to answer the unanswerable; silly stuff for which you, nor any Christian has a scintilla of evidence. I'm secure enough to accept my ignorance.

@The Bibliognost Well said, Bibliognost !

D'Souza is a bottom tier apologist. But, you probably won't hear the Harlem Globetrotters belittling the Generals.

Sad when people choose to pay attention to the brand names rather than the actual performance.

Yup. Pascal's wager aint just a bad idea, but worse- a bad idea that seems good to kids and anybody who fails to second guess. And if you believed and found in the end that you were wrong, it's worse than a retroactive C in philosophy class- it's a life wasted believing things on bad evidence when all the likelihoods pointing otherwise were right in front of you.

Agreed. And the stomach-churning notion that Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahmer, JW Gacy, who ‘accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior,’ would be in Heaven, and spend ETERNITY with their victims

justice4all yes, Peter Hitchens is wonderful

Atheists have no problem worshipping an unimpressive created being, but they have a problem worshipping a creator. There is nothing impressive about Hitchens. He hasn't said anything profoundly different than anyone else has ever said. What's so great about him?

I was about to say that's what I did and then I saw your comment.

No, as a Christian I like to hear the best arguments against my beliefs, which only strenghten my faith that Christianity is true and reinforce how weak the arguments against it are. Even your admission shows how weak your belief is that it wont survive being exposed to arguments against it, that's called confirmation bias. As Frank Turek says I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

@Hydin Biden There's plenty of things God can't do, for example, break His own Ten Commandments, He can't travel somewhere He hasn't been, because He is Omnipresent, there is nothing he doesn't knowbecause He is Omniscient etc. So what's your point? Also, if your logic is merely the product of random chemical, electrical activity in your brain, how do you know that it evolved correctly? Lastly, logic and reason are abstract constructs, do you have any scientific evidence that these actually exist physically?

@J w...and Thomas Nagel wrote a book about hoping God doesn't exist too.

@Hydin Biden It's actually thou shalt not Murder, God, as our Creator has sovereignty over us and can exercise that to withdraw our privelage on Earth at any moment. Where are these rules of logic written? In stone from Mt. Sinai? According to P. Z. Meyers humans are fish, except when you're a talking ape, also the flat Earth myth was invented by atheists and today's flat earth society is run by atheists. I highly recommend you watch some Ray Comfort videos. Stay healthy.

I am always a little shocked when Pascal's Wager is used as a serious argument for belief. I was especially shocked to see it used by a well respected apologist. The argument is not only weak in logic, it is weak in moral principle. The idea that, "If I believe and I'm wrong it doesn't matter; if I don't believe and I'm wrong it's bad," does not make it "more-logically" true. For an honest sceptic, it provides no evidence, only intimidation. I want to ask people who believes on these grounds, "Is that really an honest form of belief? Don't you think an all-knowing God would consider how genuine your belief is? Do you still fear for your salvation knowing your belief is a shallow insurance policy? How moral and fair can this God be if he accepts dishonest belief like this over honest skepticism." All that to say, I share your frustration with this argument. Its just plain terrible. I would imagine and hope an honest believer would find it repulsive as well.

Dylan’s Wager: I do not believe in God because it is what I believe and a benevolent loving god will forgive me if I’m wrong.

That's like his biggest claim.

@@Fullyautomagic yeah that God would reward such a self-serving equation is a perverse logic which corrupts the seriousness of the journey to become more discerning about one’s beliefs. God calls out from the world for us to use our reason and to work at become something better. God doesn’t demand our love by holding us hostage to hell, God exalts good neighbors who treat each other well.

@@nightoftheworld I can see Dylan’s irony goes over your head, you second statement is also a lie, Christian theology is a threat of “eternal” violence if we only “believe”, believe is to worship/love/follow. Whatever we can describe as love, that is not it. “Love me or i will hurt you” is not freedom, it’s the opposite. Thankfully most people globally have moved away and continue to move away from this Bronze Age nonsense

If I could bring back one person from the dead, it would be him...

@@Hitch_48 oh the irony..

He ain't Jesus, so don't count on a Resurrection. He thought it was nonsense till he died from a cold 🤔. Now,... I wonder where he is,.? No Heaven, No Hell?

@Moriya C. piffle

"God is in enough light, so that anyone who seeks Him can find Him. Yet, He is also in enough obscurity, that those who don't seek Him, won't find Him."--Pascal.

@@Gweidemann "And do you think that, unto such as you, a maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew, God gave the secret, and denied it me? Well, well, what matters it? Believe that, too." --Omar Khayyam

@@timmarrier Which means what, exactly!?

@@timmarrier Proverbs "He who humbles himself will be exalted. He who exalts himself will be humbled."

@@Gweidemann Your god is too small. ~Giordano Bruno~

The mistake that his opponents make is not directly confronting Hitchens mischaracterizations. Sadly, Hitchens understanding of biblical prophecy, eschatology, and the life and work of Jesus is skewed largely by the failures and falsities of Christian dispensationalism that have arisen in the last 200 years after the Schofield reference Bible.

Yes, someone one can actually, see, hear, touch, talk to...

If all the evidence of the last ten years told you she'd make you miserable, but her friend told you she was great, what would you choose? That's the correct form of Dinesh's analogy.

@Willy Friedlander you are preaching the words of a non existant "god"....its ok for Christians to knock our doors and preach to us ...but if we as atheists did that to you it would be an atrocity...absolutely not. i would guarantee that Christopher Hitchens would know your religion and the history off it better than you would, the majority of atheists don't just blind disbelieve in the same sense you have blind faith we will read a bible or speak to Christians and understand the religion before deciding that its nonsense.

I share Jesus' gospel truth John 3:16 who died for our sins and offers us eternal life through belief in Him and repentance from our sins. No sinful human can save another sinful human.

@@l.j.1163 Jesus probably existed but there was no resurrection.

​@@Nicole-rf5vsThe insane thing about Atheists knocking on doors is that they have nothing to lose or gain by doing so. The believer is confident there is much to gain.

Rashed Amiry 2 Peter 3:3 King James Version (KJV) 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

You don't need God to go to hell, Jordan Peterson says you create that yourself. Without God you would not have the greatest society today... God bless America 🙏🇺🇸

@@jlrockafella religion is entirely based on "take my word for it" followed by "oh, so you don't take my word for it, i love you but - hell is that way"

Please tell us, what should have been God's answer after you deny heaven? After all the other option left is only hell.

Atheist so love their sins that when you tell them "take my coat and keep warm" they retort with "you are so judgemental. How do you know I didn't chose to go cold. It is my body" and if you answer, "then so be it. Your choice." They then say. "Ah ha. You are wicked yet you claim to be christian? How wicked of you to let me die of cold."

He made it to 60

Why couldn't Hitch see the obvious:No true Follower of YHWH/Jesus would worship the delusion describe by him? Next. All anyone can really talk about is the images we have in our heads. Our image of an atom of copper resembles a real copper atom about 1 part in 500. Because his mental picture of God is so utterly at odds with those of theologians who've devoted their entire adult lives studying Him, Hitchen's god is a delusion.

@@glenliesegang8935 No true follower...yadda yadda yadda.” All crazy people believe their delusions are better than other people’s delusions. Unless you can prove any gods exist, there’s no point in discussing whose delusion is better.🙈 Why couldn’t you see the obvious?😂

Not proof, just proof of concept:Play a god for just a second. If you did not want your creatures to act out of fear of you, and be free to choose to follow your advice (like grown up children without a Mafia boss father) would you make yourself provable? Or, unprovable?

GLEN LIESEGANG Playing a god for a second is just as futile as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. BTW, it's also futile to try to discuss what a "true follower" of an imaginary being would do. Since nobody can prove any gods exist, proving any people are true followers is impossible.

Underrated comment lmao. That’s exactly what’s happening.

Ask Dinesh D'Souzaf if he has ever had a wet fart i.e. shit his pants by accident. If he has then why does he believe in an intelligent designer?!

What good has God done?? He gave us life!! And a whole beautiful earth full of life and beautiful people!! Wow!

@@janedoe3648 Wow, that's a bold claim. How do you demonstrate this to be true?

Does he sing the Bum Bum Song before the end?

There were times where that definitely was the case and the moderator should have stayed out of it. However, as Hitchens got away with murder during this debate, speaking for nearly four times as long, avoiding answering the question, continuing his argument on several occasions long after his time had expired and ignored any direction for him to finish I would say that had the moderator let them go Hitchens would have continued to talk over D"Souza in an attempt to drown him out because he knew he was losing.

i dont believe in god, and i am very much oposed to religion, needless to say i am a huge hitchens fan, but i think dinesh had good points, i dont agree with his conclution but i wouldnt by any means say he was buried..

@@ewenyap3018 What do you think Dinesh's best point was? I think you may be confusing a well presented fallacy with an argument.

@@Waltham1892 well, for one, i think on the morality question, he had some good points.. but everybody have different opinions right, maybe you find those points utterly crap, maybe you agree, thats the best thing about respectfull discourse.

@@ewenyap3018 Specifically, what about a religiously based morality system impressed you? Since Christian morality is based upon human sacrifice and blood magic (Abraham and his Son or Jesus on the cross), I'd say its an inappropriate foundation for a moral system. Of course, you might disagree. That's what's wonderful about respectful discourse.

@@Waltham1892 "Christian morality is based upon human sacrifice and blood magic (Abraham and his Son or Jesus on the cross)," I feel that that is a matter of perspective, surely thats how hicthens presents it, and its not that i disagree with the conclusion on the existance of god, but i think dinish had some good points in regards to morality being very hard to explain coming solely from an evolusionary source.. i prefer to be fair and nuanced when considdering arguments, even though i have a strong conviction of belief or stance in a subject... look at it this way, depending on what side you are looking at an argument from it can change, few things are completly black and white, and even though religion or theism as a whole is complete horseshit to me, it doesnt change that i think morality and consience are a point where dinesh made good points, and should i base the entire discussion on that point alone, i would likely say dinesh won by a hair.

Luke Lyons where is your debates with hitchens?

So very true..ha ha..logically fallacies and false premises..he sounds more Indian when he is angry

Why did I click "read more" thinking there was something more interesting 🙄.

Hitchens faces the world

Suza is not very bright. He messed up logic. Deisim is subset of theism. Facepalm .just google material implication. His certenty was so infuriating

"If human didn't create god, than I wouldn't be denying his existence." -ricky gervais

That's rich when you consider that Hitchens was the master of creating logical fallacies and misdirecting arguments and rephrasing questions to suit his agenda. Which logical fallacies of D'Souza are you referring to? I'm sure I could find as many where Hitchens misreported the truth of his biblical accounts and changed the argument to suit himself without ever answering the question put to him.

duh, I think this response proves what Dinesh was saying, I love the unicorn analogy because it is so SPOT freakin on!

Aram Garibyan That's the whole thing tho, Christ gave us instructions to follow and live by. If people actually followed them, they wouldn't be doing anything but loving, serving, forgiving, etc.

It's not just about following instructions. According to Christian doctrine if you follow "Christ's instructions", while not really believing in God, you go to Hell. Hence my point about Pascal's Wager.

that is not what most Christians believe (yes some, but I would say not very many) There are many Christians who do not believe in the 'doctrine of hell' where you either believe in Christ or you go to Hell, it is not that black and white - for instance CS Lewis referred to hell as nothing more than a 'crack in the floorboards of heaven' - and Christians don't really 'follow' Christ's instructions, Becoming Christian is a matter of 'becoming' a different person altogether, one where the focus of your life becomes love, faith, charity and forgiveness, the rest doesn't matter , so whether you believe that Christ is the son of God or not, every body is welcomed to the party - the only difference with Christians is that we begin our life with God here on earth, we have a head start, that's all

....what? Christianity is literally founded on needing to "accept Jesus Christ into your heart". Do you know how ridiculous what you just said sounds? It's called CHRIST-ianity. Just think about it, even within Christianity there are, according to you, multiple denominations that disagree with each other and are completely incompatible. Who's to say who's right? How do you know you're right? Cause if you're not, it's gonna get real hot where you're going after you're 6 feet under :}

It's amazes me again and again how few words fools need to out themselves as such.

LoaThunder nothing surprising about it when you look at the history of people making up shit as they go along. Human beings are so used to fluking it that they sound stupid when they try to act like they know what they’re doing

@J w I didnt mean Dinesh I meant the guy making the comment

@J w You dont, its all good

You much be watching another video, surely you didn't watch this one?

Nobody ever came back, so how should anyone know what living in hell AND heaven looks like?

@@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl actually, there is a very interesting, extremely thorough database by medical and neuropsychitric researchers at the U of Va of >10,000 people with NDE and OBEs with resusciations, or even spontaneous returning to life after several hours of clinical death. For some, whatever the state of their brainstem activity when cortical function was clearly absent, they did experience hellish states of isolation, being removed from everything good, many experienced by atheists.

@@glenliesegang8935 None of that proves hell is real.

@@ja390es9 No hell, no justice. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot all got off too easy. Death as annihilation is far too good an end for them.

@@glenliesegang8935 No one deserves eternal punishment. Your God is very unforgiving, unloving, toxic and brutal.

Mind giving those responses?

Guy couldn't speak

No it wasn't. It just proved that those kinds of answers aren't easy. Is it more likely that we had our morals designed by a divinity?

Zac M: The whole point of a debate is to win -- not necessarily reach the "truth"! Hitchens' did these debates to publicise his books, because that was his main source of income. D'Souza is more than adequately subsidised by the huge variety of Far Right extremist groups who throw money at him -- despite the fact that -- clearly -- he is an ignorant nincompoop of the highest order!

religion is entirely based on "take my word for it" followed by "oh, so you don't take my word for it, i love you but - hell is that way"

Thank goodness atheism does know what happens after death: nothing just compost or ashes, there is no soul. Knowing this we still live fruitless lives satisfying our vanity that we or our DNA is of any use. Our lives are the essence of selfishness and we are just here to consume. Oh the folly.

@@spudpud-T67 You don't KNOW that. You don't know that "nothing" happens. Being an insufferable atheist is just as annoying a thing to be as an insufferable Christian. You both have irrationally tautological beliefs about what you "know" the nature of reality to be. As someone who strives to be as intellectually honest as I can, I cannot in good conscience call myself an "atheist." I know just enough about science, philosophy, and the natural world to know that I truly know NOTHING- so I would not deign to pronounce that I KNOW definitively that there is no God. Rather than focusing on the existence or non-existence of a God or afterlife, I focus on rejecting the tenets of organized religion based on their own merit. This line of thinking draws me to the conclusion that God as depicted in the Bible is an authoritarian, murderous tyrant, and I have no desire to be associated with such a "god" whatsoever- even if he were somehow proven to actually exist.

The point being missed here is that in all those other ten cases (except one) the person was dead for less than three days. Three days is the limit after which a body cannot be revived (even with modern medicine). The only exception was Lazarus who Jesus Himself called out of the tomb. Another point being missed is that with faith in Christ there is no real death of the soul even if the body dies. I know it can sometimes seem like "just do as you're told" but would any of us have learned to read or write if we didn't "do as we were told" when we were younger? In other words we can now communicate with each other only because we did as we were told. Well it's exactly the same in learning to communicate with God.

The Bible is basically a collection of ancient scripture writings that have been verified (to the best of our ability) to have come from Christ's sayings. The English translation of the Bible clearly states it is not a full account of "everything" said by Jesus while he was on this earth (and he did say alot!) If you are looking for the answers to these questions on heaven and hell, the best place would be St. Thomas Aquinas.

.... It's a formal debate.... They are supposed to keep comments brief.

The only reason Hitchens couldn't answer Dinesh's question is because it isn't the type of thing to be answered in a debate - it's a scientific question that must be supported by evidence and built up over time. Dinesh is put in a much easier position because all his answers can be made a priori. I'm not disagreeing with you - they both left questions unanswered, but the questions left with Hitchens can most certainly be answered as science learns more about consciousness and psychology of animal societies while the question(s) put to Dinesh will never be answered because defending a uniquely Christian God requires the suspension of reason.

@@themattshow7465 But even that can be argued as a subjective belief. First of all, any and all positions can be debated. Making appeals to authority is debate fallacy 101. Saying that only scientific reasoning must first answer a question flies completely in the face of what it means to debate a position, especially one based on faith/God. Just because science hasn't proven God exists doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Therefore, saying that you have to surrender logic/reasoning to make such an argument is just not true.

​@@anon7219 Well, since the two spokesman are gone, I think we should continue their points. When Dinesh points to consciousness, he is invoking a deistic argument that "currently unexplained complexities are proof of God". Now, because they are unexplained, like consciousness for example, this does not necessitate the existence of a designer. The answer could be, just as it has been for every other natural complexity in the universe, that consciousness is an inevitable consequence of fundamental processes (I can give multiple examples of this trend). I'm not saying I know consciousness is explained in this way, but this is not only a possibility, but very likely considering how every other feature of our bodies has arisen through evolution. Had this debate taken place a few hundred years ago, Dinesh would've been pointing to our complex circulatory system as proof of God, even though this is now well understood as an inevitable consequence of gradually more energy-demanding bodies. Even if scientific discovery did discover how consciousness came to be and how it works, Dinesh would then say "but look at the complexity of atoms, this must be proof a designer". It's a never-ending search that goes to the frontiers of science to say the minor possibility of a designer is equivalent to undeniable proof of one. As for your charge to Hitchens, where would humans learn morality without religion, I wonder if you mean religion in general or specific religions. For Christians theologians, they actually claim morality only comes from their God and no others. So, yes, could you be more clear on this? Do you mean to say morality comes from any practicing religion or directly from a God?

@@themattshow7465 well put, in addition I always find when Hitchens talks about human solidarity and obligations to each other as a social species forged through many generations of trial and error and how as a social species we could just not have survived without it, he has answered the question of morality.

You may be right but he knows more than you ever will about Unicorns.

You have it backwards , my friend.

That is not being a weirdo

Exactly what I thought.

Come on people, Dinesh is correct. God is out time, space and matter. The use of the word eternity is such that given the confines of our languages, we may understand what is meant by it. So if you understand that God is out of time, as in the bible, then eternity in geaven is simply the spending of the always now with God as opposed to being separated from God. Finally, could any one of you tell me where there is injustice when the decision either way or no matter when, is entirely yours? Who made the choice for you? Rather, you want to blame the one creator of yours. Finally, can you tell us what the problem truly is? What exactly do you people really want?

Intelligence doesn't prevail. Wisdom does.

Howard Thompson dsouza is equally as intelligent as hitchens in every way and speaks two languages against christophers one

Vanguard so? I speak 4 languages against Hitchens 1. Does that make me smarter than him? No. Dinesh was completely outmatches here

Dinesh is a legend only in his own mind.

The scientific method was developed by Christians attempting to understand God's creation. If you understand mathematics and biology and in studying DNA find a pattern...science didn't put the pattern there...it was already there. Using Science we are able to discover the patterns. Where did the patterns come from? You understand probability, what is the probability that something as complex as Human DNA would accidently form. Every world view must answer four questions, Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. Christianity is the only coherent world view that does not contradict itself. Take the Big bang. There was nothing, and boom everything sprang into existence. Christianity: "And God said let there be light" and boom it sprang into existence. Atheism: Something came from nothing...which is incoherent. Everything has a cause. The Egg had the Chicken, and so on and so forth, until the big bang originally occurred. If everything has a cause what caused the big bang? how did something come from nothing? It takes more faith to believe in nothing than it does to believe in an "unmoved mover"/"uncaused first cause". Frankly I don't have enough faith to believe in nothing.

I can discredit your first sentence and therefore the foundation of your argument by simply pointing out that the Jews are the most educated and most religious people on this planet.

Leftists are the ones calling for censorship.

@@Sumisusanichiban You are completely 100% wrong in everything you just said, except for one thing, Christianity/the bible says;"and god said, let there be light", that is it, a line of text in a book. And try and learn something about science, instead of miss-representing it. Philosophical assumption of science: Everything natural, have a natural cause. Nature is natural, ergo, nature have a natural cause. Humans are natural, ergo, humans have a natural cause. we know that natural causes exists, if you want a supernatural cause for anything, you first have to prove that there exist such a thing as supernatural. if you manage to do that, then you have to prove that this supernatural thing can cause whatever you want to prove. Start with 1: Prove that there exist such a thing, the supernatural. If you can't then you are stuck on square 1 and can't make any claims that is based on that assumption.

@@veikkofallman6428 strawman and you didn't address what I said