Search Tags:

Categories:

Part 2 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel Dennett



Uploaded by: tothesource1
Video Description:
http://www.tothesource.org 6yrs of free weekly emails.
tothesource has broadcasted over 300 weekly emails featuring informed opinion on current cultural issues. The articles address a variety of topics and the related moral and ethical issues they raise. Past tothesource articles are found on our archives page at http://www.tothesource.org/archives.ph
p Subscribe to tothesource free weekly emails at http://www.tothesource.org/subscribe.htm Dinesh D'Souza, Christian and best-selling author, will face off against Tufts professor, author, and atheist Daniel Dennett in a debate on the existence of god. The resolution for the debate will be as follo
ws: "God is a manmade invention." Daniel Dennett will be arguing the affirmative, and Dinesh D'Souza the negative.


Tags for this video: Atheism Christianity D'Souza Daniel debate Dennett Dinesh God

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by tothesource1

Related Videos
Most Startling Admission in the CNN YouTube DebatePart 4 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel DennettChristopher Hitchens vs Dinesh D.Souza evolution vs creation
most-startling-admission-in-the-cnn-youtube-debate.htmlmost-startling-admission-in-the-cnn-youtube-debate.htmlmost-startling-admission-in-the-cnn-youtube-debate.html
Part 5 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Daniel DennettTEDTalks: Dan Dennett (2006)My Question to Dinesh D'Souza
most-startling-admission-in-the-cnn-youtube-debate.htmlmost-startling-admission-in-the-cnn-youtube-debate.htmlmost-startling-admission-in-the-cnn-youtube-debate.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
All religions are ... ( 1 month ago by ludachris475)
All religions are not true.
Dinesh is such a ... ( 1 month ago by thesunofjuda)
Dinesh is such a loser. He knows he's full of it.
Turns out the Book ... ( 1 month ago by ludachris475)
Turns out the Book of Revelation was written in 1486 AD.
ShakaUVM - Sorry to ... ( 1 month ago by hackenbollox)
ShakaUVM - Sorry to take so long to answer this.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Are you saying it's moral to back up your moral teachings with a lie? I certainly don't think so. I feel that it's far mor moral to teach them not to murder each other because murder is not the right thing to do. This has nothing whatever to do with religion or
theology. Morality based on fear or hope of reward is no morality at all.
Not at all. But we ... ( 1 month ago by ShakaUVM)
Not at all. But we don't know the truth value of all propositions. If we think that the existence of God, say, could be true, or could be false, then we can use whichever benefits us more to help make our decision.
Aah, you're talking ... ( 1 month ago by hackenbollox)
Aah, you're talking about an even more picky and unethical version of Pascal's Wager, there.
In any event, to suggest that the existence of a deity is as likely as the non-existence of a deity is simply ridiculous, in evidentiary terms. In any event, I'm not interested in truth, only in fact. You have none of those to offer me in defence of your position, so I will bid you good-day. Pe
ace
It's not Pascal's ... ( 1 month ago by ShakaUVM)
It's not Pascal's Wager, it's James' Will to believe. Look it up. It's a pragmatic argument, not an evidentiary argument, which seems lost on you. If you're looking for more evidentiary arguments, there's plenty of those floating around, both for and against.
Arguments, yes. ... ( 1 month ago by hackenbollox)
Arguments, yes. Evidence, no.
And it is exactly Pascal's Wager. Any argument based on pragmatism can only ever be that. And yes, it is lost on me. I would rather understand than believe. :)
No, Pascal's Wager ... ( 1 month ago by ShakaUVM)
No, Pascal's Wager is a different type of argument. (And really, it was intended for Christians, not for atheists).
Evidence, no. Well, how about this. There is more evidence for the possibility of life after death than extinction. You exist now. Before you were born, there was nothingness. Therefore, once already, you have moved from nothingness to being. Therefore, it's possible. And therefore, there is more evidence for it happening again than not.
No, Pascal's Wager ... ( 1 month ago by hackenbollox)
No, Pascal's Wager was specifically about theism versus atheism. Essentially he said that you're better off believing in case you're wrong.
What evidence would that be? I've never come across any in many years of study.
"uh uh uh uh uh uh ... ( 1 month ago by codyhill06)
"uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh. uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uhm uh uh uh uh." -Daniel Dennet
It was an argument ... ( 1 month ago by ShakaUVM)
It was an argument to Christians as to why they should be Christians instead of atheists. As I said, the fact that we've already gone from nothingness to existence once is a point of evidence for Christianity, with none to the contrary point for atheists.
Sorry, but you're ... ( 1 month ago by hackenbollox)
Sorry, but you're dreaming. The fact that we've come from nothing is a point against creationism, and there is no evidence that the tenets of chrsitianity are based in fact. In fact, the more evidence we uncover or understand, the further we get from the possibility of the tenets of christianity being based in fact.
Who said anything ... ( 1 month ago by ShakaUVM)
Who said anything about creationism? I said that *you exist* (or at least, I think you do, you may disagree). For whatever definition or notion of self or self-existence you have. Before you were born, as far as we can tell, there was nothing. Do you disagree with either of these two statements? If not, then it rationally follows that we've already personally gone from nothingness to being once already, and so there's a point of favor for the Christian (or Buddhist), and none for the atheist.
We can test many ... ( 1 month ago by marsCubed)
We can test many things about Yahweh, if not for god as an absolute. The old testament is thoroughly discredited as a historical. Canaan was polytheistic until Josiah introduced a theocracy in Judah (a Canaanite state) in around 600BC. In preparation for an invasion of Israel it's neighbour. This is also when the Torah was written. In the time of Solomon Jerusalem was a small village. There is a completely different history. This discredits Jesus and creation completely. see ?v=A-rNn-WVmZM
I don't disagree ... ( 1 month ago by hackenbollox)
I don't disagree with either of those premises. I fail to see, however, why that translates as a point in favour of theism. That's a huge leap in logic, unless I'm missing something.
In any event, while I did not exist before my conception, the energy that makes up me has existed since the singularity at the beginning of the universe, so it couldn't precisely be said that I came from nothing. I have always been, I simply existed in another form.
I'm not talking ... ( 1 month ago by ShakaUVM)
I'm not talking about the matter that has gone into your body. I'm talking about your self or self-existence. You're looking out of your eyes instead of mine. Call it illusion, call it nothing but matter, the point is before you were born this didn't exist, and your self emerged from nothingness. The evidence is thus on the side that it could happen again, not extinction, the default atheist position.
But self is a ... ( 1 month ago by hackenbollox)
But self is a function of mind, which is a function of electrochemical processes in the brain. My self is a gestalt entity that seems greater than the sum of the atoms that make me, but in reality it's only those atoms, and the reciprocal processes that result from their combination.
When I die, there wil be no self left, except that which resides in the memories of others.
As I said, even if ... ( 1 month ago by ShakaUVM)
As I said, even if you doubt the self (which is a hard thing to doubt, though Dennett tries it), you cannot doubt the phenomenon of self-ness. Even if the self is all illusion, the illusion is certainly real. If we say that going from nothingness to a sense of self has been observed, both in ourselves, and in others, then that is certainly evidence for either reincarnation or heaven (take your pick). The evidence is against extinction.
Or, in other words, ... ( 1 month ago by hackenbollox)
Or, in other words, how does our consciousness translate to a deity? Yes, we are conscious, and we have difficulty explaining that except in purely electrochemical terms, but why does that mean that there must be a god?
Incidentally, just because we have difficulty explaining consciousness outside the purely physical processes it represents, doesn't mean that that will always be the case. We get closer to understanding with every new discovery.
You may as well not ... ( 3 weeks ago by theright81)
You may as well not debate on a youtube video. 1. No one cares what you have to say and will not listen. 2. You end up attacking the speaker rahter than the arguement. 3. No ones opinion will change.
At 5:50 you can see ... ( 1 week ago by abbadon33)
At 5:50 you can see Dinesh, By the way I think Dinesh is brilliant,
6:43 w00t ( 2 days ago by callif)
6:43 w00t
I didn't even know ... ( 1 hour ago by UCIBME)
I didn't even know we could explain consciousness as a physical process. Scientists are trying to, but they haven't come close.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code