In case you missed it, Alex, they’re doing the same thing again to the Palestinians as you speak.

@@MoodyG Guarantee he didn't miss it.

He just called you not intelligent

Unintelligent* ​@@Panikdemet

I see you growing older. As you say "this cannot keep going on", this is often the conclusion when you've spent time trying to have conversation with people who are disingenuous. the problem is they often act and appear as intellectually rational and open-minded but they are not and this eventually lead the one who is open to rationality and capable of re-evaluating his or hers position to be incapable of keeping their emotion in check, your inner self becomes infuriate that this point is not over and that the conversation hasn't moved on to a new point of contention, and your outer self feels less and less capable of tolerating the absurdity of the show, at the same time you know that anger and annoyance, where you all the sudden feel a urge to stand up and say "Ahhh shut up motherfucker, you damn well know i am right so stop acting like a clown" wont help you or the conversation, there lies the problem of human.

Well, an informed atheist defending Christianity in a debate is a very interesting force, would be fun to see more of that

A genius among us couldn't make this nonsense come out right.

@@ThereIsNoLord Well, Jordan Peterson would disagree with you!

This tends to be the case for most Christians.

Ben Shapiro did better than this, which is fairly damning

I feel bad for finding this funny

😂 bro

Hahaha, straight to hell all of us

Most underrated comment.

Gahh dayum

He give Trump a run for his money for world salad nonsese. Not a shred of evidence needed to back up his ridiculous claims!

Delusional comment.

Alex: misses the overall context of the Old Testament Dinesh: A text without context is a pretext

Verbatim: which translation!!

@@ArthurvanH0udt Greek.

And now you understand how a Trump supporters mind works

@@hojda1 Ahh so genocide needs context... Wow... You're beyond evil i hope you understand this.

yo I was going to say the same thing. very true assessment

The body language, the amount of eye contact, everything in this debate showed that Alex was the stronger one. Yes, I'm aware that this is an extremely biased take, but I still believe it.

He's not having a 'logical discussion' he's just 'being a preacher' - "Explain this." - "We'll it's not about explaining a specific thing, you have to see the bigger picture and the progression of the story" - just long winded convoluted nonsense to avoid answering the questions

That’s a bit disingenuous. The primary purpose of a public debate is to convince the audience. If you convince the opposition, that’s just a bonus. Of course you could have a public discussion that aims to explore and formulate opinions in the participants, but that is clearly not the case here. Alex has formed an opinion prior to the talk, and is using a selected text to support that. Both speakers are primarily trying to persuade the audience, not each other.

@adamzain6770 That's actually fair. They are both trying to convince the audience. But in this style of debate, where they just give opening statements then the rest is entirely conversational, it didn't play out that way. The conversation started with them asking questions and then quickly changed from Dinesh talking to Alex to talking to the audience. I think this is both because he was avoiding nearly every question Alex asked and didn't want to face him directly, and I think he knew that Alex would challenge any answer he gave to him directly so he spoke away from the questions, away from Alex, and so many things in a row that Alex couldn't reject all of them as quickly as he was spitting them. You're right that him speaking to the audience is just part of being in debate, but for this format and for what Dinesh was actually saying, it definitely felt like a sign of his discomfort

Thats because Dinesh has no idea of or particularly cares about reliable sources, given that his job is spewing misinformation in service of Trump.

I honestly had to rewind because I could not believe what I heard

If I were an atheist conference organizer, I would invite him to every event. The incoherent garbage that come out of his mouth does more to undermine Christianity than Alex could ever hope to do.

Insufferable wanker

William Lane Craig is currently the worst by far, as he is far more intelligent and articulate than D'Souza, and is very influential with a broad reach in the Conservative world, and is associated with numerous notable Christian Universities, including Biola in SoCal.

@@What_If_We_Tried By "worst", I understood @jwcarlson to mean "least competent".

Dinesh is among the worst people, period.

Well, ‘sponsor’ really, rather than mascot

what u dont know is that the Amalekites sucked, they had it coming, god knew the amalekites would become bloggers and run shitty podcasts and he stopped all that bad content.

​@@jf9593Even the babies?

🤣🤣🤣👍👍👍

Well Said

Evil to you, I have no problem with sinners going to hell, I do have a problem with God saying do x or face consequences and humans putting their kids through those consequences aka do x or face death, the fact that one did not follow through with doing x and now the children had to face the consequences of the adults not choosing to follow x is sad but I don’t blame God for the disobedience of those who think God should bow down to them, if God exists then all of existence is his whether you like it or not

@japexican007 i don't believe in your god, for me every argument against him is more evidence for the positive claim of its non-existence. But i will act like he was real for a moment, and had all of the characteristics he is said to have. You said you have no problem with people been sent to hell. But you also said that you are sad because people are send there for doing "X". Your god is all knowing and all powerful, he knew in the first day of creation that Timmy would do X and die and go to hell. He knew it from day 1, and yet chose to create Timmy instead of creating Sam who would not do X and go to heaven. In Mathew 7 13 you can see that most people are supposed to go to hell, since heaven has a narrow gate. So your god made this world knowing that not only Timmy, but most of human kind would suffer forever in hell. Having the power necessary to not do that and do something better. Sure you can say that this is the "best" but that is just lack of imagination and an Ad hook argument. The simplest explanation is that the god of the bible either does not exist or is evil, or he is way less powerful than theists seem to believe he is. Lastly, even if this world was "his" just because i have a kid that does not mean i can put him in a basement and light it on fire just because he disobeyed me. Not even if "his brother made him do it".

@@Gaston-Melchiori oh wow an atheist doesn't believe in God, who would've thunk it

​@@japexican007Ad hominem is not an argument.

​@@Gaston-MelchioriTimmy has the freewill to also not end up in hell. And God is just, he knows how to judge each person accordingly. Heaven has a narrow path because most people choose to be their own god, and they have all the right to do so and live the way they want

Was gonna do my laundry today but that’s all the IRONY I can handle huehuehue

Self projection is what the kids call it these days i hear. Accuse others of what you are doing yourself.

Apologists are all jokes and none deserve to be taken seriously anyways. They are wilfully ignorant philosophical toddlers by trade.

why?

@@sluluyPrager is the Dr. Phil of Bible scholars 😂

@@sluluy Lol

Why did you include the word "biblical?"

God... Evolved? 👀

Sounds like Dinesh espouses some form of process theology.

God had his training wheels on at the start. Gotta ease into it, nice and slow.

Yes. That’s the implication of his argument. Lol.

I assume what he is trying to say is that because god cannot be wrong, that what has been prophesied must be fulfilled as without the fulfillment of these prophecies it would place a all-knowing, all-telling entity such as god as a liar or untruthful which would contradict the stated fact that god is a perfect ‘entity’ (wasn’t sure what word to use lol). I enjoy listening to Alex as a Christian as he usually gives a very fair and honest opinion during most conversations I’ve seen however, I thought he come off as incredibly rude for his normal standard. I wanted to hear the other guy explain his answer but he continuously interrupted him. To be fair it sounded like his explanation was poor hence the beginning of my comment however, I’ll never really know what he was going to say as he wasn’t allowed to finish his thought unfortunately

It’s too bad that Christians don’t allow themselves the freedom of saying, “okay, this actually all works better as a spiritual metaphor and not historical.” Much richer that way anyway

Agreed - still problematic but at least less so. I’m a fan of Gregory of Nyssa, who for example has a passage saying that when the Hebrews left Egypt they didn’t literally despoil the Egyptians as this would be immoral. And he makes the broader point that a literalistic reading of the text must be rejected if it ascribes immorality to God.

Gregory of Nyssa. “The Life of Moses” (Book II, chapter 45): “Therefore, just as it is impossible for the sun to be a cause of darkness, so too it is impossible for the Good to be a cause of any evil. Consequently, if a passage of Scripture presents to us something which seems unworthy of the Divine nature, we must not believe the passage to have that sense.”

"Worst defense of Christianity I’ve ever heard in my life." Likely so. There were no Christians at the time of the Amalekites.

As perplexing as it is to find myself agreeing with Dinesh, there is a difference between the ‘law’ referred to by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, and the genocidal historical narrative deified by the Old Testament and the ‘law’ Jesus referred to. Remember, Jesus also said “ I have come to save you from the traditions of your forefathers.” This is very much a denunciation of the historical narrative, the savagery and inhumanity that the ancient people ALL justified by saying their gods or God condoned it. Alex is a bit missing the point. That said, Dinesh is a serpentine apologist.

I thought they had a problem with “trans”. Bunch of clowns

Indeed, one I live by even today...

To be fair, in context that quote is just about the only halfway rational thing Dinesh said in this whole clip. He's not wrong; we still do this today, pretty consistently. And he did say it was unethical.

@@iamtheiconoclast3unless it’s commanded by God. Then it’s ethical. So that’s ok. 👍

7:30 time stamped and noted for the record, un freaking believable. This man needs to experience the normal course of war first hand, and then see if he can still talk so callously about genocide, as if it's all just part of God's glorious plan.

Good catch

And yet Craig's response, wicked as it is, is still more coherent than D'Souza's.

@@petretepner8027 He's the only one with the guts to say what his belief system stands for without trying to hide from it. It's no different to ISIS and how they're the only people who apply at every turn the teachings of the Quraan and hadeeth. To apply the teachings of these religions without hypocrisy is to think and to do atrocious things. They survive in our modern day with our modern sense of morality in being sugarcoated and in running away from the facts. I've grown up Muslim, and I've seen time and time again Muslims hide the facts of Aisha's age, or ignore the inherent injustice and cruelty of creation, or the misogyny of the tradition. When I've managed to bring them face to face with it, they've gone silent. Others have run around in circles contradicting themselves at every turn. The simple antidote to the poison of these religions is integrity.

true

@@petretepner8027 in a sense that is because Dinesh is not willing to just outright accept it. I suppose that's a good thing? but when even your apologists will turn away from your book, I'd start to have a sneaking suspicion that the "objective" morals are nowhere to be seen.

@@petretepner8027 Agreed.

Even Dinesh is thinking, 'Get me off this ride. JESUS CHRIST'

Hitchens doesn't even have lips anymore, let alone is he (it, since it's just a collection of rotting meat and stench) let alone is it using them to smile with.

@@ryananon779 , it's called an idiom, idiot... He has been dead for a while, we are all aware. It's also a joke, as both Hitchens and I are atheists. I see it went WAY over your head. Don't be so stupid, you might hurt yourself...

I hope not....otherwise dinesh is right.

@@ryananon779 , thanks Captain Obvious! Look up what an idiom is. While you're at it, also look up what a joke is, since you clearly don't see them when they are right in front of you...

But, you know how famous Dinesh D'Souza is right? It is crazy that he got to this level!❤

@@n.h.moreno Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-American RIGHT-WING political commentator, author, filmmaker, and CONSPIRACY THEORIST! I was not familiar with who he is until this video. Now it makes sense! Thx

@@tomhenninger4153 and a convicted felon, even if Trump pardoned him, he was convicted of campaign fraud.

@@n.h.moreno I went to one of his events when I was younger (I was invited by a family friend). It was a republican gathering of sorts. He spoke nothing but nonsense for an hour and got a standing ovation. I was shook.

@@republic8360 It definitely is NOT A CULT. Somehow....

Yeah, coming from the guy who tried to use his time to ask Alex questions as monologue happy fun time, that was rather rich.

The crowd was really good in holding back their laughter.

Ask dinesh to define “filibuster “ and he’ll talk about anything and everything else until the entire audience begs for the Q&A

The second it came out of his mouth, I thought it was a projection.

He accuses everybody of that 😂

And so dumb too

You mean, he's christian.

I'm a big fan of his inability to have the answers to the questions that really matter. It's a dizzying roundabout ride.

Often times religious zeal breeds arrogance

@@TheFirstAtom You really have to look at the full version and how he started this debate. Arrogant snob.

“God said it’s okay, so it must be moral” would be more accurate. Yes

And because God never actually appears to anyone to give any orders, what all of this means is "The Church, full of fallible human beings, said it's okay, so that means it's moral."

It is an issue of scale to them, not quality. Which is just another form of "might makes right". If they want to insist God has a superior morality in virtue of God's properties or what God knows, that's one thing. But they ALSO say that we cannot equal or acquire these... so what good is any of it? In addition, if the wisdom of man is foolishness to God, yet there is a ton of differences between robust thinking and not robust thinking and/or ignorance that is plainly discernable, well, that is as bizarre as it is disgusting to me. They have no moral high ground.

"It's okay if God commands it, even if immoral." was my WLC take.

That's not actually a good satire of dinesh's argument, his argument is " sure it wasn't moral but God changed their minds eventually"

Says the guy named Indian "nuclear" under a video that referenced the nuking of Japan. Irony impaired much. 😂

Ad hominem​@@SabeerAbdulla

@@Orca_mammal 😂😂😂 can't be since that's not his real name nor is it possible to be anything he is. Besides, there's a logical validity in pointing out how inability to grasp concepts so that's not ad hominem either. There's a reason why it's legal to cross examine a witness to prove his reliability as a witness. Same goes for verifying the intellectual fitness, or in this case lack thereof, of the person making an "argument" for the lack of a better word.

​@@SabeerAbdulla it's ad hominem because you are attacking the person not the argument. Logic 101. It might be hypocritical of him sure but it doesn't address the validity of the argument.

@@gurgleblaster2282 again, not attacking the person but his ignorance, lack of awareness, irony impairment and in fact, a lack of argument. He _failed_ to get an answer which led him to change his views. That's an argument from ignorance. None of which is an ad hominem since it's true that his faults are the reason he got the wrong answer. It isn't a fallacy if it's true. 😄

Yup. These fools always wreck themselves.

While still saying that you can't have morals without God and the Bible....

First they go "oh it's the old testament" wait a second, was the old testament not sent down by your peaceful and loving god Jesus? The irony is mind blowing.

@@harixav THaT's tHe OLd tEStaMenT! to dismiss why it doesn't count. Next breath, assert how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.

​@@utubepunkand Jesus never had a bad thing to say about anything in the Old Testament

And pardoned by Chump. Grifters looking after Grifters

Not very pious of him.. 😂

He will convince them to give us all their technology and make peace probably!!

Only if we want the interview to be broken up into tiny interviews to be milked as much as possible while the full thing is locked on the aliens' private channel.

@@MicaiahBaron isn't the two hour debate on Pangburn the whole thing? I'm sorry but I don't understand. Can you explain what you mean?

And other people like Paulogia, or Myth Vision, and any of us that denounce authoritarian and/or genocidal societies, and religion in general.

No he shouldn’t, and he’d agree

He's a convicted conman yet some how still has a platform. Its kinda nuts. Dude is either a fruitcake or the best grifter ever.

Spluttering, sinking fast.

I know right? Imagine being an atheist or a christian and hand wringing over a group of people that we should be glad dont exist anymore.

He must be hittin the sauce

Belief in the Bible (and Quran) is rooted in one-or both-of two things: ignorance and/or cowardice. To believe that disagreeing with a book so obviously wrong about so many things, and so routinely contradictory to itself, comes with the penalty of eternal damnation and hellfire is cowardice. Morality without consistency, rationality, and, most importantly, civility is not morality, it’s madness.

At least WLC is honest enough to say, that in his highly educated glib opinion, that genocide is a good thing, if, "God" commands it. Naturally, if WLC had been born in the Middle East, I think he might have been an apologist for Osama bin Laden.

It is no different than any (religious)apologist out there.

There is no one respectable who would take dinsesh's side of the debate, yet there is an appetite for the debate all the same, so here we are.

Dinesh is actually skilled at debate. Hitchens himself praised Dinesh in 2009 saying if he could pay Dinesh enough money, Dinesh could argue Hitchens' own position as a trained lawyer and debater.

I agree. It was a struggle to watch it one sitting with his dishonesty and Gish galloping. I was constant sighing and telling him to get to an actual point. ‘Let me explain it this way…’ 🙄

Dinesh doesn't have the balls, he's got no stones

Yup. One of the most obvious propaganda mills

Absolutely. But I also think he himself is one of the smarter conservatives out there. Which is rather strange.

He is one creepy AF guy.

I mean, it’s getting that way with everyone to the right of not killing homeless people for sport. Like they just make up the strawman in their minds and then argue against those ideas that they just came up with instead of even trying to understand what people are talking about.

If this gets enough likes, chances are, it will read this for itself.

And he does it well. Clearly what Dinesh is talking about is a gradual improvement in human ethics to an extent brought about by new testament values. Which rather goes to show that it all comes from people not Yahweh.

@@formulaic78 . The main problem for me, is that religious fundamentalists cherry-pick where in the moral development of humanity THEY think WE should ALL remain. Certain rules of their particular ideology are sacrosanct and immutable, others are flexible, and allowed to evolve and adapt to changing social mores. All scriptures were written by the religious leaders, usually in collusion with the corresponding secular leadership of the day, as a way to command unquestioned obedience. Sometimes these rules were for understandable social reasons, or to teach healthy habits to uneducated members of the community. As the tribes became bigger and less homogeneous, these rules were adapted to ensure the maintenance of the status quo. It's much easier and cheaper to control population by indoctrinating them with promises of rewards and punishments in the afterlife...and reduces the need to actually provide either material rewards or physical punishments in this life.

Wow did u really say genocide is better than those who argue against it

Nonsense.

Yup!

@@signposts6189 How so? Explain. In detail. We need as much to laugh at as possible.

@jonnyrondo507 What do you need explained exactly?

@@signposts6189 How can you even ask that question? Try reading comprehension or go away

I think the Bible does pretty clearly have an overall thrust. It's not just a random collection of unrelated books.

@almightyzentaco yeah the people in here have the most pendulum logic of reasoning.

@@almightyzentacoyou could perhaps say that the New Testament has such. But if you include the old then I don’t see how there are numerous conflicting views between the different time periods and different morals

The new testament is worse.

​@@all_bets_on_Ganesh can you elaborate? (Not arguing, just want to know your point)

Really? Well I hope you looked into Jesus to cement your decision. Since it seems like Jesus is the center of Christianity.

​​@@terrorkf looking at Jesus to cement our decision is not a valid statement in order to believe in a superstition. Even if God does exist, the writings of the bible is too flawed for someone who is a moral authority. It is going to be based on people if they are going to love the God that you believe in.

@@3xrcodm hey all I'm saying is that Jesus is at the center of Christianity. If anyone is going to have a valid reason for rejecting Christianity, it should be because of Jesus. The Bible is inspired by God, not created by God.

@@terrorkf wasn’t Jesus God? Or do you conveniently ignore the Trinity also?

@@terrorkfJesus is really just *this* guy in human form. The more palatable sequel to the same story. Diet Old Testament God. You can’t really take one without the other.

Literally this. Listening to stupidity is contagious. These are same idiots complaining about censorship. However, the fail to realize that not all ideas are equal and deserve respect.

A very telling moment about Dinesh and those that think like him.

@@Vegeta-4101 And these people have the right to vote.

Timestamp? Dinesh did say that, but not in relation to that Alex quote.

@@cmar6461 you asking for the timestamp but saying that was not said? It was towards the end.

​@@cmar64617:26

He doesn’t go any harder on Dinesh than he does on anyone else. Dinesh’s arguments are just THAT bad.

That’s a good point but there’s actually a debate to be had here. There’s good reason to think we never make it to the enlightenment without Christianity. And not good reason from a theological standpoint, good reason can be found merely from looking at the history of thinking leading up to the enlightenment, and the fact that it happened where it did.

@musix4me-clarinet, there is no evolution of god here. Because early xtan were cuckoo believed nonsense of end times. when Roman completely destroy insraljuda which effectively ended jawdism, they didnt want to accept the common public narrative that it was the Roman multiple Gods ending the nonsense of Yahweh, they instead started proclaiming that yahweh ordered Roman to destroy. The nonsense of abrhmik crp would have ended then and there had there been no Xtian and there would be no islm today.

@@RichardWilliams-bt7ef I agree, somewhat. I believe we can argue that the Enlightenment came about _because_ of Christianity, but I would argue that the seeds to the Enlightenment fell from the trees planted in Greek philosophy and before the fall of the Roman Empire. Christianity ruled the Dark Ages and it was a return to the earlier Greek philosophical foundation that broke them free. It was Christianity's theocratic rule that kept them in the Dark Ages.

@@Musix4me-Clarinet I agree about Christianity's theocratic rule being a detriment, but I also think there's something to be said about the possibility that the Enlightenment was enabled by the unprecedented combination of both influences; the combination of the aptitudes cultivated by Christian thinking, as well as the aptitudes cultivated by ancient Greek thinking.

@@rwill128 Okay. What uniquely Christian ideas from 33 AD until the Enlightenment might have brought us to the ideas expressed in the Enlightenment? Or even, what uniquely Christian ideas have persisted through the Enlightenment to our current societal norms?

Valerie, this goes to the now famous saying: In life there are good people doing good things, there are bad people doing bad things.........it takes religion for good people to do bad things.

Christian’s are confused about the true teaching of the faith, that’s because nobody understands the gospel is it’s fullness.

@@jonathantrask330 Why would the gospel be so hard to understand for the average person if it is truly God's word?

​@@valerielhw Good question. The problem as I see it is the "lack of the ability to think deeper." The "Word of God," needs to be understood as much more than just "the Bible." Christian's hold to the teaching of the Bible as being complete in their whole intent, however the Bible never says "The Bible is the Word of God." The Idea of the Word, is the "Logos," the singular complete reason of life, the message from God, and explicitly stated as the Gospel (1 Peter 1: 23-25, Romans 10:17). the Bible needs to be understood for what it is. Part is history, part is poetry, part is prophecy. Each needs to be read in context of the culture of the time it was written in. The whole message reveals that God guided the mind and heart of man to arrive at a certain specific point of understanding... this understanding as a whole is what we would call the complete message, the gospel, or the Word. This is why things need to be understood in context. If the Word was a song, then many Christians are not able to explain the whole of the "song" as they haven't studied it enough. They can respond to the song, but have not learned how to play it themselves, because they thought about it enough. The message of the scripture is easy, and God pours outs strict judgement for those that oppose it. In Mark 10, Jesus explains that we must learn to pick-up children, and become as a child to enter his kingdom. That's easy to know and read, but to gain true understanding takes spiritual growth and abandonment of oneself. That's why the gospel is hard for people to understand in it's fullness, they don't think deep enough about the message, nor do they apply the simple truth, thus they never gain a proper understanding of it. In this video, Alex shows that he is not seeking to understand, he is misrepresenting the text. As the other man is trying to lead him down a road of reasoning, Alex blocks and pushes back, interrupting often. One will never find God unless they open the eyes of their heart to see the whole of the message.

That’s it isn’t it. Christians tend to have all the answers until they’re backed into a corner and then they revert to “god works in mysterious ways.” It’s such a cheap and silly cop out.

Some people kind of look at the Bible like it's almost a biography of God changing His mind on how to think about humanity. Initially, He's a right bastard but he softens up over the course of several centuries. D'Souza is trying to articulate this point of view, but he's not great at it. Essentially, he's trying to say "it's Act I, bro. This is a redemption arc. You're misunderstanding the narrative if you're oblivious to the way the character changes on down the line." What's interesting to me about this is that it's a very main-line, liberal Christian interpretation of the book, and D'Souza is quite reactionary.

​@@dumpster_fiyahit also flies in the face of what the bible says god is, a constant, unchanging.

@@ch4z_bucks Unreliable narrators. :-) But yes, the Bible's text is at odds with the meta-narrative in many places. It's one reason why many denominations don't accept the "every word is the literal truth" position.

This Dinesh guy once said in a debate with Hitchens that he views the Christian-led slaughter of his forefathers in India as a positive since it was to spread this particular religion. I kinda stopped taking him seriously after that.

@@m.n.executor1902 He's a grifter and a convicted felon. Tbh, Alex is sullying his own brand by dealing with him.

HEY! God pulled on his Jack boots and did a little dance. Dinesh knows, he's tapped directly into the mind of the ultimate being. If he doesn't know it ain't worth knowing. 😂

I don’t think he’s defending it. I think he’s dismissing it. He agrees it’s bad. But he’s being hypocritical. He’s saying they’re too stupid to understand god at the time.

Really at the end of the rabbit hole, the whole point of going down this line of thinking and argumentation is that it shows the utter folly of believing in an omnipotent god with a very questionable and shady past (to where it is clear God/Yahweh is just the war God of the ancient Jewish pantheon). Meaning, if you're a Christian, that is 'the Father' your scriptures are referring to. It's so blatantly obvious, and where Christians screwed the pooch was buckling themselves to the idea of the Trinity (and that their 'god', which is Jesus, is actually 'one with the father'... I.e. Yahweh). Thus, tying themselves to the morality of a tribal war God. They can certainly say that Jesus 'transformed' the message from Old to New Testament, but then that kills the whole charade because Jesus claims to be one with the father (and further along, the holy spirit)... So God sent his son to clean up his 2nd mess? That an omnipotent and all powerful God realized he screwed up, sent his son (himself) to rectify his own wrongs and moral confusion, to set the record straight for humans to move on from "eye for an eye". Like, that's great and all, but all that does is put Jesus as a moral philosopher, of whom was predated by other moral philosophies that share similar maturation (like in Confucianism or Buddhism). So, Jesus wasn't even cutting edge. His morality isn't "more special" than say Confucianism or Buddhism, which had been practicing for half a millenia before Jesus. The folly being pointed out here is that he was just an apocalyptic preacher and moral philosopher at the end of the day. And that the entire point of Jesus' existence in terms of Christianity is to right Yahweh's wrong, defeat death and resurrect, and become a conduit for humans to have a "relationship" with Yahweh. And of course, throw in all the psychological trauma of putting eternal damnation as a punishment for refusing this "deal"). So, Dinesh talked about Jesus' fulfilment, which down to brass tax, was simply a way to clean up Yahweh's questionable past and to enter in a new kingdom/deal with humanity. Again, the very next question is... Why does an omnipotent being require such troubleshooting and multiple chances (don't forget he messed up with his first attempt and flooded every inch of earth as a result). Seems like Yahweh is an utter moron (kinda like most tribal war gods are from mythology). At the end of the day, the second you attach Jesus to Yahweh via the Trinity and Jesus' own ramblings about the God of the Old Testament, combine that, and the whole thing breaks down and the entire essence of the story becomes so blatantly illogical.

He’s literally not doing that. His argument is bad, but he was not supporting genocide. Stop making shit up just because you don’t like the guy. It’s pretty disgusting.

@@cmar6461 let's put it this way: he's talking about genocide and all he says is "you have to understand the context". It's the same as "genocide is bad BUT". He might not outright be saying "genocide good" but he's trying to justify it. That is in fact a form of defending it.

you actually took them seriously at one point then?

How long did that take, lol?

Despite the comments below, (which I TOTALLY understand, because...well...it's all batshittery!), I understand where you are coming from. I TRIED to give them the benefit of the doubt when I first left religion, but after a while, it's like watching the same 2 minute clip over and over and over and over and over...It's great once or twice, but at 100 times of hearing the same thing and hearing it destroyed in SO MANY different ways, it's just too much.

You took them seriously before?

Correct. Even Ram committed a sin by killing Bali and his re-incarnation Krishna was punished for it. Even god's avatars are not spared the punishment for sin.

Parts of the Old Testament were compiled probably earlier than Mahabharata (5 BCE vs 3-4 BCE or so), and as for how long the oral tradition had lasted before everything was codified, it's a bit speculative and hard to prove, it seems

Exactly. It’s called Dhanyur Veda and explains the law of warfare, how to fight with dignity and with honor but fair and not become a barbarian after the battle. You already gave some good examples of what not to do. There are so much more. There are as you said, a group of people which are absolutely forbidden to kill, not even harm and that’s women, children, brahmanas and old men. They are not even considered punishable if they do something wrong.

@@Limemill, I agree. The story of Adam and Eve (and Lilith, missing in the OT) are even older, probably as old as the Mesopotamian times.

That could well be because India (or at least parts of it) was more civilized than Europe and the Middle East at the time. This could be a late influence of the Indus Valley (Harappa) Civilization up to about 2000 BCE, which based on the archeological evidence is believed to have been perfectly peaceful.

Yeah, my response to that is always, "Fine, provide the proper context that renders this acceptable."

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hrFng5qmv6zKZaM.html

Yeah but we felt bad about it…kinda…not really

His point was that it was necessary- had we not bombed and instead made it an infantry battle, the causalities would have been much, much higher, especially among our own soldiers but even for the soldiers and civilians of the Japanese and German armies. His point (though poorly made and failing to explain why the two situations are analogous) was that the genocides of the bible were somehow similarly necessary

@@worthlesshuman5041 except the order of events is different, AND not everyone was killed. Let’s take Japan, thousands of innocent men, women and children were killed with the nuclear bomb. That was intended to STOP the Japanese men (who incidentally were also the aggressors) from going on with the war THEY started. WHEN they surrendered the killing stopped. Had OT-“God” been in control, either Japan all the Japanese military personnel would have been killed, whether they surrendered or not, AND after that the whole of Japan would have been carpeted with nuclear bombs leaving no one alive. Didn’t happen. So humans are better than the OT-biblical God. However, Dinish is right to some extent: morality is subjective, although I’d argue that we have an evolutionary basis for it. Which leads us generally towards keeping others alive unless we feel threatened in our own existence.

@@worthlesshuman5041that’d be an acceptable idea if God weren’t powerful enough to stop it.

@@JimBobJoeB0b Yeah, that's one of the main problems I have with the premise of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. Like, I get he wanted to give humans free will and all, but if he's gonna make miracles and divine judgment anyway, why wouldn't he just do what's morally right in the first place?

I think it is more complicated than this. Ideas unfold over a very long period of time, but fundamentalists tend to be dogmatic and resistant to change. The sane idea can pull us in multiple directions over the short and long term.I definitely think the Bible and Christian thought, as well as the Greek phikosophies, are the seeds that grew into the modern West, the idea of democracy, universal sufferage, civil rights, the quest for truth etc. Ideas are complicated things and they unfold in myriad of ways. They don't just do one thing.

​@@almightyzentaco sure, ideas evolve or serve as platforms for new modes of thinking. But, what about Christianity specifically, and exclusive of other faiths, makes it the engine for developing Western thought? What if in an alternate timeline Buddhism spread across Europe like Christianity did? How confident are you that the result would be 'worse'? And if the word is divine, why did it not get us there sooner? Even if we accept that humans need to adapt and accept God's teachings over time, the indirectness of how we got there raises questions

@@almightyzentaco but using a god to define morality ensures a crowd of zealots will always hold society back from progress.

​@CodexEvans you guys always say this but a core belief of Buddhist thought is that if your a bad person in this life a afterlife of torment will await you and you will reincarnate as a lesser being like a animal this idea can be used to justify horrible atrocities as well amd in ways can be seen as more harmful than Christian thought because it equivicates bad people with animals something that is incompatible with Christian thought

​@@joemiller7082 At least we can see zealots exist even without religion. Plenty of people believe corrupt and nonsensical things dogmatically that their media or experts tell them to. Life is complex and thinking is hard.

Agreed, Dinesh has really filled the void that Hitchens left

@@alberttwangle893 Something is created in void in Dinesh's pants. I believe he's not just a promoter of Trump diapers, he's also a customer!

I agree. Hopefully Alex will take better care of his health by not smoking and not drinking too much. While Alex and Christopher have key personality differences, Alex is incredibly intelligent, well read, willing to ask hard questions and debate with notorious people.

Not serious, not honest, not worth listening to

Completely clueless, or completely dishonest, about Christian history, claiming they left women and children out of it.

He is fluent in pretzel.

This dude is the Deepak Chopra of Christianity.

I can't imagine anyone seriously debating Dinesh, lowers the discourse level

Well, he's preaching to his fans not talking to Alex at all.

He's... talking to the audience. Have you ever been on a stage?

He's probably hallucinating straws in the ether and mentally grasping at them.

Dinesh doesn't behave any different in any debate that I can recall... and you got 50+ likes for this presumption. Tribalism will never die.

@@chinkasuyaro8983 So, you mean the guy gets humiliated in every debate he participates? Because that is exactly what happened here, and that is why I assumed he was acting in such way

God became woke.😮

God invented wokeism. JESUS CHRIST, GOD IS A LIBERAL!

Religions evolve - the surrounding society provides the selection pressure, the reinterpretations of their texts and traditions are the mutations. The reinterpretations/edits/tapdancing that allows the religion to remain viable in current society are the mutations that spread through the religion.

@@njhoepner Adapting its validation undermines its worth.

@@rabblewolf4851 True. We'd be better off if we could all just admit its a human product and treat it like philosophy.

D'Souza apparently misses the point that he is implying that "god" went through some sort of personal development from an "eye for an eye" tribal war god to a benevolent "turn the other cheek" father in heaven. D'Souz's arguments are incredibly weak. He should have played the standard "get out of jail"-card of Christianity which is to exclaim that god's ways are mysterious but always just and moral since it is not in god's nature to do anything less than perfect. He should have said that it is Alex's problem if he does not see the beauty, mercy, and wisdom in the orders of the old testament god.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess over 90% of the time it isn't dishonesty. They start from a conclusion that must be true in their eyes (the God of the Bible is the true God and defines what is moral). Then they work from there to make sense of the world. Everyone does start from some conclusion that they can't prove and assumes must be true. In this argument, Alex is assuming his moral intuition is true (though he has noted doubt on that in the past, but I am just going to be working with what we see in the clip for fairness sake.) At a base value though, most people will at least assume what they can perceive with their senses is true, when we really have no way to truly verify that.

The honest ones end up as "bible scholars."

The honest ones end up as atheists.

They are not dishonest if they are intoxicated. “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” - Karl Marx.

It's a job requirement.