Ehrman the agnostic demonstrates real compassion towards the suffering of the world. D'Souza comes on and smugly asserts that Christians care even about the suffering in the world than agnostics and atheists without showing one one thousandth of the compassion Ehrman does.
I've seen a lot of debaters, actually anyone that has ever gotten on the stage with him, make D'Souza look like a light weight but by far the absolute best response to him I've seen is from Ehrman here. At 1:03 where he talks about how simplistic and actually "offensive" it is to comfort people in real pain with platitudes about the after life, the contrast between his thoughtful, measured response and D'DoucheBags smug platitudes couldn't be more striking.
Absolutely right. Dinesh is undoubtedly a light weight mostly because his arguments are empty. But this one is most definitely the best ever. Mind you I am a huge Hitchens friend and he'd debated Dinesh many a time.
no man alive can debate dr. bart ehrman and win on this subject or this topic. simple logic and rational thinking is all u need to win these kind of debates. i tip my hat to u sir.
More than that, his argument doesn't make any sense. He said that humans can't be Darwinian primates because humans are more cruel than animals because when animals are cruel like the cat and mouse torture example they aren't actually being cruel because they're not humans. So basically humans are different because humans are different.
Dinesh, nearly all animals have nociceptors. They can feel pain, and be tortured through pain... Cattle, for instance, have a complex enough cognitive faculty so as to connect previous experiences to similar signs, such as in operant conditioning. They will know it is their turn in the slaughterhouse. And there is nothing uniquely Christian about forgiveness. Forgiveness is a capacity which exists in all humans who have intact frontal lobes. It is an executive function derived from our brains, not from our belief or religion. It's human, not supernatural.
"There's an afterlife - sorry for your loss. Get over it." I've seen more compassion from non-believers that understand grief and loss more than believers. Human behaviour and compassion has nothing to do with Christianity (or Islam, or Hinduism), it's about caring and love and NO religion holds the copyright to those.
@@greglogan7706 that's a relative statement. what does it matter that he is immoral? what does it matter if you are good or evil? for what purpose does it matter that I am a good person and where does this come from?
It is great to hear from an honest, humble, caring human being. Bart Ehrman is a Rockstar. D'SOUZA is pathetic, and sounds so Callus and unethical (not saying that he is, just his approach in this debate).
D'Souza's performance here is all platitudes, slogans, catch-phrases, immature analogies and hi-brow smears against a strawman understanding of "atheism" - all designed to impress those who haven't really considered the full implications of the question. It's great to see Ehrman recognise this and call him on it throughout the debate. Last I heard, D'Souza was being charged for voter fraud and Ehrman was celebrating raising tens of thousands of dollars for charity from his blog. Does that say something? I dunno. But take it for what it's worth.
I'm yet to hear a Theologian explain the existence of Child Soldiers in the defense of Free Will. Child Soldiers do bad things because they are far more easily manipulated than Adults. Their evil actions have compounded effects upon the world & as they further undermine the Free Will of others.
The big difference between the two that seemed crystal clear to me was that Bart was giving clear precise answers from the heart ,whereas Dinish gave the smart lawyer answer trying to defend a guilty accused. As a jury member I'd have to go with Bart.
Robert A. Smith Not at all Robert, you misunderstood what I meant, I said Bart gave clear precise answers and for me, he spoke from the heart, meaning he wasn't trying to fool anyone. Whereas Dinesh's answers for me, lacked credibility, and he came across to me, as a smart defense lawyer trying to get his guilty client off the hook. Maybe you saw it differently, that's fine, we're all different and have different opinions. Apologies to you for not explaining myself better. Dinesh comes across to me as a crafty deceptive liar, whereas Bart comes across to me as a man I'd trust.I may be wrong, but i think my instincts are generally pretty good. I say it as I see it. .. as I'm sure do you.
In January 2014, D'Souza was indicted on charges of making illegal political contributions to a 2012 United States Senate campaign.[11] On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to a charge of using "straw donors" to make illegal political campaign donations. On September 23, D'Souza avoided prison time and was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center, five years parole, and a $30,000 fine. ( just had a quick peek on wiki.. found this) As i said, my instincts are generally pretty good Robert.
+bonnie43uk +5 to you, Bonnie. Although he did not respond, the injury was done. You may or may not be Christian, and you may or may not have a dog in the fight, but your interaction here was BOOMSHAKALAKA
Most simply put, the existence of suffering means there can't be a being who is both all good and all powerful. The only way to solve this problem is to claim that God is not all good, or that there are some things that God is not capable of doing. Any good that is brought about by free will or naturally caused suffering an all powerful God could bring about without suffering. Dinesh is clearly saying he doesn't believe in a god who is all powerful, that some things are impossible even for God to accomplish. Even though it may have seemed indelicate, I wish Dinesh had been pinned down on this point in the debate.
D'Souza here, while I disagree with his viewpoints, is a calm and measured deabator. It's bizarre how much he's gone off the rails since. His twitter is a complete nightmare.
The apologists have it backwards. God is capricious because nature is capricious. Ancient people observed this and then tried to come up with supernatural explanation.
I am human and I am "suffering"..could you help me, please? Dr. Bart : I have "compassion" and "humility"..I'm here to help you. The other speaker : You don't have the "intellectual" capacity..therefore, you don't deserve my help and you are going to hell.
I dont understand why Bart Ehrman calls himswlf an agnostic while he sounds more like an etheist. What is stopping him in declaring that he is an atheist?
Nonbelievers think about Christianity so much because it dominates our world. This is totally different from belief in, say, unicorns. People aren't indoctrinated to believe in unicorns. There are no unicorn religion missionaries. There was no Spanish inquisition regarding proper belief in unicorns. Belief in unicorns doesn't influence public policy decisions. Dinesh D'Souza is such a lightweight thinker. It's pathetic that he can get so many applause. He made almost no good points during this debate. Also, religious people give more to churches and I'm not convinced that should even necessarily count as "giving to charity." Look up Givewell, a nonprofit organization that holds charities accountable for actually doing something and gives money to the most effective, least corrupt charities. Oh, and it is not a religious charity. Apparently, the nonreligious care more about whether or not they ACTUALLY help people (as opposed to being corrupt, pocketing money, being ineffective while claiming to be righteous and giving money to organizations that waste too much time promoting religious beliefs... churches). Also, the Red Cross is a good example of a bad charity. They have been criticized for doing little with the money they are given.
This debate showed the perfect opportunity for one person to say "you're right" and back down. After Bart's round two, Dinesh should have backed down because his arguments were crumbling. I wonder if there is any public debate where the other person says, "you're right" and backs down. If there are please point me in their direction.
D'Souza's whole argument is that his god is NOT omnipotent. If your god can't make a universe that functions with other laws and has the same result then he isn't "all powerful". All powerful means ALL THE POWER... How/Why does anyone listen to this guy?
"We can't be Darwinian primates because you see evil in humans and not in animals so they're different" "what about a cat torturing a mouse?" "A mouse can't foresee death so it''s not being tortured" "Well neither can a baby" "but in that case it's the evil intention intention of the attacker, and cat's don't have moral agency so they can't have evil intention" Humans are different because you don't see animals being cruel except for when you do and when you do and in those cases it doesn't count because animals can't be cruel only humans can be cruel. So basically the entire point isn't a point at all he's just saying humans are different from animals because humans are different from animals.
So, even though D'Souza says he's not sure of what happens after life, he still thinks telling people that their loved ones are better off is compassionate? If he's a Christian he has to tell them that their loved one is in hell if they didn't accept Jesus. I wish you'd have pushed him on that point. I know the limits of the format though. I can't believe he actually said that without a any sense of a tinge of irony.
All the laws take free will. Powerful people take freewill of the week. The smart guide the weak. Free as long as you survive all the fixed variables is not free. Free to think with a limited brain is a fixed system.
TY Bart Ehrman bcuz of you I am a firm believer that God does not exist , after listening to you nine months ago..I became agnostic I rather hear the truth then to keep believing in a fake god. Again TY Brat 🙏
This world is about the knowledge of good and evil. God did not want it that way, that was not his plan. It is what we all want and what we all choose.
Dinesh is the master of obfuscation. I have heard him in a dozen debates, but he always pushes the goalpost away. I don't know if he believes in god, but I am highly suspect.
At 52:36 the answer is yes. Chimpanzees regularly maim and murder other Chimpanzee groups for territorial reasons. In fact look up the Gombe Chimpanzee War on wikipedia
Interesting debate! I do agree that the Problem of suffering presents a serious challenge to belief in god. However, I believe this challenge is EQUALLY as difficult for atheism. Allow me to elaborate. The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining HOW and WHY any physical state is conscious rather than non-conscious. WHY is an inner rich introspective first-person experience necessary or even useful when a physical system doesn't need it to function and survive? As D. Chalmers puts it "Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does." As you can see, this inner life with its rich inner awareness to the sensation of physical pain is perplexing. Why do physical systems produce sensations of pain? If atheism is true, it's more likely that we would be p-zombies. There isn't any adequate explanation for WHY we have first-person introspective conscious experiences. Amoebas and several other biological organism function without an inner experience and simply react to environmental stimuli. Why should we be any different? The selfish DNA bags that we are would fare better if we simply remained as p-zombies. I fear that physical processing via natural selection has endowed us with an unnecessary inner-hellish awareness. The Problem of Evil wouldn't even be a topic if our physical systems we call our bodies didn't create the experience of physical and mental pain. I fear this isn't advancement as Richard Dawkins would like us to believe.
***** "Pain is an evolved sensation for alerting an organism to an injury and thereby allow it to address the problem. There is a condition called CIPA where people don't feel pain and it generally causes huge problems for them, for example they break bones and don't realize it which leads to amputations. Not difficult at all to explain on an evolutionary level." I understand your point. However, that doesn't address the question which goes much deeper. Why should physical processing give rise to ANY rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. Why does the pain alerting mechanism have to include "awareness"? There's no reason why the organism needs to be "aware" of ANYTHING since the pain alerting mechanism can function without "awareness" and still cause the organism to react as required for its survival. Digestion and breathing are simple examples of this. Also, when you touch a hot stove, you react prior to any awareness of such. You see? The awareness isn't required. We should be p-zombies if Naturalism is true.
***** I define a "rich inner life" simply as introspective self-awareness. You are aware of both physical pain, mental pain, and an array of sensory stimulation, pleasure sensations, light, heat, etc... The question is WHY this awareness is required for the physical system to function and survive? A silicon computer is also a physical information processing system which can perform extremely complex tasks. They don't require a rich inner life to perform their tasks. Again, we should be p-zombies no matter how complex our brains are. The quote I made in the original comment comes from Cognitive Scientist David Chalmers. I have the utmost respect for our Scientists and work in the genetics community. The problem is that Naturalism isn't Science. Why? The claims of Naturalism go beyond the claims of science. I can demonstrate this if you're interested. On both sides of the debate, where there are knowledge gaps, you'll see believers employing God-of-the-gaps and atheists employing Naturalism-of-the-gaps (we don't know, therefore, nature did it). Lastly, I used to be a die-hard Naturalist and a militant Nihilist. I have SEVERAL very convincing reasons why I left atheism. ;-)
***** Ahh, but there are organisms such as amoebas, plants, fish, etc (to name a few) that function, interact with their environment, and survive just fine without self-awareness. Why should it be any different for us? Since brains are nothing but chemicals that react, there's no reason why neuronal processing even requires awareness. These neuronal reactions will continue even if we're not aware of them as is observed in other life forms. NOTHING would change in the outcome of our behavior other than we no longer have the inner-aware experience of such. We would only APPEAR the be "self-aware" even though we aren't. Right?
***** "First of all, calm down." Strange! Where did that come from? I guess we need to have a bit of fun here. Actually, pleading ignorance via good ol' Nagel doesn't help your case. Naturalism assumes matter, at it's most basic level (quantum level), lacks awareness and/or is dead. Therefore, when a moist robot (human) asks a question about the nature of reality, realize that it's the current configuration of sub-atomic particles in its brain that formulates and asks the question. In other words, ANY behavior that is carried out by the moist robot is SOLELY performed by the chemicals which fully conform to the laws of physics. Mental events are reducible to neurological events as we do not cause our causes. Freewill is illusory. The fact is that we ARE the laws of physics and CAN'T be more than these laws. Now let's look at some silly implications under Naturalism: 1) A man's choice to rape a child is FULLY and SOLELY determined by a certain pattern of neural activity. We can't morally blame him although he will suffer the consequences and punishment (if caught). 2) Beethoven's 9th symphony was solely written by the laws of physics. 3) All the wars fought by humanity were performed solely by the laws of physics. 4) Physics causes some people to fizz atheistically and others to fizz theistically, agnostically, etc… The chemicals determine your knowledge and beliefs. 5) Chemicals in your brain conforming to the laws of physics (not you) are asking deep questions about the nature of reality. It should be clear to you that science is done by the universe by chemicals that conform to the laws of physics, NOT BY YOU. The quantum fields which conform to the laws of physics posted this comment...
***** Sorry for the caps. It's a bad habit. I'll try to refrain. "Some people find certain conclusions difficult to accept -- like the rapist not being fundamentally responsible -- but its the truth." Is it true or is this simply a faith assumption? "Sometimes in the process of being enlightened we learn things that are difficult to accept, but that's why the motto of the enlightenment is "dare to know." Yes, I totally agree with you. I love science and am engaged with it everyday. However, if everything is a total accident, then it really doesn't matter what beliefs we hold in our brains since the chemicals dictate what we believe anyways. Right? I'd love to get your take on this. "A lot of people find it difficult to accept that there is no God; that doesn't mean there is one. " Agreed!
I'm a committed Christian and I agree with Bart, I do not believe in a God intervenes in a world to make it a better place. That's not what God is doing. I think he stopped examining too soon.
Too soon ? Lmao. He has studied his entire life. He was a pastor. And now He is a PhD and professor. Too soon ? Did you not listen ? People wrote the bible. Not god.
wow. I can't with this guy. suffering hurts believers more? god is like bill gates? I'm absolutely shocked this dude has a position in an academic setting. how dare we question god? he makes all the basic christian arguments of "we don't know because we're not supposed to" i.e. i have no logical argument with which to debate. I found his analogies ridiculous and sooo not relevant. suffering, to me, was the subject that made me ultimately doubt any sort of personification of god (loosely identify as a pantheist now). to see someone act as tho it's "whateves bro, god's plan" is a viable answer is so beyond me.
*Best discussion partner for Bart ever.* Men want´s to rule like God: *Genesis 3:4* “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Soooo, men had to suffer, to prove if men can do as good as God: *Genesis **3:17* To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” *That´s why!*
I have find very few who truly understand how to interpret scripture according to the time it was written. There is a lot of nonsense tossed about based on a systematic theology. Ehrman did that when he quoted Amos and showed an expectation that it would agree with all of the Bible. It agrees when proper hermeneutical principles are applied. Each part of scripture must be interpreted in light of several principles. Two of which are its historical context and literary context.
Before decide to be agnostic, you have to read Quran first !! Because its claimed as an unchanged script since the first time. Pls give your criticism to Quran if you could
God has given man a chance to solve the suffering problem but man has failed. God has provided us eternal life in heaven through Jesus Christ his son but man has denied his help.
Whoops. I listened to the debate and felt so sorry for Mr. Ehrman, I feel as though he must have experienced a really bad thing in his life, causing anger toward God. I've been there and I can relate to being angry with God but never so to the point of denying Him. I thought the debate was clearly won by Dinesh, and only accidentally looked at the comments. WOW!! Almost every one was militant against Dinesh. But really not so surprising. I remember as a child I would always look at the milk carton. It always had a picture of a small church with a steeple and a cross, and the message under it said "This Sunday, attend the church of your choice". The bible says in the last days men will mock God, believing the lie and worshipping the creation rather than the Creator. Lately there have been several famous people publicly proclaiming they no longer believe in God, even pastors. I think the reason Mr. Ehrman calls himself an agnostic and not an atheist is because when he was a teenager he said he was born again. Now when you are born again there is only one sin that can nullify your salvation and that is to harden your heart to the point of no return. I truly think Mr. Ehrman has a very deep relationship with God but hes angry. A poet by the name of Tennison said "More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of". I, for one, will pray for them both. May God bless you and may God bless the USA!
Cheap shots from Ehrman regarding the holocaust. He acts very impassioned about it as though anyone who believes in God doesn't care about the Jews who died in the holocaust. In an interview I saw with a holocaust survivor a reporter asks the survivor, "you say you believe in God- how can you believe in a God who allowed such suffering." The woman replied, "I don't let men off the hook so easily." Human beings were warned years in advance about the evils Hitler was about to bring on the world and men did nothing. Powerful nations stood by and watched the slaughters occurring during the annexation of Austria, the pogroms in Germany, Kristallnacht, the Nuremburg laws and so on. Eli Weisel's book "Night" tells of an elderly Jewish man warning villages about what the nazi's were doing, death camps etc, and no one would believe him. The Allies knew what was going on and did nothing. And by the way, all the appeals for God to intervene?? Who won the war? Where is Hitler? Where is Mussolini? I say God did intervene. It was men who stood by and did nothing. Once the Americans entered the war in Europe it was over in 10 and a half months with the word's most ruthless dictators dead. We should listen to that elderly woman who survived the holocaust. She went jn an atheist and came out a believer. Who is Ehrman to shame her? Was he there? Can his hypothetical "ideas" about suffering trump that woman's? Or his "pictures" of the people suffering in Ethiopia? Does he realize there are people suffering here? Maybe we don't have the great pics proving it, but I've seen it… have any of you? My dad died when I was 10 years old and that doesn't prove there is no God. How many times in life can we look at a bad outcome and say, "If only I had done things God's way this wouldn't have happened." ? Many times I say. Adultery, murder, vengeance, theft..these are all things man can control and yet chooses not to and then in the face of the consequences he cries out, "there is no God because just look at all the suffering.!" Sometimes it is the presence of suffering that proves the presence of God.
Russian Archpriest Viacheslav Polosin Converts To Islam.. "Several years of intense work have brought me to the conclusion that the Koran does not contain an assimilation of the Creator God to his creation, humanity, which is anthropomorphism, the essence of paganism. There is no basis for the ritual practice of appeasing God like some kind of human ruler. I consider myself a follower of the great tradition of the correct belief and of the prophets of monotheism, beginning with Abraham. i consider that the final revelation on earth is the Holy Koran sent down to the Prophet Muhammad and I categorically disagree with those who "for some reason consider that the Arabic text of the Holy Koran is alien to the Russian mentality."
Edward Montet "Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Quran has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvellous power of winning its way into the consciences of men."
The concept of God in Islam is very simple and straightforward compared to Christianity or any other religions. I have come across highly intellectual individuals who, like myself, have converted to Islam. Dr Timothy Winter
Sister Noor, University Of Essex "My Experiences And How I Find That Islam Does Not Oppress Women" In these days of so called "society of equal rights", you are expected to have a boyfriend and to not be a virgin. So this is a form of oppression even though some women do not realise it. When I came to Islam, (From Hinduism) it was obvious that I had finally found permanent security. A religion, a belief that was so complete and clear in every aspect of life. Many people have a misconception that Islam is an oppressive religion, where women are covered from head to toe, and are not allowed any freedom or rights. In fact, women in Islam are given more rights, and have been for the past 1400 years, compared to the only-recently rights given to non-Muslim women in some western and some other societies. But there are, even now, societies where women are still oppressed, as I mentioned earlier in relation to Hindu women.
This is what Bart Ehrman does not understand: The character of God is goodness all the time. Extending mercy to a suffering people is not a requirement for goodness. One can be good and upright apart from extending mercy to another. And besides, mercy will no longer be called “mercy”, but “justice”, was it required (forced) upon God to extant it. Let me also add this: Dinesh D’souza nailed this one with excellent marks. To say God does not exist and then accuse God for allowing suffering is beneath the dignity of the office Bart Ehrman claims to hold. This is the case of “Brilliant Man gone Mad”.
That has got to be some of the most idiotic gibberish I have heard this month."Extending mercy to a suffering people is not a requirement for goodness" You are a sick, sick person and it always seems to be that the sickest of all are the very devout, which makes sense because that is the most vile book ever written. Im sure, I mean most assuredly sure, you agree with the passages that condone slavery. I am positive you agree and if any creeping thought of doubt on your part is easily reconciled and made pius. I am sure. You are some sick people and are up under an evil spell. Im convinced.
wow. Honestly, Bart got creamed in this debate. What took him years to gain, which was confusion and grief (no answers to his biggest questions), Dinesh provided and squashed (concerns) in a matter of minutes (couple of hours). wow.
I`m really insulted at the suggestion that I as a non religious person feel less empathy than a religious person.
I love listening to you Mr Ehrman. Thanks so much.
Ehrman the agnostic demonstrates real compassion towards the suffering of the world. D'Souza comes on and smugly asserts that Christians care even about the suffering in the world than agnostics and atheists without showing one one thousandth of the compassion Ehrman does.
I've seen a lot of debaters, actually anyone that has ever gotten on the stage with him, make D'Souza look like a light weight but by far the absolute best response to him I've seen is from Ehrman here. At 1:03 where he talks about how simplistic and actually "offensive" it is to comfort people in real pain with platitudes about the after life, the contrast between his thoughtful, measured response and D'DoucheBags smug platitudes couldn't be more striking.
Absolutely right. Dinesh is undoubtedly a light weight mostly because his arguments are empty. But this one is most definitely the best ever. Mind you I am a huge Hitchens friend and he'd debated Dinesh many a time.
@@tiagoscherer1158 Even worse is Deepak Chopra, the quantum theory expert...not.
no man alive can debate dr. bart ehrman and win on this subject or this topic. simple logic and rational thinking is all u need to win these kind of debates. i tip my hat to u sir.
D’Souza said that a mouse can’t anticipate death and can’t experience torture... How does he know that?
god told him.
he's pretty content in Ehrman's jaws
More than that, his argument doesn't make any sense. He said that humans can't be Darwinian primates because humans are more cruel than animals because when animals are cruel like the cat and mouse torture example they aren't actually being cruel because they're not humans. So basically humans are different because humans are different.
It's fun to hear Dinesh analogy with the woman and the child in the car, if the woman is all powerfull then that would no happen :)
You have created God out of the Woman, sir.
Job DOES give a reason for suffering to the reader: God wanted to prove a point to Satan. It was all about his ego.
Dinesh, nearly all animals have nociceptors. They can feel pain, and be tortured through pain... Cattle, for instance, have a complex enough cognitive faculty so as to connect previous experiences to similar signs, such as in operant conditioning. They will know it is their turn in the slaughterhouse.
And there is nothing uniquely Christian about forgiveness. Forgiveness is a capacity which exists in all humans who have intact frontal lobes. It is an executive function derived from our brains, not from our belief or religion. It's human, not supernatural.
33:30 What is D'Souza talking about? Life began in the oceans, so dry land is not a prerequisite for life.
D'Souza's is useless .... maybe Fox news audiences would believe him...
I love your work, Dr. Ehrman.
"There's an afterlife - sorry for your loss. Get over it." I've seen more compassion from non-believers that understand grief and loss more than believers. Human behaviour and compassion has nothing to do with Christianity (or Islam, or Hinduism), it's about caring and love and NO religion holds the copyright to those.
If a just god existed, Dinesh D'Souza would not.
Lol. Yup.
Sunday is coming...😉
Wahahaha!
D'Souza comes across like a sleazy politician with his weasel words
hooterville2 Exactly. A jailbird. Con artist
D'Souza is filth, immoral and corrupt at every level.
@@greglogan7706 that's a relative statement. what does it matter that he is immoral? what does it matter if you are good or evil? for what purpose does it matter that I am a good person and where does this come from?
It is great to hear from an honest, humble, caring human being. Bart Ehrman is a Rockstar. D'SOUZA is pathetic, and sounds so Callus and unethical (not saying that he is, just his approach in this debate).
Oh, did anyone else notice that D'Souza forgot to mention what he does to end suffering.
D'Souza's performance here is all platitudes, slogans, catch-phrases, immature analogies and hi-brow smears against a strawman understanding of "atheism" - all designed to impress those who haven't really considered the full implications of the question. It's great to see Ehrman recognise this and call him on it throughout the debate. Last I heard, D'Souza was being charged for voter fraud and Ehrman was celebrating raising tens of thousands of dollars for charity from his blog. Does that say something? I dunno. But take it for what it's worth.
Did you notice the Pascal Wage appeal D'Souza puts in around 1:07:00 pretty much shows the foundation of his logical fallacy.
"Bart there is something that comes after death. There's either life after death. Or there's nothing."
Comedy gold.
Really, You get the gist of what he means, I hope.. Is that the road you really want to go down.
I'm yet to hear a Theologian explain the existence of Child Soldiers in the defense of Free Will. Child Soldiers do bad things because they are far more easily manipulated than Adults. Their evil actions have compounded effects upon the world & as they further undermine the Free Will of others.
The big difference between the two that seemed crystal clear to me was that Bart was giving clear precise answers from the heart ,whereas Dinish gave the smart lawyer answer trying to defend a guilty accused. As a jury member I'd have to go with Bart.
So you are saying Bart argued from emotion, and Dinesh from intelligence. Got it, thanks for playing (and making a mockery of yourself).
Robert A. Smith Not at all Robert, you misunderstood what I meant, I said Bart gave clear precise answers and for me, he spoke from the heart, meaning he wasn't trying to fool anyone. Whereas Dinesh's answers for me, lacked credibility, and he came across to me, as a smart defense lawyer trying to get his guilty client off the hook. Maybe you saw it differently, that's fine, we're all different and have different opinions. Apologies to you for not explaining myself better. Dinesh comes across to me as a crafty deceptive liar, whereas Bart comes across to me as a man I'd trust.I may be wrong, but i think my instincts are generally pretty good. I say it as I see it. .. as I'm sure do you.
In January 2014, D'Souza was indicted on charges of making illegal political contributions to a 2012 United States Senate campaign.[11] On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to a charge of using "straw donors" to make illegal political campaign donations. On September 23, D'Souza avoided prison time and was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center, five years parole, and a $30,000 fine. ( just had a quick peek on wiki.. found this) As i said, my instincts are generally pretty good Robert.
+bonnie43uk +5 to you, Bonnie. Although he did not respond, the injury was done. You may or may not be Christian, and you may or may not have a dog in the fight, but your interaction here was BOOMSHAKALAKA
@@bonnie43uk Wow very articulate. You spoke my mind
1:02:40 is stone silent. What powerful words.
Most simply put, the existence of suffering means there can't be a being who is both all good and all powerful. The only way to solve this problem is to claim that God is not all good, or that there are some things that God is not capable of doing. Any good that is brought about by free will or naturally caused suffering an all powerful God could bring about without suffering. Dinesh is clearly saying he doesn't believe in a god who is all powerful, that some things are impossible even for God to accomplish. Even though it may have seemed indelicate, I wish Dinesh had been pinned down on this point in the debate.
D'Souza here, while I disagree with his viewpoints, is a calm and measured deabator. It's bizarre how much he's gone off the rails since. His twitter is a complete nightmare.
Dr Bart, you are my personal hero!
The apologists have it backwards. God is capricious because nature is capricious. Ancient people observed this and then tried to come up with supernatural explanation.
If God exists we would not need these debates looking for him with magnifying glasses
I am human and I am "suffering"..could you help me, please?
Dr. Bart : I have "compassion" and "humility"..I'm here to help you.
The other speaker : You don't have the "intellectual" capacity..therefore, you don't deserve my help and you are going to hell.
Your talking gobildigook!
I dont understand why Bart Ehrman calls himswlf an agnostic while he sounds more like an etheist. What is stopping him in declaring that he is an atheist?
What happens when you have a fox news guy debate with a scholar
If god intervened to save his people (the Jews) from slavery in Egypt why was god not able to save his same chosen people from the holocaust!
"Let's say, I cheated on my wife..."
I wonder if that was Dinesh's attempt at a subliminal public confession
Nonbelievers think about Christianity so much because it dominates our world. This is totally different from belief in, say, unicorns. People aren't indoctrinated to believe in unicorns. There are no unicorn religion missionaries. There was no Spanish inquisition regarding proper belief in unicorns. Belief in unicorns doesn't influence public policy decisions. Dinesh D'Souza is such a lightweight thinker. It's pathetic that he can get so many applause. He made almost no good points during this debate. Also, religious people give more to churches and I'm not convinced that should even necessarily count as "giving to charity." Look up Givewell, a nonprofit organization that holds charities accountable for actually doing something and gives money to the most effective, least corrupt charities. Oh, and it is not a religious charity. Apparently, the nonreligious care more about whether or not they ACTUALLY help people (as opposed to being corrupt, pocketing money, being ineffective while claiming to be righteous and giving money to organizations that waste too much time promoting religious beliefs... churches). Also, the Red Cross is a good example of a bad charity. They have been criticized for doing little with the money they are given.
This debate showed the perfect opportunity for one person to say "you're right" and back down. After Bart's round two, Dinesh should have backed down because his arguments were crumbling. I wonder if there is any public debate where the other person says, "you're right" and backs down. If there are please point me in their direction.
Dinesh is wrong. Ofcource animals kill except for food. Especially chimpanzees sometimes they kill other rival teams for no reason.
This takes on a interesting wrinkle now D'Souza has pleaded guilty to felony charges .
D'Souza's whole argument is that his god is NOT omnipotent. If your god can't make a universe that functions with other laws and has the same result then he isn't "all powerful". All powerful means ALL THE POWER...
How/Why does anyone listen to this guy?
Dinesh is a Dedouchebag! He is so outclassed here. I hope his prison buddies agree.
Truth. He is a joke.
I also would be curious to know Erhman's response to the archeological discoveries in Israel relating the authenticity of the Bible.
"We can't be Darwinian primates because you see evil in humans and not in animals so they're different"
"what about a cat torturing a mouse?"
"A mouse can't foresee death so it''s not being tortured"
"Well neither can a baby"
"but in that case it's the evil intention intention of the attacker, and cat's don't have moral agency so they can't have evil intention"
Humans are different because you don't see animals being cruel except for when you do and when you do and in those cases it doesn't count because animals can't be cruel only humans can be cruel. So basically the entire point isn't a point at all he's just saying humans are different from animals because humans are different from animals.
So, even though D'Souza says he's not sure of what happens after life, he still thinks telling people that their loved ones are better off is compassionate? If he's a Christian he has to tell them that their loved one is in hell if they didn't accept Jesus. I wish you'd have pushed him on that point. I know the limits of the format though. I can't believe he actually said that without a any sense of a tinge of irony.
All the laws take free will. Powerful people take freewill of the week. The smart guide the weak. Free as long as you survive all the fixed variables is not free. Free to think with a limited brain is a fixed system.
TY Bart Ehrman bcuz of you I am a firm believer that God does not exist , after listening to you nine months ago..I became agnostic I rather hear the truth then to keep believing in a fake god. Again TY Brat 🙏
"human beings commit moral evil." In Ehrman's philosophy of the world, where does this come from?
This world is about the knowledge of good and evil. God did not want it that way, that was not his plan. It is what we all want and what we all choose.
Lions don’t want to eliminate the antelope species, therefore there is a loving god. Dinesh is not Bart’s strongest opponent. What a stupid argument.
Dinesh is the master of obfuscation. I have heard him in a dozen debates, but he always pushes the goalpost away. I don't know if he believes in god, but I am highly suspect.
I really tried hard to listen to Souza, but I found it impossible. His words give off a kind of -hard to define- hypocritical sense.
At 52:36 the answer is yes. Chimpanzees regularly maim and murder other Chimpanzee groups for territorial reasons. In fact look up the Gombe Chimpanzee War on wikipedia
I'm stumped when you said " I have no opinion on the subject"..........?
3DMOVIES4YOU ya I was surprised by that as well. Perhaps he didn't think it was that important
D'Souza had nothing to offer to this debate.
Precisely
In spite of that, he was the clear winner!
@@Ace1King1 How so?
Interesting debate! I do agree that the Problem of suffering presents a serious challenge to belief in god. However, I believe this challenge is EQUALLY as difficult for atheism. Allow me to elaborate.
The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining HOW and WHY any physical state is conscious rather than non-conscious. WHY is an inner rich introspective first-person experience necessary or even useful when a physical system doesn't need it to function and survive?
As D. Chalmers puts it "Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."
As you can see, this inner life with its rich inner awareness to the sensation of physical pain is perplexing. Why do physical systems produce sensations of pain? If atheism is true, it's more likely that we would be p-zombies. There isn't any adequate explanation for WHY we have first-person introspective conscious experiences. Amoebas and several other biological organism function without an inner experience and simply react to environmental stimuli. Why should we be any different?
The selfish DNA bags that we are would fare better if we simply remained as p-zombies. I fear that physical processing via natural selection has endowed us with an unnecessary inner-hellish awareness. The Problem of Evil wouldn't even be a topic if our physical systems we call our bodies didn't create the experience of physical and mental pain. I fear this isn't advancement as Richard Dawkins would like us to believe.
***** "Pain is an evolved sensation for alerting an organism to an injury and thereby allow it to address the problem. There is a condition called CIPA where people don't feel pain and it generally causes huge problems for them, for example they break bones and don't realize it which leads to amputations. Not difficult at all to explain on an evolutionary level."
I understand your point. However, that doesn't address the question which goes much deeper.
Why should physical processing give rise to ANY rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.
Why does the pain alerting mechanism have to include "awareness"? There's no reason why the organism needs to be "aware" of ANYTHING since the pain alerting mechanism can function without "awareness" and still cause the organism to react as required for its survival. Digestion and breathing are simple examples of this. Also, when you touch a hot stove, you react prior to any awareness of such. You see? The awareness isn't required. We should be p-zombies if Naturalism is true.
***** I define a "rich inner life" simply as introspective self-awareness. You are aware of both physical pain, mental pain, and an array of sensory stimulation, pleasure sensations, light, heat, etc... The question is WHY this awareness is required for the physical system to function and survive? A silicon computer is also a physical information processing system which can perform extremely complex tasks. They don't require a rich inner life to perform their tasks. Again, we should be p-zombies no matter how complex our brains are. The quote I made in the original comment comes from Cognitive Scientist David Chalmers. I have the utmost respect for our Scientists and work in the genetics community. The problem is that Naturalism isn't Science. Why? The claims of Naturalism go beyond the claims of science. I can demonstrate this if you're interested. On both sides of the debate, where there are knowledge gaps, you'll see believers employing God-of-the-gaps and atheists employing Naturalism-of-the-gaps (we don't know, therefore, nature did it). Lastly, I used to be a die-hard Naturalist and a militant Nihilist. I have SEVERAL very convincing reasons why I left atheism. ;-)
***** Ahh, but there are organisms such as amoebas, plants, fish, etc (to name a few) that function, interact with their environment, and survive just fine without self-awareness. Why should it be any different for us? Since brains are nothing but chemicals that react, there's no reason why neuronal processing even requires awareness. These neuronal reactions will continue even if we're not aware of them as is observed in other life forms. NOTHING would change in the outcome of our behavior other than we no longer have the inner-aware experience of such. We would only APPEAR the be "self-aware" even though we aren't. Right?
***** "First of all, calm down."
Strange! Where did that come from? I guess we need to have a bit of fun here.
Actually, pleading ignorance via good ol' Nagel doesn't help your case. Naturalism assumes matter, at it's most basic level (quantum level), lacks awareness and/or is dead. Therefore, when a moist robot (human) asks a question about the nature of reality, realize that it's the current configuration of sub-atomic particles in its brain that formulates and asks the question. In other words, ANY behavior that is carried out by the moist robot is SOLELY performed by the chemicals which fully conform to the laws of physics. Mental events are reducible to neurological events as we do not cause our causes. Freewill is illusory. The fact is that we ARE the laws of physics and CAN'T be more than these laws. Now let's look at some silly implications under Naturalism:
1) A man's choice to rape a child is FULLY and SOLELY determined by a certain pattern of neural activity. We can't morally blame him although he will suffer the consequences and punishment (if caught).
2) Beethoven's 9th symphony was solely written by the laws of physics.
3) All the wars fought by humanity were performed solely by the laws of physics.
4) Physics causes some people to fizz atheistically and others to fizz theistically, agnostically, etc… The chemicals determine your knowledge and beliefs.
5) Chemicals in your brain conforming to the laws of physics (not you) are asking deep questions about the nature of reality.
It should be clear to you that science is done by the universe by chemicals that conform to the laws of physics, NOT BY YOU.
The quantum fields which conform to the laws of physics posted this comment...
***** Sorry for the caps. It's a bad habit. I'll try to refrain.
"Some people find certain conclusions difficult to accept -- like the rapist not being fundamentally responsible -- but its the truth."
Is it true or is this simply a faith assumption?
"Sometimes in the process of being enlightened we learn things that are difficult to accept, but that's why the motto of the enlightenment is "dare to know."
Yes, I totally agree with you. I love science and am engaged with it everyday. However, if everything is a total accident, then it really doesn't matter what beliefs we hold in our brains since the chemicals dictate what we believe anyways. Right? I'd love to get your take on this.
"A lot of people find it difficult to accept that there is no God; that doesn't mean there is one. "
Agreed!
I'm a committed Christian and I agree with Bart, I do not believe in a God intervenes in a world to make it a better place. That's not what God is doing. I think he stopped examining too soon.
Too soon ? Lmao. He has studied his entire life. He was a pastor. And now He is a PhD and professor.
Too soon ? Did you not listen ?
People wrote the bible. Not god.
Nobody said in the movie Superman ..there is no Superman
1:24 Oh the irony!
wow. I can't with this guy. suffering hurts believers more? god is like bill gates? I'm absolutely shocked this dude has a position in an academic setting. how dare we question god? he makes all the basic christian arguments of "we don't know because we're not supposed to" i.e. i have no logical argument with which to debate. I found his analogies ridiculous and sooo not relevant. suffering, to me, was the subject that made me ultimately doubt any sort of personification of god (loosely identify as a pantheist now). to see someone act as tho it's "whateves bro, god's plan" is a viable answer is so beyond me.
*Best discussion partner for Bart ever.*
Men want´s to rule like God:
*Genesis 3:4* “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Soooo, men had to suffer, to prove if men can do as good as God:
*Genesis **3:17* To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
*That´s why!*
good point!
Plenty of other religions have forgiveness
The jewel wasp. Just another one of Gods beautiful creatures. SARCASM.
I have find very few who truly understand how to interpret scripture according to the time it was written. There is a lot of nonsense tossed about based on a systematic theology. Ehrman did that when he quoted Amos and showed an expectation that it would agree with all of the Bible. It agrees when proper hermeneutical principles are applied. Each part of scripture must be interpreted in light of several principles. Two of which are its historical context and literary context.
D'Souza didn't really have any message
Dinesh can’t possibly buy himself what he’s trying to sell. Insaneeee. Made no sense at all. This is was Bart’s debate
The bible is a book seeking to prove God. Paul says ...atleast believe the miracles.... That's begging and adding proof!
Charity idea and commandment comes originally from Jewish Torah and Judaism. Christianity should stop stealing Jewish ideas.
Before decide to be agnostic, you have to read Quran first !! Because its claimed as an unchanged script since the first time. Pls give your criticism to Quran if you could
Dear God, Dinesh is so obnoxious. I wonder if he felt a little bit of that suffering when he was in prison.
God has given man a chance to solve the suffering problem but man has failed. God has provided us eternal life in heaven through Jesus Christ his son but man has denied his help.
D Souza constantly brought up cheating innuendos like "adultery", "have sex with every girl"
Hmm he seemed very experienced in that field!
If God made it so that there was no bad things happen then there would be no free will.
What lol??
Whoops. I listened to the debate and felt so sorry for Mr. Ehrman, I feel as though he must have experienced a really bad thing in his life, causing anger toward God. I've been there and I can relate to being angry with God but never so to the point of denying Him. I thought the debate was clearly won by Dinesh, and only accidentally looked at the comments. WOW!! Almost every one was militant against Dinesh. But really not so surprising. I remember as a child I would always look at the milk carton. It always had a picture of a small church with a steeple and a cross, and the message under it said "This Sunday, attend the church of your choice". The bible says in the last days men will mock God, believing the lie and worshipping the creation rather than the Creator. Lately there have been several famous people publicly proclaiming they no longer believe in God, even pastors. I think the reason Mr. Ehrman calls himself an agnostic and not an atheist is because when he was a teenager he said he was born again. Now when you are born again there is only one sin that can nullify your salvation and that is to harden your heart to the point of no return. I truly think Mr. Ehrman has a very deep relationship with God but hes angry. A poet by the name of Tennison said "More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of". I, for one, will pray for them both. May God bless you and may God bless the USA!
Cheap shots from Ehrman regarding the holocaust. He acts very impassioned about it as though anyone who believes in God doesn't care about the Jews who died in the holocaust. In an interview I saw with a holocaust survivor a reporter asks the survivor, "you say you believe in God- how can you believe in a God who allowed such suffering." The woman replied, "I don't let men off the hook so easily." Human beings were warned years in advance about the evils Hitler was about to bring on the world and men did nothing. Powerful nations stood by and watched the slaughters occurring during the annexation of Austria, the pogroms in Germany, Kristallnacht, the Nuremburg laws and so on. Eli Weisel's book "Night" tells of an elderly Jewish man warning villages about what the nazi's were doing, death camps etc, and no one would believe him. The Allies knew what was going on and did nothing. And by the way, all the appeals for God to intervene?? Who won the war? Where is Hitler? Where is Mussolini? I say God did intervene. It was men who stood by and did nothing. Once the Americans entered the war in Europe it was over in 10 and a half months with the word's most ruthless dictators dead. We should listen to that elderly woman who survived the holocaust. She went jn an atheist and came out a believer. Who is Ehrman to shame her? Was he there? Can his hypothetical "ideas" about suffering trump that woman's? Or his "pictures" of the people suffering in Ethiopia? Does he realize there are people suffering here? Maybe we don't have the great pics proving it, but I've seen it… have any of you? My dad died when I was 10 years old and that doesn't prove there is no God. How many times in life can we look at a bad outcome and say, "If only I had done things God's way this wouldn't have happened." ? Many times I say. Adultery, murder, vengeance, theft..these are all things man can control and yet chooses not to and then in the face of the consequences he cries out, "there is no God because just look at all the suffering.!" Sometimes it is the presence of suffering that proves the presence of God.
I love Bart's books, but D'Souza won that debate. I'm not a Christian but that obvious to me. D'Souza is a debate Yoda.
Russian Archpriest Viacheslav Polosin Converts To Islam.. "Several years of intense work have brought me to the conclusion that the Koran does not contain an assimilation of the Creator God to his creation, humanity, which is anthropomorphism, the essence of paganism. There is no basis for the ritual practice of appeasing God like some kind of human ruler. I consider myself a follower of the great tradition of the correct belief and of the prophets of monotheism, beginning with Abraham. i consider that the final revelation on earth is the Holy Koran sent down to the Prophet Muhammad and I categorically disagree with those who "for some reason consider that the Arabic text of the Holy Koran is alien to the Russian mentality."
Edward Montet "Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Quran has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvellous power of winning its way into the consciences of men."
The concept of God in Islam is very simple and straightforward compared to Christianity or any other religions. I have come across highly intellectual individuals who, like myself, have converted to Islam. Dr Timothy Winter
Yes, it is very simple, allah loves only those who love him, if this were true, the sun would not be born for all.
Sister Noor, University Of Essex "My Experiences And How I Find That Islam Does Not Oppress Women" In these days of so called "society of equal rights", you are expected to have a boyfriend and to not be a virgin. So this is a form of oppression even though some women do not realise it. When I came to Islam, (From Hinduism) it was obvious that I had finally found permanent security. A religion, a belief that was so complete and clear in every aspect of life. Many people have a misconception that Islam is an oppressive religion, where women are covered from head to toe, and are not allowed any freedom or rights. In fact, women in Islam are given more rights, and have been for the past 1400 years, compared to the only-recently rights given to non-Muslim women in some western and some other societies. But there are, even now, societies where women are still oppressed, as I mentioned earlier in relation to Hindu women.
This is what Bart Ehrman does not understand: The character of God is goodness all the time. Extending mercy to a suffering people is not a requirement for goodness. One can be good and upright apart from extending mercy to another. And besides, mercy will no longer be called “mercy”, but “justice”, was it required (forced) upon God to extant it. Let me also add this: Dinesh D’souza nailed this one with excellent marks. To say God does not exist and then accuse God for allowing suffering is beneath the dignity of the office Bart Ehrman claims to hold. This is the case of “Brilliant Man gone Mad”.
That has got to be some of the most idiotic gibberish I have heard this month."Extending mercy to a suffering people is not a requirement for goodness" You are a sick, sick person and it always seems to be that the sickest of all are the very devout, which makes sense because that is the most vile book ever written. Im sure, I mean most assuredly sure, you agree with the passages that condone slavery. I am positive you agree and if any creeping thought of doubt on your part is easily reconciled and made pius. I am sure. You are some sick people and are up under an evil spell. Im convinced.
Bart lost this one
Whattt? Did we watch, listen to the same debate ?
Bart is based on emotion and bullcrap.
wow. Honestly, Bart got creamed in this debate. What took him years to gain, which was confusion and grief (no answers to his biggest questions), Dinesh provided and squashed (concerns) in a matter of minutes (couple of hours). wow.