The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Richard Day's picture

    D'NESH VS. HITCHENS

    By Richard Day on Wed, 08/17/2016 - 3:27pm |

    Dinesh D'Souza.jpg

     

    Hitchens photographed from profile

    ​
    D'Nesh D'Souza (Great Grandson of John Phillip, I think) was born in India in some Christian enclave in 1961 and still found himself in the top of the top Caste system in India. Then we had the misfortune of finding him here. hahahah

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza

    ​For a Bachelor's Degree, D'Nesh has done quite well for himself.


    He makes a bundle of money lecturing idiots.


    He made a million bucks a year being a President of a University; even though there were issues with regard to his presence in this capacity during his term. (D'Nesh was making good bucks doing other things)


    He writes books that idiots (who really should not be allowed to read) evidently love.


    And he produces films that are based upon lies and extrapolation and politification with no real criticism that should abound from those who read and such.


    This man believes that in the olden days, slaves were well taken care of because they were a commodity that needed special care; like horses and cows and such.


    Enough of that.


    D'Nesh throughout the lectures centers upon three theories with regard to the 'proof' of God.


    Cosmological: THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME SORT OF BEGINNING.
    Teleological: The laws of physics demand that something must have created this wondrous universe.

    Ontological: I think therefore I am and therefore....? What?

    When one boils down all of Aquinas's arguments we are left with these three.

    D'Nesh spends much time throughout these lectures speaking about all these physical laws and how the universe follows these laws and....drivel.


    He even likes to quote physicists as saying that if the laws of the universe were to be adjusted just one thousandth percent, we would not be here.


    Therefore there must be a god.

     

     



    @ 30 minutes or so.


    But on the other hand, he takes an argument back from Ken Ham and asserts that inductive logic is irrational. Just because the speed of light is some number in this side of the universe does not mean that the speed of light is the same throughout the universe.


    WHAT?


    Now D'Nesh has us sitting on dinosaurs with Fred Flintstone for chrissakes!


    The late Christopher Hitchens ended up being the opponent of D'Nesh.


    And, in my mind, even though Chris was drunk at the time of each debate (he drank all day as he smoked, which is one reason he always endeared himself to me, hahahahah)

    And yet Chris won each debate, in my mind of course.
    Here is one debate that centered upon religious jihads

    . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1fuOP9yiww


    @ 30 minutes or so.


    Now it is more than clear that Chris hates God.
    hahahahaha

    ​

     


    Chris always argues:


    WHAT A GOD INDEED.


    And he does this simple universalistic argument positing that most anthropologists argue that 'man' came out of Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. That is, Homo Sapiens arose in Africa and immigrated into Europe and Asia within those eons.


    (I always need to add that Homo Erectus arose from Africa and immigrated into Europe as well as Asia some 750,000 years ago but that Homo Erectus had Asian-Type qualities as they arrived in Asia and this leads one into.....nowhere?)

    So Hitchens notes that if there was a God, He or She had nothing to do with us for the first 98,000 years.(Why he does not call that time of inaction 94,000 years, I do not know.)


    So God did not give one goddamn about 'us' for tens of thousands of years. hahahahahah
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    ​
    But I always end up with Ham on Nye.

    http://dagblog.com/arts/how-do-we-knowii-20953


    And I will get into this problem in the next boring essay.


    And the problem involves this:


    WHY WOULD SOMEONE BE SO DUMB AS TO ACCEPT THE MYTH OF NOAH IN 2016 AS THE TRUTH AND AS THE EXPLANATION AS TO HOW WE GOT HERE?

    But I contend that people accept some old unproven bits of myth just as there are people who feel that  the  Confederacy involved honor and justice and liberty during the Civil War.

    I just get a kick out of these debates. I certainly do not believe that anybody here is going to waste 150 hours or more listening to these debates.


    But there is a truth that I discovered in all of this.


    And that is the truth that millions of people in this country will buy the silliness that Trump brings to the fore, as it were.


    Facts are in the minds of the beholders. (Ironically, there is nihilism embedded in this argument)


    Facts are sometime inconsistent.


    Facts are truths whether or not 'scientists' believe them to be true or not.


    Facts are the bases for our beliefs.


    If you attack my beliefs, then God have mercy upon your soul.
    hahahahaha 

    NOW AM I AN ATHEIST?

    I am most probably a Deist. Kind of a cowardly way to choose upon which side of the issue I find myself.

    Does God know when I am sleeping or know when I am awake? hahahahah

    Nah, God is present everywhere. Of course this all has to do with what one's definition of God (or the gods) is.

    And what the hell does one mean by the verb 'is'? hahahah

    Here is God, to me.

     

     

    Comments

    Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted felon.  (Whenever I see an article about him, I like to add that fact to the comments section just to make sure everyone knows.  It's one of my missions in Life.  hahahahahaha ...)

    Dinesh is a strange little weasel. Smug in his disdain for Liberals, he's also as dumb as a bag full of rocks


    by MrSmith1 on Thu, 08/18/2016 - 12:10am

    Oh Jesus, somebody read this. hahahahah

    You know Mr. Smith, weasel is the best epithet I have ever read that best describes this prick. hahahahah

    Thank you as always. hahahaha 


    by Richard Day on Thu, 08/18/2016 - 12:33am

    There is at least one Deist who considered the two sides being argued as a failure to appreciate the theological per se.

    Spinoza's proposition 28 in his Ethics:

    E1: PROP. 28.--Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist, or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity.

    Proof.--Whatsoever is conditioned to exist and act, has been thus conditioned by God (by E1P26 and E1P24C) But that which is finite, and has a conditioned existence, cannot be produced by the absolute nature of any attribute of God; for whatsoever follows from the absolute nature of any attribute of God is infinite and eternal (by E1P21). It must, therefore, follow from some attribute of God, in so far as the said attribute is considered as in some way modified; for substance and modes make up the sum total of existence (by E1A1 and E1D3, E1D5), while modes [E1P25C] are merely modifications of the attributes of God. But from God, or from any of his attributes, in so far as the latter is modified by a modification infinite and eternal, a conditioned thing cannot follow [E1P22]. Wherefore it must follow from, or be conditioned for, existence and action by God or one of his attributes, in so far as the latter are modified by some modification which is finite, and has a conditioned existence. This is our first point.

       Again, this cause or this modification (for the reason by which we established the first part of this proof) must in its turn be conditioned by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and, again, this last by another (for the same reason); and so on (for the same reason) to infinity. Q.E.D.

    moat interjects:

    So the argument over the "Cosmological" as demonstrating the necessity for a beginning violates this proposition regardless which side is taken.
    The proposition also makes the "Teleological" proofs absurd because it using des Cartre to move des Horse.
    As for the "Ontological", a consideration of the note to this proposition is in order:

    E1: PROP. 28, Note. --As certain things must be produced immediately by God, namely those things which necessarily follow from his absolute nature, through the means of these primary attributes [certain things], which, nevertheless, can neither exist nor be conceived without God, it follows:--

       1. That God is absolutely the proximate cause of those things immediately produced by him. I say absolutely, not after his kind, as is usually stated. For the effects of God cannot either exist or be conceived without a cause (E1P15 and E1P24C).

       2. That God cannot properly be styled the remote cause of individual things, except for the sake of distinguishing these from what he immediately produces, or rather from what follows from his absolute nature. For, by a remote cause, we understand a cause which is in no way conjoined to the effect. But all things which are, are in God, and so depend on God, that without him they can neither be nor be conceived.

    moat interjects:

    The argument is parallel to St Anselm's reasoning but is also a direct challenge to the Saint's "greater than can be conceived" perspective. If you start with accepting God is Substance, then you are literally not in a position to make that comparison.


    by moat on Thu, 08/18/2016 - 8:07am

    Moat, this is delightful!

    But I must render unto Moat the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of Moat from all of me for this line:

    So the argument over the "Cosmological" as demonstrating the necessity for a beginning violates this proposition regardless which side is taken.
    The proposition also makes the "Teleological" proofs absurd because it using des Cartre to move des Horse

    The cart before the horse. hahahahah

    ​Everything is finite?

    You know Hitchens talks about the fact that we do not know anything about things that happened before.

    Hell, my first memory seems to be a scene that occurred when I was about 30 months.

    Everything is finite with regard to our experience as humans.

    There must be a beginning and an end.

    I do know this for a fact.

    THE HUMAN MIND CANNOT GRASP AN IDEA OF THE INFINITE.

    The Neurons in our brains do not work thusly. hahahahah

    Thank you Moat for this. I just came back from some hours with my grand kids.

    But I had to read this essay four times before I could respond.

    I think I need another four reads.

    WELL DONE.

     

     


    by Richard Day on Thu, 08/18/2016 - 6:16pm

    Thank you for the award. I wish my effort had been more grammatically correct. Spinoza did the actual work.

    In one way, Spinoza is arguing against your idea that we "cannot grasp the infinite." Unlike Anselm, he looks at our recognition of the infinite and the unconditioned as natural and inevitable as things we think about in terms of being finite and conditioned. He uses infinity as comfortably as Aristotle did in talking about processes and limits.

    So his insistence regarding separating the two in thinking about the universe is more like the following:
    We have these two perfectly conceivable ideas but we haven't figured out what they have to do with each other. On the other hand, whatever is going on has a high probability of involving the nature of this very unknown relationship.


    by moat on Thu, 08/18/2016 - 9:36pm

    Slaves were taken care of well because they were commodities and people therefore took as good care of them as any other livestock?

    Bwa-hahahahahahahahahahaha (sob)

    The fool should go read Sewell's "Black Beauty" (hint: it ain't about two-legged slaves) to get an idea of what "caring for livestock" meant to our ancestors.  Or ask himself just where the expression "beating a dead horse" comes from.  Or read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle".  Or study factory farming livestock practices even in this supposedly more enlightened day.  Or....

    Oh, right, like reality would ever matter to the fool.


    by Janicket on Sat, 08/20/2016 - 6:31pm

    Or just read this news article from about a week ago.

    Police have charged a Pennsylvania man with animal cruelty after he allegedly beat a horse after the animal collapsed Tuesday while pulling a heavy load on a rural road in Lancaster County.

    Marvin M. Sensenig, 20, of Ephrata, Pa., was arrested Friday and faces two counts of cruelty to animals, Ephrata police announced in a statement.

    “It is alleged that the defendant unreasonably struck a horse that was overburdened with a heavy load,” the statement says. “The horse expired shortly thereafter.”
     

     

     

     


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 08/20/2016 - 6:54pm

    Ayup, or this horrifying case currently being dealt with in Massachusetts:

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/07/20/hundreds-of-animals-rescued-from-d...

    Not only horrible care; town officials appear to have been turning a blind eye to it all for years.

    http://turnto10.com/news/local/westport-residents-angry-about-animal-cru...


    by Janicket on Sat, 08/20/2016 - 8:04pm