I really enjoyed watching the video below of a British atheist named Pat Condell. Supposedly addressed to "angry Christians," the video is actually more illuminating about atheists. Condell is ostensibly chastizing Christians for burning with inward rage and for secretly wanting people to burn in hell. Actually, I don't know a single Christian who fits this description, although perhaps there are some.
What is obvious for all to see is what a smug, self-satisfied character Condell is. On his website he boasts, "Hi, I'm Pat Condell. I don't respect your beliefs and I don't care if you're offended." Religion has its uses, he concedes. "I turn to it whenever I want my intelligence insulted." Ordinarily I wouldn't pay much attention to this guy, but in a strange way I think his attitude mirrors that of the big-name atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. If the televangelists are guilty of producing some simple-minded, self-righteous Christians, then the atheist authors are guilty of producing self-congratulatory buffoons like Condell.
Only Condell doesn't know he is a buffoon. He regards himself as super-sophisticated, a man of knowledge. Yet consider his argument in the video that Christ probably didn't exist. Condell says Christ's historicity is based on "hearsay." But all historical evidence is "hearsay," including the evidence for the existence of Voltaire and George Washington. In reality there is more evidence for Christ's existence than there is for the existence of most of the figures of the ancient world. Do you believe that Socrates existed? Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? Think about this: we only know about Socrates because of Plato and Xenophon, and there are only a couple of sources for Alexander and Caesar. The documentary evidence for these men is limited to very few manuscripts which are sometimes dated centuries later. Yet no historian doubts that these men existed.
By contrast, Christ's existence is attested not only by the writers of the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, who wrote in the first hundred years after Christ's death, but also because of Jewish, Greek and Roman sources, such as Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny, and Tacitus. There are innumerable early manuscripts of the gospels and they have been assiduously compared to establish their authenticity. The early church and its martyrs who risked death rather than renounce Christ all suggest that there was a man behind it all, a man who was crucified and who was believed by his disciples to have risen. Whatever you think of the miracles, no serious historian questions the historicity of Christ.
Next month my book What's So Great About Christianity hits the shelves, and atheists are going to find that they no longer have the public field to themselves. In fact, I'm scheduled to debate Christopher Hitchens in New York city October 22. So far Hitchens has been foraging around around the country beating up pastors who are unaccustomed to dealing with spear-chuckers like him. Mine is a book that will empower believers and challenge unbelievers. It meets skepticism and atheism on its own intellectual ground, which is the ground of reason and evidence. Michael Shermer, editor of "Skeptic" magazine, says of my book, "It takes the debate to a new level. Read it." And here is my old debating rival Stanley Fish, a noted scholar who hardly shares either my theology or my politics: "The great merit of this book is that it concedes nothing. Rather than engaging in the usual defensive ploys, D'Souza meets every anti-God argument head on and defeats it on its own terms. Infinitely more sophisticated than the rants produced by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, What's So Great About Christianity leaves those atheist books in the dust." If you are ready for the challenge, preorder the book here.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 62)
16. Dinesh, you're about as smug as it gets. Now I know the only reason you post about atheists is when your hit count gets low and you want to jack it up by posting some smugly ignorant rant against atheists.
Grow up, little boy.
As for Julius Caesar--have you never heard of his series of books he wrote on the Gallic Wars? You can buy a copy online! Are you truly that stupid or lazy that you didn't do the research, you ignorant lazy smug arrogant pompous ass?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 5:36PM on Sep 26th 2007
17. Yenrah, the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs. No, Leviathan is not a dinosaur. And please--preaching is rude. EVERYONE HAS HEARD YOUR SILLY MYTH! We don't need to hear it again.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 5:39PM on Sep 26th 2007
18. All religions are based on superstition and none can offer proof. I of course can't offer proof that there is no god, but that is trying to prove a negative. Religions were created to control the masses, just look around the world and see proof of that. No one can debate religion because as Nick H said "religion is based on faith". Years ago Madelyn O'Hair had some debates on TV with some priest. No contest at all, she made him look silly. I am an athiest but don't really care if someone else is or not. You can worship purple toads or striped onions for all I care. You have a right to believe anything you want and I have the right not to. My final comment is this, food for thought. If there is a god, or diety or higher power, then he,she or it is doing a really lousy job.
Hogansan at 5:43PM on Sep 26th 2007
19. If the article above is an example of the level of reasoning that characterize's "What's so Great About Christianity?", I don't think the atheists have anything to worry about.
For example, among the evidences of Julius Caesar's existence are his own writings, such as "The Gallic Wars". Jesus, if he existed, left no writings, at least none that have yet been discovered.
For another example, the mentions of Christ is non-Christian authors such as Josephus, Tacitus,etc. are almost universally acknowledged by scholars of antiquity to be forgeries inserted at a later date by Christians who fretted over why Jesus was not mentioned by his pagan contemporaries.
The case of the Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In his supposed reference to Jesus, he refers to him as a savior and yet, for some reason, he never converted to Christianity. Hmmmm...
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether Jesus actually existed or not. In Matt.16:25, Jesus promises to return before everybody who was alive during his time on earth has died. That was 2000 years ago. It is safe assume that everybody from that time is dead. Jesus' promise was not fulfilled. Therefore, Christianity is a false religion.
emelpe at 5:45PM on Sep 26th 2007
20. response to comment 13
I didn't say that faith is proof. I said that there is no proof. There is no way that I can prove that Jesus is real to someone who does not want to believe. There are many good reasons to believe. None of them constitute proof.
Evolution? God could have done that but He did not. According to Genesis chapter 1 and 2
Yenrah at 6:16PM on Sep 26th 2007
21. To Ronald B. Zeh
What an absolutely asinine statement:(quote) "Atheists are incapable of evaluating evidence and coming up with valid conclusions". I am an atheist ( ex-Catholic ). I am also a Quality Engineer for a major automotive supplier. My job in dealing with quality problems from our suppliers requires me to look at the problem and fix it. Since I have been doing this job for 15 years now and haven't been fired for incompetence should mean that I have some abilty to think. And what a coincidence given your rant about not wanting an atheist on a jury in that I,an atheist, happened to be a jury foreman several years ago in a case in Macomb County, Michigan in which a daughter accused her father of molesting her. We,the jury, after listening to the evidence presented found the father not guilty. The presiding judge called the jury into chambers after the verdict was read,and infront of the DA and the defense attorney told us jurors that he was glad that we had to make the decision and not him. I was raised a Catholic because my parents were Catholic .I went to Catholic school . I believed what I was told because ,hey the adults should know what they were taking about. Then as I got older I started reading the Bible and saw absurdities and contradictions. I started reading books for and against Christianity and for me the anti's had a better case than the for's. I'm not closed minded and if some truly convincing bit of evidence or argument shows itself, I'll return to the fold. In fact, I'll try your book Dinesh. But I'll wait til the local library gets it or if not what til it ends up in the bargin bin at Border's.
John B at 5:59PM on Sep 26th 2007
22. I agree with Knight_of_BAAWA.
Dinesh, you're about as smug as it gets...as well as incredibly ignorant. Your own religious delusion has you blinded beyond rational objectivity. And it's easy to see 'cause you're about as transparent as sierran wrap.
James at 6:09PM on Sep 26th 2007
23. So, Mr. D'Souza thinks that he "meets skepticism and atheism on its own intellectual ground, which is the ground of reason and evidence.", does he?
DD paints Pat Condell as a smug, self-satisfied character and a self-congratulatory buffoon.
There's some good ad hominem logic right there!
He doesn't actually say that Condell is a liar as to whether there were actual Christians emailing him smugly warning him of his future demise in HELL... but DD might as well have.
Here we have a smattering of 'tu quoque'... "Us Christians smug??? No, you atheists are smug!!!", DD is implying.
DD says, "Condell says Christ's historicity is based on "hearsay." But all historical evidence is "hearsay,"..."
... implying that the man is wrong yet agreeing with him at the same time!!!
This is compartmentalized thinking at it's worst. Either DD believes that all historical evidence is hearsay or he doesn't...
Not only that DD uses the title 'Christ' which refers to Jesus' being the prophesied messiah of the Jews... hardly logical or reasonable since Jesus qua Christ would prove the book and the book would prove Jesus qua Christ!
DD says, " In reality there is more evidence for Christ's existence..."
... again, are we talking about evidence of a guy wondering around the Middle East two thousand years ago or are we talking about the Jewish prophesied messiah... the Jews don't seem to think so... and one might imagine that they would be the ones who would have known!!!
DD says, " The early church and its martyrs who risked death rather than renounce Christ..."
I guess that clinches it... they risked DEATH therefore Christ MUST have lived!!!
This is an appeal to emotion... a logical fallacy!!
DD goes on, ".. all suggest that there was a man behind it all, a man who was crucified and who was believed by his disciples to have risen."
Of course they suggest that Jesus was real... they, apparently go on to suggest that Jesus became a zombie... so what?
Honestly if I swore on a stack of Bibles(hehe) that I knew a man that died and came back to life... became undead, became living dead... a zombie.... no-one in their right mind would believe me.
But in some of these 'evidence' booklets, there were apparently hundreds of zombies wondering about for a while... and the Jews and Romans didn't even notice...ridiculous.
Call me a smug skeptic if you will but I'll never believe that hundreds of zombies were walking around... and I'll never believe that no-one would notice hundreds of zombies walking around.
pboyfloyd at 6:14PM on Sep 26th 2007
24. Dinesh has the audacity to say he knows no Christians like the man speaks of in the video? The fact that Mr. D'Souza can state such a lie is amazing, but not surprising. It is not just the usual wackos like James Dobson and Pat Robertson either. It is the likes of Ann Coulter and politicians like Duncan Hunter (who yesterday said he would see to it that funding was cut off to Columbia University...huh?). All of these folks are welcomed and admired among some conservatives of the Republican Party.
Yeah, the atheist in the video is smug...but he sounds sane compared to the above mentioned folks.
David S. at 6:32PM on Sep 26th 2007
25. Bless your amusing little heart...don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
web jones at 6:37PM on Sep 26th 2007
26. Knight of Baawa is it? Do you consider yourself God? You are commenting on Dinesh's blog which you knew you would disagree with before you read it and speaking for everyone?
How do you know what everyone has heard? You don't.
You are preaching harder than I am. I'm just responding to the comments that have been posted. And if all of what I am saying is so false why are you so emotional about it all?
Yenrah at 6:42PM on Sep 26th 2007
27. I can just imagine... back ... back.. in time...
Billious O'Reillius is addressing the Caesar and the Senate...
"You know recently we've been hearing about a zombie walking around Palestine... hundreds of other zombies have been spotted too...
... let me tell ya folks! That's NOT news!!!"
pboyfloyd at 6:52PM on Sep 26th 2007
28. Regarding atheists: We deny most passionately what we fear most desperately
pschiell at 6:53PM on Sep 26th 2007
29. @ pschiell.... #27
Well, la-di-da!!
Maybe you're right... atheists seem to be denying that otherwise rational people(that's you!) can chuck logic, reason and common-sense out the window simply because they fear death!!
... and there you all are denying death itself as desperately as you can... every single Sunday!!!
pboyfloyd at 7:05PM on Sep 26th 2007
30. Yenrah: everyone has heard your silly myth. Stop assuming that people haven't. You're the one preaching; I'm not. Stop trying to foist your rudeness onto me. Why are you being so emotional?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 7:16PM on Sep 26th 2007