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 4 of 62)
46. As a pastor, I doubt that DD's book will be very helpful in proving anything substantial about the historicity of Christ. DD mentions Pliny and Josphesus. The value of their reportage is that they were both non Christians and give something close to an objective account of the christian tradition. The problem is that neither man had a first hand knowledge of Jesus, they only know the tradition. Josphesus is writing at least 40 to 50 years after Jesus' death and resurrection and Pliny is writing in the early second century.
DD mentions Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Washington and suggest that there is just as much evidence for the historical existence of Jesus as there is for these men. The assertion is totally false. The question is not one of hearsay, the question is who is doing the saying. The existence of Caesar, Alexander the Great and Washington are all attested to by a multiplicity of sources and people. There are military records, personal correspondence, official documents and even the accounts of their enemies that lend weight and heft to the fact that these men existed.
The only accounts that we have of the life of Jesus are the gospel narratives(There are also gnostic writings that were written sometime later). The gospel accounts are not objective historical reporting as we know it today. They are each author's theological reflections and practical concerns for the particular historical community he is addressing through his gospel.
The problem in trying to prove the existence of the historical Jesus resides in the fact that Jesus was apparently a nobody from the worlds' point of view. He wasn't a powerful military leader. He didn't command the allegience of the rich and influential. He wasn't born into a powerful earthly royal family. He didn't rule over earthly principalities and powers. He didn't hang out with the beautiful and respected people. Instead he was a nobody in a world that doesn't remember nobodies. He reached out and embraced nobodies in a world that gives no account to them. And he died a shameful nobodies death just like tens of thousands of other nameless nobodies throughout history.
We Christians believe, when we believe right, that God was operative in the life of this nobody. The Christian story is a counter story to the narratives of this world which are grounded in worldly power, glory, violence and domination. The Christian story is the story of God's self giving love for the sake of our redemption.
The proof of the existence of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection does not reside in sterile intellectual arguments that prove nothing. The only proof resides in a loving, caring community that has been formed in his name, embued by his Spirit, and is not only willing to become nobodies for his sake, but to reach out to the nobodies in acts of self giving love.
Sorry for the sermon.
randy at 10:06PM on Sep 26th 2007
47. A belief in many of the tenets of Christianity does not so much require a disregard for the logical and pragmatic as it demands a necessity for self-humility--a concept I have found is often quite difficult for the scholarly to grasp. To submit that we are creatures without full control of our surroundings is, for many, more so an issue of hubris than factual impracticality.
Perhaps most frustrating to observe, however, are the above comments that belittle Christians for their hypocritical dispositions and seemingly oversimplified rebuttals. My frustration stems not from these criticisms, but rather, the truth in their words! Christianity has a multitude of denominations, each with nuanced beliefs independent to their organizations. Every individual interprets any religion differently than his neighbor. Subsequently, it is a true shame that it is primarily the close-minded, uneducated, and presumptuous Christian perceptions asserted that tend to be those most remembered, documented, and referenced.
To find satisfaction in a non-believer's seemingly imminent demise to hell is hardly an arguable stream of thought in the image of Jesus (as the Bible so instructs). And yet it simplemindedly persists. Or rather, a fundamentalist believer's response to an educated inquiry often ends with paragraphs of theological preaching that condemn an individual for their simple pursuance for truth. Or worse yet, a skeptic is met with a purveyance of Biblical text in juxtaposition with grossly concrete and overly-literal mistranslation.
I guess my message to the atheists is that Christianity is not in all cases a religion for the weak or simple-minded. I will be the first to concede that religion in general certainly has a tendency to attract those who feel to be "lacking something" in their lives. Yet for each overly close-minded (and overly audible!) simpleton, there is an a composed, rational individual who has taken the time to become historically well-versed, and yet is still willingly capable of taking that final short-distanced step (IMO) of faith.
I find that this newfound wave of atheist resentment toward religion stems not from the tenets upon which each belief system stands, but rather, the onslaught of ignorance and lack of self-scrutiny that all to often is associated with organized religion.
Ryan M. at 10:33PM on Sep 26th 2007
48. HOW AMUSING, Condell is both funny and SPOT ON, but since he confronts and contradicts some of the major tenets of the contemporary Christian paradigm, D'nutbag (lacking in honesty, decency, and humanity) has to call the guy names to objectify him as "smug" and a "buffoon". (Which by the way D'dipshit, since you apparently like that style of ad hominem argument I'm returning it to you so you can see what it feels like, real nice huh? SMUG and BUFFOONISH right-wingers like to dish it out but they don't take it very well themselves).
I wish Condell had gone into more detail for example about how the way contemporary "Christians" are so into supporting Bush's illegal and immoral war on Iraq and how that misguided support of theirs completely invalidates their supposedly "moral" view of Christ and Christianity. Condell did pretty well expounding upon how "Christians" somehow manage to overlook Christ's real message of peace and love and focus instead on punishment and suffering. Yes, they think that just because they "believe" then they are "saved", which perhaps explains why Christians can then go on to behave as vile and sick as they can get (think Anne KKKoulter and other nasty right-wingers) but they still think their "belief" serves as kind of a magic charm protecting them from the consequences of their own actions.
Here's news for you, you SMUG BUFFOONISH CHRISTIANS:
1) You own your own sins, Christ didn't die for them, you are only indulging in co-dependent behavior. Take responsibility for your own actions in life, like Jesus taught but you somehow missed.
2) Ditto for "original sin", the passing down of the first sin from parents to offspring forever. If that were actually true (it's not) then the God setting things up that way would not be worthy of respect. I would spit on such a God, but all I can really do is spit on your silly superstitious nonsense.
3) The BASIC FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM with modern Christianity is that its various cults and sects are ABOUT Jesus, but are not religions OF Jesus. Consequently the focus is on stupid superstition and dogma, following rules and wanting everyone else to follow them too, behaving like a frigging Taliban basically. Instead, what's actually important about Jesus they completely ignore: THE EXAMPLE HE PROVIDED TO OTHERS TO LIVE THEIR LIVES PROPERLY: let he who is without sin cast the first stone; turn the other cheek; love they neighbor as thyself. A Christian living by Christ's example would be living the religion OF Jesus, but modern Christianity is so far away from that, it is completely corrupt, sick, invalid. The PROOF of that is the "Christian" support for war, about as un-Christlike a position as it is possible to take.
But D'luded apparently thinks his "religion" is more about following the rules. I'm not going to support him by buying his book, although I may pick it up at Goodwill for 25 cents after a few months. He and his ignorant religion are the biggest problem facing America, we have to get rid of the influence of these stupid Neanderthals before they start global nuclear war.
R. Kohl at 8:22AM on Sep 30th 2007
49. CONTINUATION OF CUT OFF TEXT:
The PROOF of that is the "Christian" support for war, about as un-Christlike a position as it is possible to take.
But D'luded apparently thinks his "religion" is more about following the rules. I'm not going to support him by buying his book, although I may pick it up at Goodwill for 25 cents after a few months. He and his ignorant religion are the biggest problem facing America, we have to get rid of the influence of these stupid Neanderthals before they start global nuclear war.
R. Kohl at 3:54AM on Sep 28th 2007
50. Oops it wasn't cut off after all:
SUGGESTION TO THE AOL PROGRAMMER FOR THIS FUNCTIONALITY: When you send an email message containing a link for validation along with a copy of the text submitted, DON'T TRUNCATE THE TEXT IN THE EMAIL, SHOW IT ALL.
duh.
R. Kohl at 3:57AM on Sep 28th 2007
51. @ randy.... #44
I kinda liked your sermon. You, sir, sound like a sincere, humble man...
...with a Christian attitude... unlike the majority of so-called-believers answering commenters on this post.
I wonder why they don't see that their so-called-Christianity is destructive, like Hitler's... which is the reason, I suspect, that they try beyond any reason to lump Hitler in with Stalin and Mao.
Their Christ is exactly like Hitler's Christ excepting of course that they don't blame the Jews... now they blame the Muslims... and they deny it at the same time!
Still... although you have the right to believe anything you want, you have no right to ask me to venerate your beliefs... not saying that you did that... just throwing that out there.
By the same token you have every right not to like my P.O.V. that when Jesus came back from the dead(he didn't really though)... he must have been a zombie... the very definition of the word 'zombie'.
pboyfloyd at 10:56PM on Sep 26th 2007
52. The wide range of comments on D'Souza amazes me. I am less interested in 'proving points' than in saying that I have been rescued many times. I don't claim to be a solid Christian, totally devoted to any denomination. Some forget that EVERYBODY has some religion. It is what you place high value on! Some atheists apparently worship their own intellects and refuse to think that any logical, realistic alternates exist. Their religion consists of hatred of formal religion. Some Christians, bless their hearts, are not capable of standing up to a vicious attack and retreat to where they talk only to themselves. (I hope they talk to God some, to enable them to be prepared better for the next attack, if only by referring to someone better qualified than themselves.) But, if you ignore God's way and do not try to do right, your idols are pleasure or money or power or sex or what-have-you. These false religions will eventually let you down. When trouble comes (missed goals, broken relationships, maybe illness, maybe financial distress), I urge you unbelievers to try asking God for help. The help may not come in the way you expect, but God knows what you need and will give it to you WHEN you are willing to even to try a little bit to follow His way. Good-night and God bless.
Spencer Williams at 11:16PM on Sep 30th 2007
53. Organized religion was created by very smart but insecure people for insecure people of any kind.
What an attractive idea?! You do not have to change yourself or the circumstances of your life or even think about it. You just need to declare yourself a 'true believer' and the others 'sinners' and guess what? You feel good about yourself instantly. Of course, there is a minor inconvenience-following 'a ritual': going to the church, eating right things at a right time, having no sex before marriage, abortions, etc., etc. No wonder that there is an overwhelming hypocrisy and moral corruption within an organized religion itself. You cannot win over human nature. You must learn how to live with it productively. But I guess that's too much to ask.
As to me, I do not mind going to Hell, provided that it exists of course. I will be in a company of very interesting people that made the progress of a human kind possible. From what we know all of them were Big Sinners.
What were people worshiping before the Christianity or any other major religion? Sun, Earth, Water, Wind and Mother Nature. Beautiful! If it stayed that way, Al Gore would not be teaching us about global warming, that's for sure. And we would not be fighting and killing each other about whose God is better. To everybody's benefit.
PinkPanter at 11:23PM on Sep 26th 2007
54. My weekly debates with my eight-year-old neighbor, Jackie Jan,over whose god was the real one (she was Baptist; I was Catholic)always ended with me receiving a sound beating at her hands.
I managed to trump her only once, and that was on the issue of hell and which one of us would surely end up there. I pulled the Catholic get-out-of-hell card and told her about confession. Slack-jawed, she stared at me and called me a liar, and then beat me up.
My experiences with Fundamentalists of many different religions since then have not been physically confrontive, but I fear them nonetheless. They're too interested in dictating the morals and rules of their communities and countries. They rely too much on confusing and ancient guidebooks, and refuse to think for themselves. Most people want easy answers. Most people want to feel part of community. The not thinking, easy answer, peer influenced mob is dangerous: that's religion.
S. Ramos O\\\'Briant at 11:25PM on Sep 26th 2007
55. I think it's funny that when people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument they resort to name calling instead of a logical reply. If you read all of these remarks to this story you'll know what i'm talking about. LOL-
ek at 11:54PM on Sep 26th 2007
56. Oh, yea Dinesh... if you are really going to debate any of these men... any of them... be sure to make the subject of the debate as vague as possible...
Try to pick up any weak argument from your opponent and bar any other argument as 'off topic'...
Who knows maybe you could pretend a victory... especially if you make Christianity itself 'off topic'... you can then crow that your opponent didn't score any debate points on that subject...
... and simply forget to tell us that it was off-limits...
........good luck ya bozo... you're gonna need it!
pboyfloyd at 11:53PM on Sep 26th 2007
57. Lee Strobel is doing a credible job proving that Jesus lived, died and rose again. Lee disproves evolution with the perfection of the 32 factors that allow us life on Earth. Dinesh will also prove the acuracy of Jesus' life. It takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.
If the signs like earthquakes, hurricanes and disasters are intensifying, then each person should examine the facts more carefully. Your eternal destiny will depend on your decision.
Ralphie3000 at 12:04AM on Sep 27th 2007
58. Lee Strobel is a hack who does no serious scholarly research. Even if jesus existed, that doesn't get christians any closer to there being a god. And Lee has not disproved evolution. If he had, he'd be winning the equivalent of the Nobel Prize. It takes no faith to be an atheist. Weather patterns change, so attempting to use that as "proof of god" is ludicrous at best, and laugably stupid at worst. Finally, attempting emotional bullying via mafia tactics e.g. you don't want something bad to happen after you die, because that's ETERNITY, so you'd better BELIEVE, is pathetic.
IOW: Ralphie3000 is a perfect apologist. Why? He was completely wrong in everything he stated. That's all the qualification needed to be a christian apologist.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:19AM on Sep 27th 2007
59. Hey, Ralphie3000 ... #55
Saint Augustine (354–430) successfully argued against assuming people inhabited the antipodes:
"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge..."
... much like Lee Strobel is successfully(in your eyes at least) arguing against evolution.
When trying to use logical argument ... you're supposed to avoid logical fallacies... not try to incorporate as many as you can into the argument in the hopes that some will slip by unnoticed.
Dinesh D'Souza is tacitly admitting defeat when he consistently uses logical fallacies and lies to try to score points against absent victims...
... not even DD could possibly even pretend to have proven the accuracy of Jesus' life.
As for your 'signs' and 'eternal destiny' ... didn't you pay attention in school... or are you being willfully ignorant.
It would be easy to prove the truth of the Bible... simply perform a Prayer of Faith in front of skeptical witnesses... no cheatin' now!
pboyfloyd at 12:33AM on Sep 27th 2007
60. Oh, yea... and by Prayer of Faith, I don't mean something like..
"BE GONE, oh, DEMON named 'flu'... eat yer chicken soup and rise up in three to five days oh,(ahem) deathly ill one!!!"
... that kind of thing just won't do...
pboyfloyd at 12:51AM on Sep 27th 2007