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 5 of 62)
61. Hey, I've got an idea. Let's make science our god. Science has never wavered in its "proofs" of our origin and reason for existence. In fact, science gives us indisputably concrete evidence of our unbelievably complex but totally accidental existence and requires no "faith" at all, right? Don't kid yourself. It doesn't take an expert to realize the dangers in attempting to dispute the reality of faith in ALL belief systems. If your godless origin theories (which require a BELIEF that you are a highly improbable accident) are rooted in science, then you have a constantly "evolving" set of beliefs based on (guess what?) someone's else's study or bias. How much has that changed in the last 200 years? In fact, since no one I know on this earth was present at the time of the world's first dawn, it would be foolish to accept an ever-shifting dogma about how and when the earth was made. There is one theory that has stood the test of time, while others have emerged and disappeared with the latest scientific breeze. As a Christian, I refuse to believe I am a hopeless accident. If I try to convince others to embrace that idea, it doesnt make me a war-mongering, bigoted prude with limited mental faculties (as some voices in these posts have stereotyped us). Truly, some use strong-arm tactics and fear to push the concept. Shame on them for using the current media and governmental approach. However, when I read angry posts by atheists who seem "hell-bent" on putting Christians in their place, it seems like a classic pot-and-kettle scenario. Someone might actually care about you and want you to find the joy they found for themselves. If not believing in God gives you peace, I recommend that you espouse that to everyone you know, so that they can share in that nirvana, rather than with the vitriol of an unhappy soul on the run. In closing, I present the old standby (and certain to be dissected and criticized) concept of deathbed confessions. If I had no other reason to accept the reality of eternity or a higher power than what people say when they are dying--when all the lies in the world are useless--it would be enough. I know a doctor, formerly an athiest, who hated the God concept and dispelled any notion of his existence. After witnessing many people in their dying moments, he heard consistent, non-medicated transitions from this life to the next. Remarkably, the things described by these patients fit all too well with the two eternities described in the Bible. It changed his mind. From my own study, I have never read or heard of a dying person who renounced God, but have read of many who never accepted him and begged for His mercy at their own passing. All I'm saying is, if you don't really KNOW why you exist (outside of the standard nine-month procreation cycle), don't criticize those who think they have the answer.
Dwayne at 1:40AM on Sep 27th 2007
62. Most historians do in fact accept Jesus as a historical figure, though they debate endlessly about the details and authenticity of the Biblical accounts.
One of the things that intrigues me most about the gospel accounts is how honest they are about the short-comings of Jesus' followers. They deserted him in his darkest hour, hid like cowards from the men who killed their friend (the gospels only mention one disciple by name as being present at the crucifixion), and didn't believe when women who had been among Jesus' followers reported seeing him alive. Yet within several weeks of Jesus' death, those same men were proclaiming his message. Not in some remote location, but in the same community where Jesus was killed, braving hostility from the same people who had killed their teacher. That's a remarkable about-face. It's difficult to believe that an imaginary person, some phantom of their collective imagination, could produce that kind of change in every one of those men in such short order.
Besides, remember that they were talking about Jesus' life to people in the areas where he was supposed to have been active. It's difficult to imagine how they could have started a church in Jerusalem within weeks of Jesus' death (which they did) if he wasn't a real person. The story of Jesus' life includes a public crucifixion. Any listener would have known immediately if the story was bogus, since the event was recent and purportedly happened right outside the city walls. Even a visitor to the city would have been able to verify the truth of the story without much effort.
There is good grounds for accepting Jesus as a historical figure. I believe there is good grounds for faith in his message and in his claims about himself. If anyone is interested, there are several good books written by former atheists who converted to Christianity. One is called More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell (Think I spelled that right). Another is by C.S. Lewis (The author of The Chronicles of Narnia) called Mere Christianity.
Matt at 2:23AM on Sep 27th 2007
63. Dinesh,
If I can ever get through the stack of books on my nightstand, I look forward to reading your book. By the way, the Methodist minister that baptized and confirmed me believed that God was behind evolution, but since there is no proof, that theory shouldn't be taught in the public schools
Kent at 2:44AM on Sep 27th 2007
64. As I read the postings from you atheist the demonic hate for Christ spews out.I haven't read a posting of any one forcing you to accept Christianity and maybe your too stupid to realize that when someone shares Christ with you, they do it because they don't want you to perish in Hell for eternity. Personally I wouldn't mind and am thankful if someone cared enough about me to share their time and tell me of Christs love for me!yet what I read is nothing but misery,hate,loneliness,despair,enviousness, and feelings that you don't belong and all are lies of the devil!
As one person said that they didn't care going to hell because he knows there will be interesting people there buddy hell is not a party and your stupidity will make you nash your teeth and be consumed by a fire that never ends!
Belief will happen on that day when all of you will bend your knees before Christ and confess that he is Lord both great and small.
I don't beleive in evolution because I know my father is not an ape but its obvious to me that some of you speak like apes yet profess to be intellectual.The bible for you idiots and I really can't use any other word because just like being stupid it means that you think you know so much and you open your mouth and you leave no doubt that you know nothing!
You intellectual scholars of hell read the bible if you dare and you will find wisdom non compare and prophesies that will humble you.
Several prophesies for yor ears and you will remember them, Syria will be a wasteland soon,Russia will come against Israel with Arabs from the north and it will take seven months to bury the dead! then my hope is that your eyes will be open and so will your ears and you will believe.
By the way you who are advocating killing or destroying of believers are fulfilling prophesy yourself.
I dont blame you for your hate cause I know that it comes from your father the devil!!
I hope for peace,love and health for all of you.
By the way if your beliefs are so strong why aren't you in lines to go to Russia,China or North Korea?
by the way I don't see a li
Manny at 4:55AM on Sep 27th 2007
65. By the way Christians aren' perfect just forgiven if they repent, so you will find sin in Christians but if they truly are they won't be practicing sin.
You'll know a Christian by his walk and his deeds not because they say they are!
Also those who continue to spout talking points about this illegal and immoral war why aren't you happy your safe in this country instead of whinning!!!!
Manny at 5:06AM on Sep 27th 2007
66. There is no such thing as 'god', period and done with. Was there a person or persons who created this universe? Probably yes, but they were NOT omniscient and omnipotent beings (two things that do not exist), just extremely powerful ones, which we will get to in a couple of hundred thousand years ourselves and create another universe ourselves.
Frankly, it's time to realize that there is no such things as 'heaven' or 'hell' (two things made up to make people be 'good' little boys and girls, though actually to do what other people TOLD them to do!) and there are no such things as 'god' and 'devil' (at least not as the absolute good and evil beings they are made out to be).
Personally, I have seen ghosts in my life. Do I think they are some 'supernatural' things? No, I just think they are a psychic imprint left by someone who dies too early in their lives or who is killed before their time.
It's time to realize that supernatural things do not exist and that most 'supernatural' things can be explained by the 'laws' of the universe (which are not totally inviolable) can be bent at certain places, certain times and by certain people through force of will, not a supernatural force.
Christopher at 7:44AM on Sep 27th 2007
67. very funny Infidel!! I actually thought while reading your comment that your were going to say that is exactly why Christ WAS for real! All of the other cult leaders amounted to nothing. That is exactly what is so remarkable about him. Also, if he was just an ordinary man, who never rose from the dead(I believe he did though) ...he certainly had a greater message than any of those other psychotic or child abusing cult leaders, now didn't he? Can anybody put down a man that stressed caring for the lowest in society, turning another cheek to somebody's sins and instead, addressing their own?? Spreading the word around that love and charity and here is the big one...Forgiveness should be the strongest goals to strive for in life? What other cult leader you mentioned comes anywhere close to that. What other man on Earth EVER went around dirt poor spreading that message and had Legions follow him for Thousands of Years.....You seeing something a bit miraculous here yet?
m.a. at 6:49AM on Sep 27th 2007
68. Response to Tony Messinger (#13)
You wrote: “evolution is becoming more of a fact every day “
Much of the evidence that provides the basis for a belief in evolution is becoming more of a fact, but, the “summary conclusion” that all of life on Earth evolved out of a primordial soup is still very much a theory.
(BTW – what geological evidence do we have that any primordial soup ever existed?)
Evolutionary mechanisms have yet to be “proven” or “demonstrated”. We have proven, demonstrated, even harnessed some of the “testable” sciences: magnetism, electricity, aerodynamics, biomedicine, pharmacology, genetics, … the list goes on. But, evolution, the process of one specie transforming into another specie has yet to be proven or demonstrated.
Many evolutionists question “natural selection”. A few even admit that there is a metaphysical basis for the theory of evolution and that many applications of evolution were in reality a “secular religion”.
I offer the following quote:
“And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion.”
Michael Ruse - 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science- Feb, 1993
(At the time, Ruse was a philosopher of Science at the University of Guelph (Ontario). He is now at Florida State University and has recently published a book that argues that “the Darwin vs. Creation argument is often a battle of two religions”.
One may wonder: WHY would evolutionists even concede the “high ground” of pure science?
My answer: To give value and worth to the study of evolution and the pursuit of the answers to its questions.
Look at the problems the world faces today: war, global warming, pollution, poverty, disease, crime, genocide, overpopulation, inadequate supply of clean water, looming exhaustion of oil and other fossil fuels, yada yada.
Answering the questions asked and raised by evolution will provide very little , if any, assistance in addressing any of the above problems.
I have had some of my evolutionist friends argue that evolution is the “foundation of all science”. Now that position is unadulterated “religious” dogma. I believe the ancient Chinese, Greeks, & Egyptians would disagree that position, as would Newton, Da Vinci, and Mendel. (BTW – Mendel was an Austrian monk who’s work in genetics actually helped solve one of the early problems of Darwinian theory - heredity.)
ray at 6:52AM on Sep 27th 2007
69. Response to Hogansan (#20)
DD says, " The early church and its martyrs who risked death rather than renounce Christ..."
You wrote “ they risked DEATH therefore Christ MUST have lived!!! This is an appeal to emotion... a logical fallacy!!”
There is no logical fallacy here. The simple fact is this – I know of no one who willingly endures persecution and dies for a cause they do not believe in. This was not a case of people believing in what they knew to be a lie. Does that mean they couldn’t be wrong? No – I believe that many of the Muslim suicide bombers truly believe in their cause, but, I do believe that they are wrong. But, 2000 years ago, I find it incredible that people were willing to endure persecution and death without credible evidence that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected.
Response to David S. (#22)
You wrote: “ 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”
Your statement is what’s audacious! You have no basis to claim that DD’s statement is a lie. It may be false for you, but, that does not mean it is false for DD. Personally, I know of no one who delights in the idea of a person spending an eternity in hell simply because that person is an atheist or not a Christian. Such people probably exist (DD said teh same), but, I do not know them. I have heard a few of my friends make comments to the effect: “I hope Saddam burns in Hell” or “I hope Osama burns in Hell.” (I will admit that attitude is inconsistent with Biblical theology, but, that is not what Pat Condell or DD are talking about.)
ray at 6:59AM on Sep 27th 2007
70. Correction - Post #67 should list pboyfloyd as authour of post #20
ray at 7:04AM on Sep 27th 2007
71. Response to Rick (#41)
You wrote: “Karl Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses and how right he was. They all preach love and kindness while they spend all of their time killing each other.”
Marx also advocated eliminating the free press. He viewed the “church” as an institution that would compete with the government for the loyalty of the people.
BTW - According to secular historians, the 20th century is the bloodiest in recorded history. The death toll ranges from 60 to 100+ million people, most of whom died at the hands of ATHEIST totalitarian governments. I am NOT blaming “atheism” for these deaths, but, I am pointing out that religion is not the big killer.
Responding to Rhodalee (#42) who wrote:
“ What I am finding here is denigration of what or what not one chooses to or to not believe in.
To trivialize any person's beliefs or lack of belief is just childish mudslinging …”
Wow! Doesn’t happen often but I agree with Rhodalee.
ray at 7:08AM on Sep 27th 2007
72. Responding to Ryan M. (#45)
You wrote: “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.”
This is the essence of much of the culture war. Many secular humanists, many atheists, many agnostics simply want to elevate themselves to the “god-level”. They delight in the “death of god” because ethey are counting on a promotion.
You also wrote: “Perhaps most frustrating … 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.”
Very true. But it has been my experience that when disagreement and differences disappear, the critics then accuse the Christian community of being monolithic and not tolerating diverse opinions. In other words, there is no way Christians can please their critics other than by simply shutting up and going away.
ray at 7:09AM on Sep 27th 2007
73. Responding to pboyfloyd (#49)
You wrote: “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'. “
You are the first I know of to describe Jesus as a “zombie”. Not surprised. If we rely on Hollywood, a zombie is the “living dead”. That does not fit. Per some “pagan” religions, a zombie is one brought back to life and is under the control of the person who brought them back. If you can consider God to be the controlling person, then, perhaps your description of Jesus being a zombie is technically correct. But again, you are simply being a slanderous juvenile.
Response to S. Ramos O'Briant (#51):
You wrote: “My weekly debates with my eight-year-old neighbor, Jackie Jan, … (she was Baptist; I was Catholic) always ended with me receiving a sound beating at her hands.
My experiences with Fundamentalists of many different religions... 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. “
Actually, no religion or secular dogma I know of is without its embarrassing historical stint. But, I would not blame this tendency on “fundamentalism”. The Catholic church, hardly “fundamentalist”, was one of the worst for dictating morals and passing judgments on those who dared to disagree and deviate from Papal decrees. At least fundamentalists TRY to base their claims on the Bible, not the ruling of a person or council.
Responding to Student (#59)
“I think that the atheist point of view has more of a merit when it comes to this feeling of supremacy because they believe in what is proven by scientific, empirical data…”
If your premise that atheists “believe in what is proven by scientific, empirical data” was true, then the atheist POV might have more merit. However, no atheist has ANY scientific, empirical data that God does not exist.
ray at 7:12AM on Sep 27th 2007
74.
Christianity is responsible for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Dark Age.
While I am one, I actually DO the things that Jesus, or Christ (keyword in CHRISTianity) tells me to do - I don't justify any other behavior, or allow any other behavior to be "interpreted" from what he said. It's my belief that if he came back, and started saying the things he did, many would nail him up again, or maybe just kill him with lethal injection
Ken at 7:16AM on Sep 27th 2007
75. Response to Hogansan (#16)
You wrote: “All religions are based on superstition”
What is a “superstition”? An unsubstantiated explanation for an observed behavior? Is there a difference between an “unsubstantiated/unproven claim” from a “superstition”?
Here are some examples of beliefs that I think we both would view as superstition:
#1 - “Step on a crack, you break your mother’s back.”
#2 - “Breaking a mirror will bring you 7 years of bad luck.”
#3 - “Atlas holds up the Earth”.
Have you ever heard of “dark matter” and “dark energy”?
Over the decades, astronomers and cosmologists have formulated theories about how the universe was formed and behaves. When they view galaxies close to us, their theories match their observations. However, when they look at galaxies farther away, these galaxies do NOT obey the theories. So how have these “scientists” answered this? By changing their theory? No, by changing the facts. They have “invented” dark matter and dark energy to explain the discrepancy. This dark energy and matter is “invisible”. Now, I can not say they are wrong. They could be right. But, there is no direct evidence, only circumstantial intuition.
After all, it was Albert Einstein who said, “If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.”
My question for you: If I claimed that “dark matter” and “dark energy” were only superstitions to explain discrepancies between cosmological theory and cosmological observations, could you mount a credible argument to refute my claim?
We can probably refute the superstitions #1 - #3 with demonstrations and testing, you know - EVIDENCE. Any evidence to refute the existence of “dark matter” or “dark energy”? Of course not. Any evidence to refute the existence of God, of the historical Jesus, or most of the Biblical claims? Of course not. In summary, the beliefs that provide the foundation for Judaism and Christianity are no “superstitious” than the belief in “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Should my argument convince you that my beliefs are right? Of course not. But, my argument strongly says that you can not logically call the Judeo-Christian faith and beliefs “superstitious”.
You wrote: “Religions were created to control the masses”
Actually, all institutions are designed to “control”. In some cases, the masses, in other cases, just a portion of the masses.
You also wrote: “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.”
Ever been close to a person who stinks? Perhaps they just finished a hard workout and are covered in sweat. That might explain the odor. But, what if the person simply stunk? Would you automatically blame their soap? What if they did not bother to use soap? Can not blame the soap if it is not used. Same with religion. Do not blame the religions for the failures of the religious institutions. The religious people failed to apply their religions appropriately. This is true for all religions, all social doctrines (socialism, communism, democracy, capitalism). If you look at each of them analytically, they each failed because of poor execution by their advocates.
ray at 7:17AM on Sep 27th 2007