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 58 of 62)
856. I explained it to you, pathological liar ray. How many MORE times must I explain to you how agnosticism is a subset of each?
Let's go over this YET AGAIN for pathological liar ray.
agnostic theism: belief in a god, but doesn't know what god is
agnostic atheism: doesn't have the belief that there is a god, doesn't know if god can be known.
Thus, we see that each "set" (atheism and theism) has a subset called "agnosticism".
How much more clear can it be made, pathological liar ray? How much more clear?
You are clearly ignorant about all that you speak of. You are a buffoon. Now admit that you made some incorrect claims. Admit it, you pathological liar.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 9:42PM on Oct 5th 2007
857. ray two-truths...
suit yourself.
pboyfloyd at 9:49PM on Oct 5th 2007
858. Responding to #853:
”A thing can be a subset of each and the two do not have to intersect because we're dealing with separate items.”
Huh? Mathematically, a subset does not INTERSECT with the larger set. The subset is completely contained within the larger set. So in order for a given set to be a subset of two different larger sets, the larger sets must intersect.
Example: {e, f, g} is a subset of {a, b, c, d, e, f, g} and a subset of {d, e, f, g, h, i, j,}. Hence, the two larger sets intersect with the subset {d, e, f, g}. Thus, the original subset of {e, f, g} is a subset of each of the larger sets and is also a subset of the intersection subset of {d, e, f, g}
Capiche? Ming bai? Unnerstan’.?
Can you speak of one god at a time in a polytheistic religion? Of course. But, if the only god in your religion is Zeus or Apollo, then, it is a monotheistic religion. And I do not think that rotating gods every day or every week so that you are worshipping only one god at a time constitutes monotheism.
Look Knight – just admit that you are wrong about “poly vs mono” and “agnostic being orthogonal” etc, and move on. Pboy is right. This debate became pointless way back.
ray at 9:57PM on Oct 5th 2007
859. Pathological liar ray,
You're the one who was talking about intersecting. So I made it clear for you. Do you understand? No, of course you don't. Why? Because you only read what you want to read. You don't care about reality. I said "the two do not have to intersect" meaning the two sets in question do not intersect (just as you were attempting to illustrate), not that the subsets intersect with the sects, you illiterate pathological liar! Why do you lie! WHY! Why can't you be honest, ray? WHY? Why must you lie in every single post, ray? Why can't you be honest? What is your problem that you are always dishonest?
Now if you say we can speak of just one god in a polytheistic pantheon, then you ADMIT that the set in polytheism is {1,2..n}. You can't get away from that, pathological liar ray.
Look pathological liar ray: just admit that you were wrong about polytheism vs monotheism and angosticism is orthogonal to atheism and theism and we can move on.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:16PM on Oct 5th 2007
860. Responding to #856:
Knight wrote: “agnosticism is a subset of each?”
That means agnosticism is ONE subset.
Knight wrote: “Thus, we see that each "set" (atheism and theism) has a subset called "agnosticism".
That means there are TWO different subsets, one for each larger set.”
UNLESS, atheism, agnosticism, and theism are collinear, which is a position I argued on a different blog, but, Knight refused to accept. After all, he insists that agnosticism is “orthogonal” to atheism/theism”.
So, that means there are two subsets, each labeled “agnosticism”
Wait! TWO = ONE? Well, according to Knight it does. After all, 2 = at least 1!
What an idiot!
ray at 10:17PM on Oct 5th 2007
861. pathological lying idiot ray,
I don't know what you've been smoking, but all this time I've been telling you that agnosticism is a subset of atheism and theism each, i.e. that it is orthogonal to both. Now you come out and lie yet again and say that atheism, theism, and agnosticism must be collinear. They aren't.
Keep lying, ray. Eventually, no one will believe a word you say, ever.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:20PM on Oct 5th 2007
862. I know I read like a blonde. Hey I dont know what my IQ is but I was the valedictorian of my class.
Michelle at 10:25PM on Oct 5th 2007
863. And Ray, that was to you because you addressed me, I just enjoy resting my brain. Its hard to explain.
Michelle at 10:27PM on Oct 5th 2007
864. Responding to #859. Pathological liar knight,
You're the one who was talked first about intersecting when you introduced the word "orthogonal". So I made it clear for you. Do you understand? No, of course you don't. Why? Because you only read what you want to read. You don't care about reality.
It is clear that you will not listen to reason. Pick uop the phone and call your local high school math teacher. Let him/her explain it to you.
No, just because we can speak of just one god AT A TIME, in a polytheistic pantheon, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE OTHER GOD(S) DO NOT EXIST IN TAT PANTHEON. THUS, polytheism is {2, 3, ..n}. You can't get away from that, pathological liar Knight.
Let's look at an example: polygamy. That means you are married to more than one person AT THE SAME TIME. You might sleep with each spouse ONE AT A TIME, but, you are constantly married to all of your wives at the same time.
ray at 10:27PM on Oct 5th 2007
865. Pboy, 849,
Tis common knowledge that the knocking when said, "Knock, knock." is that of knuckles on doors, or that of that little thing you pull and knock. Sorry, not high society. Guess thats why Im a conservative.
Michelle at 10:32PM on Oct 5th 2007
866. Now, Ray, I just do happen to wonder if you are a high society boy, or if you just happen to have learned their especial scientific communications that involve many, many long words. Gee golly.
Michelle at 10:34PM on Oct 5th 2007
867. pathological liar ray,
You're confusing yourself with me. You keep attributing your incompetence to me. You're the one saying that I said that the subsets intersect with the sects themselves. I said nothing of the sort. So why must you lie, pathological liar ray?
pathological liar ray, because we can speak of single gods in the polytheistic pantheons, that means that the set looks like this {1,2..n}. You can't start with 2. You have to start with 1. Why? Because you need at least 1 to start with. 1 HAS TO BE PART OF THE SET, YOU MATHEMATICALLY ILLITERATE PATHOLOGICAL LYING IMBECILE! You can't get away from that, you pathological liar.
And remember: polygamy starts with at least one marriage.
Now then: admit you were wrong about the whole thing, pathological liar.
I'll just keep hammering you with your own lies and stupidity until you eventually cave or STFU. Either way: it will be fun.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:36PM on Oct 5th 2007
868. Hey boys,
Why is it that when all your testosterone or whatever meets that you have to go onto name calling?
Michelle at 10:40PM on Oct 5th 2007
869. I really didnt say that how I wanted to.
Michelle at 10:41PM on Oct 5th 2007
870. WRONG Knight. Polygamy does not start with the first marriage. It starts with the second marriage. Until that second marriage, you are MONOGAMOUS. You may value polygamy, you may advocate polygamy, but, you are not practicing polygamy until the second marriage.
Conversely, if you divorce all of your wives except one, you are no longer practicing polygamy. You no longer in a polygamous relationship. You may still advocate polygamy, but, you are noy polygamous.
ray at 10:42PM on Oct 5th 2007