My new book What's So Great About Christianity, just out, is already an amazon.com bestseller and is currently No. 16 on the New York Times bestseller list. AOL posted the video of my New York debate with God Is Not Great author Christopher Hitchens on its main page, and asked people to make up their minds and vote on who won. Modesty prevents me from disclosing the answer.
Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, watched the debate and reported with some agitation that the audience seemed to be applauding more for me than Hitchens. Dawkins commented on his website that the New York crowd must have been a "dopey" lot. But if you listen to the debate--and if you haven't, you can find it on my website dineshdsouza.com or watch it Saturday on C-Span 2 (Book TV) at 7 pm Eastern time--you will see that both atheists and believers were well represented. The audience applause was initially stronger for Hitchens, and only as the debate went on did it trend markedly toward me. So is Dawkins suggesting that the audience was very intelligent to start with but became more "dopey" as the debate went on? More likely we are seeing evidence of the "Dawkins delusion," an unwillingness to use good sense and face facts when Dawkins' own belief system is called into question.
One of the most interesting questions in the debate was posed to Hitchens by a man from Tonga. Before the Christians came to Tonga, he said, the place was a mess. Even cannibalism was widespread. The Christians stopped this practice and brought to Tonga the notion that each person has a soul and God loves everyone equally. The man from Tonga asked Hitchens, "So what do you have to offer us?" Hitchens was taken aback, and responded with a learned disquisition on cannibalism in various cultures. But he clearly missed the intellectual and moral force of the man's question. The man was asking why the Tongans, who had gained so much from Christianity, should reject it in favor of atheism.
In my response, I noted that when the missionaries came to India, they sometimes converted people by force. Even so, many Indians rushed on their own to embrace the faith of the foreigners. And why? Because they were born into the low caste of the Hindus. As long as they remained Hindus, there was no escape; even their descendants were condemned to the lowest rungs of humanity. By fleeing into the arms of the missionaries, the low-caste Hindus found themselves welcomed as Christian brothers. They discovered the ideal of equal dignity in the eyes of God.
If we look at the history of Western civilization, we find that Christianity has illuminated the greatest achievements of the culture. So there is indeed something great about Christianity. By contrast, does it make any sense to say, as Hitchens does in his book's subtitle, that "religion poisons everything"? Religion didn't poison Dante or Milton or Donne or Michelangelo or Raphael or Titian or Bach! Religion didn't poison the anti-slavery campaigns of William Lloyd Garrison or William Wilberforce, or the civil rights activism of the Reverend Martin Luther King. The real question to ask is, what does atheism offer humanity? In Tonga, as in America, the answer appears to be: Nothing.
Reader Comments ( Page 43 of 43)
631. Here's the bottom line: Atheists killed 100 million people in the last century, i.e., Stalin, Mao, other communist leaders around the world.
It may even be more than that. They're such secretive societies.
Meanwhile, Christians are busy building hospitals and homeless shelters and food pantries.
Robert Mitchell at 3:17PM on Nov 1st 2007
632. ...Hitler was declared a christian by some. Hitler was the son of a married Jewish man who had a mistress. When she got pregnant, he abandoned both of them never wanting any ties. Hitler grew up hating his father (parental issues seem to influence a lot of you)He hated his dad so much that he wanted to wipe out everyone that was Jewish. Using passages from the Bible to justify one's attrocities is the oldest and most widely used tool of the devil to manipulate the masses. Although the Bible predicted Hitler and his actions, he himself was not a christian. Because the people of Israel refused to accept Jesus as the Mesiah and killed Him, they would have to pay for their actions. From among them would rise one that would almost completely wipe them out but because God cannot go back on His word, a small number will be left to carry on. Also what christian did not read in the Bible that those who bless the jews will be blessed themselves. How sane was Hitler when as a short, darker complexion, dark hair and dark eyed man he wanted to create the aryan race of tall, light skin, blond hair and blue eyed race.
dlaz at 3:24PM on Nov 1st 2007
633. Congratulations, Robert Mitchell! You've managed to say something more carelessly biased and distorted than anything DD has said! Of course, how could it be any simpler! Atheists are murderers and Christians are healers! You've figured it all out!
Mokele Mbembe at 4:06PM on Nov 1st 2007
634. Diaz-
"Do you think main stream media would broadcast miracles for everyone to hear about them?".
Um, YES!!
Limb regrowth would be one of the greatest discoveries to medical science.
Of course it would be reported.
"so much for intelligent arguments".
"Any man who denies the existence of GOD is nothing more than a fool".
...yeah. Let he who is without sin...
Diacanu at 4:17PM on Nov 1st 2007
635. Diaz-
Hmm, looked up post like 140 like you said, and all I saw was a bunch of rambling about how doctors really got their knowledge from God.
You briefly touched on the point of amputated limbs, but ran away from it.
Basicly, it was something about you just believe God can.
Then there was some stuff about people expect miracles in the bible, but you've got to keep praying for weeks or something.
Well....why SHOULDN'T people expect miracles like in the Bible?
The Bible doesn't say "pray really, really hard, for a long, long time, and you might get a little better, in fact as much better as if it was just the doctor working on you anyway".
It flat out says God/Jesus can restore the blind and deaf, and palsied, and even raise the dead.
What, are God's batteries drained?
Diacanu at 4:27PM on Nov 1st 2007
636. steve:
"what caused the Big Bang?"
Nobody knows.
" whatever it was, could it not be considered "God"?"
Anyone can consider whatever they want to be God. A person might feel a bit silly worshiping a random event (if it turned out to be that).
"if matter existed before the Big Bang, where did it come from?"
From what I understand, (in a basic sense) matter as we know it was created when the Big Bang occurred. I think it was in a different form before.
"Do you know of any matter that can matter self-manufacture?"
It's possible for energy to be converted into matter. I don't think that's what you're talking about. I don't believe that anyone is saying that something came from nothing.
Tem at 5:14PM on Nov 1st 2007
637. dlaz:
"Tem - you claim to have been born into a christian hosehold - no sunday school for you?"
I did Sunday school.
"The Old Testament and the New Testament consit of many books written by many people over the course of a few thosand years - Sequel?"
That was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I know that there were many contributors to the Bible.
"Lack of info! Through this fact alone one can see how true and accurate the BIBLE is - one person living today writes the same thing as someone who lives a thousand years before or after them accurately describing events that will take place or have taken place and they don't know of each other - fiction or divine accuracy?"
You can't say that the writers of the works involved in the New Testament weren't aware of the Old Testament. My mentioning a sequel was trying to make a point. If you consider the Bible to be fictional, written by humans, then it is very easy for them to say that the things from a previous part came true.
"The books of the BIBLE as we know it today were compiled together not written by one author. No wonder you no longer believe in anything since there doesn't seem to have been much there to begin with."
I apologize for my wording earlier. You interpreted it in a way completely different than I intended.
"Where are the real christians from your life?"
I know plenty of people that I consider good examples of Christianity. My spouse is one. I have nothing against Christians, and I can separate the people from the religion when I see poor examples.
"John Glenn said that as he looks down on planet Earth it is impossible to believe that it came out of randomness and evolved - an intelligent person cannot intelligently deny the existence of intelligent design."
Yes they can. It's very easy (by the way, this isn't necessarily my personal belief, it's just an example):
Is there even a remote chance that this world and all on it have happened randomly?
Yes.
Does this world (such as it is) exist?
Yes.
Since both of those answers are yes, it is reasonable for one to assume that there did not *need* to have been a God that created it.
Therefore, since it is in the realm of possibility, it is not unintelligent or unreasonable to feel that there wasn't a God that created it.
"Prove to me there is no GOD!"
No. I don't need to. Even if I had proof, I wouldn't feel the need to share it. You would likely be happier believing in a myth (which your religion would be if there was proof that there was no God). It's readily apparent by your posts.
"When was the last time an apple tree produced a cow to sustain the theory of evolution -that it is possible! How can people not be embarassed to believe such nonsense."
Do you honestly feel that people that believe that evolution is correct feel that way?
That's pretty ridiculous.
Check out this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
"Since most "aheists" seem to have a BIBLE please read Romans 1:18-32."
I've read it. Atheists don't have a Bible. They don't share any common beliefs. Some atheists even believe in intelligent design, just not done by a God. The only think that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in Gods. That's it. We might randomly have other things in common, but that's on an individual basis.
Atheist is the opposite of theist. The only thing that theists have in common is a belief in a God. Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity. Please don't treat it as such.
"How many years ago was the current state of mankind predicted and has it really changed that much or has man always tried to deny his God?!?"
There's a difference between someone "denying his God" and someone saying that they don't believe a God exists. The first one requires a belief in a God.
Is it so hard to imagine that someone might not believe that your religion is correct, but still harbor no ill-will towards you?
"You folks may think you are an evolved species but there were others before you who thought the same - regrettably."
I recommend reading up on evolution. Even if you don't believe that it is correct, at least you will understand it before you begin arguing against it.
Tem at 5:32PM on Nov 1st 2007
638. Diacanu, when I asked you to read my earlier post I was hoping you would read through all of it and comprehend. I might have expected too much. A miracle is not a medical discovery and from the babble you wrote as you understood it, I rrealize ther was no comprehension of anything. If you want, please go back and READ through the whole thing. Mass media is NOT on the side of religion but one just has to tune in to see that. Amputated?
Expect miracles? One has to pray for a certain length of time? Not in my post!
dlaz at 7:13PM on Nov 1st 2007
639. Evolution as it is today cannot produce an origin of things - single cell or bang. No matter how far back one goes, there is no origin of things. Species do not cross over no matter how hard one tries to prove it. Plants are plants, humans are humans. Evolution has not "evolved" anything in recorded history. It may be difficult to accept intentional creation and an intelligent one at that but at least it's more logical. What will you do if one day during your lifetime a headline declares that the theory of evolution was wrong and scientists all agree? Will you abandon it and find another theory to believe in because christianity didn't work, evolution turned out to be wrong....? I don't preach a religion. I believe that someone can admit God exists and not choose to worship Him. Christianity is a belief not a religion and there is a huge difference between them. I can see how people may choose to believe other than me but when they ask for proof of why I believe what I do and stoop to name calling I take offense. If I have to produce proof for my beliefs than they should be able to argeu their beliefs - whatever they might be.
dlaz at 7:24PM on Nov 1st 2007
640. dlaz:
"What will you do if one day during your lifetime a headline declares that the theory of evolution was wrong and scientists all agree?"
I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept it as the best explanation based on the evidence provided for it. If it's proven incorrect, then I'll find a different explanation that seems most likely.
"Will you abandon it and find another theory to believe in because christianity didn't work, evolution turned out to be wrong....?"
Yes, it would be abandoned.
"I believe that someone can admit God exists and not choose to worship Him."
If someone believes that a God exists, and that the God is like the Christian God, then it would pretty silly of that person not to worship it. That God demands worship.
"I can see how people may choose to believe other than me but when they ask for proof of why I believe what I do and stoop to name calling I take offense."
I agree with you on the name callers. There's nothing wrong with asking people why they believe what they believe. There's nothing wrong with asking for proof.
"If I have to produce proof for my beliefs than they should be able to argeu their beliefs - whatever they might be."
There's nothing wrong with asking anyone proof for anything.
Tem at 7:40PM on Nov 1st 2007
641. With regard to Chandler Yergin's comment hat "Lock up the Extreme Radical Insane Fanatics.. Until a Mutual ageement is reached on the TRUE Meaning of the Koran is reached!":
Can we just burn down the place while the radical insane fanatics are debating the TRUE meaning of the Koran and be done with it?
Zagros Carolyn Wu at 8:09PM on Nov 1st 2007
642. Diaz, I posted this before in another thread and I'm not sure if eveyone missed it or don't understand it, or simply don't belive it, but I'll post it again.
A little FYI for those of you still confused about evolution - i.e. the lies, half-truths, logical fallacies, etc. that people - the religious minded and sometimes even proponents of evolution! - make with regards to evolution.
Here is an example of evolution happening right before our very eyes, today, in 2007. This is the story of the horse, the donkey and the mule. When you mate two horses, you get a horse. When you mate two donkeys, you get a donkey. When you mate two mules.... well you CAN'T mate two mules. Mules are sterile. To make a mule, you must mate a horse and a donkey. That's right - you must mate two DIFFERENT animals in order to make a third DIFFERENT animal. And, yes all three are different. A horse has 64 chromosomes. A donkey has 62. A mule has 63. This is very different from say, all the breeds of dogs there are, and how they are able to mate. All breeds of dogs have 78 chromosomes. They can all mate with each other and produce mixed breeds, and their offspring are capable of reproduction. Not so with mules.
If the bible is true, that an animal can only produce one of its own kind, then a horse mating with a donkey to create a mule would be impossible, but clearly it is possible. It happens every day.
So you have two creatures that are obviously related - Horses and Donkeys, since they can produce an offspring. Two different species with a common ancestry. They are still in the process of branching off of each other. When they can no longer mate and produce an offspring, as the result of continued mutations, the branches will separate and the branching will be complete, and mules will be no more.
The missing link that creationists & IDers are always asking about is a red herring. The horse isn't 'becoming' a donkey or a mule. Horses and donkeys and their offsping (mules) all co-exist just fine right here and now.
fabio at 8:18PM on Nov 1st 2007
643. KONSTANTIN lighten the hell up, its obvious you hate religion OKAY we get it, now let the rest of us get on with our lives who believe in God and Jesus. By the way your arguments are infantile, Christianity never says stone someone who works on the sabbath nor does the Jewish faith, so who are you kidding? and maybe you need to re-read the ten commandments, thou shall not kill, steal etc. wow those are HORRIBLE precepts! you are an idiot!
PSoucy at 12:11AM on Nov 2nd 2007
644. Fabio #642 - You try to MAKE sense of evolution but fail. Animals of the same "kind" can be bred to produce something else but when was the last time a spec of dust became an intelligent human? When was the last time you mated with a flower and produced something else? So far all I can see is evolutionists who don't think things through yet they are eager to prove they are right. Don't exert your brain in trying to explain evolution because you'll fail again. Everything came from a single cell yet it cannot be explained where that cell came from and if you care to, leave a piece of metal exposed to the elemnts for 50 years and see if you end up with a horse?
dlaz at 4:20PM on Nov 2nd 2007
645. dlaz:
You either have no comprehension of evolution, or you like setting up straw-men.
"Animals of the same "kind" can be bred to produce something else but when was the last time a spec of dust became an intelligent human?"
Evolution does not state that a spec of dust became a human.
"When was the last time you mated with a flower and produced something else?"
Evolution does not state that a human can mate with a flower and produce something else.
"So far all I can see is evolutionists who don't think things through yet they are eager to prove they are right."
It must be hard to see anything within the forest of straw-men that you've created for yourself.
"Don't exert your brain in trying to explain evolution because you'll fail again."
Maybe you should read about evolution really is before you make ridiculous statements about it.
"Everything came from a single cell yet it cannot be explained where that cell came from and if you care to, leave a piece of metal exposed to the elemnts for 50 years and see if you end up with a horse?"
Evolution does not state that you can have a piece of metal and end up with a horse in 50 years.
I'd link you to a site with some examples of macroevolution, but it's probably too advanced for you. I suggest starting with the basics. howstuffworks.com has a good primer for the concept.
Tem at 8:47PM on Nov 2nd 2007