Atheists are expressing frustration at getting regularly skewered on this blog. Our atheist friends, however, are regular masochists since they keep coming back for their daily corrections. Perhaps, deep down, these guys recognize that they have problems which are not atheist problems but rather human problems. These human problems, however, have no solution other than God. Some atheists who have read What's So Great About Christianity have confessed that it has shaken their atheism. Precisely for this reason, I suspect that many dogmatic atheists will refuse to read a book that uses reason and science and evidence to question to their hidden metaphysical assumptions. Who wants to have their pompous pose --"I am an apostle of reason who believes things only based on evidence"-- exposed as a fraud?
A few days ago I appeared on Pat Robertson's 700 Club to discuss the new atheism that is out there, and the new apologetics that I believe is necessary to counter it. I don't know if Robertson calls himself a "fundamentalist," but certainly his critics call him that. My book is not a defense of fundamentalism but rather of traditional Christianity, what C.S. Lewis called "mere Christianity." Also Robertston has endorsed Giuliani, a hasty move in my view, but our interview had nothing to do with politics but focused entirely on atheist claims and how they can be effectively countered. Needless to say, I could give only the briefest summary of my arguments, but that's the nature of the television medium. You can watch my interview with Pat Robertson here.
If you want more, you have to come to one of my debates. On November 30, I'll be debating philosopher Daniel Dennett on "Is God a Man-Made Invention." The event is at 7 pm at the Cabot Auditorium at Dennett's home campus, Tufts University. On December 5, I'm debating Skeptic magazine editor Michael Shermer on "Is Christianity Good for the World?" That's at 7 pm at the Marvin Center at George Washington University. Both events are free and open to the public. On December 9 Shermer and I are taking the argument to the West Coast, where we will debate at 2 pm at Beckman Auditorium at Cal Tech. For tickets call the Cal Tech public events office at 1-888-222-5832.
Still no word from Richard Dawkins on my offer to debate him. He was confident enough when it came to taking on televangelist Ted Haggard for his TV documentary, but this confidence seems to have vanished when it comes to taking on a scholar who is fully capable of exposing his dubious arguments and false claims. Time to come out of the closet, Richard.
Reader Comments ( Page 33 of 34)
481. Mr. D'Souza - you are entitled to you own opinion, but not to your own facts. Your Fact - the Spansish inquisitioners killed only 2000 people. What are you talking about, 2000 a month, a day? The inquisition that ended not hundreds of years ago but less then a hundred years ago and killed countless people over the 500+ years. To state only 2000 people were killed is insane and goes to the heart of your credibility. Furthermore, all the inqusition proves is how religions can be used to further the suffering of people. The body count does not address if god does or does not exist, which is the central question. Sir, you need to learn how to focus yourself into a logical progression before you decide to enter into a debate.
hottub at 1:19PM on Nov 25th 2007
482. Here's a thought, the only true atheist is the one who's never heard of God. In order to proclaim atheism you have to believe that there is a concept of God to actively reject it.....
melissa at 11:25AM on Nov 25th 2007
483. Nobody makes decisions based on proof. Preponderance of the evidence or what is most probable, but not proof.
a born atheist at 12:19PM on Nov 25th 2007
484. The study of science is man's attempt to explain God
melissa at 1:08PM on Nov 25th 2007
485. I think "faith" in G-d is for people who don't really know Him. I have never "believed" in G-d because to me, that assumes that one can be wrong about His existence.
Ever since I was a young child, I have known G-d is real and that He is there for me. I never questioned it, or had a reason to, even though ky life has been filled with a number of tragedies (including the loss of 4 children shortly before birth.) I have always known that everything that happens to G-d's will, and that He has always protected me because He has a mission for me in this life.
Chana at 1:26PM on Nov 25th 2007
486. Rita,
I thank the same God that made the drunk driver kill the innocent family of 4 on their way to grandma's house for Christmas--it's all in His plan(?)
J
jwross1966 at 1:58PM on Nov 25th 2007
487. First of all, to those of you who have been reading this blog regularly, I apologize for repeatedly writing about Dinesh D’Souza. This is occurring for multiple reasons: he’s the only person who’s promoting his biased agenda with actual fervency (which includes frequent articles or blog posts), and I was specifically asked by Ken Bronstein from NYC Atheists to continue deconstructing his propaganda. It’s like being stuck between a rock and a hard-head…oh, I meant hard place.
I must confess that I haven’t yet watched this televised discussion, although I plan to, because I would like to get this written, at least preliminarily, before suffering the inevitable loss of neurons that will occur when I watch their mutually masturbatory misinformation session. Thankfully, it was only broadcast on The 700 Club, so they were preaching to an audience that has already been tainted by this type of nonsense.
D’Souza starts out on the right foot with a little self-aggrandizement; “Atheists are expressing frustration at getting regularly skewered on this blog.” That explains why he hasn’t responded to my critiques of his pieces, both of which were sent directly to him and posted in the comments on his blog. His characterization of atheists who respond to his bigotry as “masochists” is clearly mistaken, then, since that would necessarily involve the repeated desire to be hurt, abused, or ashamed, and I haven’t seen him doing very much of that, and definitely not to anybody with a valid argument in a setting where he can’t resort to the usual bait-and-switch routine of which he is so fond.
His vacuous statement resorts to the standard malicious attack on atheists as people with the subconscious knowledge of “problems” that can only be solved by his imaginary friend. It seems that no matter how often we tell these people that, while we have problems just like everybody else, most atheists do not feel that they are lacking any of the qualities that are continually associated with religion. Allow me to make an exception for their dogmatic adherence to irrational Bronze Age statutes that promote xenophobia and the denial of logic and science which is then passed down to their progeny through this type of brainwashing and vilification of atheism.
D’Souza goes on to assume that no “dogmatic” atheist (there’s that one again—can anybody say “oxymoron”?) would read his new book, What’s so Great About Christianity, because we’re all too afraid to have our “hidden metaphysical assumptions” challenged by real science and evidence. Considering the thousands of atheists with whom I have communicated, not to mention my own experiences with religion, I am compelled to point out his blatant ignorance here. We’re right back at the dichotomy I presented in my first piece: is D’Souza dishonest or deluded? His continuous projection of the inadequacies of his own belief system should be noted, and every sentence he utters should be looked at through this lens. He has dishonestly propagated the lies that atheism is a religion, atheists are dogmatic, and atheism is based on faith, all while any reasonable person can see that these are qualities that he not only embraces personally, but encourages others to do so as well. His consistent attacks on those premises reflect his internal understanding that he is the dogmatic faithful fundamentalist who has no logical ground on which to stand.
Reasoning with the adherents of a religion based on faith—not reason, Dinesh—is just one iota short of impossible. The fact that his rhetoric is being promoted as the crème de la crème of apologetics is further proof that the point of defending religion is solely to reinforce the compartmentalization necessary to maintain a legion of lemmings for Christ. I find it offensive and irresponsible for those who control the media to have given him such a large platform from which to spew his nonsense, and it is far too infrequently afforded to atheists the opportunity to publicly deconstruct this type of ignorance.
D’Souza’s only strength lies in maligning the reputations of others, which he does adeptly when he explicitly implies that Richard Dawkins is a coward for refusing to debate him. Let’s review here, Dinesh—Dawkins generally doesn’t do formal debates with anybody, so don’t think that you’re really special because he turned you down. It is my opinion that Dawkins’ strength lies in writing, and having experienced the nerve-wracking public debate scenario myself, I don’t blame him. The crux of the matter, however, lies in the fact that D’Souza is not bringing anything new to the table. Richard Dawkins has much more important things to do than rehash millennia-old arguments from professional frauds. It is unfortunate that anybody, myself included, needs to spend time trying to prevent the upcoming “endarkenment” by pointing out the inane and illogical argumentation used by people like this. We should be well past that by now, but people still have trouble seeing through the smokescreen of hypocrisy and lies used by religious figures whose true allegiance lies not with their god, but with the power structures that have been erected in his name.
Mr. D’Souza, if you are chomping at the bit to release all of this evidence you claim to have for the existence of god to the public, then why not respond to those who have already taken up the task of exposing you as an agent of misinformation and a promoter of ignorance? If you choose not to respond once again, I’ll assume that it is perfectly fair for me to publicly call you a coward and a fraud as you have done to Richard Dawkins.
reposted from http://www.rationalresponders.com/two_confused_people_discuss_atheism
Kelly O'Connor at 9:26PM on Nov 27th 2007
488. So you think that god is the universe, the world around us? Most think he is a living entity.
a born atheist at 3:11PM on Nov 25th 2007
489. To all you christians out there who dont seem to understand the meaning of the word athiest.... it means no god. Its not meaning that we can prove that there is not one, we just dont believe in any god. To say that there is no such thing as an athiest because we cant prove that your god doesnt exist, would be like saying there is no such thing as a christian because you cant prove that this god does exist.
tessa at 4:46PM on Nov 25th 2007
490. Reply to 6.
You thank the wonderful person who pulled you to the curb. That's what many atheists have a problem with. Greatness is observed in acts of man, not by divine intervention. Praise each other and do your part to bring good to the world. Don't sit around waiting for god.
Garrett at 5:51PM on Nov 25th 2007
491. Why is many atheists find it necessary to use vulgarities and ridicule in defense of their position? I guess if one believes in no Creator, or no First Cause, and all the while there's no shortage of evidence for the reality of creatures and causes, this has to make life frustrating for those who assert that IT all evolved from no-thing.
However, in order to make an assertion that which we call "thought" must play a role. And yet whence "thought"? What is "thought"? We really don't know, even though we use "thought" to understand dna or to memorize the alphabet. We claim it originates in the brain but why should the brain posess such power over and above our kidneys.
Judaism, and Christianity credit all of the above to a Creator who also gave us a Book to give us a powerful hint as to who He is and how we ought to live. The pre-Christian Paramenedes also received a powerful hint wheras atheists cling to the "thoughts" of Darwin who apparently observed some species changes which, of course, happened all by themselves with no external guidance.
Atheists program themselves to deny a Creator because to admit a Creator also calls for a moral code. The atheist Bertrand Russell admitted that to admit the existence of God meant also to admit a moral code.
Furthermore,isn't it ironic that atheists who also deny the existence of the Natural Law all too often demand justice? Whence "Justice"?
John at 7:03AM on Nov 26th 2007
492. @Rita [Re: 11:25AM on Nov 20th 2007]:
"Since, it is only a theory, how in the world did you find a correct definition for it."
Explain to me how Atheism is a "theory." Christianity is the doctrine that asserts the existence of "God" / the Trinity. Atheism simply chooses not to ascribe to that assertion.
Think of it like this: If Christianity were Tennis, and I chose not to play Tennis - it does not follow that I am therefore playing something else. I could simply be *not playing anything*.
"...why can't you give a plausable [sic] reason for your beliefs."
The notion of God, particularly the Judeo-Christian God, makes no sense to me. I have read the Bible and I have attended church services before. They are both wrought with contradiction and inconsistencies. Consider this quote from Stephen Roberts:
'I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well.'
"So, please explain where you have received your so called Atheistism."
Atheistism -- that's a new one.
How do you "receive" Atheism? It's a conclusion -- like not believing in Santa Clause, or the Tooth Fairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. When you say Santa Clause doesn't exist, you aren't "theorizing" that Santa Clause is imaginary, you're rejecting the assertion that he DOES exist.
Re: Rita [10:28AM on Nov 20th 2007]
"When will you guys understand that this you are not atheist."
By definition, one who does not believe in God is indeed an Atheist. So yes, we are.
"That is being a blasphemer."
Atheists are viewed as blasphemers by Christians, yes. We can agree on that. If you believe in Santa Clause and someone else does not, you would probably criticize them for not believing in something that is so obvious to you. But it doesn't follow that they are "lapsed Santa believers."
"...when the car swerved, or someone grab you at the corner just in time to keep you from being run over and being thankful"
In the latter case, I would thank the person who grabbed me and kept me from getting canned.
In the former case, I would probably thank my reflexes and all of the practice I've had driving for being able to maintain control of the car.
Just to give you context, my grandparents, whom I was very close to, have both died this year. Not *ONCE* did I consider that a god had any part in this. They're both dead. Not in heaven. I won't ever see them again, because they're GONE. But I have accepted this and they metaphorically live on in my memories.
Aaron at 10:50AM on Nov 26th 2007
493. On another note, I pose this to the Theists out there:
Based on these premises:
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
God is outside of natural law and reality
I present these possible conclusions:
Your God is either
(a) a manipulative God that uses humans for entertainment (see below)
(b) NOT omniscient / omnipotent (see below)
The Christian myth goes more or less like this:
1. God creates the universe and everything in it.
2. God creates mankind in his image.
3. Man is tempted to the fruit of knowledge and then forever must be stuck in the moral battle of choosing between good and evil.
I ask: What's the point? If God is omnipotent, why create the universe and humans? Because he's bored and wants to be entertained (point A)? Because he wants to be worshipped (and is therefore committing the sin of vanity)? Given the book of Job, I would almost wager it's out of entertainment (a), but definitely wouldn't be consistent with a "Good" God.
On the other hand: if we were created with purpose (and not just for entertainment) then we are filling some need. If God needs us for something, then he is not omnipotent (b). Or let's say that God needs us to voluntarily choose between Good and Evil in our lifetimes. If God were outside of nature and reality (premise 3) and were omniscient (premise 2) then he should know past, present, future of our lives and (determinism or not) who we inevitably become. Why not just weed the bad ones out (as he frequently does in the OT)? If it's because he DOESN'T know, then he isn't omniscient (b).
Christianity has been around just under 2000 years. Before that there was Judaism, Zoroasterism, the Greek pantheon, Roman pantheon (effectively the same thing with different names), Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. etc. Islam was created AFTER Christianity was.
The only reason Christianity has somehow endured longer is because of good timing (when most of Eurasia had been settled and was more or less at peace) and because there were a few generations of shrewd individuals that were very effective at controlling large masses of people. If, 2000 years from now, people are believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does that mean it was somehow a credible creation myth? What about if a book (or in today's culture: website) was written and spread around for 2000 years? Same thing.
There is nothing particularly remarkable about the Christian Bible aside from the fact that there are some entertaining stories in the OT and thoughtful parables in the NT. I look at it the same way as I would a book about Heracles and one about Aesop's Fables.
Aaron at 11:15AM on Nov 26th 2007
494. Patty patty time to come baaaaaack ! patty oh patty where are you? we know where you are , you're where we told you you were , now patty come on it's ok you can come out and play now because we have a nice little show just for you my patty boy! www.bushorchimp.com now isn't that better patty apeyism the religion of the mind!
Timo at 11:36PM on Nov 26th 2007
495. I see dead people.
SpongeBob Squarepants at 6:01PM on Nov 27th 2007