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 6 of 34)
76. Bye Greg... tata.. write if you get work, k?
Another brilliant insight from the mind of greg ladies and gentlemen.
Say hi to brian for us.
kthxbye
chuckles at 2:00PM on Nov 20th 2007
77. _____||____
/ \/ \/ \
| /\ /\ /\ |
| | | | | | | |
| | | Brian| | |
| | | [| |] | | |
|==========|
FITE DA POWA!
|==========|
Forgive me, I’ve never built an Arial ASCII shrine before.
Mokele Mbembe at 2:06PM on Nov 20th 2007
78. "I don't think I can prove that there is no God."
************
Yes, Wes, I would. Thank you for asking.
In the simplest terms...
Athiesm believes in No God(s). Ever. Anywhere. At Any Time. Therefore an athiest has to know everything, be everywhere, and know what is to come for eternity. Sorry, that doesnt' work for me. Sounds too much like being a God to prove there is no God.
I prefer the term "Agnostic" which you correctly identified when you said "...But I can't prove that there is no God. However, it is LIKELY that there aren't any Gods. No person knows of any event caused by a God, and I haven't experienced anything remotely similar to a God..."
Likely is a funny term. It is just as likely to yo that there are no gods and it is likely to Rita that God himself is sitting on her shoulder telling her what to type.
Who is to say which one of you is right?
Sorry. I need proof.
chuckles at 2:09PM on Nov 20th 2007
79. "Dinesh is one of the most formidable debaters I have ever encountered on any subject."
Christopher Hitchens
I am quite confident leading atheists take a challenge from Mr. D’Souza very seriously.
stephen at 2:11PM on Nov 20th 2007
80. A true atheist, believing in evolution, should therefore believe in the survival of the strongest of the species, physically, mentally. It would therefore only be logical to not allow weaker members of a species to create offspring, would it not? Otherwise the species as a whole suffers, carrying and supporting lifeforms that should not exist in the first place.
Seems only logical. Morals are all well and good, but what use are they if they don't propogate the human race? If there is nothing except the generations alive, and who will be alive, should we not be striving towards the betterment of those who will be alive? By eliminating the genetically weak? Not saving them? Not supporting them? If there is nothing except now, why SHOULD we be different than the rest that nature intended. Why not survival of the fittest? Natural selection, as it were?
Or is that a little too cold?
Strados at 2:13PM on Nov 20th 2007
81. FYI-The Bible does not tell us to convert anyone. Jesus gave the command to make disciples. A disciple is one who is in a learning relationship; much like being mentored. One can't be truly discipled in the things of God unless a spiritual conversion has taken place. Oh, they may learn a bunch of Christian rules and lists of do's and don'ts--but that isn't how Jesus wants us to live. He actually came to fulfill all the "Thou shalts and shalt nots."
Many Christians don't quite understand that it's not their job to convert; hence, the atheists/agnostics frustration with "pushy Christians stuffing Jesus down our throats."
Jesus calls us to "live according to the Spirit." Conversion or being born again is an act and movement of the Holy Spirit not man. Currently in the middle east there are hundreds of Muslims being converted...not by missionaries, but by Christ appearing to them in their dreams. Apparently, it is such a powerful spiritual encounter that they are then risking their lives to declare their faith in Christ publicly.
Josiejo at 2:13PM on Nov 20th 2007
82. "Therefore an athiest has to know everything, be everywhere, and know what is to come for eternity."
Chuckles,
You gotta work on those "therefore"'s. This is not a QED moment for you.
Mokele Mbembe at 2:13PM on Nov 20th 2007
83. To Post 64, who said
"Oh, and one last thing that I forgot to say, particularly in response to today's idiotic blog, and as a parting comment at our esteemed ringmaster.
Dinesh D'Souza, fuck you.
There. That about covers it."
Brian, you and your personal attacks will really be missed.
Not.
kulari94 at 2:17PM on Nov 20th 2007
84. Wes,
Then you and your pals get ready cause I'm telling you straight that one day GOD is going to reach out and tap you on the shoulder. You probably won't like the way the tap comes but, hey it's just life and then that's the end. Hope you don't love anyone or have a connection with anyone. Trust me one day you will bowl to JESUS CHRIST the KING OF KINGS and you won't be able to use the excuse I didn't know. Inless, GOD is just through with you and lets you go to that other place that isn't there either. Prove there is a GOD, you better hope your right, several though out history have tried and failed miserably. The Bible still stand today and it will continue to stand as the word of GOD and your petty little discussions will not stop the word of GOD. He is charge of next breathe as well as where you will spend eternity. Go check that one out. Rita
Rita at 2:17PM on Nov 20th 2007
85. Tony,
It is no coincidence that Catholics and Muslims seem similar. They both branched off of Judaism. There will be striking similarities in the root of them all. Due to Western (American) influence, Catholicism has gone very liberal compared to what it used to be.
On another note, all through history people have been murdered and persecuted because of their failure to conform to the "Main" religion of the era. The Romans slaughtered the Christians(they burned them and fed them to the lions), the Christians slaughtered the Pagans only to incorporate some Pagan traditions to get them to convert. Catholics and Protestants killed each other then and still do today(Just look at Ireland).
Belgium and Holland in the 1500s both Catholic and Protestants killing each other. Mid to late 1500s in France as well. In the 1600s, Ferdinand II wanted to eradicate Protestants. We are talking rape murder and pillaging here all because someone "wasn't Catholic". The wars and conflicts are numerous within Christianity. I won't even get into the conflicts of Islam. Anyone who says that Christians somehow killed "less" than others is just deluded. Read your history.
Also to add about Pat Robertson. In my experience, anyone with a Fundamentalist view tends to be close-minded and interprets things very literal. That in itself causes conflicts.
E at 2:43PM on Nov 20th 2007
86. Strados,
Believing in biological evolution is quite a different issue than believing "survival of the fittest" is a proper way to live.
Mokele Mbembe at 2:22PM on Nov 20th 2007
87. Strados,
" A true atheist, believing in evolution, should therefore believe in the survival of the strongest of the species, physically, mentally."
Non sequitur.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 2:22PM on Nov 20th 2007
88. Chuckles wrote: "Athiesm believes in No God(s)."
First, "atheism" doesn't "believe" anything. “Atheism” is just a particular belief. It is some PEOPLE that believe things. And maybe some chimpanzees believe some things. Maybe some dolphins. And maybe there are beings on other planets that believe things.
Moreover, I believe that there is no God.
Chuckles wrote: "Therefore an athiest has to know everything, be everywhere, and know what is to come for eternity. Sorry, that doesnt' work for me. Sounds too much like being a God to prove there is no God."
No, it is not necessary for one to KNOW everything in order for one to BELIEVE that there are no Gods. I don’t know everything, and I believe that there are no Gods.
Chuckles wrote: “I prefer the term "Agnostic" which you correctly identified when you said "...But I can't prove that there is no God. However, it is LIKELY that there aren't any Gods. No person knows of any event caused by a God, and I haven't experienced anything remotely similar to a God...”
You might be using the word “atheist” differently than I am. When I use the term I merely mean the belief that there is no God. I’m not claiming that I KNOW that there is no God. But I do believe that there is no God. And that is what I mean by “atheism.”
Chuckles wrote: “Likely is a funny term. It is just as likely to yo that there are no gods and it is likely to Rita that God himself is sitting on her shoulder telling her what to type.
“Who is to say which one of you is right?
“Sorry. I need proof.”
That people disagree on whether an event is likely is irrelevant to whether the event is likely. For example, some people disagree on whether it is likely that the earth is flat disk that rests on the back of a giant tortoise. Some people disagree on whether it is likely that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Thus, that some people disagree on whether it is likely that there is a God is irrelevant to whether it is likely that there is a God.
Wes at 2:23PM on Nov 20th 2007
89. Wes,
Hear that? God is going to ask you to "bowl" with Jesus! Is it true he can play a perfect game of 10-pin?
Mokele Mbembe at 2:25PM on Nov 20th 2007
90. Resident bigot, liar and moron Rita spewed more BS:
5. Guys & Gals,
When will you guys understand that this you are not atheist. You at one point might have walked away from your beliefs but that is not being an atheist, that is being a blasphemer.
_________________________________
Can you even face yourself in the mirror?
If there was a god he would smite you for being such a dishonest idiot.
Peter at 2:32PM on Nov 20th 2007