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 7 of 34)
91. Rita wrote: "He is charge of next breathe as well as where you will spend eternity."
I'm very confident that when I die I'm going to cease to exist. My energy is going to take a different form, but I don't think I'll be conscious. However, for the sake of argument, let's say I am cast to hell for my believing that there are no Gods. That idea doesn't bother me. Most of the people I like best will be in Hell with me. We could spend eternity together. And I like warm weather.
Wes at 2:27PM on Nov 20th 2007
92. Wes @ 67
The problem I see in your logic is this: You derive that there is no God because YOU see no evidence. I personally have never been to the moon, so can I make the statement that it is unlikely that there are no moon rocks? I'm sure there is going to be an argument like, well I could go to the moon and pick one up and prove it, or I could look in an ultra powerful telescope and see one, etc. The fact is, I am relying on other peoples word (scientists) to tell me about that. I happen to believe that there are moon rocks even though I have never seen one or felt one or tasted one or smelled one or listened to one. I'm sure we could also say that as science advances that we might be able to further receive evidence of moon rocks. The same goes with everything in life including the things which I believe.
There are things about God that I have experienced first hand AND have heard similar accounts from others that aren't insane or stupid or gullible or even a crazy fundamentalist. We are normal people that have experienced some pretty remarkable things in our lives that cannot be equated to coincidence any more than I, or anyone else for that matter, can claim that any other experience in our lives are. Using these kinds of excuses to explain what I know are just a skeptic's frustrated way of rationalizing against something they don't want to believe. I find it amusing that I haven't even explained any of my experiences yet on any blog other than that I have had some, however, I have had people jump to conclusions and try to disprove my experiences by telling me that they are figments of my imagination, or they are left over thoughts from when I was a child, or that I have been fooled into believing in them. It seems to me that in their desperation to disprove me, they displayed their lack of listening by refuting an unknown. Thanks, atheists, for further pushing me away from you in your futile attempt to "disprove" God.
Marc at 2:29PM on Nov 20th 2007
93. D'souza if you want to get an opinion on your theory,you DON'T get it from the crowd that supports your views,you will always get agreement. When you get it from the opposing crowd you are in a debate.Jesus did that and landed on a cross.You have missed the point of those that have an opinion,and reply,they do so because they are in a debate with a view.I do not see any rational opposition debating you with your approach of KNOWING the truth.I have as others will no doubt come to the conclusion that we are speaking to,or should I say bolgging to another Johovas witness who cannot be debated because their brain has been washed.Regarding those scientists who have read your views are as Ian Flemming through James Bond would say "Shaken not Stirred" on further reflection they will be neither.
Kevin at 2:32PM on Nov 20th 2007
94. No, Chuckles...
atheists only have to realise one or two obvious facts.
The universe can't be explained by a god or gods because it or they would be more complicated than the universe and it or they would need to be explained.
pboyfloyd at 2:31PM on Nov 20th 2007
95. Marc wrote: “The problem I see in your logic is this: You derive that there is no God because YOU see no evidence.”
No. I didn’t use the word “evidence.” I said that no person knows of any event that has been caused by a God. And I haven’t experienced anything remotely similar to a God.
Wes at 2:34PM on Nov 20th 2007
96. Rita,
Serious question.
How do you live with yourself?
Either you are a pathological liar on some misguided jihad or a tragically deluded fool.
I can't find the words to express my contempt for people like yourself who don't hesitate at posting lies and inanities that would make a 5 year old blush beet red.
But do carry on letting the world know just how insane and unethical the godbots of your ilk really are.
In a way you are performing a valuable public service.
Peter at 1:32AM on Nov 27th 2007
97. Wes, while I can agree with most of what you write, the generalizations you use seem to claim a LOT of knowledge.
"..no person knows of any event that has been caused by a God. And I haven’t experienced anything remotely similar to a God."
No person? Ever? How do you know this?
Again, you're speaking pretty omniscient to me.
Agnosticism, the believe that we CAN'T know the UNKNOWABLE is much more plausible and likely that either Atheism or Deism .... (note, I did not use the term "Christianity" which can be disproven at will.)
There is no proof of God or the lack thereof.
chuckles at 2:39PM on Nov 20th 2007
98. So Dinesh has aligned himself with wacky old Pat Robertson. What does this tell us?
If the folks on here can honestly defend the likes of a looney tune like Robertson, then I have to believe you too have a screw loose.
David S. at 2:42PM on Nov 20th 2007
99. Oh, and Peter, please add something of value to this discussion. Ad hominem attacks and silly insults do very little to support your point of view and may cause readers to side with your 'victim' out of nothing more than sympathy.
Just a thought.
chuckles at 2:42PM on Nov 20th 2007
100. Peter,
How is it that you can be so cool about being an atheist and yet I really seem to get under your skin. The only reason, I can possiblity come with is that I hit to close to home and that really upsets you. Sorry, but the truth will always come out, we serve an awesome GOD and he alone will deal with each and everyone of us when our particular time comes. So just get over yourself and realize that all the bad and stupid comments you keep making pointed at me personally might be your interself trying to wake you up to reality. Rita
Rita at 2:45PM on Nov 20th 2007
101. Chuckles... obvious fact two..
You can assert that we have free will.
You can assert that we have a soul.
You can assert that one causes the other.
But, if you look at DD's proof, or in fact anyone's proof of free will...
... well... "Hey, I could spill my coffee, if I WANT to!"
Simply defining soul as free-will would be similar to psychiatrist defining I.Q. as the score you get if you do well on their tests...
...meaningless drivel.
pboyfloyd at 2:43PM on Nov 20th 2007
102. Um.. boyfloyd. Can you point out where I asserted any of those things? Or did you just see my name somewhere above and thought that you would just post drivel just to see your name in lights?
My point on this board has been, and will always be, that I am AGNOSTIC. I believe that we cannot KNOW that which is UNKNOWABLE. And that there is no proof of God or proof of NO God.
Free will? Wasn't that a movie about a penguin or a dolphin, or something?
chuckles at 2:47PM on Nov 20th 2007
103. Atheists have absolutely no proof that God does not exist.
Their whole foundation is on absolutely nothing.
Have fun with your circular thinking patterns that lead you right back to nowhere.
Who are we to give Thanks to, if not to God and all He has done for us.
mincpa at 3:30PM on Nov 20th 2007
104. Chuckles wrote: "Wes, while I can agree with most of what you write, the generalizations you use seem to claim a LOT of knowledge."
What "generalizations" are you talking about? You mentioned the following two claims:
"..no person knows of any event that has been caused by a God. And I haven’t experienced anything remotely similar to a God."
You said: "No person? Ever? How do you know this?"
Yes. At least I don't know of any person that knows of an event caused by God. Do you? I'm all ears.
Maybe it would be better for me to say that I don't know of any event caused by a God. Because I have a better idea of what I know than what any other person knows. And my not knowing of any such event would still be relevant to the likelihood of the existence of God. Similarly, I don't know of any event caused by a leprechaun or a Tooth Fairy.
Wes at 2:48PM on Nov 20th 2007
105. How is it that you can be so cool about being an atheist and yet I really seem to get under your skin.
________________________
Rita,
Crippling stupidity coupled with a mule-like stubborness combine to create an especially annoying personality.
Peter at 2:54PM on Nov 20th 2007