If you haven't, you should read the comments in response to my recent debate with philosopher Daniel Dennett both here as well as on the atheist site richarddawkins.net. From the atheists you hear statements like this: "D'Souza is a goddamned idiot." "Odious little toad." "D'Souza is full of shit." "A smug, joyless twit." "Total moron." "Little turd." "Two-faced liar." Etc, etc. Now admittedly the topic of God v. atheism can be an emotional one, but you will find no comparable invective on the Christian side. Why then are so many atheists so angry? One reason I think is that they are God-haters. Atheists often like to portray themselves as "unbelievers" but this is not strictly accurate. If they were mere unbelievers they would simply live their lives as if God did not exist.
I don't believe in unicorns, but then I haven't written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion. Clearly the atheists go beyond disbelief; they are on the warpath against God. And you can hear their bitterness not only in their book titles but also in their mean-spirited invective.
Here is a second reason the atheists sound so angry. They are not used to having their sophistries exposed. For the past three years the new atheists have had a virtually free ride. Dawkins and Hitchens make outrageous claims ("religion poisons everything") and media pundits like Lou Dobbs and Tim Russert fawn all over them.
But in the past few months I've been meeting the leading atheist spokesmen in open debate, and challenging them on the basis of the same reason and science and evidence that they say vindicates their claims. After my first debate with Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, several atheists on Dawkins' site said, "Well, D'Souza won that debate, but wait till he meets Hitchens. Hitchens will wipe the floor with him. D'Souza RIP." Then after I debated Hitchens the atheists said, "Oh no, this one didn't go as planned. Hitchens didn't do so well." Another commented that atheists could not afford to lose two in a row. Even so, one atheist hopefully noted that Hitchens was not the right guy to debate me; rather, Daniel Dennett has the scholarly weight to do the job.
Now after my Dennett debate, what's the verdict? Well, the audience was full of Dennett supporters who began with enthusiastic applause for him but, as the debate went on, fell largely silent. Several came up to me afterward and told me that I had won. Dennett himself seemed dispirited after the event. Even so, when I posted the debate on my blog, the atheists went into damage control mode. The debate was instantly posted on atheist sites, and atheists rushed to this blog to vote Dennett the winner. This effort gave atheists an early lead, but when the votes were tallied I was the victor. Interestingly my margin of victory was even bigger than that for the resolution, suggesting that several people voted that "God Is a Man-Made Invention" and still thought I won the debate.
A good way to assess a debate is to see what the partisans on each side say. Among Christians the verdict is unanimous. Sample comment from Townhall.com: "My heart went out to Professor Dennett because he was so totally over-matched in this debate You totally demolished him as you have the other atheists you have debated." But all you have to do is to go to atheist sites to see that many atheists also think that I won, although this is sometimes very grudgingly admitted. Here is a sampling of comments that I've taken from richarddawkins.net. "I was at the debate and thought Dennett did not prove his point." "I'm so tired of these D'Souza debates. The more people we send his way the larger his smile grows." "I feel such debates should stop." "I love Dennett's ideas about atheism but I do think he handled this debate poorly against Dinesh." "Ok, Dennett sucked...Dennett's type of responses just made him look like an ass." "Dinesh is an amazingly talented orator, considering how hopeless a case he is arguing." "Hitchens has had a shot, as has Dennett, and neither has succeeded in demolishing D'Souza. D'Souza has a very effective debating technique. Not only did a lot of atheists get up and fire straw-man arguments at D'Souza that he was easily able to counter and make them look foolish, but Dennett...lost his composure and his train of thought." "Let's face it, this guy has taken our best shots and still come out looking good. Maddening."
So where does this leave the atheists? These guys now seem to be 0-3. Some of the blog posters on Dawkins' site are calling on Sam Harris and Dawkins himself to step into the ring. Harris seems willing, although he has approached me about doing a written rather than an oral debate. Dawkins continues to avoid my invitation to debate on a secular West Coast campus, leading one atheist to dub him Richard the Chickenhearted. I really hope that Dawkins proves he has the courage of his convictions. (How brave is it to beat up on former televangelist Ted Haggard?) Otherwise the self-styled "brights" are going to face the empirical fact that when it comes to defending their views, atheists are basically losers. Remarkably, the "party of reason" is simply incompetent to vindicate those claims against an advocate of the "party of faith." Now what could be more embarrassing than that?
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
Why Atheists Are So Angry
Posted Dec 4th 2007 8:36PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- andreawalker419 on Breastfeeding an Eight-Year-Old?
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Meat for Public Schools Often Rejected by Fast Food Chains
- Salahis Subpoenaed To Appear Before Panel Probing Party Crashing
- Will George Stephanopoulos Go Better With My Omelet?
- $1 Billion Spent on Political Ads in '09
- In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins
- Tiger Woods' Transgressions and the Gender Split
- Jimmy Carter's Grandson Runs for Office in Georgia
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 80)
16. well rett if we only read the things that make us happy then it would kinda be like living in a box now wouldn't it?
Richelle at 12:34AM on Dec 5th 2007
17. besides, doing this helps a lot of people engage their minds in a way they find stimulating. plus there is the opportunity to meet interesting new people.
Richelle at 12:37AM on Dec 5th 2007
18. Dinesh actually has it right this time. Atheists are angry. Why are we angry? Because we are tired of the lemmings out there who believe in 'gods' that don't exist trying to push their bullshit on us through fear and intimidation, and keep on saying everytime we show them WITHOUT A DOUBT that god doesn't exist that "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Frankly, I slapped my own MOTHER the last time that she tried telling me that 'god' existed. I had had it up to the top of my head, and a few feet further.
Frankly, there is no god: we now have IRREFUTABLE PROOF that evolution is how humans and other higher life forms were created, we now have ways to duplicate every single one of those 'miracles' that supposedly happened (even the 'returning from the dead' one), etc. etc.
It is simply time for religion to be shot down, that people were required to give up their 'faith' for a heavy dose of reality, and that religion was WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET, by force if necessary.
Christopher at 12:48AM on Dec 5th 2007
19. christopher, that kind of mentality is dangerous. nobody should be forced into anything. and that applies to both sides. you don't want to be forced into religion and they don't want to be forced out of it. and slapping your own mother... i don't care what she said to you, that is not right. you're just giving dinesh more ammunition by saying irresponsible shit like that.
Richelle at 12:54AM on Dec 5th 2007
20. There is a force greater than us who set this universe in motion
JOSEPH T at 1:11AM on Dec 5th 2007
21. It amazes me that people sit here and rag on this guy. If he really pisses you off, don't read the blog. - Rett R.
It amazes me that people sit here and rag on our posts. If we really piss you off, don't read the blog.
fabio at 1:12AM on Dec 5th 2007
22. Sigh. I really wish Dinesh was worth paying attention to these days, but really he isn't. He has three tricks: promoting his book, saying how he is 'victorious' in these debates, and occassionally going off on how tolerance towards homosexuals makes us deserve terrorist attacks.
Of the three, I think the second is the most pitiful. I saw all the debates he linked and felt, contrary to Dinesh's declarations of victory, that he had done nothing but said 'I believe in God and God is good because X,Y, and Z' and done absolutely nothing to offer evidence for proof outside his belief. I have to wonder what would Dinesh count as a defeat? Would his opponent have to be so articulate and exacting in their argument as to make Dinesh become an atheist as well? I'm sorry to say that no matter how skilled, one can not debate against belief. It persists, in fact it thrives, in spite of evidence against it.
Ah, but some people on some blogs posted that Dinesh was the better man on these debates? Oh well, taking one look at these blogs and responses, I must say that's quite an unshakable source of victory for old DD. That's if they actually said it at all. Dinesh has no difficulty, evidently, going to these atheist sites but then seems utterly unable to link these responses so that we can find out who is making these claims of Dinesh's victory.
But Dinesh puts a great deal of importance on what the 'onlookers' say about these debates. Again, it's meaningless. Is there a christian here who would utterly abandon christ and god if Dinesh became an atheist? Is there an atheist here who would believe in God if Dawkins declaired a revelation? Doubtful. I'd be curious and a little disappointed but my reasons for being an atheist are my own. They have always been personal and unshaken by something as transitory as the outcome of a debate.
But Dinesh seems to think every debate is a battle in which he will... nay, he must! declare victory. After all the atheists have... gasp... writen novels saying bad things about God and religion! Why, any minute now the supreme court might actually enforce seperation of church and state! It's not as if hundreds... of thousands... of books about God as good haven't been written. I'm pretty sure the chicken-soup for the X soul series covers a good hundred of them alone. But fear not brave christians. If millions of books proclaiming how hunky dorie God is isn't enough to overcome the threat of a half dozen or so recent atheist publications, then never fear. Dinesh is debating for your salvation. And it doesn't matter how well or poorly he does, because this is his blog and if he can't find some quotes to support his crusade then he can just make them up as he goes along.
Somber at 1:22AM on Dec 5th 2007
23. Rett R. you are a funny dude. You tell people not to read things that make them angry yet you are reading other peoples' comments and getting angry. Please... hypocrisies don't get anywhere and telling people to 'just not read it' won't do any good. People need to read things, even sometimes when it gets them riled up. That's how debates come up and how the world becomes a better place, providing that people use their emotions to drive them towards productive means, not destructive.
As for this article, I do have to say that it does seem like one giant pat on the back for him. I wish his article had been more constructive and actually talked about the facts that allowed him to 'win.' I also find it interesting that some people said that they didn't believe in God and yet they believe D'Souza 'won' the match. To me, it doesn't sound like anyone really 'won' if no one was convinced (i.e. converted) one way or the other. Some people are just better speakers/debaters than others.
I also wish that he had made an effort to not make this article an "us vs. them" sort of thing. If he truly wanted to get the facts out and convince people, this article would've been very different. I think his generalizing of atheists was a poor choice because I know some atheists that are simply that: they just don't believe in God. I know there are also other atheists that are "anti-God"... extreme atheists on a mission (the type that is alluded to in this article in which he has lumped all atheists). There are probably many other types as well, but I do feel it a poor choice of D'Souza's to take such a stereotypical and generalist stand. Perhaps his next article might win over more people if he could get over his high horse and actually lay out the facts in his debate, but I feel his mission in this one was simply to congratulate himself and to further drive a wedge between believers and non-believers, which doesn't serve anyone well. Pity. :(
just a bit to say at 1:25AM on Dec 5th 2007
24. Thank you Dinesh! Atheists ARE angry, and they don't have a lick of proof God or some higher power does NOT exist. Science is great, but I firmly belief somebody, somewhere.......made it all! Sorry all you guys got burnt out on religion to the point where yall are just angry - my point exactly. Learn some forgiveness, tolerance.....you will feel better.
angelemd at 12:05PM on Dec 5th 2007
25. I'd say that atheists are angry constantly having the Christianity debate and hell fire rammed down their throats.
I am tired of our laws reflecting religious influence. Tired of a President who blatanty gives lip-service to God but diametrically opposes his laws.
I'm angry because you are constantly pushing your mythology as agenda, then trying to make laws based on it. It's archatic and the bible is so riddled with contradictions and murder and temptation I find it unfathomable to put even a speck of credibility into it. THAT is what my mind rationally tells me is the answer.
I'd be a liar if I claimed otherwise. I simply DO NOt believe the creation myth. We are born ahteist, then taught religion.
What do you think is the destiny of your fellow Hindu's Dinesh if they fail to accept the christ as their saviour?
"You know you have created God in your own image when he hates the same people you do".
David at 1:40AM on Dec 5th 2007
26. Mr. D'Souza,
You make your point quite clearly. You hate atheists and will say/write literally anything to dupe others into hating them also.
Call whatever names you want. State whatever inflammatory statements you want. Shout out the worst of demogoguery you can fabricate. It really won't convert anyone. I can't tell you how many times i've heard that I am going to "burn in hell" for infinite years - trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions, etc.
If you really wanted to convert people then how about trying this: Actually live by ALL the "infallible" rules of the bible and ALL the preachings of Jesus Christ and show everyone how happy you would be?
Would you actually follow ALL the teachings of Jesus Christ as written in the bible?
No, you wouldn't. And you know exactly what I mean.
The worst thing you can do to a Christian in America is: Make them abide by the tenets of their very beliefs - the rules of the bible.
Frank at 1:43AM on Dec 5th 2007
27. My pseudointellectual friend, please stop using the unicorn analogy. It's transparent. People who believe in unicorns are not trying to take over the world and if they were, I suspect there would be a hell of a lot of angry books about "a-unicornism."
And another thing. There is a stark difference between dominating a debate and winning a debate. You "win" debates in the same way Bill O'Reilly "wins" debates. That's right, the oh so naive Bill - "I had a debate with Richard Dawkins about God and I think I won" - O'Reilly.
The comments on the videos are angry, and rightfully so. Your performance was so obnoxious it was actually difficult to watch. In the debate, however, you were the angry one ranting nonsense. Dennet, on the other hand, was a picture of composure and civility.
Denett was visibly stunned, not by your "superior" arguments, but by the sheer volume of serious philosophical ideas that you so arrogantly and ignorantly misrepresented. You made ridiculous, uninformed comment after ridiculous, uninformed comment about subjects he has spent his entire career working on. All he could do was ask you to read the relevant scientific literature.
Finally, I'm appalled that you would have the nerve to accuse atheists of hating God. I find myself asking myself if you, a man of some reason (even you accept evolution, almost) could actually believe that statement. Atheist hate God as much as they hate Ra, Thor, Santa and... you guessed it... unicorns.
Wiggy at 1:54AM on Dec 5th 2007
28. It is amazing to me that people get so angry when people have a DIFFERENT concept of god than they do. Had god wanted all of us to believe the same thing, he would not sent messengers to isolated parts of the world. God can give us any message he wants at any time and have us behave anyway he wants at any time. It seems members of churchs believe more in men who claim to speak for god than they do in god. Some child molesting priest is protected as is the terrorist Iman - forget that their behavior goes against their so called faiths.
The commandment of Jesus was "Love ye one another." coupled with 'Judge not least ye be judged." Why did Christians and Muslims both abandon these laws in favor of bigoted hatred and narrow mindness. Non can claim to be fundamentalists because they do not study the Bible or Koran, they reada it and memorize a few passages. Read orginal languages, understand the meanings of what ws being said and apply the principles of love to the modern world.
I am sick of people using the princes of peace to spew hatred.
Sam
Sam at 9:43AM on Dec 5th 2007
29. Thank you, Mr. D'Souza for having the brass to stand up for Christianity.
May God bless you and keep you.
Laura at 2:14AM on Dec 5th 2007
30. I call you a name. You say I will burn in hell for all of eternity. Now, who is angrier? I am just throwing around words and you are standing behind a serious punishment as a part of your value system. If anger is measured by response, you and your christians are angrier. As for being anti-god. Fine. God may exist, doesn't seem likely, but he may. Now why should I want this dude to exist that has virtues he didnt have to work to form and can kill peoples children for their parents crime and justify it with his infinite wisdom? If this god of yours is truth, he is an an inconvient truth, not just for people who like to sin, but also for people who like a merit system and personal accountability, not inherent perfection or inperfection and the chance of being justly killed for stuff your parents or leader did.
marccooper at 6:29PM on Dec 8th 2007