16. There is a force greater than us who set this universe in motion

JOSEPH T at 1:11AM on Dec 5th 2007

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. I watched the debate on youtube. So, the evidence for God, per Dinesh, is simple and comes down to the following: "nature has a beginning, everything with a beginning has a cause." He continues: "since nature has a beginning and therefore has a cause, the cause is outside nature and we call it God."

This leads you to Christianity? Belief in eternal life? The truth value of this logic is void. The argument is semantic and specious.

And in the debate, you mention Pascal's wager more than once. You note that we do not have perfect or complete information. You suggest that, still, we need to make a decision about our faith that will affect our spiritual immortality. Might as well believe in Jesus.

This line of reasoning is not persuasive! The arguments are old and shop worn. That they do not sell well to many intelligent and educated people leaves you writing blogs about superficial tangents like some atheists' anger. This will not help sell your book. It will not convert unbelievers.

jamesg4336 at 3:08AM on Dec 5th 2007

25. You know, Mr. D'Souza, I once thought the clergy was my calling. My grandfather was a minister and I wanted to follow in his footsteps. Then I discovered other views, listened to people who were not Christian, and confronted people like yourself - and realized I could not support such hypocrisy.

You pose the question, "What's so great about Christianity?", and proceed to answer that with vanity, bigotry, and debate. You habor a zealous desire to make - not your faith the golden ruler - but you alone the winner!

The NEW atheists, you say? How about The New Crusaders? They, led by those like you, would commit malecide with gossip, semantic manipulation, and a faith-for-profit agenda.

Tell us, if you wish, what you think is "so great about Christianity". But please stop padding your pocket-book faith by re-hashing the same old denouncements of that which you obviously do not understand.

Roglo at 3:22AM on Dec 5th 2007

26. ATHEIST

If you read Dinesh's latest blog, you will find a PROPHECY about the Future of Christianity.

Every day, when a Christian wakes up, he has to cover his ears while people say... (Let me go back and check Dinesh's post again. I wouldn't want to get this wrong... oh, yes. Here it is.)... Total moron.

Why? Because Christianity is based on 3 beliefs.

Jesus was an Exorcist who could order invisible demonic spirits to leave the bodies of their victims.

Messengers from YHWH (what we call angels) appeared before the birth of Jesus, at the Empty Tomb, and to the apostles after Jesus was in heaven.

Jesus was the first-fruits of a General Resurrection, when all the dead will be raised up in a different kind of body.

Seeing Presidential candidates defend their claim to be Christians or Catholics or even Mormons.... means that we have too many Dumb People in this country.

There are NO demonic spirits. Exorcism is a con game. There are NO angels. Once you're dead, you stay dead. The chemical and electrical processes in your brain stop, and the structures that performed them self-destruct.

Dinesh doesn't realize it, but he lost all three debates. Badly. While the Christians wanted to hear someone defend their Nonsense, in the greater scheme of things, giving Atheists a platform is going to destroy Christianity... a little sooner than without the debates.

William Hays at 3:32AM on Dec 5th 2007

27. Dinesh, to be honest, it is no wonder that Sam Harris wants to have a written debate with you. He is one of the worst public speakers I have ever heard, and he CONSTANTLY pauses to collect his thoughts and try to transition into his next point.

No Christian has beaten the atheists in public debate until you came around, and you've beaten three of them so far. If Harris conjures the guts to debate you, it will be your easiest task of the four. Dawkins might even be easier, if you can get past that attractive British accent!

Anthony Keiser at 4:01AM on Dec 5th 2007

28. I don't often get into Athiests v Christians debates, but really, both sides are almost equally weak in my opinion. I was raised a Catholic, and obviously, had started to reject the constant ideas and laws being shoved down my throat. However, this does not make me an athiest.
If athiests were simply non-belivers in God, or Gods, they would leave the believers be. By getting all up in arms over little things like 'one nation under God,' they only make themselves look more like they are only aiming for attention from the masses. Does Wal-Mart selling 'Christmas trees' personally affect how you live your life? If it does, well sir, you have quite a bout of issues, don't you?
On the other hand, I understand that a lot of Christians enjoy trying to shove their faith down the throats of people who 'need to be saved.' I do not agree with this either. But still, I have never seen a huge debate over the fact that the dates for Passover are marked on mass production calenders.
Religions [and lack of] should just leave each other alone, because honestly, if you believe something, you shouldn't let anything else affect that. If you do, you're not truly forming your own beliefs.

sara at 4:06AM on Dec 5th 2007

29. @ Christopher... 14

You say, "..I slapped my own MOTHER ..." and "..that religion was WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET, by force if necessary."

Does the word 'ringer' mean anything to you?

Hey, why don't you join the 'patriots' in Iraq and do some theist killin' on behalf of the US Army!!!?

And, D'evil D'Souza... as for your "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."

...here's another "sample comment" from your last post here on these very blogs...

Sam Reck, " My heart went out to Prof. Dennett because he was so totally over matched in this debate. You totally demolished him as you have the other atheists you have debated."

Sam sure gets around, what? LOL

pboyfloyd at 5:01AM on Dec 5th 2007

30. Hmm... Why do these Flamers get so angry and call everyone that believes in a diety bad names?

Is it because they are mad at something that supposedly "doesn't exist"? Wow! That would make atheism a crock of shit right there (quick spoiled children whom can't reconcile the past... keep the secret hidden, delete this sentence and repost the remainder with recomposed sentences on atheist blogs!).

Listen, I am truly sorry if your parent(s) raped you / beat you or if you just had a bad childhood... I am also sorry if your parents got ripped off by some money hungry tele-evangelist scam artist, or if you were fondled by a priest when you were 12...

We say "the devil can go to church as well". Let me explain this : good as well as evil people can go wherever and do whatever they will to do, at any given time on this planet, within their physical constraints... That is free will. Point is, evil / shitty people are everywhere and the majority of atheist groups and religious groups alike have their share of hipocrits. People just enjoy hating a diety when things go wrong...

God / Satan exists in possibly other dimensions or just as philosophy either way you look at it. If not, Is there really a such thing as Good and Evil? What happens when there is no good or evil? Society would screech to a halt and fall apart. Also, what happens when there is too much of one and not the other? Good would rise from evil in the form of rebellion, and likewise evil would rise from good in the form of rebellion. There is always about 50/50 of each to form a balance. When it gets out of hand and the scale tips too far in either direction, some force will tip it the other way. Human nature and free will are a part of why this "evenning-out" happens. But what initiates the force to cause people to behave as they do? Good or Evil? What tells our conscience which path to take? Not what is right or wrong, but the choice of right or wrong itself. I believe that God gives us free will within his plans. 99.9% free will, but sometimes we need a "push" or a "hint" which emerges from the subconscious mind to the concious mind, usually influenced by a "God" or a "Satan" if you choose these names. It is something deep inside that a lot of people these days overlook and are out of touch with. I wont get on the topic of how rapid modernization plays a role in this being out of touch, but... Please, anyone tell me exactly why and how this works and prove it with physical proof of course (proof like the atheists ask for when making bad attempts at disproving a philosophical or actual God's existence), stew on it for a while, then come back and talk all of that nonsensical "big-worded" closed minded garbage. You see, if you can't physically prove everything in the "sciences" of classical and abnormal psychology, then one can never use that same so called "hard evidence" based thing called "science" to disprove a deitys existence. Yet any atheist will admit believe in the human Psyche, but will not admit belief in a God. They are both intangable, But we feel the effects of both, and actually live and think inside of one (the psyche). So wouldn't that make sense right there that both exist? How can one say that their mind and thought exist, but a God or Satan doesn't? Are we that ignorant and out of touch as human beings?

By the way, how many of these athiests have religious parents? Hmmm... I would bet 90% or more, Unless of course they are Satanists lying when they say that they don't believe in God... Hmm, Wolf in sheeps skin anyone? How many atheists denounce a Satan as well(I have met many, so far only about half denounce a God and a Satan together)? Is this why they hate God? Because their parents pushed it on them when they were younger? Or because someone of a religious affiliation harmed them in some way? Pavlovian Conditioning in extremes, maybe? Well, my advice is... Get over it, don't be so weak.

Mark my words : There are NO athiests in foxholes. You see, when a closed minded person gets stuck in a situation where they are face to face with death, the mind will open pretty damn quick and even the blind will see. Trust me, I have seen it a hundred times.

Of "Brights", "Haters" and "Murder":

They are such a group of "brights" that it has made them blind with hate. Hate is also what closes minds. Are they that angry? I think hate is the most idiotic emotion in existence. It causes all things negative / bad. Unresolved hate has been linked to onsets of certain types of cancer, stomach ulcers, negative stress, antisocial behavior, fighting, murder, and the bickering on this forum. Hate in itself is the core source of all of the killings around the world caused by religion (the inquisition, holy wars, etc.) and by atheism (communism, Facism, etc.).

Now I know that every atheist and some religous people are going to Flame me and keep on hatin' and debatin', But I thought that I would just bring this up... Hate is also why this blog gets hot so quick. God Bless, Philip Pullman Bless, and whatever else Bless you all.

It is your choice to live a shallow miserable hate filled life, or not. I just hope none of you carry this hate with you until death, seriously.

goombah773 at 5:05AM on Dec 5th 2007