Why Atheists Are So Angry

Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...

Mo Rocca Feed

Why Atheists Are So Angry

Posted Dec 4th 2007 8:36PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Christianity, Controversy, Atheism

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?

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [1195]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 80)

Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Richelle wrote: 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.

------------------------

Ideally, Richelle, this would be the case. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, debates of this nature are, for many (including Mr. D'Souza, apparently), more like sporting events than dialogues. The mere fact that he always asks "who do you think won" and places a poll after his blog entry shows that one of his main goals is racking up bragging points, not engaging in stimulating conversation. I watched this mainly because I hadn't seen Dennett before and, now having seen him, will stick to reading him.

While Mr. D'Souza is not the most engaging orator on this topic around (got to go with Hitch on that one), he is certainly one of the most polished. That said, D'Souza employs some repetitive shtick in his "act", such as the "large podium/no pants" comment, that quickly grow tiring (at least Hitch always manages to keep it fresh); his tendency to speak loudly is annoying beyond belief (exacerbated here by the lack of a pop filter on the microphone - but that's Tuft's fault); finally, his feeble attempts to definitively prove that the greatest crimes in history were committed "in the name of atheism," repeated ad infinitum in these events and in his writing, are simply preposterous. Neither the Crusades nor the Holocaust can be reduced down to single causes, and attempting to do so (by either side) displays a simple-minded approach to history; but D'Souza will never give up this point, so I suppose we'll just have to live with it... unless, of course, we just turn him off. (However, I've yet to find a verbatim quote by Hitler claiming that all of his acts were done in the name of atheism, as Mr. D'Souza would have us believe.)

I sincerely hope Mr. D'Souza doesn't take offense at the crude negativites hurled at him by my fellow non-believers; they say you should never be embarrassed by what others do, but when you are in alignment with them on an issue as crucial as this one, it's difficult to avoid, and it bothers me greatly. Nevertheless, Mr. D'Souza's statement regarding atheists who "hate God" is a DEEPLY offensive characterization, perhaps more than he intends, but certainly more than the slurs tossed his way. Should Xians be offended by the characterization that they all support bombing abortion clinics? Of course they should (despite the fact that such acts have been done in the name of Jesus/God); so should atheists be miffed at D'Souza's own condescending stereotyping.

Grigori at 11:02AM on Dec 5th 2007

36. It is unreasonable to downplay the win of several debates. What are debates for, if not for proving which side of an argument has the stronger points? Is it only in a Dinesh debate against atheism that winning doesn't count? If an atheist won a debate against Dinesh, it would be broadcast.

Regarding polling, some atheists suggest the voting might not be accurate in the polls on whom won the debates. If the polls suggested an atheist won the debate, there would be no question as to the possibility of someone voting twice for the debater representing them. To question the validity of a poll, or polls, is the logical response when one trails in those polls. Trailing repeatedly does not look good.

Ironically, some atheists chide Dinesh for publishing and selling a book supporting Christianity, while they herald the publishing and marketing of such books as Harris's "The End of Faith."

Reason is a god of the atheist, but reason repeatedly suffers at the hands of atheistic bias.

Rog at 12:14PM on Dec 5th 2007

37. 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

38. @ 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

39. 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

40. D'evil D'Souza asks the Dawkins the question, "How brave is it to beat up on former televangelist Ted Haggard?"

Guess D'evil didn't see that show where, when Dawkins went to visit that bum-holing speed-freak to talk to the 'good' pastor(the bum-holing speed-freak) about his faith...

...Haggard(the bum-holing speed-freak) stood there with pure hate in his eyes and arrogantly ordered Dawkins not to be arrogant.

Then the 'good' pastor Haggard(a.k.a. the bum-holing speed-freak) tried to confiscate(steal) Dawkins' property and accused Dawkins of calling his(the bum-holing speed-freak's) kids 'animals'.

That same bum-holing speed-freak, that D'evil D'Souza seems to have much sympathy for... was caught begging for cash this year ... seems that he only raked in about $300,OOO in 2006.

Wow... bum-holing while stoned on meth must be way expensive!!! Or maybe it takes very expensive soap to wash poop off yer weenie!!

That horrible Dawkins... pickin' on a poor ol' bum-holin' speed-freak.(of the LORD!)

pboyfloyd at 5:34AM on Dec 5th 2007

41. Hey, goombah773 ... comment 32

You say, "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."

What's wrong with your head goombah... have you been partying with Ted Haggard? I hear that ol' Ted loves the LORD!(hates fags too, so he tells us)

Hey... you, Dinesh, the DECIDER and Ted Haggard will be meeting up in Heaven I suppose. Maybe you all can scare up a game of touch football with some other toughguys!

Don't drop the soap in the H-h-h-heavenly showers tho'. (word to the wise)

"Mark your words"... pfft!

pboyfloyd at 5:55AM on Dec 5th 2007

42. D'evil D'Souza says, "If they were mere unbelievers they would simply live their lives as if God did not exist."

Well, for one thing, I'm a non-believer, and for another thing, I DO simply live knowing that there are no gods.

Turns out that I love to hate-back smug pricks that passive-aggressively hate atheists because atheists know that there are no gods.

Plus, if it wasn't for blogs like these... there might be some people who would not realise what lying liars you guys are!!!

pboyfloyd at 6:15AM on Dec 5th 2007

43. good morning,

i read chris's comment where he slapped his own mother. that has to be the worst thing i have heard yet of an atheist response to god. to slap ones mother. i would have never thought it. however, i would never believe that about most or any other atheist out there. surely?

but that said, DD does bring to mind a point and that is its hard to refute atheist anger and hostility towards anything that is religious. and the drivil about cramming it down your throats doesn't hold sway. you are here on this blog by choice.

truthfully i think you guys need to own up to being angry,DD is right on this one. plus you should know the first who gets angry in an argument loses. keep your cool.

brian at 6:54AM on Dec 5th 2007

44. I'd say that Denesh is guilty of quote mining, in the grand old tradition of apologetics. There's been a lot of rational discussion both here and on richarddawkins.net yet he siezes on a small number of unrepresentative comments.

I'm impressed by his rhetorical skills, but the fact remains that the arguments he's proposing are age old and carry little intellectual weight. Rather than winning any debates, all he's done is reassure those who were on his side anyway and perhaps gather a few floating voters who hadn't taken much of a look at the subject.

If D'Souza and his opponents didn't have books to promote, they could have saved a lot of time by saying that god exists, but only inside your own head and only if you want him to, as that's pretty much all the "victories" amount to.

Matt at 7:08AM on Dec 5th 2007

45. JCAlmighty! Why are you so angry? Look to yourself and answer that question. Until you do, atheists and atheism will get you riled up every time. Get on with life and talk about something that REALLY matters not just to you but your ployglot readership.

boredwell at 7:18AM on Dec 5th 2007

Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

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. ...

Coming Soon

Most Commented On

Coming Soon

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.