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
- fanman on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- fanman on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- fanman on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Jerry Brown 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
- Growing Up at 16 -- Ready or Not
- Sean Hannity Will Respond to Jon Stewart Over 'Doctored' Protest Footage
- Students Lost Maine Gay Marriage Battle, But Not the War
- Obama Gets Lower Marks in the South Than Nationally
- Amy Grant Sings In D.C. for Veterans Day, Talks Politics and Hair Tips
- Polls Show Opposition and Doubts on U.S. Efforts in Afghanistan
- Anti-Incumbent Mood Growing for Next Year's House Elections
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 80)
46. matt,
i do not think there is much weight to atheisms claim that as dawkins states everything started by "sheer luck".now what should a rational mind think? interestingly God starts out the bible,"in the beginning", he wants us to know as well. he deemed it important,dawkins deems it important. i'll side with god,thanks
brian at 7:23AM on Dec 5th 2007
47. " 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."
Perhaps you would if the pro unicorn crowd were trying to pass laws based on some sort of "Unicorn Code".
If you honestly think that your comparison is valid, the words moron, twit, and idiot are actually pretty fitting, if you don't liar would seem to fit in their place"
Ed W. at 12:35PM on Dec 5th 2007
48. To the ones saying "We cannot hate something that does no exist." I would be prone to agree. However, I think the point is more that there appears to be hatred aimed at those who do believe.
Also, Dinesh, this article dissapoints me. If you are going to call attention to the kids calling you names in the comments, you should be fair and unbiased (as journalism should strive to be) and mention the religious zealots condemning all unbelievers to Hell in a handbasket and proclaiming merry glee at said fact. Both extremes are wrong. Both.
And how unfair to say you do not believe in unicorns. There is plenty of documentation and sightings to prove otherwise. Do you simply not have faith in unicorns? Faith is believing without seeing, after all. Or, are unicorns too silly? If I were to say that I do, in fact, believe that unicorns exist, would you call me a fool? Some sort of ignorant fantasy-addict who can't see reality? Who could logically believe unicorns exist?
Do you now understand how atheists think of religion?
And unicorns do exist, by the way. I dare you to prove they don't.
Strados at 11:30AM on Dec 5th 2007
49. strados,
oh yes you can hate soemthing that doesn't exist because your hatred has an aim and that is religious people,christains in particular. no one can buy that claim. DD is public enemy number one because he is a great presenter and he shows atheism for what it is. a world view with no basis of fact.who's the guy who said evolution is an irrefutable fact? where is his facts? as dawkins said,"sheer luck" that does not sound like a fact. if i were dawkins i would not debate DD it would be lights out. God is the best plausible answer
brian at 7:59AM on Dec 5th 2007
50. pboyfloyd,
hating is a terrible waste of time and energy. not to mention destructive. why would you hate. the bible says, the devil is the father of hate and lies. are you not proof of that truth? hate will destroy you in the end. your no match for it
brian at 8:04AM on Dec 5th 2007
51. okay, well dd used plenty of foul language in his blog, so he opened the door....
dd is full of shit, and he is a self-absorbed bigoted fuck-up wannabe.
he pokes and pokes, and belittles and puts down, and then wonders why people are angry.
It is true that I have a weakness for train wrecks and car crashes, and I simply cannot allow a self-promoting racist piece of garbage unchallenged verbage.
stuart joshua at 8:11AM on Dec 5th 2007
52. strados, no body condemns you, as the bible says,you condemn yourself, you have a free will
brian at 8:06AM on Dec 5th 2007
53. imagine if bush and cheney and their and dd's war in iraq weren't such an embarrassment...I am sure dd would be singing abou tbush and iraq in these blogs, instead of more distracting drivel.
stuart joshua at 8:12AM on Dec 5th 2007
54. slapping your mother??!! I guess you NEED to believe there is no God. Geeshh..
kitt at 8:26AM on Dec 5th 2007
55. The debate over belief is unending and for my money IRRELEVANT. Anger is a likely outcome when people choose to argue over intangibles. I believe in god, or don’t or kind of do; I think apples are superior to bananas; I’ve asked this before and I ask it again-who cares?
It is not the belief we should focus on, it is the BEHAVIOR. I am an atheist because my perspective is a pragmatic one, and there are simply too many contradictions and hypocrisies to explain away when it comes god, christian god, jewish god, islamic god, whatever. So instead of pounding my head against a brick wall, I choose to look at the AFFECT of religious belief on the behavior of real people. That is where the evidence is overwhelming.
Organized religion has committed horrible atrocities to humanity, not the least of which is convincing vast numbers of people that they are inherently superior to vast numbers of other people. Organized religion in our own country has made it a POLICY to influence our government- the Moral Majority, Christian Right, Newt…Can you imagine the reaction of at least half this country if one of the presidential candidates were to declare that they in fact do NOT read the bible everyday; as if ethics were predicated on religious belief, please, and don’t get me started on the contradictions of politicians and ethics.
I do get angry thinking that people, based on religious indoctrination could commit acts of violence against young pregnant girls, or blacks, or women, or members of differing religious indoctrination. I get angry thinking that organized religion has convinced enough people that creationism should be taught in biology class, or that “fundamentalists” raised enough money to build a museum- a “learning” institution that shows cavemen sitting on saddles riding dinosaurs, or that women should be stoned to death for adultery. Yes, these things do in fact make me angry, and if Christians really understood the point of Christianity it would make them angry too. Because the behavior we should all be focusing on is one that elevates all humanity. Behavior that is kind, compassionate, charitable, and tolerant. Behavior that cherishes non-violence, esteem for life and freedom, curiosity, accountability and an internalized understanding that every single one of us is just as and no more important than everyone else.
It seems so easy, yet is so clearly difficult.
So I challenge all theists to keep their faith where it belongs in their hearts, and I challenge all of my fellow atheists to stop engaging in the futile debate over belief. Instead let us ALL focus on identifying the behaviors that contribute to the good of humanity, reinforcing those behaviors and rebelling against the behaviors that subject humanity to hurt and hate. THAT debate could actually be “won”, that debate could actually do some good, that is the debate within which I will continue to participate.
kbates at 8:28AM on Dec 5th 2007
56. that's funny, I have to come to an article about atheists to find people who have half a brain. Now it makes sense to me why I think there are too many stupid people in the world. I guess I am an atheist. It's not that I hate God, because, I don't even know him/her/it....much like the unicorns. What I hate is all the arguing and hatred the belief in a God brings upon this world.
localmotion00 at 9:45AM on Dec 5th 2007
57. stuart,
and you prove exactly what DD says, that kind of talk points to the fact he's correct. if you came across humbled and acknowledge that he has a point imagine how that would go over. you atheist are so easy to reel in. its just like fishing for pirranas with meat. you throw it out there and they just swarm to it,because its what pirranas do,its what atheist do, you have no self-control.
the bible says that,kindness,sel-control,patience,are all fruits of the spirit . all of us need it
brian at 8:43AM on Dec 5th 2007
58. Very few, if any, people kill each other or dictate in minute detail how people should act over the existance or non-existance of unicorns. They do over the topic of God. That's why the God issue is different. Mr. D'Souza knows that, he just likes to cloud the issue.
No matter what Mr. D'Souza says there is not one iota of evidence for the existence of God, or unicorns for that matter.
Michael Hogan at 9:07AM on Dec 5th 2007
59. What about me brian? Am I too a "piranha" lacking self-control?
kbates at 8:52AM on Dec 5th 2007
60. Lest we forget.. I would just like to mention that ANGER is a HUMAN emotion. This particular emotion was not reserved for AETHISTS only or CHRISTIANS only..
Dinesh's article reflects the ANGER that he feels from those who righfully or wrongfully cannot stomach the reasoning that Dinesh puts forward with regard to this topic.
I will concede that people will resort to ad homynym attacks and totaly uncalled for rhetoric in ANY contested debate either when they feel cornered or so RIGHT about their own opinion that they fail to see the other side.(especially on PUBLIC blogs on the INTERNET) Thats merely a reflection on THEM.
Jonathan Edwards most popular sermon "Sinners in the hand of an Angry God" is an example of a christian minister who presents the whole concept of christianity in a very Negative and Angry lignt. Tends to contradict the whole idea that God is Love...The term "fire and brimstone" as related to christians speaks to a certain form of ANGRY CHRISTIANITY that some christians like to profess.
Anyhow my basic point is that Anger is not Republican Democrat, or Aethist, its HUMAN. Dinesh is stating the obvious...and we see Anger in the response of republicans to democrats, on Political issues... Non enviromentalist to environmentalist on the point of preserving the environment, etc.. etc.. etc... Most of the time this anger is baseless and misses the point of the debate... Dinesh is not so special... NEITHER are ANGRY aethists..
I thoroghly engjoyed the debate, and thought that the questions from the students were very thoughtful and probing... Maybe Dinesh assumed that these students are all aetheists based on how he interpreted their questions (as hostile :) to his point
Could it be they were just seeking to get at the TRUTH by probing from many different angles???
By the way... on the question of who won... I felt it was more "us" the audience. To get the opportunity to listen to two very intelligent people really clearly put these points forward ..to me gives the chance for individuals to put these things into perspective and MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICE... Therefore WE WIN.
PEACE
dmode16340 at 8:55AM on Dec 5th 2007