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 6 of 80)

Previous 15 Comments | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

76. Dawkins does not promote hate.

a born atheist at 9:51AM on Dec 5th 2007

77. I was not implying only DD, I was talking only about DD.

Mokele-Mbembe at 9:53AM on Dec 5th 2007

78. And by comment #2 on the Dinesh-Dennett debate, we have atheists characterized as: "unintelligent", "self-centered", having a "lifestyle of defiance" and an "evil heart", "superstitious", "arrogant", and "ignoramus".

Yup, definitely "no comparable invective on the Christian side", as D'Souza says.

Ray Ingles at 9:56AM on Dec 5th 2007

79. Unicorn Power!

larry d. at 9:58AM on Dec 5th 2007

80. Furthering his own agenda by promoting hate (sound familiar?) makes DD not a 'true' christian.

a born atheist at 9:57AM on Dec 5th 2007

81. The debate weather God does or does not exist is a futile one. No side has the best evidence to date and it is a losing argument.
The easier argument is that the Judean, Christian and Muslim God of he Torah, Bible and the Koran is not the God of the universe, if one can even call our creator a God. I do not read much about the physics, biology or the sciences that try to prove or disprove God. I do however read much of the recent anthropology and archeological and language decipherment discoveries. I've read about the ancient incantations written on clay tablets by the ancients that came before Yahweh, those hymns written to worship ancient Gods in the Levant whom later were reworded and found in the book of Palms. I've read about the ancient kings who in some time or another have tried to rule the world under one empire with a personal God to guide them. As ambitious men prevailed so have their Gods in establishing themselves head of the pantheon above all Gods. Why do you think that out of all the commandments of morality and ethics the most important one is "Though shall have no other God before me" God does not deny the existence of other Gods, he just claims to be more important. The tablet which sits in the British museum that tells of of Enmerker and Lord of Aratta, who some claim to be Nimrod of the bible, son of the sun God Utu. (All important men were son of Gods, Jesus was no exception). In this story you find the first confusion of the languages created by Enki, (Not Yahweh)the God of the ancient thriving city Eridu, where an unfinished ziggurat was found.
It wasn't until the hunters and gatherers settled the land by cultivating it, by domesticating animals and kingdoms descended from heaven that you see warfare. The riches of natural resources provided by each individual kingdom is what enticed men to conquer in the name of their God, as the Israelites did in the Levant. They too where promised a kingdom as were the later Christians and later Muslims!
There is so much more that disproves Yahweh as creator of the universe and mankind, too much to place here. You must read about these other cultures, civilizations to better understand your religion.
It is mankind who created the major religions that govern society today and it is mankind who places limitations on knowledge and it is their religions that foster hate, racism, feminism, and intolerance. The true creator does not need worship, nor does the creator need to send a human sacrifice for salvation, nor does he encourage men to hate the gays, gambling, or deem sex as an evil! It is all man made, so yes, atheist and non believers are bitter against those who judge in the name of God and bitter from the constant restraint religion places on people
What scares me is not those whom have a faith in their God, it is those fundamentals who wish to place a church state in place of a secular one. Those whom wish to rule morality according to the bible, those extremist evangelicals and Catholics whom are involving themselves in politics to prohibit consenting adults of gay activity, gambling, adult entertainment, Roe vs. Wade, free speech, and that wish to place women back in the home, barefoot and pregnant as the co-founder of the grassroots organization Moral Majority late Rev. Jerry Falwell claimed. "If grown adults cannot decide what is good for them we will decide for them" claimed Phil Buress, president of Citizens for community values. This is scary stuff people.....

goddess1prevail at 10:00AM on Dec 5th 2007

82. Somber, (18)
I appreciate your comments very much. I too find it difficult to think that someone is all of a sudden going to believe or not believe as a result of these (or any) debates. Your point is well taken that you are an atheist for personal reasons and not because someone else is a better debator than another.

I also like the following comment you made:

"I'm sorry to say that no matter how skilled, one can not debate against belief."

As a Christian find this to be true when talking to Atheists and people of other religious faiths as well. You see, since science can provide no "proof" of God's existance or non-existance, to take a position either way is a position that requires belief/ faith. I have yet to meet someone who has changed their belief system simply because they lost a debate. Infact, I have noticed that, should they lose a debate, the opposite effect seems to take place...they become all the more entrenched in their belief system, almost out of sheer spite. The greater their inability to defend their belief system the deeper entrenched they become. I think this is because humanity does not like to be wrong about something so central to the purpose/ meaning of our life as our belief system. We will hold on to our belief system no matter what reasonable, logical, rational evidence may exist that undermines, discredits or otherwise debunks our belief system. Thus I find debates to be an ineffective means of addressing the 'God' question.

I also agree with the following comments you made:

"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."

Belief, when held because of the intelligence of someone else is foolishness. Too many on both sides of the 'God' question are hanging their hopes on the arguements and beliefs of others instead of engaging in honest soul searching for what the truth actually is. I would love to see this more from both sides of the discussion.

Good comments.

Matt at 10:03AM on Dec 5th 2007

83. Dinesh, why don't you use this blog to explain to us, using reason and logic, why we angry, god-hating atheists should believe in your God?

Don't bring up the ad hominem attacks. If you can show me bad atheists, I can show you bad Christians. Your widely discredited claim that atheism is responsible for more death than Christianity proves nothing. Even if atheists were by nature cruel people, that by itself wouldn't prove that God exists.

Also, stow your nonsense about Christianity being the basis for democracy. The Greeks practiced democracy a long time ago, and they were polytheists (yikes!) who saw nothing wrong with homosexuality (double yikes!)

I'm sure your answer is that we atheists are so far gone, so irredeemable that we could never feel God's love again. Contrary to what you may believe, many atheists searched for God and never found him because there is NOTHING to find. If God does exist, why is it such a big damn secret? Why does God hide himself so that faith is the only way to find him? Why not park his ass in Times Square, and preach to us how we should live our lives? No, instead he hides, and if you happen to spot any of the flaws in that, you'll be tortured forever. And you say he's great.

AndrewV at 10:10AM on Dec 5th 2007

84. from comment #75

sorry for the error

my blogg should be .com not .net

Matt at 10:17AM on Dec 5th 2007

85. 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.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

When Unicorn Believers attack Evolution and Stem-Cell Research, I, as an Atheist, will be right there attacking them, too. It's not "God" that Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens attack, but your version of it. The slightly cleamed Roman Zeus, who plays Good Cop, Bad Cop with all the people of the planet. "I have everlasting love, until you disagree with me. Then you go to Hell."

Religions that attack reason have always been the center of ridicule for Modern Atheists. So long as those "Unicornians" don't call me a Demon for believing Humans have a common ancestor with Apes or try to halt scientific progress, they're A-Okay with me. In fact, I'm sure the 1st Church of Unicorns would be an awesome place to worship.

mbriancohen at 10:25AM on Dec 5th 2007

86. Why is it always a competetion? I don't consider myself athiest but more of an agnostic and I dont reduce myself to name calling. I find that both sides of the the God v. no God debate have holes but I will openly listen to any side as longs as it helps me understand that sides belief. So many religions are to quick to act like they are better if they can rack up more followers. This isnt a race. People just need to treat each other better in this life rather then worry so much about the afterlife and who is "right". Wouldn't that makes things alot better here now?

Owen at 10:22AM on Dec 5th 2007

87.
Apparently, we're angry because "athiesm is floundering".... Yet Dinesh got creamed in the debate. Screaming at an audience is most definitely a sign of anger and hostility - But we're angry.

Christian's don't get angry. When they scream and yell about their holiday being attacked because people don't greet them the way they want, they aren't angry.

Wow. a former republican presidential advisor using dirty tricks and misinformation.... Who'd have thunk it possible?

Ken at 10:20AM on Dec 5th 2007

88. I didn't watch the debates, but I know that whenever a debater uses "ad hominem" argument instead of rational argument, he/she doesn't have much of an argument. When you have to resort to name calling, your argument is worthless and your frustration shows it.

As for Christopher slapping his mother, well, that says it all!

Patricia at 10:35AM on Dec 5th 2007

89. goombah...you clearly haven't met very many military people. Many a combat vet has lost in faith in a fox hole. Many who have been in war have come to the conclusion that simply cannot be a god, or if there is, it's evil.

All you've done is make declarations by fiat and appeals to authority...sorta like D'Souza.

Al at 10:35AM on Dec 5th 2007

90. " atheists are basically losers"

Is this what you are referring to Al?

a born atheist at 10:42AM on Dec 5th 2007

Previous 15 Comments | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 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.