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
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- emma on Zoo Will Let Baby Polar Bears Die Rather Than Hand-Feed
- Saint Brian the Godless 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
- Bad-News Poll Week for Obama, but Hey, Things Could Be Worse
- Casey at Bat on Abortion Funding: Home Run or Strikeout?
- Adderall Still an Appealing --Though Risky -- Solution for Students During Finals
- Monica Lewinsky Tells Author of Impeachment Book that Bill Clinton Lied to the Grand Jury
- Obama's Epic Nose Dive Off the Cliffs of Health Care, Economy
- Where McCartney Is Right: The Need For New and Inventive Green Solutions
- Americans Seeing Health Care Package More Negatively as Deadline Nears
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 80)
91. I mean Patricia, sry.
a born atheist at 10:43AM on Dec 5th 2007
92. I've just finished watching the entire debate on YOUTUBE, and Mr. D'Qouza, D'Souza, I would not count that as a victory for you. But whatever helps you sleep at night man. "other thoughts" was a very repetetive debate and neither of you covered as much groud in it as i was hoping you would.
Thissteveguy at 10:53AM on Dec 5th 2007
93. Speaking of being angry, hateful, and intolerant... here's some more info on our hero, DD:
"In 1981, D'Souza published the names of officers of the Gay Student Alliance in an article for The Dartmouth Review, including the names of those who were still closeted.
"Following his graduation from Dartmouth, D'Souza moved to Princeton, New Jersey, where he worked for Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a conservative organization strongly critical of coeducation, affirmative action, and campus access to birth control."
And
"In early 2007, D'Souza published "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11," in which he argues that the American left was in large part responsible for the Muslim anger that led to the September 11 attacks.
"This thesis has been widely disputed by, among others, prominent conservatives such as Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt, who contend that D'Souza openly sympathizes with Al Qaeda in The Enemy At Home, and who contend that his thesis that Muslim radicals would not hate the United States if not for cultural liberalism is a myth.
"The book was almost universally criticized in major American newspapers and magazines and called, among other things, "the worst nonfiction book about terrorism published by a major house since 9/11" and "a national disgrace."
This from the Wikipedia article on Dinesh, located here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza
brandon at 10:55AM on Dec 5th 2007
94. I'd love to see a progressive Christian on AOL; maybe a Marcus Borg so I'm not embarrassed for my faith every time I check out this site.
Dwight Welch at 10:58AM on Dec 5th 2007
95.
I have been posting two questions that chrisians won't touch. No matter how many time's I post them, they refuse to bite, with good reason. If you want to defend christianity against science, that's easy. Science has holes in it, that can be used as proof of god's existence. But you can't defend christianity against christianity, because it's most basic tenets work against itself.
Any time any of you think you want to try, here they are:
Question #1: When god was attacked by satan, why did he fling his attacker at Man rather than imprison him?
Question #2: Why did god sacrifice his son to undo the damage created by flinging his attacker at man?
Ken at 10:59AM on Dec 5th 2007
96. You shouldnt be embarrassed by your own faith, you should be embarrased by theirs. lol
a born atheist at 11:01AM on Dec 5th 2007
97. http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF103-Nice_Shirt.gif
Unicorn power!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus
Shun the nonbeliever! (more relevant)
"Unicorn" originally referred possibly to the Ice-Age era wooly rhinoceros Elasmotherium. If you don't believe in unicorns you don't believe in evolution, so HA!
Mokele-Mbembe at 11:04AM on Dec 5th 2007
98. Oh, and Dineshhh, "winning" a debate, even if you really think you did, doesn't mean anything for your philosophy. It's not 0 to 3 either way.
It may mean your debate skills are marginally better, probably from all of the hateful positions you've had to defend over the years.
But even your debate skill ability remains to be seen.
brandon at 11:05AM on Dec 5th 2007
99. Dinesh is the man! He has soundly defeated the leading atheists. What does this mean for atheists who hear this? They can either continue their unbelief in spite of the fact that the facts don't necessarily point that way or realize the deeper reasons they have rejected God and reanalyze their own beliefs.
Duke Cheston at 12:29PM on Dec 5th 2007
100. If atheists are simply non-beleivers, then as Dinesh has pointed out, why do atheist college professors feel it is their moral obligation to get their students who believe to reject God?
Kent at 1:41PM on Dec 5th 2007
101. This is the first debate I have seen envolving Dinesh and I must say Dennett did disappoint me. It appears the guy for lack of a better word choked. Back at RDF we routinely destroy the arguements made by Dinesh which he must know because he obviously just loves to qoute mine us. Of coure he convenietly leaves out that part from his blog. Fortunately the audience picked up where Dennett was sorely lacking. DINESH YOU ARE YET TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE WHEN IT COMES TO PASCALS WAGER? All your response boiled down to was the relation of pascals wager to agnostics which had nothing to do with the actual question.
Someone else basically asked you how you arrived at christianity through the points you stated in your debate which could not lead to anything near the conclusion of christiainty.
Your response(summerised after a long line of babbling) could only be described as I like this religion the best. Forget soft spoken dennett the audience could have kicked your behind.
And another thing after watching a couple professional debates as well as
participating in a few myself I have discovered a trend. So called christian debaters never seem anxious to get into debate on their own holy texts, doctrines etc. They always cling to the edges using anything that is so intangible and general it cannot currently be proven wrong like ID. When you actually get to what they beleve whether it is the bible or something else they can NEVER back it up with a logical argument (which I supposed is why you tried to duck the question on why you choose christianity). I don't see what is so special about Dinesh, after only three months I have already seen fundmentalist on Richard dawkins forum use these same old tired arguments again and again and get shot down again and again.If your looking for a debate so desperately why don't you actually POST SOMETHING on the forum instead of cherry picking some quotes and running off to your blog. We'll put you out of your misery.
Allister at 11:17AM on Dec 5th 2007
102. A poll was taken recently at a meeting of an American Atheist Society. They were asked, "Would you change your mind if you were presented with conclusive proof that God exists?" One third of them responded, "No! No amount of information will change what I think."
Another aspect that needs study is this: A disproportionate number of atheists have had damaging experiences or hurt from their fathers. Their God-hatred is a way of coping or handling the hurt they received from a failed relationship. I could write a book about this, but not now.
David Henry at 11:14AM on Dec 5th 2007
103. Richelle,
Dinesh has always been famous for only claiming his facts as truth. He tells the most one sided stories , all the while patting himself on the back so hard he becomes amused and stops listening to other peoples facts. This guy is such a pompous jerk you could stand him in front of a mirror and he could stare at his image all day smiling smugly.
danny at 11:18AM on Dec 5th 2007
104. Your point is that the vast majority of atheists would believe in god if there was proof? Sounds reasonable.
a born atheist at 11:17AM on Dec 5th 2007
105. "Their God-hatred is a way of coping or handling the hurt they received from a failed relationship."
Please, David, leave it on the preacher's podium. We don't hate something that doesn't exist. Period.
Wait, there is that rainbow-colored invisible kimono dragon that talks to me when I'm sad, and makes me sleep walk at night, and nobody else can see. I HATE HIM!!
brandon at 11:18AM on Dec 5th 2007