UPDATE: If you haven't seen my debates with Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer and Daniel Dennett, you can watch them here. I am waiting for Shermer to post our Cal Tech debate of December 9, which was recorded by his Skeptic Society.
I watched the movie "The Great Debaters" last night, and it helped me to understand why atheists are such bad debaters. The movie portrays four students from a little black college in Texas, and shows how, under the tutelage of their pugnacious coach, they went on to defeat Almighty Harvard. Denzel Washington, who plays the coach, says early in the movie that debate is a kind of bloodsport. It's great virtue is that it puts rival ideas up against each other, as argued by people who passionately espouse those ideas, and then it lets the truth emerge through a kind of gladiatorial elimination.
For about three years, it appeared as though the leading atheists were formidable debaters. But the reason was that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens were selecting weak opponents and then generally giving them a public whipping. In one staged encounter, hardly a debate, Richard Dawkins ambushed televangelist Ted Haggard for a film Dawkins was making. Not only did Dawkins control the format, he also controlled what was shown on film. No wonder Dawkins got the better of that encounter. Harris took on pastor Rick Warren in Newsweek, where Harris made outrageous allegations and Warren basically said that Christians are nice people because they help AIDS victims in Africa. Again, this was hardly a fair fight. Hitchens promoted his book God Is Not Great by traipsing through the South taking on local pastors. Now your typical pastor is not used to debating a versatile and suave character like Hitchens. A few months ago Hitchens embarrassed theologian Alister McGrath in Washington D.C. One problem is that Hitchens has the Richard Burton accent and McGrath sounds like he just came in from shooting birds in the Scottish highlands. Another problem is that McGrath couldn't handle Hitchens' vitriolic accusations and came off looking conciliatory and weak.
Unlike the characters in "The Great Debaters," I was never part of a debate team. I got my debate practice through confronting critics of my various books. Mostly I learned by taking on such seasoned debaters as presidential candidate Walter Mondale, the literary scholar Stanley Fish, and a whole series of civil rights activists from Cornel West to Jesse Jackson. Prior to my debate with Hitchens, he described me as "one of the most formidable debaters on any topic." Richard Dawkins seems to agree: the great Haggard-slayer has somehow gotten cold feet when it comes to debating me. I guess he's afraid that I'll make him look as ridiculous as Haggard.
Then there's Sam Harris, who tells me that debate is not a very useful medium to arrive at the truth. He didn't seem to think that previously, but now it seems that he too is afraid of looking like a public fool. Harris wants to engage in a written debate, and I've agreed, but it should be noted that written debates allow each side to consult experts and therefore they don't reflect the true spirit of debate, which is the clash of ideas embodied in the most articulate representatives of those ideas. I've suggested to Harris a couple of weeks ago that we do both a written and an oral debate, and I'm waiting to hear his response.
Why are the atheists faring so badly in these debates? I think the main reason is that they are so arrogant. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens really think that their position reflects pure reason and that my position reflects "blind faith." If this were really true they should win every single debate, for the same reason that a round-earth advocate should never lose to a flat-earth advocate. In reality there are good arguments on both sides, and I as a believer know this. I know it's hard to make the case for an invisible God and for an afterlife. In short, I know the strength of the argument on the other side. Leading atheists, however, simply do not expect to hear good counterarguments to their position. When they do, they have no idea how to answer them. So they either erupt into jejune name-calling (all to familiar to readers of this blog) or they slowly fall apart (witness what happened to Daniel Dennett).
In reality, I don't have to win debates against atheists; I merely have to draw. Just by coming out even, I defeat the atheist premise that atheism is the position based on reason and religion is the position based on unreason. Even a tie shows that both positions are reasonable. By defeating atheists in debate, however, I have totally exploded the atheist self-pretense. I have shown atheists to be the unreasonable ones, and this is why leading atheists like Dawkins and Harris are now going into hiding. But if these guys are scared to debate me, even in secular university settings where the audience is largely on their side, what does this say about them and about the soundness of their positions? Perhaps Dawkins and company should go and see "The Great Debaters." They might get some useful tips, and they might also get their nerve back.
Dinesh's Blog Roll
Featured Bloggers
 | Ada Calhoun |
 | Ben Greenman |
 | Dinesh D'Souza |
 | Jeff Hoard |
 | Mo Rocca |
 | Young Turks |
RSS Feeds
Resources
Dinesh D'Souza
Reports
Bestselling author DINESH D’SOUZA’s latest book is What’s So Great About Christianity. read more
Why Atheists Are Such Lousy Debaters
What's So Great About Christianity
Dinesh D'Souza's acclaimed New York Times bestseller, What's So Great About Christianity, is in stores. Order now!
Top Tags
BertAndErnie WarRecord BrianKilmeade Starbucks FalseConfessions Devo NewYorkTimes oompaloompas PUMAs Playboy AbuGhraib MadeleineAlbright congress HospitalNegligence JohnMccain fairytale BarackObama ChineseTortureDocument RobertJastrow DoctoredPhotos KarenHanretty IraqWar death GeneralWesleyClark YoungTurks Hillary JimGibbons BushAdministration nrcc torture HuffingtonPost fireworks FoxAndFriends scary McDonalds ExecutiveExperience GuantanamoBay movies republicans pow DetaineeAbuse dating EnhancedInterrogation funeral FoxNewsChannel reporters bitterness childbirth afghanistan WhatsSoGreatAboutAmerica
Most Popular Stories
Most Commented On News Bloggers
Recent Comments
Top News Headlines
Ada Calhoun |
Ben Greenman |
Dinesh D'Souza |
Jeff Hoard |
Mo Rocca |
The Young Turks |
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 88)
1. Dinesh; maybe their unwillingness to debate you speaks more to your lack of relevancy?
Ryan Anderson at 2:31PM on Jan 3rd 2008
2. Until Denise can argue both affirmative and negative he's no debater. He's just a preacher.
Clif Kuplen at 2:46PM on Jan 3rd 2008
3. With all due respect, Dinesh, and I'm a believer myself, Hitchens schooled you. About halfway through What's So Great About Christianity and enjoying it though!
Sherif at 3:05PM on Jan 3rd 2008
4. How flattering Mr. D'Souza compares atheists to the "almight Harvard." I like it.
And did Mr. D'Souza actually mention Ted Haggard's name in the above article? Something about Richard Dawkin's 'ambushing' him?
Perhaps the good "reverend" should not have agreed to the debate. But given what Haggard was REALLY busy doing, no wonder he had no time to prepare for a debate!
David S. at 3:07PM on Jan 3rd 2008
5. Is denise declaring himself a master debater?
Clif Kuplen at 3:07PM on Jan 3rd 2008
6. Sure, "written debates allow each side to consult experts". Maybe that doesn't "reflect the true spirit of debate", but wouldn't that allow for more nuanced, detailed, thoughtful, and accurate points to be made? Wouldn't that allow the best possible arguments to be advanced for each side, and not merely what any one 'representative', however "articulate", might be able to propound on the spot?
Oral debate makes fine theater, no doubt. But Dinesh undermines his own point here, by stating that atheists were winning against "weak opponents". What does the *truth* of an idea have to do with the 'strength' or 'weakness' of the opponents? Indeed, why does Dinesh imply that the theists lost because they were 'weak' proponents, but the atheists lost because of the (un)"soundness of their positions"? On what does he base that assessment?
Perhaps Dinesh has won oral debates against atheists - the only one I've watched, with Dennett, didn't strike me that way - but even if that were true, perhaps he just hasn't met an atheist who's a 'strong' oral debater... yet.
Ray Ingles at 3:08PM on Jan 3rd 2008
7. ATHEIST
DINESH: In reality, I don't have to win debates against atheists; I merely have to draw. Just by coming out even, I defeat the atheist premise that atheism is the position based on reason and religion is the position based on unreason.
___________
another LIE.
At the start of your debate at Cal Tech, you said you were NOT going to defend the events in the bible. You were ONLY going to talk about recent church history.
You only demonstrated to the audience that you're a silly little man, and not a scholar.
Let me list some of the things atheists think are based on unreason:
RESURRECTION
GHOSTS APPEARING TO GIRLFRIENDS IN CEMETARIES
EXORCISM
DEMONIC SPIRITS
A VIRGIN CONCEPTION
A FIERY PIT TO PUNISH ANGELS
EMPTY TOMBS
SIN
A SAVIOR WHO DIED IN YOUR PLACE
I've seen a lot of people who died... and there was no Savior who died in their place.
Every time you speak, Dinesh.... you lose.
Because Atheistm is the Correct Answer.
You asked Michael Shermer some of your silly questions, and the audience applauded his answers.
Because your questions were juvenile and ridiculous.
William Hays at 3:13PM on Jan 3rd 2008
8. Short answer: atheists are "lousy debaters" because they intellectually kick your ass every time.
Long answer: atheists are "lousy debaters" because they intellectually kick your ass every time.
IOW: Go throw a tantrum somewhere else, idiot. It's neither the fault nor the problem of atheists that you are trying to defend that which cannot be rationally defended. It's YOUR problem and YOUR fault. YOU deal with it. Don't pawn your stupidity onto us.
And why is it that you hate atheists so much, other than the fact that they routinely intellectually kick your ass?
Once again: I challenge you to a debate. There will be some ground rules, such as you attempting to smear atheists with communism will result in an automatic disqualification for you. After all: if you want to whine about "jejune name-calling", then you cannot do it, either. Unless, of course, you enjoy being a hypocrite.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:14PM on Jan 3rd 2008
9. The greatest debaters that I have ever heard about were athiests: Socrates and Clarence Darrow.
The best debater on TV is the lawyer on Boston Legal: Allan Shore. He appears to be an athiest.
But the bigger picture is: who pleases God more?
I think athiests do. And I wouldn't at all be surprised to discover if Jesus' contemporaries thought he was an athiest, too.
The Goddess Athena at 3:17PM on Jan 3rd 2008
10. ATHEIST
Reply to: Why are the atheists faring so badly in these debates? I think the main reason is that they are so arrogant. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens really think that their position reflects pure reason and that my position reflects "blind faith."
___________
Are you joking?
In your debate with Michael Shermer, you both agreed on the topic
"Is religion a force for good or evil in the world?"
If you LIMIT your discussion to that topic, how would anything you say be based on "blind faith"?
Shermer agreed to your topic for several reasons.
(1) He was doing PR for his organization, which is based on Cal Tech.
(2) He wanted you to come off as credible because he's your friend.
Dinesh, you're losing THIS debate.
The one we're having on THIS forum.
Because I've torn your Opening Statement apart, and you haven't responded to mine.
Everyone here knows WHY you're lying.
You're full of yourself.
Reply to: I know it's hard to make the case for an invisible God and for an afterlife. In short, I know the strength of the argument on the other side. Leading atheists, however, simply do not expect to hear good counterarguments to their position (end)
You haven't made a "good counterargument."
You've said "Having a belief in a God has been of greater benefit to humanity than having a belief in no God."
The age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.
For the first NINE BILLION years, the earth and our sun did not exist.
NINE BILLION YEARS before your God got around to creating human life.
You're talking about an Imaginary God.
SCIENCE has exposed your silly religious beliefs as NOT CREDIBLE.
Michael Shermer could have spent three hours giving the evidence against a God... but he didn't because he agreed to debate the topic,
"Is religion a force for good or evil?"
At the end of the Cal Tech debate, the moderator had to ask the audience to stop laughing at you.
It's right there on the video.
William Hays at 3:22PM on Jan 3rd 2008
11. The high time for so-called christian debaters was during the Inquisition. Then, they had the Malleus Malificarum at their disposal, the casuistry of Jesuits, the monopoly on faith in Europe and no end of stakes on which to burn those who disagreed with them. And they still lost. Their failure is called the Reformation, the Age of Reason, the founding of the United States of America, the French Revolution, the rise of Scientific method, Democracy, Marxism, the Russian Revolution and the Suicide of Royal houses in WWI. The only way religion can ever win hearts and minds is through force; just look at how the Muslims are doing it now in the lands they occupy. Only survivors of their purges get to live and await the second coming.
Why do they pay you, little man? Why do you not get a job?
@#$%&! at 3:31PM on Jan 3rd 2008
12. Dinesh, you're correct. When I read the word of God, I see repeated appeals to its reasonableness. I take on atheists online constantly, and they are typically used to beating weaker opponents. When they meet someone strong, they are at a total loss. If the responses to your posts are typical of the intellectual firepower of the average atheist, I am certain I'm on the right side. It's almost comical, but really sad when you consider the position they have chosen to defend.
Steve at 3:33PM on Jan 3rd 2008
13.
Ray Ingles, this is a decent point. But the fact is, if you took the winning team of the NCAA debates, and had them debate ANY issue, EITHER side with the average American college student, they'd run the table. They would probably win both sides of a position against 2 different opponents. Why do the atheists fall at the feet of Dawkins? He's their MAN! If their position was so good, wouldn't each and every one of them be able to make the same case just as convincingly? Of course not. And such is the answer to your original question.
Steve at 3:34PM on Jan 3rd 2008
14. ATHEIST
Since Michael Shermer made no attempt to expose Christianity as "based on unreason" in the Cal Tech debate, I'll post some of "what he might have said"
http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=521"
MICHAEL SHERMER: I am an atheist. There, I said it.
Are you happy, all you atheists out there who have remonstrated with me for adopting the agnostic moniker? If “atheist” means someone who does not believe in God, then an atheist is what I am.
(In the Cal Tech debate, both Dinesh and Shermer spoke as Agnostics. Shermer has apologized. Since we all understand that he was doing PR work for his organization instead of actually debating, Apology accepted.)
SHERMER: But I detest such labels. Call me what you like—humanist, secular humanist, agnostic, nonbeliever, nontheist, freethinker, heretic, or even bright. I prefer skeptic.
Still, all such labels are just a form of cognitive economy, a shortcut into pigeonholing our fellow primates into tidy categories that supplant the deeper probing of what someone actually thinks and says.
When asked if I believe in God, I reply, “No.” When queried on the God question, I simply say, “I don’t believe in God.” No far-left rants, just simple answers.
But the bottom line is what we all know: In America, atheists are associated with... pinko commie fags hell-bent on conning our youth into believing all that baloney about equal rights and evolution. I’m not one of those bastards, am I?
Well, technically speaking, yes, I am.
As for evolution, it happened. Deal with it.
I don’t know why the God question is so enmeshed with all of these other social issues, but it is. It shouldn’t be. It’s OK to be a liberal Christian or a conservative atheist. I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.
**** I don’t think there is a God, or any sort of anthropomorphic being who needs to be worshipped, who listens to prayers, who keeps a moral scoreboard that will be settled in the end, or who cares one iota about who wins the Super Bowl. ****
There is no afterlife. We just die, and that’s it.
Which is why what we do in this life matters so much—and why how we treat others in the here and now is more important than how they might be treated in some hereafter that may or may not exist.
*** If we knew for certain that there is an afterlife, we wouldn’t have great debates about it,****
...
... If you want to live in the United States, there are rules about how you must treat other people. Religion and politics should be treated as Non-Overlapping Magisteria, or NOMA, in paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould’s apt model for religion and science.
With this confessional, then, it may surprise you to learn that I was once a born-again evangelical Christian who attended Pepperdine University (a Church of Christ institution) with the intention of becoming a theologian. Although living in the Malibu hills overlooking the Pacific Ocean was a motivating factor in my choice of college, the primary reason I went to Pepperdine was that
**** I took my mission for Christ seriously.***
I took courses in the Old and New Testaments, Jesus the Christ, and the writings of C.S. Lewis. I attended chapel twice a week—
...somewhere along the way, I found science, and that changed everything.
When I discovered that a doctorate in theology required proficiency in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, knowing that foreign languages were not my strong suit (I struggled through two years of high school Spanish), I switched to psychology and mastered one of the languages of science: statistics.
....The switch to science, however, was only one factor in my deconversion. There was also
**** the intolerance generated by absolute morality, the logical outcome of knowing without doubt that you are right and everyone else is wrong. ****
... By the end of my first year in a graduate program in experimental psychology at California State University, Fullerton, I had abandoned Christianity,
**** replacing the stultifying dogma of a 2,000- year-old religion with the worldview of an always changing, always fresh science. ****
The passionate nature of this perspective was espoused most emphatically by my evolutionary biology professor, Bayard Brattstrom, particularly at a local bar where his after-class discussions went late into the night. This was the final factor in my road back from Damascus: I enjoyed the company and friendship of science people much more than that of religious people. Science was where the action was for me. But from where would I get my spirituality?
Spirituality is a way of being in the world, a sense of one’s place in the cosmos, a relationship to that which extends beyond ourselves. There are many sources of spirituality; religion may be the most common, but it is by no means the only.
(end)
__________
Shermer did NOT attempt to make the Atheist's case for God being a figment of somebody's imagination.
I will be glad to make that case.... as soon as Dinesh climbs down from his podium and agrees to debate the issues... that he said atheists were unprepared to debate.
http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=521"
DINESH: I defeat the atheist premise that atheism is the position based on reason and religion is the position based on unreason. Even a tie shows that both positions are reasonable. By defeating atheists in debate, however, I have totally exploded the atheist self-pretense. I have shown atheists to be the unreasonable ones, (end)
Read Michael Shermer's comments again.
I see NOTHING in his comments that would allow you to describe him as unreasonable.
William Hays at 3:38PM on Jan 3rd 2008
15. goddess athena: ?????? You think Jesus is more pleased with Atheists? Because??????????? How can anyone hope to please a non-existent(according to you) God? Are you conceding that there is in fact a God and that His name is Jesus Christ? Or is that more of the same kind of superior logic of Atheists. "God doesn't exist, but if He did He would like me more" LOL
dawn at 3:42PM on Jan 3rd 2008