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.
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 Such Lousy Debaters
Posted Jan 3rd 2008 1:35PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Christianity, Controversy, Atheism, Film
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
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
- Dede Scozzafava: No Regrets and a Mission to Promote Independent Thinking Within GOP
- Physicians Group Pushes Government To Reconsider Marijuana For Medical Use
- Opinion About Michelle Obama In The South Breaks On Party Lines
- 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
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 88)
16. 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
17. 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
18. I agree with your blog Dinesh, but get ready for a lot of hate mail from atheists. They're almost as hate filled as homosexuals when it comes to anybody who disagrees with their point of view.
Robert Wayne at 3:43PM on Jan 3rd 2008
19. ATHEIST
Reply to: 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.
____________
Michael Shermer did not even TRY.
Right here in the comment section of your blog, I have done exactly that.
Through "a kind of gladiatorial elimination" I have convinced everyone who comments that Dinesh D'Souza is a cowardly, dishonest little weasel who LIES about his own debate record.
If Michael Shermer agrees, before the debate begins, not to embarrass you by exposing your silly religious beliefs as Total Nonsense.... he didn't lose the debate.
Let's look at Christianity:
RESURRECTION
The dead will come back to life in new bodies.
DEMONIC SPIRITS
Jesus told his disciples they would have the power to command demonic spirits after his death.
ANGELS
A 13 year-old girl was told by an angel that her child would be the son of god.
DAY OF JUDGMENT
Jesus predicted the son of man would appear in the clouds with thousands of angels before "all the people standing here taste of death." That deadline expired in 120 AD, or earlier.
The FACTS prove that Christianity is based on unreason.
Ghost Stories are really cool.... but they're FICTION.
William Hays at 3:47PM on Jan 3rd 2008
20. I have a passion for science, and I have a passion for Christ...It is that passion for God that gives me the passion for science, because I am in relationship with the Creator Himself! "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, what our heavenly Father has in store for us as His children!"
Bridget at 3:53PM on Jan 3rd 2008
21. ATHEIST
Reply to: Are you conceding that there is in fact a God and that His name is Jesus Christ? Dawn
Again, this NONSENSE needs an answer.
Atheists are individuals.
There is no central organization for Atheists.
Every Atheist is free to hold opinions that the rest of the group might disagree with.
______________
Jesus was an ordinary human being.
After Jesus died, stories were invented that painted him as a hero from Greek mythology. A virgin conception and all that.
By saying that human beings need a Savior to pay a terrible penalty for their sinful nature.... Christianity HURTS children.
Matthew Murray is a great example of TOXIC Christianity.
Dawn, please allow us to DISCUSS the issues without making your ridiculous comments. No one admitted anything of the sort.
This is a message board. We don't have to post "the story in the gospels was invented AFTER Jesus died" in every single post. duh.
duh, dawn. dud, duh, duh. Quit trying to derail the conversation with your ridiculous lies.
William Hays at 3:52PM on Jan 3rd 2008
22. Will, seriously, stop hating. Newsbloggers don't respond to their commentaries. And let's say that Dinesh has the courtesy to respond to every single post - that means he's got hundreds of posts to go through in any single place, and of course those people would respond back to him. How in the world d'you think he'd get anything done?
Seriously, stop flaming.
Ryan at 3:56PM on Jan 3rd 2008
23. Mr. William, I can't believe that you don't believe in ghosts my friend
Bridget at 3:56PM on Jan 3rd 2008
24. ATHEIST
Reply to: 21. Will, seriously, stop hating. Newsbloggers don't respond to their commentaries.
________
Where did you see that? Is it written down?
Dinesh has posted several blogs talking about Atheists being unwilling to debate him.
I explained my position.
A debate in front of an audience can't last more than 3 hours. People get up and leave.
A debate on an Internet forum can last for weeks.
We can post links to sites with videos and hundreds of pages of facts. Very useful when discussing the exact text of Genesis.
http://unbound.biola.edu
In his book, Dinesh says the Genesis account is an accurate depiction of the Big Bang.
the FACTS show that, in the first Genesis myth, trees were bearing fruit on the surface of the earth BEFORE the sun or other stars were made.
Dinesh LIES. I need the FACTS to prove he's a liar.
and I need to post links so you can see that I'm right.
dinesh needs to come down here... expose his lack of expertise... and admit defeat.
I will then cut off his head and mount it on my den wall as a trophy. Dinesh is just another silly christian dimwit.
Reply to: 18. . Would any one in your organization (or any competent person you know) would like to debate me about the Newton's First Law of Motion.
The way this works is...
post your Opening Statment.
I've posted mine.
William Hays at 4:05PM on Jan 3rd 2008
25. ATHEIST
Reply to: 22. Mr. William, I can't believe that you don't believe in ghosts my friend
______
And someone in your Fellowship Group told you that your opinion is important?
6.7 billion people.
Do you care about their opinions? How many?
Human beings are insignificant. If we had a billion ghosts running around, someone would notice.
ghost stories... are FICTION.
Devise a test so you can tell FICTION from NON-FICTION.
William Hays at 4:08PM on Jan 3rd 2008
26. Hey,D'Souza!
Your Momma!
(that's how a debate starts in my neighborhood)
Captain Negative at 4:11PM on Jan 3rd 2008
27. William Hays: I'm agnostic. It's the only reasonable scientific answer, because the question is moot. Anyway, I believe in empty tombs: simple answer, grave robbers. I also believe in virgin conception. It would be implausable, but not impossible in that time. As for today we have the technology. As for ghosts appearing to girlfriends in cemetaries, call it a hallucination caused by emotional distress.
Thomas at 4:30PM on Jan 3rd 2008
28. One has to give Denise (Dinesh) credit, when it comes to being totally deluded and in love with oneself, he takes the cake.
gshort3011 at 4:32PM on Jan 3rd 2008
29. To Will:
It's not written down. This is something I've observed. I've posted in these forums before, and I've never ever gotten a reply back. This means either:
a) I'm too reasonable, and the bloggers are just in humble awe of my sheer awesome.
b) I'm too unreasonable, and there's just no way anybody wants to talk with me. I can't be reasoned with and there's no sense in trying.
c) Maybe it's just too hard to respond to so many people.
I know A's right out, and I don't think B's the reason either, but maybe I'm just flattering myself. :) So C. I'm guessing you've read some of the other stuff D'Souza's posted. I'm also going to guess you've seen he often generates hundreds of responses. He's been a little slow lately, but even still, that doesn't change what he's done in the past.
Now, sure, some of those posts are multiple-postings by single users. But can a few people generate upwards of 500 posts? Well, yes. But not in the space of time that they spring up. As you've said, Internet debates can take weeks. So that means that there must be a lot of people posting. That means that D'Souza would have a lot of people to respond to.
Now, responding to people is not his job, nor is it his obligation. His job is to write books and to write this column. Same with the others. They don't have any obligation to us and our requests that they come down off their pedestals so we can malign their thoughts and beliefs.
But let's say he does. Let's say he takes the time for us. Let's say he makes a post, and generates a hundred comments. Let's say a few people generate twenty five. That means he has at least seventy five people to talk to and get back to, notwithstanding the few people who generate the remaining comments.
Now, you said that a single debate can go for weeks on the Internet. All that research, all those links, everything, for one-on-one. Now, multiply that at least seventy five times.
That's just for one post of his. But he's being paid to post. He can't spend weeks talking to people. He's got a job to do. So naturally, he makes another post. And naturally, people comment. And it's right back where he was to begin with.
I hope I've painted an accurate picture of how logistically difficult it would be for D'Souza to do this. If he is responding, he's probably stuck somewhere before 'A New Kind of Love.'
Ryan at 4:35PM on Jan 3rd 2008
30. As we can all tell Mr. Hays has just proven everything that Mr. D'Souza has just said. These people do not love or like anything to do with the Christian love anyone. The atheists are infact some of the most unhappy people that I know. Mr. Hays has issues and Brian is just plain upset with all Christians. We can't even have a everyday conversation without one of them telling us that we think that we are better then they are. It is very sad, you can't be Christian and put yourself above anyone. You can differ with them but, these people take it personally. They have a different code to their life because they feel they don't have to answer to anyone in authority. You can't make them understand that you care because they don't understand caring. Sorry but, that is not my way of being a Christian. I have a higher power that I must answer to. His name is JESUS CHRIST. Rita
Rtia at 4:37PM on Jan 3rd 2008