Here is the final part of my Cal Tech debate with atheist Michael Shermer. In some ways the question-and-answer sessions are the most interesting of these debates, because you never know what to expect. This debate features such bizarre inquiries as "Why does God hate amputees?" That one stumped me for a minute because I wasn't sure what our undergraduate Aristotle was getting at. I've got several more debates with leading atheists coming up this year. You can find the list on my website dineshdsouza.com.
Hitchens is stepping back into the ring with me, and we have a couple of showdowns ahead. We are going to be debating at a large libertarian convention where the audience is likely to be in Hitchens' camp. Shermer and I will put the gloves on again in March, but this time I will have the friendly crowd. We are debating next before 6,000 media at the National Religious Broadcasters convention. At Dartmouth, my alma mater, I'll be facing a local hero, philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. At Harvard I'm debating Dan Barker, head of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a kind of atheist ACLU. I'm especially looking forward to my debate Aprl 25 in Los Angeles with Peter Singer of Princeton University. You're welcome to come, but given Singer's relentless advocacy of euthanasia you may want to ask grandma to stay home.
I'd like to report that I'll be debating Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith. But Intrepid Sam has still not replied to my invitation to do both a written and an oral debate. The written debate was Sam's idea, so let's hope he isn't backing off from his own challenge. As for Richard Dawkins, he's still hiding in his closet! Finally I think I know why. I watched a DVD of Dawkins debating theologian John Lennox in Birmingham, and Dawkins got soundly whipped. The man is a terrible debater: halting, witless and verbose. Perhaps Dawkins is avoiding more debates for the same reason that many public school teachers resist undergoing competence evaluations: they know they won't pass muster.
The new atheists thought they had reason and science entirely on their side, but now you can see for yourself in these debates that it isn't so. Some atheists are so prejudiced that they won't admit it, of course. They will continue their delightful blather about what a cretin I am, how I got creamed, how stupid my mannerisms are, why I should go back to India, etc. But their own most articulate advocate, Christopher Hitchens, said publicly before our New York debate that I am one of the most formidable debaters he has faced on any subject. I think Hitchens is a more reliable source than "BornAtheist" or whatever. Besides, when they hurl embittered invective at me, my critics are unwittingly revealing that they are completly bereft of arguments.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 53)
1. Dinesh, it's amusing that you pretend that the only postings on your blogs from atheists are embittered invectives. Maybe you should give them a closer read?
Ryan Anderson at 9:52AM on Jan 25th 2008
2. lets just hope the poster boy for atheism will be sober enough this time to carry on a meaningful dialogue. last time they met hitchins was smug,incoherant, sipping his tonic and railing. the atheist cause was not helped. hitchens seems very angry indeed
brian at 10:05AM on Jan 25th 2008
3. DD,he new atheists thought they had reason and science entirely on their side, but now you can see for yourself in these debates that it isn't so. Some atheists are so prejudiced that they won't admit it, of course. They will continue their delightful blather about what a cretin I am, how I got creamed, how stupid my mannerisms are, why I should go back to India, etc. But their own most articulate advocate, Christopher Hitchens, said publicly before our New York debate that I am one of the most formidable debaters he has faced on any subject. I think Hitchens is a more reliable source than "BornAtheist" or whatever. Besides, when they hurl embittered invective at me, my critics are unwittingly revealing that they are completly bereft of arguments.
i totally agree. the atheist usually start the invectives when head-way is not made rather quickly. the name calling comes when they are cornered. i love the game!! the response is 100% certain everytime. and the best part is the atheist get to keep think they are the intellectual geniouses of the world. they are nice most of the time until riled. then the vile oozes
brian at 10:14AM on Jan 25th 2008
4. here's an example,
"399. Fuck you vedanta. You have no idea what Saddam was working on.
And everyone calls him 'saddam'. So fuck you again.
Linda at 12:14AM on Jan 25th 2008
this is what happens when you cross hairs with an atheist on a rage
brian at 10:17AM on Jan 25th 2008
5. Dammit, Dinesh, I read this article thinking you might actually clarify the title question and answer it while providing biblical sources. Instead, you give me a schedule of your speeches and how much you hate atheists. Whats the matter, couldn't think of anything to write?
AndrewV at 10:18AM on Jan 25th 2008
6. brian; with many of you, headway, as you call it, is impossible.
Ryan Anderson at 10:19AM on Jan 25th 2008
7. ryan,
why is it needed? why can you not accept the differences?
brian at 10:22AM on Jan 25th 2008
8. Um... brian... talk about "embittered invectives"
"... yet you have no peace in your hearts just RAGE,HATRED,ENVY,FACTIONS,MURDEROUS THOUGHTS,and you say your father is not the devil. satan himself is using you as his mouthpiece. too bad your mothers did not wash your mouths out when you were younger, there may have been hope. you should tone down the hate.what will you do when it becomes a crime to hate or will you have a clause its ok to hate conservatives??
brian at 9:01PM on Jan 23rd 2008
Ryan Anderson at 10:29AM on Jan 25th 2008
9. brian; in reference to headway. It's not necessary. I could care less and just like arguing. I would hope that we could learn from each other.
However, I've not seen the bitter invectives flow when we (atheists) don't "make headway". I've only seen them flow when some fundamentalist continually claimes that those that disagree with him/her are destined for hell.
Ryan Anderson at 10:32AM on Jan 25th 2008
10. "what will you do when it becomes a crime to hate or will you have a clause its ok to hate conservatives" - brian
How does the God/No God argument devolve into Conservative/Liberal debate? It seems the Christians on here think that Christianity and the Republican Party are one and the same. You can be Christian and be liberal too you know. I'm an atheist and I wouldn't call myself a liberal.
AndrewV at 10:32AM on Jan 25th 2008
11. I personally am flattered that brian little b reads my posts. I certainly don't read his. Too little wattage in the bulb.
Linda at 10:32AM on Jan 25th 2008
12. here's an example,
"399. Fuck you vedanta. You have no idea what Saddam was working on.
And everyone calls him 'saddam'. So fuck you again.
Linda at 12:14AM on Jan 25th 2008
this is what happens when you cross hairs with an atheist on a rage
brian at 10:17AM on Jan 25th
_______________________-
brian, is Linda a drunken sailor?
Or just an old hagg.....
keepitreal at 10:43AM on Jan 25th 2008
13. Isn't strange that Harris and Dawkins are so virulent, so righteous and serious but run and hide from a debate? Poor fellows...
If they are the atheists heroes atheism is in a very bad situation. Maybe they should try to use their vacant time to go back to a good library and read something about religion.
And oh, about science too. It would certainly be a time well spent.
So sad. So funny.
I can't understand how people cannot love those militant atheists... Fun as hell! (No pun intended)
Peace.
Galakto at 10:46AM on Jan 25th 2008
14. i totally agree. the atheist usually start the invectives when head-way is not made rather quickly. the name calling comes when they are cornered. i love the game!! the response is 100% certain everytime. and the best part is the atheist get to keep think they are the intellectual geniouses of the world. they are nice most of the time until riled. then the vile oozes
brian at 10:14AM on Jan 25th 2008
That is because it is hard to try to argue somoeone out of their religion. Try it with a Mormon ... take their Bible and show them that there is no evidence that Jesus or the lost tribes of Israel came to the new world 2000 years ago. Present every piece of evidence you have and see their reaction. Doesn't matter to them what the evidence says ... they believe and there is no point in going any further. Use all you powers of persuasion and I will bet at the the end of the day, invectives will be all you have left in your vocabulary!
Jim at 10:46AM on Jan 25th 2008
15. Can You Be Good Without God?
That was the sub topic. That is as ridiculous as asking:
Can You Be Good WITH God?
mac at 10:47AM on Jan 25th 2008