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 2 of 53)
16. I believe somebody said there is none good no not one...
keepitreal at 10:53AM on Jan 25th 2008
17. 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
_____________________
If you think that is difficult, try to help an atheist understand that evolution is not a proven fact for the origin of humam life.
hand/foot/way at 11:00AM on Jan 25th 2008
18. So far Ive only seen one of your debates and I can't remember your opponent's name but I think it was Mr. Hitchens. When the debate began, I had two thoughts. One thought is that atheism in a God given right, or at least a God allowed choice. Even so the consequinces are tragic. Secondly, I truely believe both atheism and Christianity begin with blind faith. Fortunately for Christians, God gives us the Holy Spirit to seal and confirm His relationship with us while atheist need to keep searching for "evidence" that God does not exist. At the end of the debate, I was convinced that many people who were undecided about atheism vs. Christianity had some facts to consider. Your opponent didn't offer any proof God didn't exist, he only tried to cast doubt about His existence. I look forward to your next debate, and may God bless you.
larrymariong at 12:59PM on Jan 25th 2008
19. hand/foot/way; we know "evolution is not a proven fact for the origin of humam life", however we also know that the preponderance of evidence supports the theory that evolution explains the origin of all life.
What actual evidence is there for a creator.
Ryan Anderson at 11:04AM on Jan 25th 2008
20. brian, is Linda a drunken sailor?
Or just an old hagg.....
keepitreal at 10:43AM on Jan 25th 2008
Let's examine another of brians posts, shall we?
---
mona-the-bona. clinons was to busy with the knob slob. brian 9:48PM on Jan 24 2008
--
No hate or bitterness there.
mac at 11:05AM on Jan 25th 2008
21. The Bible says that God is a spirit.... how do you measure a spirit, or spiritual things? W
Shannie at 11:10AM on Jan 25th 2008
22. I think it is hilarious that DD'Stupid doesn't even explain the title of today's blog.
The argument goes like this: If 'god' is real and omnipotent why doesn't 'he' show that he loves amputees by making the lost limb grow back? According to the bibles, 'he' is capable of anything, including that.
In fact, why no 'more' miracles at all?
I was at the DC debate DD had with Shermer, and he was gently blown away by Shermer's logic and examples of the horrible influence of chritianity throughout the centuries.
The funny thing about that debate was DD opened up the debate with a speech that had nothing to do with the ascribed topic. Made him look like D'Idiot from the get-go. And the majority christian right audience was mostly quiet during the debate.
Funny how he forgets to mention that.
Linda at 11:13AM on Jan 25th 2008
23. Ryan,
Long time no talk. It's good to be back.
I wouldn't call you an Atheist. I see spirituality in you. I don't know to what degree, but you have an "outside the box" mentality.
After all, Einstein did say that Reality is an Illusion and a very persistent one at that. I would say that he had a good understanding of things.
"If you think that is difficult, try to help an atheist understand that evolution is not a proven fact for the origin of humam life." hand/foot/way
Science goes striclty off of evidence. Constant testing and then constant verification.
You can't prove intelligent design. It is faith. But why are you so simple minded to not say that evolution is from the designer? Is that not more beautiful? And yet Evolution in no way disproves Genesis. If you only read the words of Genesis, you won't get it. And what you think you get, you don't.
Botts at 11:15AM on Jan 25th 2008
24. Hello, Botts. Missed your insight the last few blogs. :)
K at 11:17AM on Jan 25th 2008
25. Linda, if all of a sudden an amputee grew an arm back, would you consider that evidence of God?
AndrewV at 11:19AM on Jan 25th 2008
26. Here's the website with the details on the question D'Souza mentioned but didn't actually answer:
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
Ray Ingles at 11:33AM on Jan 25th 2008
27. Linda...If you read the Gospels, Jesus responded to faith, not human need.
Shannie at 11:25AM on Jan 25th 2008
28. You can't prove intelligent design. It is faith. But why are you so simple minded to not say that evolution is from the designer? Is that not more beautiful? And yet Evolution in no way disproves Genesis. If you only read the words of Genesis, you won't get it. And what you think you get, you don't.
Botts at 11:15AM on Jan
_______________________--
Because evolution is not creation you dork.
hand/foot/way at 11:26AM on Jan 25th 2008
29. . Linda, if all of a sudden an amputee grew an arm back, would you consider that evidence of God?
AndrewV at 11:19AM on Jan 25th 2008
Or a very clever scientist. Take cloning and such out of the mix and I would consider it a miracle.
mac at 11:28AM on Jan 25th 2008
30. Botts; how are things? You are right. I am firmly an agnostic.
As it works out, I side with the "atheist" in most of these debates, because I am staunchly "anti-inerrancy of the bible/quran/etc." and anti-fundamentalist.
I truly believe everyone is an agnostic, by definition, whether they admit it or not. How can you KNOW? Ha ha... that sounded very much like soemthing the fundamentalist I so heartily disagree with would say.
To address your last sentance... the big bang could be from a designer whom we have no current way of observing or measuring. That is absolutely true. But it could not be as well. Evolution could be the "designers" method, or it could just be a way that systems progress.
There is no proof, either positve or negative. However, you typically don't have to prove a negative.
I have no idea and I'm fine with that.
Ryan Anderson at 11:28AM on Jan 25th 2008