A few days ago I debated Michael Shermer at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville. Shermer was his usual affable self and the mostly-Christian audience both liked him and treated him respectfully. I didn't feel bad about putting Shermer before a largely religious audience. The last time we debated I was in hostile territory at Cal Tech. The Cal Tech debate was sponsored by Shermer's Skeptics Society and most in the audience were on his side. The debate was moderated by Christian radio host Janet Parshall. She conducted it in a format similar to the presidential debates, in which the moderator poses questions to each side.
On July 12, a few months from now, I have a rematch with atheist Christopher Hitchens. This is in Las Vegas at the large libertarian annual conference called Freedom Fest. This is one of the liveliest political conferences in the country, and I invite readers of this blog, whatever your religious or political persuasion, to attend. Each year the libertarians have invited me to debate, and each year they tell me, "Well, next year we're going to find someone who can take you on." The first year I went I debated libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. The next year, former Congressman Bob Barr. Last year, presidential contender Ron Paul. This time organizer Mark Skousen has decided to focus the main debate on the God v. atheism issue. So Hitchens and I will enter the arena. You can find out more information and sign up here.
April 25 I'll be debating the notorious Peter Singer at Biola University near Los Angeles. This is another event worth attending, although I also intend to post the debate on the web. When Singer was hired by Princeton University some years ago it caused a big stir. Singer is a champion not only of infanticide and euthanasia but also of animal rights! This may seem to be anomalous, even absurd, but Singer is an avid Darwinist who sees himself as following the logic of Darwinism to its unavoidable conclusion.
Man, Singer argues, is on a continuum with the animals. Unfortunately through the influence of Christianity man has raised himself onto a pedestal, invested himself with all kinds of bogus rights, such as the "right to life," and consigned beasts to a life of subordination to human interests. Singer argues that once we get rid of God we must accept our Darwinian position, and this means giving up the values that Christianity brought into the world. Ultimately human beings must be pulled down a notch, and animals raised up a notch, to restore the biological order of things. I've been reading Singer's books which are always thoughtful and eloquent; he is far superior to some of the new atheists who have gotten far more attention in the last couple of years. I look forward to taking him on next month.
Also in April: I'll be debating philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong April 21 at Dartmouth, where he teaches and where I attended. Our topic is whether it is possible to be good without God. On April 22 at Harvard I'll share the podium with Dan Barker. Barker is a former evangelical minister who is now an outspoken atheist. He is currently head of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a kind of atheist ACLU. We keep hearing from atheists that they are not a movement and that "atheism is not a belief system" but merely the denial of a belief in God. So isn't it interesting that we now have atheist books, atheist magazines, atheist conferences, atheist organizations, atheist Sunday schools, an atheist radio show, and so on? Quite clearly atheism has become an ideology and our atheist friends cannot escape criticism by inanely proclaiming that their position doesn't constitute a position. Perhaps one of these days these characters will stop living in denial and prove worthy of the rational realism that they claim to uphold.
Some atheists have emailed me asking me if I've accepted Sam Harris' offer to a written debate. A few months ago Harris proposed such a debate, and I agreed, but also proposed to Sam that we have an oral debate in the classic format. Written debates strike me as a bit wimpy, since both debaters can get advice and assistance from various experts. The advantage of a face-to-face encounter is that it compels each side to think on its feet and make its best case before a live audience. Having himself proposed the written debate, Harris hasn't responded to my counteroffer.
Given that Richard Dawkins has already wimped out, proving himself an intellectual invertebrate, I'm beginning to wonder whether some of the world's best-known atheists are losing the courage of their convictions. One of my former professors now calls me Joe Louis, in reference to the boxer who knocked out so many "bums of the month" that he eventually had trouble finding worthy opponents. Although modern atheism is very belligerent in its writings--angry missives issued from the security of academic offices--it seems that some of our leading advocates of unbelief are positively timorous when it comes to standing up and debating their core convictions.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 61)
1. Shhhhhh everybody...let's just humor Dinesh and maybe he will go away...
Ahem, uh, Yes, Mr. D'Souza, you have vanquished all athiests with your superior debate skills. The now quiver in corners waiting for Satan to take them to the pit of Hell...
You may now retire to your well earned reward. No need to write any more blogs on aol. Jesus is proud of you. Enjoy your retirement.
Shhhh...let's see if it works...
Davidg at 11:55PM on Mar 16th 2008
2. Im grateful and thankful for Dinesh D'Souza and his work. For truly open minded people (not those who think they are but havent a clue)his writings-his book is intelligent and insightful.
Larry E at 12:09AM on Mar 17th 2008
3. D.D,
I wish you well in the upcoming debates. Perhaps God will use you in a way that might change the heart and mind of even one professing atheist to the Truth, the Gospel of Grace. May God bless you and use you in a mighty way. D.D. don't forget where your strength comes from and don't forget Proverbs 16:18.
Jerry at 12:14AM on Mar 17th 2008
4. an egoist like this never leaves-
he's practicing for the heavyweights singer and hitchens-
they will slay him yet again, and he will return to tell of his brilliance in loss... concluding that victory resurrected from the grave of his sarcasm.
and then he'll blog some more.
odin-t at 1:16AM on Mar 17th 2008
5. obviously you think your ass smells good....
robert at 1:21AM on Mar 17th 2008
6. The title of this post is "Are Atheists Now Scared to Debate?"
But then you spend 4 1/2 paragraphs detailing where and when you are going to debate atheists.
-Michael Shermer last week.
-Walter Sinnott-Armstrong on April 21st
-Dan Barker on April 22nd.
-Peter Singer on April 25th
-Christopher Hitchens on July 12
You answered your own question!!!! These guys aren't scared of you, and why should they be?
David at 1:48AM on Mar 17th 2008
7. Let me correct you: Atheists are not scared but disinterested. Who wants to hear your same old references to a book that was put together from pieces in hundreds of years. I think you give too much credit for yourself. You are trying to do this debate to show your legitimacy, but most everybody is sick and tired of your old arguments.
Steve at 2:15AM on Mar 17th 2008
8. Yes,because your God is not on your side.Consider the plight of those who did not return from Iraq or Afganistan, which God have they gone to meet!How many more will not come back-before we can conclude that some one wants this to happen ,so Desouza is it going to be your God that gives you the answer?or is this going to happen inspite of your God?Debate it with your God!!
Kevin at 2:32AM on Mar 17th 2008
9. Atheists are usually fairly intelligent people who have not realized that there is more to reality than can be pointed to with words. None of them will be able to understand Wittgenstein or Buddhism fully. Their thinking is somewhat robotic. We can replace them with computers.
Daniel at 2:41AM on Mar 17th 2008
10. Just remember--we share--what is it--97% of our dna/genetics with other species?? What do Creationists (excuse me Intelligent Designers) say about this?) I may not have the numbers straight, but the gist is there.
Robyn at 3:17AM on Mar 17th 2008
11. What I will never understand is why if a man walked around today claiming he was the son of God, we would call him a lunatic (or cult leader) and his followers would all be called cult members. But because it happened 2000 years ago and was written in a book by HUMAN BEINGS, all of a sudden millions of people believe it and hold it to be the gospel truth. It will never make sense to me!
Marie Townsend at 7:26AM on Mar 17th 2008
12. Originally posted by Daniel:
"Atheists are usually fairly intelligent people who have not realized that there is more to reality than can be pointed to with words. None of them will be able to understand Wittgenstein or Buddhism fully. Their thinking is somewhat robotic. We can replace them with computers."
No, atheists are just people who have realized the senselessness of believing in fairies in the sky. It's on the line of believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. We're not robots, we just haven't been brainwashed.
Marie Townsend at 3:57AM on Mar 17th 2008
13. DD: "Written debates strike me as a bit wimpy, since both debaters can get advice and assistance from various experts."
Yeah, and that might actually be a better way of getting at the truth, which is not what you're interested in, of course. I have to admit, you are a master of Sophistry, and you certainly know how to shout really loud when necessary.
Joe Bob at 4:14AM on Mar 17th 2008
14. God vs. Atheism, come on, it should religious vs. atheism. Can't wait for your debate with C. Manson. I didn't know Singer was still taken seriously.
The Atheists aren't scared of you DoubleD. The problem is, your logic is circular like a treadmill. With religion, all roads lead to stupidity.
JefFlyingV at 4:22AM on Mar 17th 2008
15. Debate what Dinesh D'Souza? You claim that there is a god, you have presented no evidence, other than emotionally-charged insults and a feeble attempt to leave yourself in denial about the fact that you have *NO* evidence.
You have, on the other hand, stereotyped Atheists with sweeping generalizations, distortions and lies, but that doesn't has never made your make-believed god any more "real". If there is a god - you should be easily able to convince us all - because who would choose burning in a "lake of fire" for eternity, above heaven?
Here are the four words you hate about your so-called "god", because you have NEVER answered them:
"WHERE - IS - YOUR - EVIDENCE?"
That's all you need to answer - give reasonable evidence if you want reasonable (as in reason) people to "believe". Of course you have none - you only have faith and your insults, lies and distortions about other who don't share your faith - blind faith. For faith is not fact without evidence.
So go ahead and keep smearing atheists Dinesh D'Souza, which ironically your alleged "all-knowing", "all-powerful" god not only created, but "knew" would be around by the billions. You see, Dinesh, there are over 3,000 gods found in all cultures throughout history - we Atheists just happen to believe in one less than you do - because you are an Atheist to all of the other gods, some of which were invented in Egypt and Syria long before yours, and yet share remarkable similarities in their fairy tales. Can we spell "copy cat" ?
Perhaps you've been worshiping the wrong fairy tale god all along, because just like McDonald's, Christianity became more popular than the old stand-bys, but that doesn't mean the rest of us want to swallow it every week.
Most Atheists have a higher ethic that you can't even begin to apprehend: Don't "do unto others" as "we" would like to be done to, they may not like what we like. Instead, do unto others as *they* would want us to. In short, just be kind, respectful, peaceful and patient, with no expectations of heaven nor hell - otherwise you're behaving subconsiounsly for reward in heaven or from threat of punishment in hell. And of course, ethics would dictate that if god sends "unbelievers" to hell who he "knew" would not believe, then that is a god that no kind-hearted, rational person would want anything to do with anyway.
"Thank god" there is no god, but if you can prove there is, I wouldn't want anything to do with him and I would send him a very strongly worded letter about his many errors (deformed animals, people born with both male and female genitals (who do "Christians" suggest they have the *right* to marry?) babies with cancer, tornadoes blowing churches down after their members pray for rain, etc., etc.).
You have a right to "believe" anything you wish and of the hundreds of Atheists I have met, I've never heard of one saying otherwise. It's just that we have every right to remind you that belief is not fact or else it would not be called faith - and your case, and very aggressive, condensing and embattled faith - hardly the faith that I know that was written of Jesus, and I have studied both the new testaments and old front to back many times. They both borrowed heavily from the Syrians and Greeks before them, and I would take Aristotle's rational ethics over your fairy-tale god's insecure need to be worshiped anytime.
Chris Aable at 3:19PM on Mar 20th 2008