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 7 of 61)
91. ATHEIST
As my posted have pointed out, Dinesh answers his own question, and reveals his Stupidity.
Christians live in an Imaginary World. In this Imaginary World, anyone who disagress with them must be afraid of them. Clearly, Dinesh has some penis issues. He must have a lot of those "Objects In The Mirror Appear Larger" mirrors in his bedroom.
Nobody seems to be afraid of Dinesh. Nobody seems to be afraid to go to the Bible Institute of Los Angeles and explain Modern Evolutionary Theory to them.
As usual, Dinesh is helpless when confronted by the actual proponents of Evolutionary Theory, so he must invent his own Straw Man version.
DEMONIC SPIRITS
RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
ANGELS
A FUTURE MESSIAH WHO WILL RULE ISRAEL
TREES ON EARTH BEFORE STARS CREATED
GLOBAL FLOOD
EVERY PERSON ON EARTH A DESCENDANT OF A JEWISH FAMILY LESS THAN 3,000 YEARS AGO
The list of Christian nonsense is long... and I guess Dinesh is proud to own one thing that's longer than a cocktail weiner.
William Hays at 11:39AM on Mar 17th 2008
92. todd,
Why don't we just say that atheists are inclined to believe in the positions that are most strongly evidenced by objective observations.
Mokele-Mobembe at 11:41AM on Mar 17th 2008
93. Yes! A response from Christians other than "go rot in hell". I do LOVE a debate.
"in essence you only believe in what you can observe. so science is your answer for everything. how does science answer suffering?" - brian
---
I'm not sure what you mean by "how does science ANSWER suffering", but I'll give it a try. Wikipedia defines suffering as "a negative basic feeling or emotion that involves a subjective character of unpleasantness, aversion, harm or threat of harm". I think the definition speask for itself. If something is unpleasant. if you are trying to avert something, or are under threat of harm, that is suffering.
If you could clear up what you meant, that would be great.
"Using reason, and logic I would like to know where or how the power of faith is explained" - Jerry Brown.
Well, Jerry, if someone were to explain an alien concept to you that you could not understand, you would have to accept it on faith, or not at all. Thousands of years ago, most people were illiterate and uneducated. When they were forced to ponder questions such as life and death (for instance, after a funeral), they would turn to an explanation that would give them comfort. If a person's spouse died, they would want to believe that the spouse was happy in death, and that they would be rejoined. With no way of validating the idea though, it would be accepted on faith. The idea would be passed down from generation to generaton until it was deeply ingrained in so many people's minds that it was *almost* irreplacable.
Thanks for the responses!
Jacob at 11:42AM on Mar 17th 2008
94. I do believe in reproducable and confirmed Biological, Chemical, and Physical theories that can be taken on something other than faith.
Jacob at 11:24AM on Mar 17th 2008
------------------------------------------
The big bang theory, and the theory of evolution, are both leaps of faith. You have to be intellectually honest to admit it. We know were you stand..
Observant at 11:44AM on Mar 17th 2008
95. @Hays
Brilliant as always. Doesn't take long to point out obvious things does it? I have moved on from wondering if there's a god or not to why there are so many people who still invest their time in one religion or another. Sure the obvious answers are there, community, social acceptance, death comfort, and the 'it's in the family factor.'
But the question becomes, when do we stop finding fairy-tale excuses for comfort and start promoting truth so we can all agree and move on from this archaic method of thinking?
acefondu at 11:45AM on Mar 17th 2008
96. ATHEIST
Reply to: 35. It doesn't matter what Dinesh writes. The response is always the same: malevolent hatred and contempt. Dave
Good pick-up.
You see, by insulting Dinesh on his own blog, we are proving that Atheists are NOT afraid of him.
I know this is a complicated piece of logic for you to follow, Dave. Let me try to simplify it.
When Dinesh says Atheists are afraid of him, Atheists have to sit down and laugh for several minutes. And then, we have to PROVE that we aren't afraid of him.
Know how we do that?
As usual, Christianity dumbs people down. Christianity teaches their innocent young victims to acknowledge Imaginary Friends as real.... and that hurts their judgment later in life. The symptoms are consistent.
What a Christian needs to learn... is HOW to admit that his beliefs are wrong... and do it gracefully. Start small. We know a lot about DNA. Is it possible that everyone on earth is descended from the family that survived a global flood on Noah's Ark, about 1,800 BC? Obviously, the Flood Story is a work of Fiction.
Acknowledge that some stories are FICTION.
William Hays at 11:45AM on Mar 17th 2008
97. PB: "As Jon Stewart might say, "Go ooooooonnnnnn...""
With pleasure.
How do we know what exists?
-Through observation. We use our senses to investigate the world around us, and we use our brains to analyze this information and infer facts.
Is it possible to observe God?
-Even according to some Christians, no. He is unobservable. He leaves no trace on this world, and cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled.
How would I know that he's there then?
-You must use an entirely different process than logic and reason to arrive at this conclusion. This process is called faith.
But many people around the world have faith that their beliefs are correct. They can't all be right.
-No, just trust us. Ours is right. Those other people are wrong.
Thanks, I'll take my chances.
-Its a sin to take your chances. Our Creator doesn't tolerate skepticism. Burn forever.
I wouldn't be a skeptic if there was hard evidence.
-There is. A man lived 2000 years ago who was killed because he was God. It's all written in the Bible.
But how do you know that's true? There are many books about mythical figures who did miraculous things from ancient times. How do you know that he is really God?
-You must have faith.
AndrewV at 11:47AM on Mar 17th 2008
98. how does science answer suffering?
Why should suffering have meaning? Why the Christian obsession with "meaning" to things? Maybe suffering is just suffering, and it sucks, end of story. Why the elaborate myth just because it makes you feel better to think it happened for a reason?
AndrewV at 11:51AM on Mar 17th 2008
99. "Evolution, the big bang are theories and are not scientifically proven. these theories are not even probable. so why do aethiest tout them so much? becuase of faith -believing in something without much proof- aethiesm is a religion. these guys are hypocrites." --Todd
_______________
This will be my last response to Todd because I just feel sorry for such people.
Todd...here's the deal. You know this computer that you're using to spread your "truth"? Yeah...at one time computers only existed in theory.
Lucky for you that there were people on the planet fifty years ago who were more visionary than you are and they didn't abandon the THEORY of the Internet before it even had a chance to emerge.
As for the hypocrisy of atheism you've cited, remember this: you can't prove your religion. Atheists on the other hand, sometimes prove theories (which then makes them fact) and discard theories once they are firmly debunked. You, meanwhile, will cling to your faith until the day you die. THAT, my friend, is what separates the hypocrisy of atheism from blind faith.
Paul at 11:52AM on Mar 17th 2008
100. "thanks for your opinion. by the way are you yet to apologize for your slanderous statement about me? as the bible rightly warns. you are a false teacher,speaking lies. you need to re-examine your faith. i think you may need to evaluate what you cliam to know,seriously. this is no laughing matter. because you claim to be a christian yet you teach a doctrine of lies. stop being hypocritical and speak the truth in love."
brian,
I do not care what you have to say. I do not care what your opinions are.
You are a hateful, bitter person, who needs to repent and see the light. The True Light. The True Meanings.
You are lost, and you still need to forgive.
I wish you well in your endeavors. Other than that, leave me alone.
Botts at 11:56AM on Mar 17th 2008
101. Arranging a debate that will deliberately attend a religious audience only serves to win you an applause whenever you say the G word, and premature boos as your opponent opens his mouth, or some other soundtrack of mob mentality. Who wants to subject themselves to that? They're not afraid of debate (they live to debate), they're afraid of lynching. There's a reason they are in stadium seats rather than on stage - most aren't intellectuals per se. If you want a real debate, do it without a live audience, upload it, and let people discuss its arguments afterward. It seems fair to me.
Mokele-Mobembe at 11:58AM on Mar 17th 2008
102. Botts: "They read it as literal, and we know some of the stories, can't possibly be correct."
Hey Botts, I'm doing great. How are you?
About separating legend from truth: Its easy to say that the Great Flood is legend, but what about stories like the raising of Lazarus?
Lazarus was raised by Jesus. This isn't that ancient. This story should be as reliable as the crucifixion accounts, as it occurs in the same books. Did a dead man really live again? Hadn't he decayed partially? If this story is in doubt, then the crucifixion and ressurection are also cast into doubt. How would you account for this? Is the story of Lazarus factual?
FYI: If a long dead, cold body was brought back to life fully functional with no apparent medical intervention, I might have to become a deist.
AndrewV at 12:03PM on Mar 17th 2008
103. Just as a reminder...here's what Dinesh REALLY believes in:
The Federalist Papers were just a "wimpy" paper debate.
Homosexuality cannot be cured through prayer. (See DD's remarks about former NJ governor McGreevey's "Stepford" wife.)
Joking about people in suffering (AIDS victims especially) is just a good ol' college hoot!
I hope to provide everyone with a comprehensive profile of Dinesh someday. This will be fun!
Paul at 12:05PM on Mar 17th 2008
104. MM: "you want a real debate, do it without a live audience"
Fair's fair, though. Dinesh routinely visits the lion's den. He's been to Tufts and Berkeley, and I'm going to see him when he comes to Harvard next month. The live audience isn't a problem unless they start heckling.
AndrewV at 12:06PM on Mar 17th 2008
105. From D'Souza: "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?"
By this logic, I must subscribe to a belief system centered around muscle cars because I read Hemmings Muscle Car magazine, watch "Car Crazy" on the Speed Channel, attend car shows, have a copy of the book, "Classic Muscle Cars of the 60's and 70's" and learn from a mechanic on the weekends!
Who knew I was kneeling at the alter of the Chevy Small Block? Since in D'Souza's world, the only people with A COMMON INTEREST that (apparently) are allowed to interact are those with a belief system, I guess this means I am worshipping a car god!
Thanks, DD - who knew restoring a 67 Camaro was risking my so-called "immortal soul!"
PS at 12:09PM on Mar 17th 2008