We've all heard of Black History Month, but have you heard about Atheist Bashing Week? It was Atheist Bashing Week for me as I did three debates over the past seven days with a new crop of leading atheists.
First on Monday April 21 I debated philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong at Dartmouth before a large crowd. The 500-seat auditorium was full so they used an overflow room, which had hundreds more watching on a big screen. This was a scholarly debate in which Sinnott-Armstrong distanced himself from what he portrayed as the crude atheism of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Against this village atheism, well represented among atheists who comment on this blog, Sinnott-Armstrong offered a more dignified atheism that he said recognizes the accomplishments of Christianity. In one revealing moment he event said schools and colleges should teach students that the crimes of Christianity, like the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials, pale before the crimes of atheist regimes like those of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. Overall this was an elevated debate, one of the more high-toned ones I've participated in.
Then on Tuesday April 22 I debated Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation at Harvard. Here the audience was smaller, because Harvard is launching into final exams. But the debate was very sharp and lively. We didn't do the traditional opening statements followed by rebuttals and cross-examination and so on. Rather, a student panel posed questions to both of us, and we each answered, with the other person than having a chance to reply. This format suits me very well, and I found myself being able to develop arguments about epistemology and science more fully than in other formats. Later the atheist students who organized the debate complimented me on my performance, and one said that I had made numerous arguments that he had never thought of, and that were compelling him to rethink (although not abandon) his atheism.
Finally on Friday April 25 I debated the controversial Princeton philosopher Peter Singer at Biola University. This was the biggest event, with more than 2,500 in attendance. Since Biola is a Christian campus, the majority of those present were believers, although atheists were represented too. The Christian students treated Singer extremely well, which is not always how theists are received when they show up on secular campuses. I went first and focused on Singer's extreme views, such as his proposal that parents be allowed to kill their children up to the age of 28 days. Singer also thinks America and the West can learn from non-Western societies, not to mention ancient Greece and Rome, where children were routinely killed at much higher ages. Oddly enough this champion of infanticide and euthanasia also favors animal rights!
If this seems like a strange combination, the apparent paradox is resolved when you discover Singer's logic. Singer argues that we human beings are Darwinian primates. We are on a continuum with the other animals. It is Christianity, Singer charges, that came into the world and elevated human beings on a pedestal. It is Christianity that proclaimed that man is in the image of God, and that creation is for man's benefit. These ideas gave rise to the special dignity of man and human rights and moral principles such as "It is wrong to deliberately take human life." Singer thinks that now that we know God is dead, we should get rid of these principles and replace them with utilitarian considerations more in keeping with our animal nature. In a sense Singer is taking up Nietzsche's challenge--to rid our civilization not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality--and his homicidal conclusions, which many people find horrific, are only a working-out of his atheist logic.
Surprisingly Singer didn't want to talk about any of this during our debate. In a way I can see why: who wants to defend killing three-week old infants in the presence of a largely-Christian audience! Instead Singer wanted to argue about why a just God allows suffering in the world, not only the suffering of children but also of animals. I didn't want our debate to be like two ships passing in the night, so I happily engaged Singer on those issues. He is a lucid and gentlemanly debater, and he complimented me for eschewing Bible citations in favor of reason and logic and history and science in developing my arguments. I praised him for having the guts to come to a Christian campus and debate me, quite a contrast from the invertebrate Richard Dawkins who seems terrified to take me on even at his native Oxford.
All these debates will soon be up on the web. I have now debated six leading atheists--Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Dan Barker, and Peter Singer. Hitchens and I already have a couple of rematches scheduled, and Singer has agreed to a second debate on the East Coast. I am also planning a debate next year with Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker. The mathematician John Allen Paulos, author of the new book Irreligion, has approached me about debating and we are looking for the appropriate venue. Over the next few years I am hoping to assemble the most extensive existing archive of "God v. Atheism" debates. Many churches are already showing these debates in order to educate and instruct believers. I wonder if atheist groups will have the confidence to air them at their conferences.
So far no takers though. And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: "Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh." Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarassing himself and destroying his public reputation! Won't it be hilarious if the "party of faith" is unafraid of opposing arguments while the "party of reason" cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.
Reader Comments ( Page 59 of 61)
871. Oh, I stand corrected about the earth:
"It is more like the gooey center of a chocolate morsel harboring peanut butter and honey."
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080502-earth-inside.html
So I do learn and adapt.
How about you? Still stuck in your freaky godverse? Take the red pill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redpill) and join those of us who live connected with the one objective reality. See how much fun it is to set your mind free from belief and faith. Make a difference in the world by seeing it as it is rather than through the lenses of what you've been indoctrinated with in your religious and god cults.
Peter at 4:24AM on May 4th 2008
872. Mar 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mar/Mar016.html#16
This statement in your bible says that people such as myself are damned to burn in hell forever. That is vile evil that is directed at non-delusional people of the earth by those of you who are Christians who think that the bible is the word of their god. It's an anti-moral statement, Mark 16:16, that demonizes us non-believers. This is an immoral statement that can't be ignored by those of you who believe in the bible. Thus you are evil.
How do you justify such evil statements in your bible? How can you worship with such a vile book?
Peter at 5:48AM on May 4th 2008
873. Peter, you suggest that I have no way of knowing what you've read, or what areas of scholarship you're familiar with. This is simply false, since I know these things simply by reading what you've written. I assure you that what I've asserted about your deficiencies is clear to anyone who does have any real understanding of these areas. For example, I know nothing about automobiles, and even if I tried to 'fake it' in a conversation, my ignorance would be found out quite easily by someone who does have a serious understanding of different models, different engine types, etc. In short, if you're talking to someone who actually does know that he's talking about, you can't fake it. He'll spot it in your language, in what you choose to emphasize, in your inevitable misunderstandings of basic concepts, in your evident unfamilairity with fundamentals, and so on.
Renzo at 10:07AM on May 4th 2008
874. Who Would Jesus Bash?
How do you reconcile your bigotry with your Christianity? Would you be just as willing to applaud a "Muslim Bashing Week" a "Jew Bashing Week" or a "Hindu Bashing Week?"
Or are you just fine with bashing any non-Christian or Christian who disagrees with you?
Kylyssa at 2:29PM on May 4th 2008
875. "Peter, you suggest that I have no way of knowing what you've read, or what areas of scholarship you're familiar with. This is simply false, since I know these things simply by reading what you've written."
Da. That was implied by default. You have a habit of stating the obvious as if it was purposefully ignored or left out. It wasn't. I assumed that that wouldn't even be an issue. Obviously with someone who thinks like you do the unimportant trivia is always an issue. It's shows a juvenile thinking process on your part. Obviously you might be able to infer somethings about what I've read from what I've written, HOWEVER you are always best equipped if you actually ask the other person rather then guessing which is my point, you assume way too much, and your assumptions are way off. I just don't think the way you do, and I've obviously made very different conclusions about a great many topics in life - many which push you outside your usual frames of reference since the arguments presented often undermine the foundations of what, and how you've been trained to, think. Others too can make assessments of what your writings and response might, and I highlight MIGHT, infer about you Renzo the great thinker of delusional thoughts that have no basis in reality (other than conforming to a very particular cult and cult of fixed ideas). However, I prefer to stay on target so I will refrain from making comments about you that contain any certainty since it's off topic and since I don't know you likely to be inaccurate even if they are in the neighborhood. The point is that it's mostly a futile exercise and always best to stick to the topic Renzo. Got it?
"I assure you that what I've asserted about your deficiencies is clear to anyone who does have any real understanding of these areas."
Your assurances are worth what they are mind poo, since they are based upon your ASSumptions and not knowledge deep enough to provide supporting evidence. Go ahead though and make an ... of yourself.
In your view I'm unfamiliar with what you consider the fundamentals of the WAY THAT YOU THINK AND VIEW THE UNIVERSE.
As has been demonstrated even the pro-ported best make major mistakes, take Kant for example. It's a major mistake assuming that the odds were 50/50. Oops. Big mistake. Yes Kant made a big mistake that causes his entire philosophy to begin to crumble. Most certainly I'm not the one to discover his mistake, others long before me easily punched holes into his holy pro religious agendas. However it was glaringly obvious to me within minutes of reading his works. While some of what he says is interesting much is invalidated since he supported delusional thinking by the masses. Another elite supporter of those delusional nut job con men in power at the Church (which ever church you wish to insert that is historically relevant for your delusional cult).
Now for sure Kant can't recant and correct his views since he's dead and does not exist anymore except in dusty books and dusty brains like yours.
You claims regarding me are simply another ad hominem personal attack upon my character. It's that the best you can do eh Renzo in the face of the overwhelming arguments that I put forward for discussion? It would seem so since all you have done in recent posts is make up assumptions and attempt to assassinate my character with them. No substantive on topic (I'm not the topic is a big hint to what is the topic) posts by you. How disappointing that is for me and other readers.
Just because I don't draw the same conclusions that you have in the fields of philosophy, science, religion, history or whatever else we've discussed here doesn't mean anything about what I've read or not read, studied or not studied, lived or not lived, experienced or not experienced. If you were an insightful person you'd have realized that before spewing a nonsensical ad hominem personal attack.
Renzo, you do know that ad hominem personal attacks usually fail so they are not recommended as they reflect more upon the character of the one attacked? Don't you?
When you have something substantive to communicate please do so.
Peter at 3:49PM on May 4th 2008
876. Oh, by the way the best ways of dealing with ad hominem personal attacks is to either (1) ignore them (which I often do at first) or (2) point them out and politely ask the person to stop making them, and (3) if those fail to stop them, educate the person making the ad hominem personal attacks about why it reflects on them and their reputation. If these steps fail then more drastic measures are required depending on the nature of the personal attacks and the context: slander or liable charges can be the end result in some cases. Usually most people come around and stop making them as soon as it is pointed out that that is unacceptable in discussion/comment forum such as this.
OH, wait. I forgot Dinesh D'Souza explicitly authorized bashing non-believers such as atheists with the title of his article "Atheist Basing Week". Oh, that explains why Dinesh's demon hordes have come out to attack the character of those with a contrary point of view in Dinesh D'Souza's blog comment group.
Ah the light of day reveals why "bashing" people isn't' such a good idea Dinesh D'Souza. Please call off your demon minons hordes Dinesh D'Souza from their "personal attacks" and keep them on topic. Please. Please. Please.
Peter at 4:04PM on May 4th 2008
877. Oops.. typo... plus clarification... sorry about any confusion.
Renzo, you do know that ad hominem personal attacks usually fail - as a result they are not recommended since they reflect directly upon the character of the one attacking? Don't you?
When you have something substantive to communicate please do so.
Peter at 4:07PM on May 4th 2008
878. @870: "The basics of what I have to say are not my opinion though as they are basic irrefutable facts of nature".
What!? Everything you have written on this board are your assumptions and opinions. They're not "irrefutable facts." The way you describe people and opinions that are not in line with your thinking are not irrefutable facts. They're your opinions and assumptions, as they are in your conclusion about the main question: the existence or non existence of God. You've acknowleged the existence of an objective reality that have existed before anything else began and will persist after everything else is gone. I call that objective reality God, and you call it objective reality. But either way we call it or even if we call it both God and objective reality, the fact is that it Exist. You only seem to have a particularly dislike for the word "God" and then you call people names and complain when the (dis) favor is returned. You have called people childish but look at yourself.
You claim to be open to any correction and adjustment when the only thing you could do is correct your wrong spelling and adjust your sentence construction to better express your dogma. No, you're not open to anything. You're in bliss just like D'Souza is.
Everything you have written on this board are all your opinions.
"The pitiful attempts to refute them here and in other forums over the past thousands of years have failed".
Whoaaa...everybody on your feet...a round of applause...5 minutes...10 minutes... more...more...more. Peter! Peter! Peter! Oh, isn't that Dinesh?...no its Peter...its Dinesh...its Peter. Peter! Dinesh! Peter! Dinesh! Dinesh! Dinesh! Peter!
"My opinion is mostly irrelevant".
Oh,come on. You are, as a matter of fact, convinced from the bottom of your heart and soul that yours is the only relevant one.
You claim to be privy to the latest, most amazing philosophical discussions. Ok. I see. Here's how the discussion goes:
Leader Philosopher 1: Ok gentlemen, let's open the discussion. By the way, thanks to the Hubris Foundation for sponsoring this event. Our today's discussion is about...ummm "God Does Not Exist." I think God does not exist. What do you think?
Philosopher 2: I think so too, God does not exist.
Philosopher 3: Same.
Philosopher 4: Yeah, same.
Philosopher 5: God doesn't exist.
Philosopher 6: Ibid.
Philosopher 7 through 99: (a la The Platters to soothe the restless and by now tired minds of the Philos) - There is no God...tadada tadada...There is no God...taradada...wooowooowooo...There is no God There is no God...YEAH!
Leader Philosopher 1: Ok. Great...ummm...what do you say, Peter?
Peter Philosopher 100: Amen, Ibid, Yeah! There is no God, There is no God, There is no God, There is no God, Taradada Taradada...wooowooowooowooo....(fade)
And then they pass a resolution questioning the existence and declaring the non-existence of God.
And that's it. The most amazing philosophical discussion is concluded. Amazing indeed.
emendozajun at 9:01PM on May 4th 2008
879. Kylyssa, you summarized it much better than I did in #3. Dinesh D'Souza's hypocrisy and arrogance is only acceded by those who defend him.
Peter, notice how those who defend D'Souza the most have the same psychological traits:
1. Ad hominems.
2. Smugness, snootiness - in their posts, not the person in total, we hope.
3. Much the same circular reasoning.
4. Off-topic obfuscation.
And that's just four traits that immediately come to mind. I'm sure we both can find evidence for many more.
5. "Your another" fallacies.
No wonder so many people have accused D'Souza of using sock puppets, who then use the fallacy of "your another" as a defense. He apparently remains too smug to address many of these posts either directly via email or in a public forum. Surely he has a few moments each day, when he's not busy "bashing" non-believers instead of helping those out there who have the "least among us."
TerryMadison at 10:11PM on May 4th 2008
880. Emendozajun wrote: "What!? Everything you have written on this board are your assumptions and opinions. They're not "irrefutable facts."
So all the facts of nature that I wrote about are just my opinion eh?
You failed the test. Yes there was a test and you failed it Emendozajun and demonstrated that you - in this case - didn't think through what I wrote and what it actually meant; you also demonstrated that you take me for a fool, which is quite foolish of you if you think about it and what I've written.
Clearly you took the statement that I wrote, "The basics of what I have to say are not my opinion though as they are basic irrefutable facts of nature", out of context twisting it so that you could launch YET ANOTHER round of ad hominem personal attacks upon my character rather than focusing on relevant topics.
Yet again I find myself giving basic lessons, this time in reading and comprehension not to mention another rebuke regarding the light that ad hominem personal attacks puts you in. (Think of a dark light with your demon masters sitting next to you snickering while the two of you read the vile bible quotes about how evil non-believers are for not bowing down to the power hungry and very grumpy overlord, god, and his hapless side kick Jesus).
The statement "The basics of what I have to say are not my opinion though as they are basic irrefutable facts of nature" begins with the phrase "the basics of what I have to say ... ". This phrase is crucial in actually understanding the full meaning of the sentence. What do you think that this qualifying and very specifically selective phrase means? Well, in the case that English isn't your first language, this phrase was referring to the "basics" of what I have to say, that is to say that it refers to the "basic facts about reality" that I wrote about at length in many of the comments in this blog titled "Atheist Bashing Week". Basic facts about reality ARE NOT MY OPINION I'm sorry to say. They are basic facts of reality that I have stuff to say about. If you wish to correct me regarding a basic fact of reality that is something I'd appreciate and accept; thinking that my telling a fact of reality is just my opinion is a very important mistake on your part that I will correct as I'm doing now.
Sure there were a few, yes just a few, of my opinions in what I wrote, that's most certainly true. However, I wrote extensively, as in the bulk of what I wrote is, about facts of nature and it's clear where which is which.
The limitations that the speed of light has upon everything in the universe including all of us and everything that you can see when you look up in the night sky and beyond is a fact of nature that greater people than you or I have sussed out with great difficulty and extensive testing.
Objective reality is a fact. It's also an irrefutable and irreducible axiom of philosophical thinking. While objective reality is one of the three core axioms underlying philosophical thinking upon which knowledge is built it's also a fact of nature, and it's perception by us puny human beings won't change it's nature one iota. The best we can hope for is to comprehend it better and more accurately. The fact that "objective reality" exists (or simply called "existence") is also an axiom in philosophy doesn't diminish or eliminate or alter it's nature (or make it my opinion). Our subjective perception of reality won't change the nature of objective reality.
If you think otherwise you are worse off than there is hope for.
"You've acknowleged the existence of an objective reality that have existed before anything else began and will persist after everything else is gone."
Well NO, as that's not accurate enough! The jury is out since the details have not yet been proven regarding the "beginning" and "ending" of objective reality. Cosmology has a number of hypotheses regarding these questions that may never be answered. This includes one possibility that - in the more likely theory - time and space (aka objective reality) began at the big bang and did not exist before then. There are other hypothesis about what could have existed before that however it isn't possible to exist before time began now is it? Regardless this area is likely not to have highly probable answers in our lifetimes so it's likely to remain an unknown that shall remain an unknown.
We have those in science you know rather than just assuming that an invisible sky man who is very grumpy and wants people to "believe" in him even though he won't show himself to them and if you don't will punish you to burn in hell for all eternity. (See Mark 16:16, link in earlier comment). This paragraph, in case you can't tell, is an opinion).
Now to clarify. Objective reality existed before our solar system existed and will exist after our solar system existed. Objective reality might have come into existence at the big bang (or big bounce or X) and might cease to exist as the universe spreads so thin that there will be an infinite space between the smallest particles or units of energy that make up everything.
"I call that objective reality God, and you call it objective reality. But either way we call it or even if we call it both God and objective reality, the fact is that it Exist."
Ah, emendozajun, that's just silly: the universe as god. Well most certainly I've known a number of Christians and others, mostly whacked out new agers, who have that variation of the god delusion. If god is the universe then the laws of nature apply to god and science can put to bed ALL the whacked out claims about god, such as found in the bible (a vile book as I'm mentioned and liked to before). So thanks, at least your variant of god is easier to disprove that others more magical super beings that exist outside of existence.
It's also silly to worship the universe, don't you think?
None of you have answered my questions about worship by the way. Why would anyone want to worship the universe? worship a god? worship an inanimate object? worship gods? worship jesus? I can understand someone worshiping their lover but to worship an invisible super being? That's really weird, especially to become servile to him/it/she/they? Isn't it? Bizarre to the max. Doesn't the need to worship reveal a deep seated psychosis of some kind? A deep deficiency in the person's brain? Maybe a brain defect that evolution hasn't been able to correct or that's a nasty side effect of how we evolved?
Emendozajun: "You only seem to have a particularly dislike for the word "God" and then you call people names and complain when the (dis) favor is returned. You have called people childish but look at yourself."
It's not just the word "god" that I have a "dislike" for.
I've not called anyone a "name" other than their blog comment name. Sure I use terms like "god freak" or "delusional" or "whacked out" or "mind poo" and other colorful metaphors as descriptive terms used to highlight and bring attention to the insane nature of your stated god based beliefs and faiths. It's clear that beliefs and faith in god are very extreme positions that pretend to be about reality but which are not supportable if one is to be connected to objective reality.
If you take offense then so be it as sometimes it's necessary to shock people into seeing their delusions.
Get real.
"You claim to be open to any correction and adjustment when the only thing you could do is correct your wrong spelling and adjust your sentence construction to better express your dogma. No, you're not open to anything. You're in bliss just like D'Souza is."
So you can read my emotional state now too, eh? You have ESP, eh?
Ick, shivers down my spine to be compared to Dinesh D'Souza who doesn't even have the courage to engage with people commenting in his blog. Maybe he's hiding under a pseudonym; if that's the case please take off your cloak of invisibility and reveal your pseudonym so we can review your comments. Thanks. Why shivers? Anyone who has god delusions should be ashamed of themselves since they are projecting their delusions upon their perception of reality rather than having their perceptions of reality TESTED BY hard evidence of objective reality inform them of it's nature. Dinesh D'Souza is a projector of his beliefs upon reality. Dinesh - and you others who know who you are (i.e. god believers) - rejects information about reality since it contradicts his beliefs or faith. I on the other hand will change on a dime when anyone demonstrates to me when I'm doing that. I'll toss out any and all beliefs and faith that make their way into my brain or that have been there. I'll flush them out. I'll hunt them down and destroy any and all belief and faith in my life. I'll expunge it from my life. On a moments notice. Any time of the day. Correct me with factual evidence and I'll change on a dime. I stand corrected. I stand ready to stand corrected. Unlike you who project god onto reality. My spin shivers.
It's funny how you god folk will constantly quote books, texts, scrolls, etc... from thousands of years ago as if it's reality and the word of your god yet when it comes to hearing that during those same years there were people promoting the sane view of an objective reality without god or gods you mock us or laugh at us as emendozajun does in his comments. Interesting bias.
It's also interesting and reveling that emendozajun choose to mock me regarding correcting my spelling as if it's relevant somehow to the discussion.
As I stated before my opinions are just that. Facts about the nature of reality however are quite something else and, yes, they are ultimately the only relevant statements written here. Objective reality rules and there is no amount of belief or faith that will change that fact. You can view that as a harsh reality or as a wonderful thing, or just in a neutral manner as it ultimately doesn't matter one iota to the universe as it does not care about us. That's not an opinion of mine, it's an observable fact that many have learned the hard way and that ultimately all of us will experience with our own deaths. You of course are free to open your eyes to objective reality or keep your head buried in your precious delusional god beliefs and faiths. I, as you can guess, choose to keep my eyes open till my end. I will not go quietly into the night, sooner or later I know I'll go into the night, but it won't be quietly.
Ultimately I am irrelevant, as are you.
The only way that I can be relevant is to make a difference in the lives of other people, and then that will only be briefly felt - if at all - as when the last human dies it's most likely that there won't be any memory of me. Certainly no human to remember me. That goes for all of us. What you do with your few orbits of the sun is - in part - up to you. You can make your life about going good or harm. Choose wisely if you can and know what I mean.
Yes, I've been privy to some amazing philosophical discussions that make everything I've seen here and everything written by Dinesh D'Souza or any religious person look childish and nonsensical. Although luck doesn't exist and is only a human delusion, I'll permit myself to say that I was lucky to be in the right place at the right time. I am attempting to bring some measure of the quality that I experienced in those discussions and forums here, however, without a commitment to a high quality discussion by those present the odds are against this from occurring. That's the question I've asked a number of times, maybe best communicated so far this time; Dinesh D'Souza please raise the quality of this discussion by either joining in or asking your "supporters" to raise the quality of this discussion. It's certainly what I'm asking them. Rise to the occasion with substantive comments, please. Pleas.
The most amazing philosophical occurs when it occurs. I have a past memory of many that did occur. I look forward to others. Do you? If so, what are you waiting for? Act now and bring your best to make it happen now. Don't have your best? Step up and jump in. You'll know it when and if it happens.
Peter at 4:23AM on May 5th 2008
881. As many of your debate opponents have pointed out, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao don't represent atheist regimes, they represent dogmatic regimes, and have more in common with religion than lack of belief (what is their communism other than a pseudo-religion?). It's disingenuous to keep repeating points that have been refuted.
Rob Davidson at 9:35PM on May 5th 2008
882. religion is given to the weak minded to keep them in check. when you reach a certain spirtual level of self awareness you'll transcend the play school version of spirituality that is spoon feed to you by religious faiths in our present culture. like santa you'll soon find out that people don't float on clouds after you die.
josh at 10:45PM on May 5th 2008
883. As D'Souza brags:
"I have now debated six leading atheists--Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Dan Barker, and Peter Singer."
And yet, Dinesh, still can give no evidence of an invisible god in an invisble heaven nor proof of and "all-creator" who created himself....but first had to play with the dinasaurs for 300 million years before playing with the minds of people like D'Souza.
LindaL at 7:03AM on May 6th 2008
884. Would you like to debate me? I'm the author of the soon to be released book, "Why I Became an Atheist" to be found at amazon.com.
If you like a challenge I'll give you one, that's for sure.
Cheers,
John
John W. Loftus at 8:33AM on May 6th 2008
885. Not only does Dinesh fail to provide evidence for his god he then, in response to being asked for evidence, he goes on the offensive attacking the very notion that evidence has any value what so ever. It would be quite funny if it wasn't so sad for him.
Peter at 10:42AM on May 6th 2008