I'm not sure why atheists praise me so much. When my book What's So Great About Christianity was published, Skeptic magazine editor Michael Shermer called me a "first rate scholar" whose "thorough research and elegant prose have elevated him into the top ranks of those who champion liberty and individual responsibility." Shermer wrote of me that "although non-Christians and non-theists may disagree with some of his arguments, we ignore him at our peril." As for my Christianity book, "it takes the debate to a new level. Read it."
Then Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, complimented me on the occasion of our first New York debate, saying I was a formidable debate opponent on any topic. Recently Hitchens told me and my wife that I am responsible for one of the big conversions in his life. He informed me about something about which I had no idea: following our debate on capitalism vs. socialism at Georgetown University more than a decade and a half ago, Hitchens said he abandoned socialism. "After that evening," Hitchens said, "I just stopped calling myself a socialist." I was too polite to speculate on what might follow for HItchens from our God v. atheism debates, but of course I was delighted to hear that I helped a friend find his way out of the dead-end maze of socialism.
The latest addition to my atheist fan club is Dan Barker, head of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Barker is a former evangelical preacher who has become a hard-core atheist. Now he heads a group that I would describe as a kind of atheist ACLU (although why we need two such organizations remains a mystery). Basically Barker's group agitates to remove all vestiges of God and religion from American public life, what Barker terms an "absolute separation" of church and state. Recently I debated Barker at Harvard University, after which Barker wrote me to say that of the hundreds of opponents he has faced over the years, "you are clearly one of the best debaters I have encountered." Is he right? You can find out by watching the debate here.
The Harvard debate was sponsored by the Harvard Secular Society and moderated by Harvard's humanist chaplain Greg Epstein. Epstein is himself an atheist, and only at Harvard can we expect to find such a creature as an "atheist chaplain." The format of the debate was interesting: no lengthy opening statements, no formal rebuttals, etc. Rather, a group of Harvard students peppered both Barker and me with questions, and then we got to engage with each other. Our debate was lively and wide-ranging, covering such topics as the existence of God, science and religion, the relationship of theism to morality, and church and state. Following this debate, the student head of the Secular society told me that unlike any religious believer he had previously encountered, I had compelled him to re-think some of his basic positions.
I know that there are some atheists who will respond to my Harvard debate with their usual ritual of abuse and name-calling. In a way I sympathize with them. Never has a group so desperately sought an intellectual victory in these contests, and so far there are no signs that it will come. So the best these atheists can do is to call me arrogant. But even the atheists I debate seem to think that this arrogance is justified.
In reality, as people like Shermer and Hitchens who know me will testify, I'm not arrogant. I am, however, just a little tired of hearing the propaganda about how atheists are the champions of reason while religious believers are the ignorant practitioners of "blind faith." You can see why I relish taking on the atheists with their chosen weapons of reason and science and evidence, and showing that I can not only defend myself but also defeat them on their own terms. At this point the atheists are running out of capable opponents. Many atheists are reduced to what one of their number, the mathematician John Allen Paulos, terms "the argument of the red face and the raised voice."
Is there any doubt why Sam Harris seems to have changed his mind about debating me, and why Richard Dawkins is still hiding under his desk? How come these "brights" seem to have fled into the cover of darkness? Do any of the atheist organizations offer an annual Wimp award?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 30)
1. DoubleD, your ego is truly magnificent, a tour de force of self masturbation. By the way, Darwin didn't lose his religion, it was misplaced in his other suit.
JefFlyingV at 12:40AM on May 7th 2008
2. Linda I also miss Clif and his deep intellect.
JefFlyingV at 12:56AM on May 7th 2008
3. Good article, Dinesh!
I've been sharing your articles with fellow Christians and churches and teachers and homeschoolers for apologetics.
Keeping you and yours--
and everyone else on the blog--
in prayer.
Good night ;~)
Devon at 12:58AM on May 7th 2008
4. I did manage the time to watch DD's debate with Hitchens. How can he claim to have won? Maybe I don't understand the debate format. It really doesn't matter if I can argue that it's not gravity which keeps your feet to the ground but your belief in God. Then offer as proof the fact that your feet are still on the ground, so therefore you really deep-down believe. Therefore, I win the debate.
Ron V at 1:16AM on May 7th 2008
5. My comment from the other blog, to get this over with.....finally.
"Stop playing, you know that's not true. You are just trying to hurt me more. I swear that I had no ulterior motives talking to you, not one, other than the fact that for some reason, I felt a connection to you. I guess I read it wrong." Tay aka Dani aka Jess
Who are you kidding. Now I can see right through you. This is a fact.
The person that felt a connection and was obsessed, is supposed to be Jess, because Jess(Dani) said it was her. Jess(Dani) clearly explained today from Dani's original post, that the real Tay if there is such a thing, just had fun reading and would comment occassionally.
Who are you kidding?
Here's the deal.
The only person that commented on here was Dani. Dani said she was married with some kids. That of course is a lie. Dani had some nice stories. You know like the one where she went to church with her family, and heard some messed up crap from the preacher, and never wanted to expose her kid to it again, eventhough her Husband wanted to go.
Okay, here is when it changed and when "Tay" entered the picture.
Dani kept on getting mindfucked, when she thought 4 or 5 posters were the same. She even accussed me of the that crap. She even called my Birthday a fake birthday. That clearly showed to me, that she though I had a multiple namesake on her, as if that would be enjoyable to me.
This is what happened.
Maybe there is a Tay that works with Dani(Jess). Dani is talking to Tay about how cool these blogs are and how she's learning and so forth. Tay reads them too and offers opinions.
Dani says she is positive that some crazy shit is going on in here, and she wants to get to the bottom of it.
It backfired, because the only same person I see on here, are:
Statepuff, Zule, Eric, Joseph, and whatever names he used today
and
MI, Michelle, Devon and a couple more
Observant knows Pati.
And this is what I gather.
It all started with Dani, and it's going to end with Dani. Her paranoia led her to do this.
There might not be a Tay. But if there is, it certainly isn't Tay tonight. It's still Dani(Jess) in here right now.
And that's all I have to say.
Botts at 1:27AM on May 7th 2008
6. Jeff,
Clif still comes on here posting on another name. I'm positive.
I won't give it away, because I want him to continue to come here. He doesn't comment as often as he did, but I've spotted him.
Botts at 1:29AM on May 7th 2008
7. Thanks Botts, I've had my suspicions, and I don't want to ruin it as well.
JefFlyingV at 1:34AM on May 7th 2008
8. Dark-side Emperor D'Souza, "Never has a group so desperately sought an intellectual victory in these contests..."
.. I mean..
Dark-side Emperor D'Souza, "I'm afraid that this Deathstar is fully functional.."
... pfft... bullshit.
not-pboyfloyd at 1:47AM on May 7th 2008
9. college age atheists are the most arrogant and stupidest people you will ever meet. they are living in atheist Matrix created by popular culture and atheists gods like Dawkins. If you want to ruin any young person's life, just have them read Ayn Rand.
ac at 2:41AM on May 7th 2008
10. Dinesh
" I'm not arrogant...arrogance is a fault and I have none"
mac at 3:01AM on May 7th 2008
11. republicans have only made the pay rate gap bigger.and guess what man? jesus was a commie. so piss off with yer republican holier than thou crap. god isnt real but maybe u should read the bible.if its so important to your ignorance. "render unto ceaser wich is his". seperation of church and state.since when did u guys stop picking on satanists?
you spend all your time demonizing people that use there brain cells? guess what? theres no such thing as talking snakes. No one lived in the belly of a whale. the earth is not 6000 yrs old. you cant except the fact that someday your gonna die and thats it. its depressing but get a friggen helmet.life sucks deal with it. chris owned you just accept it and get on with your life youre lucky he even showed up to debate you. so keep believing in the easter bunny u ignorant thiest tool.
DarthAardvark at 3:30AM on May 7th 2008
12. ac.. got it.
(Note to self.. get lots of copies of Ayn Rand to give to the young folks!)
Thanks ac
not-pboyfloyd at 3:28AM on May 7th 2008
13. Dinesh; so many words used to say nothing.
Ryan Anderson at 6:54AM on May 7th 2008
14. Bullshit! You're not too polite to say or do anything. I stopped reading your garbage after that lie.
America's Most Gangsta at 7:11AM on May 7th 2008
15. Since you are asking us to read your book, I've reposted my remarks on "Whats so Great about Christianity" with some revisements.
In his book he makes a case for Christianity based on the sheer numbers of professed Christians globally, made it sound as if quantity is better than quality and regards Christian morals as a means to correct the fallible. According to DD this is what is so great about Christianity. His Pascal's wager is heartless and mindless, basically saying you don't need to feel it in your heart and mind, just do it.
This book has an agenda that wished to blame societal problems on atheism. He doesn't seem to realize the so called moral decay he is witnessing in society is due to the same Christianity he wishes to impose on everyone. Statistics that rate the moral values Christians adhere to the most are broken by more Christians than atheists by a large margin. Christians top the charts at divorce, abortion, robberies, jail inmates....
Maybe what you should be addressing is the phenomenon of the evolving Christian god through the centuries. How morality is redefined through each century and how movements such as humanitarianism and enlightenment rid our country of such Christian things like slavery, child labor, woman's oppression and gay bashing. Address why over 300 churches have broken from traditional views when it comes to gay rights, and discuss how this phenomenon was initiated by Christians, not atheists.
So my question to you DD is, if moral Christian values and traditions are most important, why come after the ethically inclined atheist? Why not go after the very Christians that violate these sacred laws?
I would like a response on why you critique and bash atheists when all evidence points to Christians who have fallen into moral decay. I hope you respond to that, we should all here ask him to. Maybe he'll respond if we all demand him to.
goddess1prevail at 7:40AM on May 7th 2008