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 29 of 30)
421. Botts, ask JC, JC, if He'll smile for me...
Carter, I mean, of course. Who did you THINK I meant?
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:43AM on May 9th 2008
422. We're being assimilated!
Is resistance truly futile?
Well, I for one am done talkin to em...
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:47AM on May 9th 2008
423. Dinesh was too long winded on this one. Didn't get too make many of his usual arguments.
Earl at 12:53AM on May 10th 2008
424. i noticed not one thiest argued with me about my comments about how stupid it is to believe in a talking snake. maybe there is no defense. if u believe that some guy lived in the belly of a whale maybe there is no argument about it. and if u dont believe in the bible litterally and u take that defense than u dont believe in the fact that the bible says that the bible is the infalable word of of god. if it is indeed infallable than u should take it litteraly. so if u think the light came before the stars than maybe u should stop drooling on yourself. if u think the earth is 6000 yrs old maybe u need to be sterilized so u dont pollute the masses. if u believe in virgin births and miricles than perhaps you would buy a childrens book from me and make me millions. science doesnt claim to know all the answers but at least they dont claim to be the all knowing fount of knowlage and all others are going to hell. religion is purely regional. if u sick ass thiest's had been born in iraq ued be praising alah and preaching about 70 virgins. instead you where born in amercica claiming christianity is the way to go. so closed minded you are. i do not expect a good reason for it so unload with your bs.
DarthAardvark at 7:54AM on May 9th 2008
425. 252.
Moke, TJ, you are gonna LOVE Iron Man.
T.Brough at 2:27PM on May 8th 2008
___________________________________________________
Sorry so late in responding, took a flight out and was too tired when I got in to get back on-line, I'm catching up now.
YES. I saw Iron Man on Sunday and I loved it. Can't wait to see if they do more. LOVED IT LOVED IT LOVED IT.
I'm a big Transformers fan, saw that in the theater 3 times.
TJ at 7:51AM on May 9th 2008
426. D'Stupid, if your intellect even came close to matching your ego, you would truly be a formidable debate/bible-thumping opponent. As it is, you're nothing more than a pompous windbag. I've watched your debates on Youtube. You suck. Hitchens, Schermer, and Barker mopped the floor with you. You were in way over your head and out of your league. Stick to what you know best: bible study classes.
Normanator at 8:01AM on May 9th 2008
427. Are you done patting yourself on the back yet?
Rick at 8:24AM on May 9th 2008
428. Actually Gwen, I don't understand anything you post. I went back and tried to re-read it, but, no
I still don't understand what you are trying to convey.
I don't think its just me either.
What is the point you are trying to make?
TJ at 8:23AM on May 9th 2008
429. You can always tell when it is a slow day on aol when the 'recent comments' show old topics like ' Britney's 16-Year-Old Sister Is Pregnant'.
a born atheist at 8:30AM on May 9th 2008
430. Iron Man!
Mokele Mbembe at 8:41AM on May 9th 2008
431. Darthaardvark 425,
I think the reason no one replied your earlier comment was bcos it is full of so many basic errors and misunderstandings that it would take ages to correct them all!
For instance you say "if you dont interpret the bible literally, then you dont believe the bible is the word of god".
The bible is made up of a library of 66 books which fall into different genres. Eg apocalyptic, narratives, historical, prophetic and so on.
Bcos of this saying that a one approach fits all method of interpreting the bible is just silly. Literal or allegorical or whatever interpretive method you are suggesting depends on the kind of book that you are reading.
Even within one book whether you take a literal approach or not depends on the content and context. For instance the gospels are narrative and could be read fairly literally... but even there sometimes it is clearly metaphorical.
For instance when Jesus said "i am the gate" "i am the door"... you wouldnt try to jump over jesus or you wouldnt look for hinges... :)
silly example to explain that its not as simple as saying literal understanding is the only acceptable method...
kumar at 8:52AM on May 9th 2008
432. Its NOT just humans that talk. For instance some parrots talk. Admittedly they are not as eloquent as Dinesh D'Souza in debating mode... but they do talk!!!
It is factually wrong to say that at no point has it been recorded that animals talk - cos it is recorded in the book of genesis. LOL, you havent read genesis obviously?
It is specisim and demeaning to animals to say that they have at no time in history ever spoken... just bcos you havent noticed
kumar at 8:59AM on May 9th 2008
433. Dinesh,
Although some responded to what they perceived to be arrogance, I understand your point and I applaud your defense of the truth. You have done your homework! I listened to the debate (up to Part 6 b/c the rest are no longer able to be shown!) Is there a place where I could view the debate in its entirety?
Barb at 9:39AM on May 9th 2008
434. Like hey tj, I'm duh perky gwen, like duh, can't like answer you like right duh now, like crap like my head collapsed like I duh got to like stop picking my nose like...
John The Baptist at 9:57AM on May 9th 2008
435. John the Baptist - you are a disgrace to my name. Elijah is not happy with you obvious mockery of the Lord thy God. Watch out for the bears.
Man_in_Wilderness at 11:14AM on May 9th 2008