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 30 of 30)
436. 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
437. Typical Dinesh D'Souza. He starts off with his favorite subject - himself all the while patting himself on the back for his "defense" of an all-powerful god who he insults, because by definition an all-powerful creator "KNOWS" what will happen, and needs no defense. All the while Dinesh insists on ignoring the biblical passages about his relentless and shameless brand of boastfulness and pride.
He goes on, ironically, in pointing out all the kind things that leading Atheist have stated about them, all the while calling Atheist "invertebrates" and "wimps".
Since billions of people do NOT believe in his god, that makes a "creator" of a lot of "wimps".
Congratulations, D'Souza, you managed to out due even yourself.
The New Evangelical Manifesto, authored by leaders who represent millions of Christians, have issued the Manifesto because they are tired of divisiveness, tired of controversy, tired of name-calling, tired of "bashing". But that's not likely to make Dinesh's pride walk a little slower, let alone give him pause to look in the mirror and reflect on his non-Christlike behavior.
D'Souza apparently never tires of "bashing" us "wimps". In doing so, he helps us win the argument that Christianity is not the best moral code.
I and most of my Atheist friends have no interest in "bashing" anyone, be it psychologically, verbally or philosophically, and you'll never find myself and other atheist I work with calling anyone "wimp" much less "invertebrates". It's not how you win friends and influence people, which is the stated purpose of Christ.
If anything, Dinesh D'Souza only alienates people to his cause, if you can call his condescending boastfulness a "cause". His style, as we've seen in the comments, has even turned off his brother and sister "believers". Authority is never truth and truth alone should be the authority.
LindaL at 7:42AM on May 11th 2008
438. DD wrote:
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.
Theofloinn comments:
Does anyone else find Barker's unexamined assumption disturbingly fascist? He wants to remove religion from =public life= to achieve an absolute separation of church and =state.=
The hidden assumption is that "public life" = "state." This is far too reminiscent of Mussolini's dictum: "everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state."
(speech before the Chamber of Deputies, May 26, 1927, Discorsi del 1927, Milano, Alpes, 1928, p. 57)
Mike at 5:18PM on May 11th 2008
439. Hi Dinesh,
I'll happily debate you anytime you can provide any hard evidence God exists (the voices in your head don't count as "proof", btw")
Until then: Fuck off, you arrogant moron.
Dean Wright at 8:31AM on May 12th 2008
440. Dinesh,
I've just read this tripe of yours again (I'm feeling masochistic). Truly, it is staggering in it's arrogance while displaying a shocking level of stupidity for an adult male to display in public.
Reading your writing, I get the feeling that if your claims are actually factually correct rather than just the rantings of a deluded whacko
you'd actually be worthy of some sort of Nobel prize for having proved - beyond reasonable dounbt - the existence of God in debates, using science and reason and evidence to "defeat" those lying atheists.
So why isn't your proof shown globally on TV to usher in an new ear of humanity?
Or, could it be, your claims of proving atheists wrong are actually bullshit cooked up by your deluded mind?
Now, if your wild claims are false, your religious convictions so deep rooted and your ego-mania so visible, does it even occur to you that you maybe in need of professional help?
Dean Wright at 8:59AM on May 12th 2008
441.
Hi Dean. Nice to meet you. I don't know if you've been following D'Souza's blogs, but this is par for the course. His agenda is right wing, his pander is to the christian right. And hawking his books. He makes up stuff about people "praising him" because he really needs validation, although he doesn't deserve it.
Linda at 9:16AM on May 12th 2008
442. "Now, if your wild claims are false, your religious convictions so deep rooted and your ego-mania so visible, does it even occur to you that you maybe in need of professional help?"
Well, you can "thank god" for one thing if he exists. The inevitable death of all living beings: annoying, yappy, pretentious humans included. Maybe it was part of his "grand design" to eventually shut people up by force who never get sick of hearing themselves speak. I'm pretty sure self-idolatry is a pretty serious "sin" by biblical standards. Those are the kind of people that ancient skydaddy liked tossing firebolts at the most.
Can you imagine an ETERNITY of DD trolling this world with his self-righteous views? Talk about "hell".
zatheus at 11:58AM on May 13th 2008
443. 1. Interesting how Dinesh is able to turn the fact that 3 or 4 atheists have praised one aspect of his personality (his debate skills) into a general approval of his person and his philosophy! That's a very telling personality trait -- people who manage to ignore the overwhelmingly negative opinions of others and focus on the positive comments of a few people. Fascinating.
2. Hitchens (reportedly; I have not seen this in Hitchens' own words anywhere) only said he no longer called himself a socialist. This does not necessarily mean that he now considers himself a capitalist! Especially a "free-market" capitalist! Talk about your logical fallacies, sheesh.
3. Kumar 26, please show me where in the Bible it says that capitalism is the preferred economic system of God. In other words, why are you -- and DD -- debating the superiority of capitalism, anyway? Why are you happy Hitchens no longer calls himself a socialist -- what difference does that make, and what evidence do you have that DD converted him? Maybe DD just got Hitchens to realize he was never really a socialist, or wasn't a socialist any more. And... when did capitalism get conflated (by Christians) with Christianity!?
Xenobia at 3:56AM on May 18th 2008
444. Mr. D'Souza
The debates with Hutchins and Barker were wonderful to watch/listen to. I refuse to make them win/lose affairs but rather marvelous learning forums. The actual arguments put forth are at the center of the matter and most on both sides were worth the time and effort spent to absorb them. Unfortunately, although I would prefer you as a neighbor or friend or colleage, there demonstrated facts are stronger. Even thinking that, I still sense there is something very wrong with their conclusions: ie no god no life after death. I just don't yet know how to bring this "sense" to cognition.
regards and thanks,
ddd
Donald D Dahlgaard at 11:27PM on Sep 5th 2008