"Christian God? Jewish God? Or no God?" This was the topic of a very lively Orange County debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens, the Jewish radio host Dennis Prager, and me. The debate was held in the spring at the Bat Yahm Synagogue, and the audience was predominantly Jewish, with a fair representation of Christians and atheists.
This debate is finally online, and you can watch it here.
One might think that this three-way format would benefit Prager and me, because we were the two theists against the atheist. But Hitchens, who is perhaps the most supple debater on the atheist side, did his best to drive a wedge between Prager's position and mine.
For instance, Hitchens hammered Prager on the history of Christian anti-Semitism, leading Prager to make one of the most extraordinary defenses of Christ that I have heard, a defense even more remarkable for its synagogue setting.
Hitchens also tried to get me to dispatch all the Jews in the audience to hell. Aren't you claiming--he asked--that your religion is exclusively true and everyone else's is false? I noted that all three of us on the podium were claiming some form of exclusivity. After all, if Hitchens is right about his atheism it follows that all religions in the world are false. So Hitchens is just as much of an exclusivist as any religious fundamentalist.
Moreover, I noted that Christianity is the only religion that holds another religion, Judaism, to be true. That's why Christians essentially incorporated the entire Old Testament into the Christian Bible. While I believe that Christ is "the way, the truth and the life," I for one am not willing to judge anyone or expel anyone from heaven.
Hitchens on the other hand has said that he doesn't want to go to heaven, which he views as a kind of celestial North Korea. I suspect heaven is full of people who chose God and prayed to Him, "Thy will be done." Hell is reserved for those who by their own free choice refused God and to whom God eventually said, "Thy will be done."
I notice that after posting all my early debates on his website, Richard Dawkins has stopped featuring my recent debates. This is perhaps an indication of how the atheists are faring. Of late I also haven't heard any of these guys call themselves "brights."
If Hitchens can't get the job done, who can? While the pusillanimous Dawkins won't debate me, at least Hitchens keeps trying. My re-match with him is on September 10 in St. Louis, and tickets are available here.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 32)
46. MIW, once ( I think it was you) you told me that you could see what I meant, that you got how it must feel for me to hear someone call me "pro-abortion" and that you (again, I think it was you; perhaps I am mistaken?) wouldn't call me that anymore. So I thought that you at least had some basic empathy and at the core were a decent person only you were being strangled by your belief in dogma over love. It made me very happy to discover that you actually had a heart under all that scrpiture. However lately it seems that you aren't the same person that told me all that. Am I mistaken? I must be. I can't see you doing that. You're not open and empathetic enough. Not deep enough. It can't be the same person. I must be wrong.
Saint Brian the Godless at 11:46PM on Aug 17th 2008
47. re: post 38 claiming those who don't believe "fear" something.. What we fear is mostly that believers won't choose to learn to exercise the minds they were given (supposedly by a God who presumably wishes them to be used).
claiming evidence for a "Creator" is everywhere.. Who then created this Creator? If no one, then why does this Creator exist rather than a different one? Isn't this Creator presumably a much more complex being than humans or anything else in the physical universe we perceive? If so then if no Creators is needed in order to explain your God's existence, why is your God needed to explain the existence of we much simpler creatures? (this is the fundamental flaw in the notion of "intelligent design" supposed evidence.. it ignores the creation of the creator). If your Creator had a Creator, what type of God is that and shouldn't we be worshiping that instead as presumably a higher God? Or is your God an atheist denying the need to explain his/her/its own existence? If so wouldn't it make sense to understand as that God did that there is no need to postulate a Creator to explain the "evidence" of existence of intelligence? Therefore there is no reason to assume your God exists?
If there is a God, why should we believe he/she is anything like what you see "evidence" for when there are N religions out there who claim to have the "truth" Those who don't have an emotional attachment to one claim vs. another due to not having been indoctrinate from birth in one view.. but instead being curious to understand what the reality is have difficulty seeing much difference between the various claims re: "evidence'.
Why shouldn't I believe in the ancient gods of Olympus? There are books claiming to document their existence, why should we believe your book over their books? There are lots of explanations for the existence of books such as the bible which do not require belief in your concept of God but merely belief in the observation that just as today journalists don't get everything right, and there is no guarantee that stories passed down aren't embelished after the fact either through faulty oral storytelling or errors in translation, etc..
Those of us who were not brought up indoctrinated within a religion do not as 38 claims "fear" to look at evidence.. What was see are N different religions which contradict each other (and contract themselves as well, bringing up problems with logic) and most claim effectively "we are right, read our book as our "evidence'.. just trust us and have faith..".. when there is no reason to trust them vs. a contradictory religion.
We usually find it frustrating to attempt to logically debate religious people since we get tired of their inability to conduct reasoned discourse without game playing to avoid examining and questioning their assumptions.
Those without a belief in a simplistic Creator concept actually tend to get bored often feeling those who do lack the imagination to consider other alternative explanations to what they perceive as "evidence". Good scientists are creative and postulate "what if I'm wrong? What if there is another explanation for my theory?" and are willing to consider that they themselves are human and fallible as may be their theories.. as may be your theory of God (or those who taught you the theory of God you have). Even if a God exists.. the words are created by and passed down among fallible humans who have potentially fallible models of what the evidence they have implies.
We get tired of contradictions where somehow this "God" is supposed be good yet despite omniscience and omnipotence feels a need to hide from direct interaction and play some silly game requiring "faith" rather than simply coming out in the open and communicating with people who don't see the evidence you claim to. eg despite the claims that he is omniscience and should be aware eg that someone's father is sick, people feel a need to insult this God's intelligence and pray to it asking to eg "please heal my father" as if the God were too stupid to realize that the father was sick or the child might want him healed.. or that this God were insecure enough to require begging and stating of the obvious to get him to do something.. Whereas of course despite prayers of lots of people bad things happen since its "God's plan".. Easy to claim to believe in a God where no matter what happens you can't be proven wrong.. you suffer from conformation bias claiming good things are from God whereas somehow bad things don't indicate God is evil but must just be part of a complicated plan you don't understand.
If the God you believe in requires belief in him despite clear evidence and were willing to punish people who truly didn't see the evidence and believe (despite having created us such that we might not see that evidence), that wouldn't seem just or fair, but unjust and evil. So unless you wish to believe in an evil god then belief in your God isn't necessary to get into your heaven if you turn out to be right. If your God is a psychologically twisted insecure game playing sadist then I'm not sure thats a God I'd wish to worship personally and I'd find it hard to imagine why you'd feel that in all of creation somehow only that one God existed and his creation. How do you know there aren't other Gods and other universes? Some might be exactly like this one.. except a different religion is right about which game-playing God exists? How do we know which one this is?
To those of us who weren't indoctrinated to a belief in God before we were old enough to think for ourselves, the whole concept seems rather silly and truly no different or more plausible than the Gods of ancient primitive tribes, or those of Mount Olympus, invented to explain things there was too little information to explain because you folks aren't comfortable with the notion of something simply being at present a mystery.. ie existence being a mystery.. and instead need to take the simple route of imagining a Creator in man's image since you envision that just as man creates things something must have created man.. ignoring that this argument may make you feel better but isn't philosophically useful or rational since it only defers the issue of who created the creator.. or created the creator of the creator.. etc.. Just like the ancient myth of the world being on the back of a turtle.. which is on the back of a turtle.. and so on all the way down. How do you know one of those creators isn't the equivalent of a video game programmer creating a simulated universe on a scale which to us encompasses everything but which is minute within the scale of his universe?
RealityExplorer at 12:19AM on Aug 18th 2008
48. Saint Brian the Godless of Heathenism,
That would be Observant, not MIW.
Botts at 12:22AM on Aug 18th 2008
49. 48. Saint Brian the Godless of Heathenism,
That would be Observant, not MIW.
Botts at 12:22AM on Aug 18th 2008
------------------------------------
It figures. I mixed them up and was thinking good of someone that didn't deserve it.
Oh well. Now I know why it had seemed that he had changed for the worse. He was worse already. (sigh)
Saint Brian the Godless at 12:41AM on Aug 18th 2008
50. How's it going, Botts?
Saint Brian the Godless at 12:43AM on Aug 18th 2008
51. Christian God? Jewish God? Or no God?
-I'll take door number three, Monty....
Saint Brian the Godless at 12:45AM on Aug 18th 2008
52. Botts
Hope every thing is well with you. Have you hear from Linda lately? I have been out of touch with the blog and wondered what happened to her.
Jerry Brown at 12:49AM on Aug 18th 2008
53. "Hitchens also tried to get me to dispatch all the Jews in the audience to hell. Aren't you claiming--he asked--that your religion is exclusively true and everyone else's is false? I noted that all three of us on the podium were claiming some form of exclusivity. After all, if Hitchens is right about his atheism it follows that all religions in the world are false. So Hitchens is just as much of an exclusivist as any religious fundamentalist." - Dinesh D'Souza, An Advocate of Mass Murder using "Live Ammunition"!
Being right about there not being a god has nothing to do with being exclusivist oh war criminal Dinesh D'Souza. We'll get to your advocating war crimes in a moment. It's simply stating a fact of objective reality that there are no actual gods material or immaterial. That's not about being exclusive about anything. You can take it or leave it, and obviously you choose to leave it but that won't change the facts of life.
The mistake Dinesh makes is pretending with the grammar in the above paragraph that atheism is on par with religion. It isn't a religion. It is a non-religion that simply rejects supernatural nothings that can't be proven with evidence. If there ever is proof or factual repeatable evidence of gods then by all means bring it on and once verified we atheists would have to come to accept it. However, the evidence is clear already that that isn't going to happen since the existence of gods (one or many - who cares) would violate so many of the known laws of nature that it's not funny.
Dinesh D'Souza advocates MURDER and KILLING. To quote him from the debate he prompts above: "keeping channels of open communication with the Islamic Radicals and this open communication, I think, should take the form of LIVE AMMUNITION".
This advocacy of murder and killing, in combination with your likely vile works at the White House under Ronald Reagan, is what makes you an evil man Dinesh D'Souza. You are a dangerous man as well since you publicly support the murder and killing of those you don't like.
The end of war will only come about when people the likes of Dinesh D'Souza AND Bin Laden (two compatriots in murder, death and killing) choose to stop the killing. In the meantime prepare to defend yourself from the evil acts of men like Dinesh D'Souza and his state based murders, for they could come to your neighborhood when they decide they don't like you for some reason.
Peter at 12:59AM on Aug 18th 2008
54. The explanation that a transcendent being somehow "breathed a soul" into Darwinian Man 5,000 years ago to kick start history is NOT a better explanation Mr. Advocate of Killing and Murder Dinesh D'Souza. That is a lousy explanation since it REQUIRES a super nature super being. It also requires a "soul" and many other supernatural nonsense that you like to peddle so much.
Dinesh D'Souza advocates MURDER and KILLING: "keeping channels of open communication with the Islamic Radicals and this open communication, I think, should take the form of LIVE AMMUNITION". As an advocate of mass murder Dinesh D'Souza is no different than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, The Castro
's, Bush I & II, Clinton (the mad bomber of factories), and suicide bombers plus many more who revert to killing to solve the worlds problems. Oh yeah, add Putin and his cohorts to the mix of evil vile men who use force and killing and death to solve problems. THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.
YOU ARE THE PROBLEM WITH THE WORLD DINESH D'SOUZA!!! The fact that you publicly advocate MURDER, DEATH and KILLING AS A SOLUTION is no different than Hitler Advocating and Carrying Out the Final Solution!
Peter at 1:07AM on Aug 18th 2008
55. "Apparently DD believes that slurs like "Kike" and "Mockie" and "Christ Killers" were coined by Atheists."
Well, you can't deny that the Jews are "Christ Killers", while the other terms are simply non-PC ways of referring to another group (e.g., Frog for French, Dago for Italian, etc) that probably arose from anyone who got cheated at the market by a slick Jew salesman.
Jeremy at 1:10AM on Aug 18th 2008
56. Reference of Dinesh D'Souza's advocacy of MURDER, DEATH and KILLING:
Dinesh D'Souza advocates MURDER and KILLING: "keeping channels of open communication with the Islamic Radicals and this open communication, I think, should take the form of LIVE AMMUNITION".
The horrific statement where Dinesh D'Souza advocates MURDER, DEATH and KILLING as a solution to problems is at 01:00 minutes into the third segment of the debate and lasts for ~20 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wUm0A7mFa4&feature=related
Dr. Evil Dinesh D'Souza joins the ranks of all the mass murderers in history with these public comments.
He shows his true strips as a killer.
Peter at 1:12AM on Aug 18th 2008
57. Dinesh D'Souza is now conclusively on the public record a member of the Cult of Death by his advocacy of Murder, Death and Killing!
"keeping channels of open communication with the Islamic Radicals and this open communication, I think, should take the form of LIVE AMMUNITION" - Dinesh D'Souza advocate of murder, death and killing. See 01:00 to 01:20 of video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wUm0A7mFa4
Peter at 1:15AM on Aug 18th 2008
58.
Congrats Jeremy, you are the dickhead of the century.
sparrow at 1:21AM on Aug 18th 2008
59. To all you nut jobs who have thought that I misused the word "belief" please see the following video from 01:35 to 01:51 of video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wUm0A7mFa4
"There is a difference between religious *belief* and rational knowledge. ... I would say that I believe in god but I wouldn't say that I believe in my brother! I know the guy! [Brother not god!]. So you believe when you *DON'T KNOW*." - Dinesh D'Souza
It is that difference (among others) that separates us Dinesh D'Souza, advocate of murder, killing and death.
And no we don't use the same tools for you fail to actually use tools since you have a predestination driven by your faith based beliefs!
The "BEST EXPLAINATION" must be tested against the Laws of Nature and all explanation of gods have failed this test.
What is the best explanation of the story of jesus rising from the dead that fits objective reality? That if he in fact existed he would have died and never risen from the dead. If he died at the hands of the Romans by being tortured to death on a cross he was most certainly dead as any living thing that dies. He could not have risen from the dead since dead bodies can't rise from the dead once they have undergone cell death, brain death and organ death. Get used to it.
What's odd is Dinesh D'Sousa, evil man who advocates murder, death and killing as a solution. Dinesh's Final Solution.
Peter at 1:26AM on Aug 18th 2008
60. At least Dinesh admits he's an "oddity"!
Peter at 1:28AM on Aug 18th 2008