PDA

View Full Version : Why Atheists Are So Angry By Dinesh D'Souza



megimoo
11-14-2008, 02:35 AM
Why Atheists Are So Angry By Dinesh D'Souza

If you haven't seen my “God v. Atheism” debate with philosopher Daniel Dennett, you can view it at Tothesource.org. You should read the comments in response to the debate both on my AOL blog as well as on the atheist site richarddawkins.net. From the atheists you hear statements like this: "D'Souza is a goddamned idiot." "Odious little toad." "D'Souza is full of s**t." "A smug, joyless twit." "Total moron." "Little turd." "Two-faced liar." Etc, etc. Now admittedly the topic of God v. atheism can be an emotional one, but you will find no comparable invective on the Christian side. Why then are so many atheists so angry?

One reason I think is that they are God-haters. Atheists often like to portray themselves as "unbelievers" but this is not strictly accurate. If they were mere unbelievers they would simply live their lives as if God did not exist. I don't believe in unicorns, but then I haven't written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion. Clearly the atheists go beyond disbelief; they are on the warpath against God. And you can hear their bitterness not only in their book titles but also in their mean-spirited invective.

Here is a second reason the atheists sound so angry. They are not used to having their sophistries exposed. For the past three years the new atheists have had a virtually free ride. Dawkins and Hitchens make outrageous claims ("religion poisons everything") and media pundits like Lou Dobbs and Tim Russert fawn all over them. But in the past few months I've been meeting the leading atheist spokesmen in open debate, and challenging them on the basis of the same reason and science and evidence that they say vindicates their claims.

After my first debate with Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, several atheists on Dawkins' site said, "Well, D'Souza won that debate, but wait till he meets Hitchens. Hitchens will wipe the floor with him. D'Souza RIP." Then after I debated Hitchens the atheists said, "Oh no, this one didn't go as planned. Hitchens didn't do so well." Another commented that atheists could not afford to lose two in a row. Even so, one atheist hopefully noted that Hitchens was not the right guy to debate me; rather, Daniel Dennett has the scholarly weight to do the job.

Now after my Dennett debate, what's the verdict? Well, the audience was full of Dennett supporters who began with enthusiastic applause for him but, as the debate went on, fell largely silent. Several came up to me afterward and told me that I had won. Dennett himself seemed dispirited after the event. Even so, when I posted the debate on my blog, the atheists went into damage control mode. The debate was instantly posted on atheist sites, and atheists rushed to my AOL blog to vote Dennett the winner. This effort gave atheists an early lead, but when the votes were tallied I was the victor. Interestingly my margin of victory was even bigger than that for the resolution, suggesting that several people voted that "God Is a Man-Made Invention" and still thought I won the debate.

A good way to assess a debate is to see what the partisans on each side say. Among Christians the verdict is unanimous. Here’s a sample comment from a Townhall reader: "My heart went out to Professor Dennett because he was so totally over-matched in this debate You totally demolished him as you have the other atheists you have debated." But all you have to do is to go to atheist sites to see that many atheists also think that I won, although this is sometimes very grudgingly admitted.

Here is a sampling of comments that I've taken from richarddawkins.net. "I was at the debate and thought Dennett did not prove his point." "I'm so tired of these D'Souza debates. The more people we send his way the larger his smile grows." "I feel such debates should stop." "I love Dennett's ideas about atheism but I do think he handled this debate poorly against Dinesh." "Ok, Dennett sucked...Dennett's type of responses just made him look like an ass." "Dinesh is an amazingly talented orator, considering how hopeless a case he is arguing." "Hitchens has had a shot, as has Dennett, and neither has succeeded in demolishing D'Souza. D'Souza has a very effective debating technique. Not only did a lot of atheists get up and fire straw-man arguments at D'Souza that he was easily able to counter and make them look foolish, but Dennett...lost his composure and his train of thought." "Let's face it, this guy has taken our best shots and still come out looking good. Maddening."

So where does this leave the atheists? These guys now seem to be 0-3. Some of the blog posters on Dawkins' site are calling on Sam Harris and Dawkins himself to step into the ring. Harris seems willing, although he has approached me about doing a written rather than an oral debate. Dawkins continues to avoid my invitation to debate on a secular West Coast campus, leading one atheist to dub him Richard the Chickenhearted. I really hope that Dawkins proves he has the courage of his convictions. (How brave is it to beat up on former televangelist Ted Haggard?)

Otherwise the self-styled "brights" are going to face the empirical fact that when it comes to defending their views, atheists are basically losers. Remarkably, the "party of reason" is simply incompetent to vindicate those claims against an advocate of the "party of faith." Now what could be more embarrassing than that?

http://townhall.com/Columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/12/09/why_atheists_are_so_angry

movie buff
11-14-2008, 07:22 AM
"Dawkins continues to avoid my invitation to debate on a secular West Coast campus, leading one atheist to dub him Richard the Chickenhearted."
LOL! That's a good one!
Yeah, I have noticed that a LOT of the atheists I've come into contact with online and such are extremely angry, bitter people. In fact, I just debated with one last night, in the Youtube video about the old woman who was attacked by gay activists.

megimoo
11-14-2008, 08:43 AM
"Dawkins continues to avoid my invitation to debate on a secular West Coast campus, leading one atheist to dub him Richard the Chickenhearted."
LOL! That's a good one!
Yeah, I have noticed that a LOT of the atheists I've come into contact with online and such are extremely angry, bitter people. In fact, I just debated with one last night, in the Youtube video about the old woman who was attacked by gay activists.
That guy blocking the reporter and hassling that old lady was prime for a face full of fist .He was no doubt a old butt buddy from the looks of him.He has a lot going for him though,An atheist heathen,a Barney The ButtBoy personality and an obvious Obama supporter.

FlaGator
11-14-2008, 09:03 AM
As is evidenced on this site, I enjoy debating atheists and agnostics. Some present their argument better than others and those are the ones I enjoy debating the most. They make me think out my position and force me to learn new information in order to keep the debate fresh. I salso ee a lot of what the Bible teaches about the blindness of non-believers in action when discussing with them the existence of God. It reinforces the truth and sanctity of the Bible for me.

noonwitch
11-14-2008, 09:12 AM
I truly think that there is a part of most atheists that wants to believe, but that they had a situation in their life that led them to believe that God didn't help or protect them, so they won't believe in His existence. That's where the anger comes from, a subconcious feeling of being left out. That's why arguing with them does no good.

FlaGator
11-14-2008, 09:13 AM
"Dawkins continues to avoid my invitation to debate on a secular West Coast campus, leading one atheist to dub him Richard the Chickenhearted."
LOL! That's a good one!
Yeah, I have noticed that a LOT of the atheists I've come into contact with online and such are extremely angry, bitter people. In fact, I just debated with one last night, in the Youtube video about the old woman who was attacked by gay activists.

Richard Dawkins is the single poorest example of an atheist who is capable of defending his position. When he is being interviewed or writing a book he feels all smug and intellectual as long as he is not challenged with facts. When a knowledgeable Christian Apologist takes him to task he stumbles and offers explanations for phenomena that are even more implausible than believing that God was the cause. Listen to him explain the existence of DNA and its designed appearance and the chance that something as complex could have developed on its own. He states that perhaps it was imported by alien visitors, which is a non answer to the original question. Whether the DNA was designed here or designed somewhere else and brought here it doesn't answer the fact of who designed it. The God Delusion is one of the poorest written defenses of atheism ever written.

FlaGator
11-14-2008, 09:17 AM
I truly think that there is a part of most atheists that wants to believe, but that they had a situation in their life that led them to believe that God didn't help or protect them, so they won't believe in His existence. That's where the anger comes from, a subconcious feeling of being left out. That's why arguing with them does no good.

I've always thought the same thing. I suspose they'll deny it and say that they are just logically assessing the evidence at hand, but quick often they discount valid evidence to order to cling to their position. They'll even look at the evidence at hand and accept the irrational conclusion over the rational in order to avoid having to consider the possibility there is a God.

wilbur
11-14-2008, 09:53 AM
I think Dinesh needs to appreciate some of the vitriol thrown at atheist commentators, bloggers, etc from many religious. I wonder how many death threats Dinesh has received from atheists commenters? Anyway, I'm no more proud of to be lumped into the same group as those atheists than the religious are proud to be lumped together with the likes of Fred Phelps.

It takes a little calming down and deep breathing for me sometimes... to remember to take it things in stride... its not that I care that people believe in God, but the God believers are a pretty strong coalition on many issues... and that gives them very clear power over me and others. It can be frustrating when its abundantly clear that many arent after practical solutions to problems, but are all about simply setting up the rule system so that it's 'what God would want'.... and that once they can do that, then God will take care of the rest. It can be maddening.

If there is a God, I think its abundantly clear that he expects us to solve problems on our own, using our heads..... not by expecting rewards for seeking his approval.

wilbur
11-14-2008, 10:00 AM
And upon further reading of the article, I don't know where Dinesh gets off saying he has defeated Christopher Hitchens in debate... I've seen several of them and havent been that impressed with his arguments, although he is well spoken.

Plenty of them are on youtube for anyone interested: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dinesh+hitchens&search_type=&aq=f

I think the Rabbi David Wolpe is much more talented than Dinesh at debating atheists.... I've seen him really hold his own, or possibly argue better than Christopher Hitchens... who admittedly doesn't always seem to think very well on his feet, and falls into repetitive pre-prepared spiels. Sam Harris has debated him and I think clearly came out on top.

I think William Lane Craig also argues much better than Dinesh, but I think also is well matched or surpassed by atheist debaters... although he usually debates lesser known, more academic, atheists. There are plenty of his debates on youtube as well.

FlaGator
11-14-2008, 10:40 AM
I think Dinesh needs to appreciate some of the vitriol thrown at atheist commentators, bloggers, etc from many religious. I wonder how many death threats Dinesh has received from atheists commenters? Anyway, I'm no more proud of to be lumped into the same group as those atheists than the religious are proud to be lumped together with the likes of Fred Phelps.

It takes a little calming down and deep breathing for me sometimes... to remember to take it things in stride... its not that I care that people believe in God, but the God believers are a pretty strong coalition on many issues... and that gives them very clear power over me and others. It can be frustrating when its abundantly clear that many arent after practical solutions to problems, but are all about simply setting up the rule system so that it's 'what God would want'.... and that once they can do that, then God will take care of the rest. It can be maddening.

If there is a God, I think its abundantly clear that he expects us to solve problems on our own, using our heads..... not by expecting rewards for seeking his approval.

I've always thought that you were one of the good guys. Our debates can get heated but we treat each other with mutual respect. Hamps is another good example of being one of the good guys. Unfortunately both sides have their dark sides. Those who feel that they are more in touch with some element of the cause that they feel gives them leave to express their righteous indignation or to behave in a manner at odds with good behavior.

As for what God expects of us... he expects one thing, obedience to His word. When someone willfully disobeys God after being made aware of the Lord's expectations one has to wonder about his true commitment to serving the Lord.

Molon Labe
11-14-2008, 11:02 AM
It takes a little calming down and deep breathing for me sometimes... to remember to take it things in stride... its not that I care that people believe in God, but the God believers are a pretty strong coalition on many issues... and that gives them very clear power over me and others. It can be frustrating when its abundantly clear that many arent after practical solutions to problems, but are all about simply setting up the rule system so that it's 'what God would want'.... and that once they can do that, then God will take care of the rest. It can be maddening.

If there is a God, I think its abundantly clear that he expects us to solve problems on our own, using our heads..... not by expecting rewards for seeking his approval.

It's called "Dominionism" Look it up...it's scary even for us Christians.

Wilbur...I get what you are saying. There is a fine line between making this nation a complete theocracy and a nation based on Christian principles of Western Civilization. There is a difference.
I am not for people being criminalized for not following Christian theology, but then I'm also not for the way the left has completely changed the meaning of seperation of church and state. The founders never intended this nation to be devoid of God or religion even in our politics regardless what is being taught.
Both sides are to be feared equally.

But to the Christian we are supposed to us our heads as well as seek guidance through prayer. It may sound stupid to an athiest...but others call it intuition..etc. It's God to the faithful.