"Why Atheists Are So Angry" - PhillyBlog

humber · #1 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 02:31 PM

I read this today (a worthy read) and am passing it along. I am confident that it will not take long before one of you, however, hating D'Souza's message, will try to push it down (out of sight) because you do not want others to read it. Why not prove me wrong by letting this stand for awhile--so others (besides yourself) see it--instead of obligating them to scroll down past your great words of "wisdom" first? I predict, however, that you will not be able to resist the temptation.

Why Atheists Are So Angry
By Dinesh D'Souza
Sunday, December 9, 2007

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?

Bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza's new book What's So Great About Christianity has just been released. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Be the first to read Dinesh D'Souza's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

phillyaggie · #2 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 03:04 PM

Dinesh is a lost soul to christianity. he needs to be repatriated to hinduism.

OVP_Biker · #3 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by humber

Why Atheists Are So Angry

We're not angry. To the contrary, we're some of the happiest people you'll ever meet. It's just that you never get to see it. All of your "God this" and "Jesus that" is such a f*cking wet blanket. You're no fun to be around, so we don't hang around. The only time you see us is when you're trying to save our souls....and the only proper reaction to someone trying to tell someone else how to live their life is, "f*ck you!" So I can understand why you think we're angry. But rest assured, if you were able to drop the fake piety and look at us on any other level that a soul needing to be saved, maybe we'd let you hang, and you'd get a better idea of who and what we are. But you're not at all interested in that, are you?

QVNewcomer · #4 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 03:08 PM

These threads are getting boring.

If I wanted to read D'Souza, I could just go read D'Souza, without you just cutting and pasting all his work here.

humber · #5 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 03:26 PM

When I introduced this thread, I wrote: "I predict, however, that you will not be able to resist the temptation." QED!

OVP_Biker · #6 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by humber

When I introduced this thread, I wrote: "I predict, however, that you will not be able to resist the temptation." QED!

Funny thing, I didn't even read your post. Just noted the insipid headline, then quoted an clipped it. Now that I've gone back and read your little preface, I can't help but chuckle at your reply. You've helped push the original post a further down the page. Congratulations, ChristBoy, you've become part of the problem.

lhalldena · #7 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 03:45 PM

So... you posted an article that you did not want people to comment on? In that case, it sounds like you should be running your own website or blog, and not coming to this forum.*

Ignoring my own personal beliefs on Humber's article for a moment, posters who make no attempt to discuss Philly and just post repetitively on some other pet subject really irritate me. Especially when they're just quoting from other people's writings. If you made some attempt to look like you were a member of this community, Humber, people might be more willing to listen to you.

*Ironically, each time someone comments on this thread it jumps to the top of the "new posts" list... so I don't see what you're complaining about.

Michael Tree · #8 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lhalldena

Ignoring my own personal beliefs on Humber's article for a moment, posters who make no attempt to discuss Philly and just post repetitively on some other pet subject really irritate me. Especially when they're just quoting from other people's writings. If you made some attempt to look like you were a member of this community, Humber, people might be more willing to listen to you.

Very true. As far as Phillyblog is concerned, humber isn't a real person. He's just a faceless personalityless Jesus-pusher.

I don't say that because I disagree with his views. There are lots of people here who I disagree with, and who expound on their own ideologies just as much as humber does, but at least they post about other things and are part of the phillyblog "community."

Winston · #9 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 06:47 PM

I agree that it’s odd to post something on a discussion board and then ask that it not be discussed, but that sort of convoluted thinking is par for the course with religious dogmatists. Anyway, what exactly does the author state? He makes only two points: (1) atheists hate God, and (2) he’s been getting the best of them in debates recently. Not a lot of meat to it, from what I can see.

Starting with the latter point, the author’s “he said-she said” litany of quotes is rather petty and offers no basis for an actual discussion. I could canvass 100 atheists who’d disagree—would that make you inclined to rethink your position, humber? My guess is no. And needless to say it’s yellow journalism for someone to report on his own performance in a debate and pass it off as uncontested fact. Finally, all that boasting is rather vainglorious of him. Isn’t that a sin? I remember reading somewhere that pride comes before a fall…

As for his first point, I do think there’s anger among atheists, but not at “God” per se, but rather the way his most ardent defenders use the concept to justify their narrow-minded views on social issues and, generally speaking, pollute the political discourse. When a presidential candidate gives a speech that says “freedom requires religion,” I get angry. Not at God, but at the low standards we collectively have for our politicians that allows such a statement to be praised when it should be laughed off in contempt.

I’m angry, and sad, that so many people prefer to be spoon-fed their ideology rather than work out moral and philosophical issues for themselves. When people are willing, even eager, to outsource the most profound questions to such dubious authorities as an ancient book and a succession of self-styled experts on it, I’m angry. Not at God, but at the credulous nature that must be inherent in humans, since so many allow such intellectual laziness to continue.

In just the last 200 or so years, we’ve been able to repudiate the monarch/serf and master/slave relationships that kept so many hapless people in subjugation for so long, and yet we perpetuate — in fact, revel in — the very same dynamic in the realm of philosophy and morality. It’s pitiful and embarassing, and I’m angry that mankind can achieve so much in so many spheres (medicine, technology, the arts) but be so craven and hidebound on perhaps the most important topic of all.

GMonkey · #10 (**permalink**) 12-10-2007, 07:19 PM

Excellent post, Winston.

As an atheist, I can state that I do not hate god, as I do not believe that god exists. There is a difference between Christianity and unicorns. If unicorn worship were so involved in senseless acts against humanity and an excuse for bigotry as organized religion has been, I'd be a little peeved about unicorns, as well.