Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, October 23, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

by Meredith Bryan, The Observer

UPDATE: I think every time we post something with Dinesh D'Souza we should remind you of this article:
"Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?" by Dinesh D'Souza

[No video yet -- we'll post it as soon as it shows up. It's expected to be posted HERE. -Josh]

Reposted from:
http://www.observer.com/2007/war-heaven-hitchens-meets-dsouza-home-turf

As usual, the argument over God becomes one over Torquemada and Mao, Stalin and Richard the Lionheart

hitch dinesh

Last night at the Society for Ethical Culture, the big question was: whose body count is bigger? Atheism's or Christianity's?

In one corner was Christopher Hitchens, a leading contributor to American intellectual dyspepsia and the author of God is Not Great; in the other was Hoover Institution and former young Reaganite Dinesh D'Souza, author of What's So Great About Christianity. (If the war between the two were to cause any collateral damage, a look around the packed auditorium put the number of civilians in the line of fire in the hundreds.)

The Salem Witch Trials killed just eighteen, said Mr. D'Souza. And the Inquisition killed only 2,000 in 300 years! Whereas atheists could claim Stalin, Mao... his list went on.

"Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history," he declared triumphantly. "I think Hitchens by the end of the day should be chanting 'Thank God for Christianity.'"

Earlier Mr. D'Souza had opened the debate, sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and The King's College on the topic "Is Christianity the Problem?" on a rather more lighthearted note.

"I don't believe in unicorns," he said drily, "but I haven't written a book on the subject." This was a dig at the "militancy" of the "new atheists:" Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Mr. Hitchens.

He charged that the values claimed by atheists-individual dissent, personal dignity, equality, antipathy to oppression, compassion as a social virtue-actually "came into the world from Christianity," thank you.

Mr. Hitchens took the podium with a plastic glass of dark-colored liquid and thanked the "alarmingly polite and wholesome faculty, staff and students of King's College."

(His alarm no doubt partly consisted in speaking before this particular audience: The King's College's mission is to educate its students from a "commitment to the truths of Christianity and a Biblical worldview.")

To Mr. Hitchens, those truths have a deeper origin even than that, because "human solidarity predates monotheism."

God, as Christians describe him, he said, is a "celestial dictator" who will "continue to judge and persecute us even after we are dead."

It is "very fortunate," he concluded, "that we posses no evidence of this."

Then came the zingers: "It's not moral to lie to children and ignorant uneducated people-to tell them they can be saved. It's wrong. The [idea of damnation] is one of the most wicked ideas ever preached." And its preachers?

"Vicious, child-hating old people."

Someone apparently flashed Mr. Hitchens the "two minutes left" sign.

"I don't need two minutes to finish with this religion!" he crowed.

But he did. He reminded the audience that for tens of thousands of years, humans lived for 20 or 25 years before they were "dead of microorganisms." Christians, he said, believe that heaven watched this for 98,000 years and then suddenly decided to intervene 2,000 years ago with "a filthy human sacrifice in a remote part of Palestine." This "can't be believed by a thinking person," he said, to applause.

Then it was Mr. D'Souza's turn again. "I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony," he said. "I'm trying to decide where to begin!"

He started with Christ, "one of the mildest men to ever set face on earth," he said, whose "ideas have done good for the world."

He surmised that for poor Hitchens, "the gates of hell are locked from inside." Because, well, we are free to accept or reject salvation, and if we reject it, "God reluctantly gives us our wish." The crowd liked this, too.

Then back to Mr. Hitchens, who said we've all heard the argument that without religion, "we'd descend into nihilistic chaos," but "is there anything forbidden to those who say they have God on their side?"

On to "cross-examination," which went approximately as follows:

D'Souza: How do we live in such a fine-tuned universe?

Hitchens: "We're in a tiny solar system in a tiny corner of the universe. The sun will eventually boil us alive. We're poised on a gigantic knife edge. Quite some design. Quite some designer!


Then, as is customary in debates on this topic, it was ... back to the dictators!

Hitchens: "There is nothing secular about fascism. Hitler praised the church in Mein Kampf."

D'Souza: "Hitchens zooms in on Hitler, leaving untouched Communism. He didn't mention Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il..."

Hitchens: "Bah!" (takes a drink).

"Take Russia in 1917. Is not the case that for centuries they've been told their head of state is a little more than human? Out of this were serfdom and similar delights born."

D'Souza: "Christianity has a lot to answer for. That's why we have forgiveness. But not Mao, Stalin, Hitler-people who would have wiped it off the face of the earth if they could have, as would Christopher Hitchens!"


With that, the question and answer period began. Mr. Hitchens, mugging about alcoholism as is his wont, said his favorite miracle is the one where water was turned to wine. Mr. D'Souza reiterated that evolution can't account for morality. Mr. Hitchens said that when he was a socialist, he enjoyed giving blood. Mr. D'Souza said this was because Mr. Hitchens was raised in Christian Europe. Mr. Hitchens said "Yuck!"

And Mr. D'Souza got the last word, declaring that "the atheist is chafing under the laws of a world in which we are accountable. Atheism isn't an intellectual revolt, it's a moral one."

Phew. At this point anyone could have been forgiven for rushing the stage to grab Mr. Hitchens' cup and throwing it down his throat.

Mr. Hitchens lingered at his podium as the crowd clapped, looking as if there were more he wanted to say.

He didn't. And as Mr. D'Souza smiled and greeted admirers on the stage, signing copies of his new book, Mr. Hitchens made his way toward the door.

"Christopher is used to steamrolling his opponents," Mr. D'Souza told The Observer with all the boyish relish of a 26-year-old foreign-policy advisor to Ronald Reagan. (He's now 46.) "I've watched a couple of his debates, and they're very one-sided in his favor. So I was determined to be the equalizer."

He estimated that he'd done exactly that.

"I feel very pleased about it, and I'm looking forward to taking on the other atheists now," he said cheerfully.

Kiley Humphries, 22, the tall brunette Student Body President of King's College, was standing nearby.

"I feel like Dinesh won, because I don't feel like Hitchens ever answered the question of 'Were these people really fighting for atheism?'" she said. She said that she was originally from Wichita, Kan. and that being a student at a Christian college in Manhattan is "a fascinating clash."

Mr. Hitchens, meanwhile, was cornered on the steps outside, where a large group of students had gathered to watch him fend off an agitated opponent named Ryan Sorba, a self-described "young professional from California"-not a King's College student-who was wearing a suit and hollering something to the effect of: "According to the atheists, why ought we to preserve the species?"

"What's your answer?" shouted one woman to Mr. Hitchens' challenger. The Observer was a bit puzzled.

"Shut up and let him sign some books!" shouted another man.

Mr. Hitchens kept his voice low and fired back at his opponent politely, keeping pace with the increasingly loud inquiries.

He eventually tried, with an apologetic air, to escape. His opponent, unsatisfied, shouted: "There's no reason to preserve the species, OK?"

Mr. Sorba was looking wounded as he made his way down West 64th Street, but a reporter catching up with him found him willing to expound further.

"According to Hitchens, morality is nothing but a chemical reaction in the brain," explained Mr. Sorba. "If right and wrong is determined by instinct, than it means we're nothing more than genetic meat puppets dangling from the strings of our DNA!"

Mr. Sorba, it turns out, is something of a celebrity on the family-values circuit; a former college Republican who gives a speech on college campuses these days called "The Born Gay Hoax," about how homosexuality isn't genetic. (Here's Ryan Sorba on YouTube!)

Once he was fully gone, Mr. Hitchens looked around with beagle eyes.

"Comrades?" he mustered to the two gentlemen beside him, who pointed out the location of his car.

"I don't feel any better," he muttered.

Comments 1 - 50 of 135 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #80993 by BAEOZ on October 23, 2007 at 9:19 pm

 avatarFirst!
If this doesn't fire up the "Hitchens is a drunk who damages the atheist cause" meme I'll be surprised.
Sigh. This D'Souza might be the king of the non-sequitur.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

2. Comment #80994 by Diacanu on October 23, 2007 at 9:23 pm

 avatar"If right and wrong is determined by instinct, than it means we're nothing more than genetic meat puppets dangling from the strings of our DNA!"

As opposed to being puppets of the invisible sky daddy who has seen the future, and knows all the sins we're going to commit, but sends us to hell for them anyway.

*Masturbation gesture and eyeroll*

Other Comments by Diacanu

3. Comment #80996 by Mango on October 23, 2007 at 9:39 pm

 avatar
And Mr. D'Souza got the last word, declaring that "the atheist is chafing under the laws of a world in which we are accountable. Atheism isn't an intellectual revolt, it's a moral one."


Atheists are expounding the intellect and morality, both of which theism denigrate.

Other Comments by Mango

4. Comment #80997 by MIND_REBEL on October 23, 2007 at 9:40 pm

 avatarHitchens won this easily. I can understand people saying athiests are getting a little silly or whatever but someone trying to argue for god is just retarded.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

5. Comment #80998 by MIND_REBEL on October 23, 2007 at 9:42 pm

 avatarMorality doesn't really exist. It's a religious concept and atheists shouldn't get dragooned into trying to "one up" religion at their own game.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

6. Comment #80999 by Theocrapcy on October 23, 2007 at 9:45 pm

 avatar"According to Hitchens, morality is nothing but a chemical reaction in the brain," explained Mr. Sorba. "If right and wrong is determined by instinct, than it means we're nothing more than genetic meat puppets dangling from the strings of our DNA!"

And if you accept that maybe you will start to appreciate the life you have and stop telling others how to live theirs. Nutjob.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

7. Comment #81000 by Last Man In Europe on October 23, 2007 at 9:55 pm

 avatarAs Dawkins has pointed out many times, just because our genes influence us to some/a large degree does not mean we are at their mercy and have to obey them.

Whenever we use contraception we are breaking the programming of our genes. We are thinking mammals and can consciously choose to act in a certain way or not. Just because we feel an urge to do something does not mean we have to follow that urge.

I'm looking forward to seeing the video of this debate. Again, if Dinesh came across well (and he was preaching to the converted it seems by this debate taking place in a Christian college) then the wider public who watch the debate online might be in a better position to judge who came across better.

The dangerous thing about Dinesh is he has almost no sound or logical arguments but because he is fluent and eloquent in expression, he sounds believable. He is a hypnotist to some extent. You follow along with him and because so many of his suggestions hit you in sequence you tend to lose track of them all and can't counter them. It's a hypnotic technique where the conscious mind is distracted and overwhelmed.

McGrath is hypnotic too, but his technique is more about how he uses vague process, rather than specific content language. Listening to McGrath (who has the appearance of gestures of a priest giving a sermon!) sends your conscious mind to sleep. He is hard to follow and get hold of because he is so vague.

Someone needs to transcribe what these two actually say and analyse their absurd statements word for word (even a short sequence would do it) and show how what they say is patently wrong or is meaningless.

Other Comments by Last Man In Europe

8. Comment #81001 by JanChan on October 23, 2007 at 9:55 pm

The person described in the article doesn't sounds like Hitchens, I don't think he would ever let this statement go unpunished:
"Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history,"

Either he was really drunk that night or the article is biased, I believe it is the latter.

Other Comments by JanChan

9. Comment #81003 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 23, 2007 at 10:07 pm

 avatarA modest proposal of how to nip this Stalin/Mao canard in the bud. This is how I would introduce my opening statement in any debate on this subject:

"It may surprise you to hear that my primary target isn't religion, or even theism as such. Indeed, as I'll explain later, there are some forms of religion (and even some rare forms of theism, specifically deism) with which I have very little problem at all.

"So, what *is* my problem? My problem is with dogma. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.

The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the Creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.

"What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people - often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.

"Thankfully, fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no-one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches in the US ; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.

"Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy - in short, the forces of the Enlightenment - have destroyed Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now it is time to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith."

- guess which of the 'Four Horseman' I count myself as having been most influenced by?

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

10. Comment #81004 by macros_man on October 23, 2007 at 10:08 pm

 avatarThese challenges to atheistic "moralism" are so easily countered...

1. evolution guaranteed that we would have some degree of shared morals, because co-operation is ultimately advantageous to a species

2. even though we have developed self-reflective intelligence to the point that we can subvert our generally evolved behaviorisms, on some level we have already been programmed with these traits, and that is why we will continue to demonstrate them, on the whole, regardless. On another level, we can also appreciate moralism as intelligent beings, because we are able to calculate how our behaviors will lead to outcomes over the long-term, and our pre-programming is what encourages to exploit this foresight.

3. The difference between religious moralism, and atheistic moralism is that atheists are able to adjust their morals over time, in order to reflect a changing environment - both internal and external. Atheists can also better handle the vast gray areas of moralism, because we can unconditionally employ pragmatism.

4. Theists seem caught up with Platonistic ideals, and call foul whenever one of these ideals is brought to light. There is absolutely ZERO proof that morals cannot subsist on pragmatism, and continue, or even improve, via the application of contingent pragmatism. We (atheists) are all living, breathing proof of THIS.



I'm looking forward to watching this debate between Hitchens and D'souza... but won't keep my hopes up.

Hitchens is great guy... but he speaks a little slowly for my taste, and he says the same things over and over again. Maybe he should hire a writer :)

But seriously... we need someone speaking for atheists, who can cut right to the point on these topics - someone who is fast on their feet, concise, and who cuts right into the fallacies that are heavy in the minds of theists that watch these debates with abated breath.

Other Comments by macros_man

11. Comment #81005 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 10:11 pm

It is that courage to say bold faced lies with a great sense of conviction; that is what sets people like Dinesh D'Souza apart. What is sad is that many people will believe him and suffer because of it.

Maybe they will become the new generation of warriors in this fight against irrationality.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

12. Comment #81006 by Inoculatedcities on October 23, 2007 at 10:17 pm

 avatarWhat an awful re-cap. I'm waiting for a video before I judge the proceedings which here are obviously filtered by the tinted glasses of the Observer reporter.

"'According to Hitchens, morality is nothing but a chemical reaction in the brain,' explained Mr. Sorba. 'If right and wrong is determined by instinct, than it means we're nothing more than genetic meat puppets dangling from the strings of our DNA!'"

I hate to make such a sweeping generalization, but it seems as if very very few credulous religious people have read widely or devoted much time to thinking on the matters they speak so loudly and resolutely about. I can almost guarantee this heavily-indoctrinated young man has never read the existentialists (or any twentieth century philosophy for that matter), is not familiar with any secular discussion of the free will vs. determinism problem, and knows not a damn thing about genetics. How can one reasonably be expected to actually converse with this man when he's chanting tired, oft-repeated shibboleths in response to reasoned points and arguments? Every point is a non-starter, every response a slogan.

Other Comments by Inoculatedcities

13. Comment #81007 by Veronique on October 23, 2007 at 10:18 pm

 avatarMIND_REBEL, hey:-)

It's good to see you back here:-)

I am so pleased that I will toast you with a red wine right now!!

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

14. Comment #81008 by eric.malitz on October 23, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Actually I find its often the case in these debates that the "atheist" dictators are hardly ever well exposed for what they are. Fascist ideologies and religions are 2 sides of the same coin. This isnt the first time (I havent watch the debate so I dont know for sure) that Hitchens hasnt properly addressed this issue in formal debate (except for his account of the "necro-cocy" of north korea).

Other Comments by eric.malitz

15. Comment #81009 by roach on October 23, 2007 at 10:23 pm

macros_man,

To my mind, Sam Harris embodies your "someone speaking for atheists, who can cut right to the point on these topics - someone who is fast on their feet, concise, and who cuts right into the fallacies that are heavy in the minds of theists that watch these debates with abated breath". I'd put forth his debates with Reza Aslan, Chris Hedges, and his written correspondence with Andrew Sullivan as evidence.

Anyway, crappy article.

Also, it's nice to see MIND_REBEL back.

Other Comments by roach

16. Comment #81010 by TheCelestialTeapot on October 23, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Comment 81004 macros_man,

Excellent post! I think you should expound on your ideas, write a book, and then place it in a box set collection with volumes from Charles Pierce and William James. If people understood how it is humans fix their beliefs, then many of these religous/atheist arguments would never take place. Cheers!

Other Comments by TheCelestialTeapot

17. Comment #81011 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 23, 2007 at 10:29 pm

 avatarWell, Hithcens does rather well in showing that Fascims was really just the modern political manifestation of Catholic authoritarianism. It's also pretty obvious that Nazism was a strange salad of Christianity and pagan race myths.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

18. Comment #81012 by thirdchimpanzee on October 23, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Since Dinesh D'Souza is of Indian origin, it would be interesting to hear his public stand on the veracity of Ram and his monkey army building a bridge to Sri Lanka 1.7 million years ago.

Forget atheism for a moment, there are so many religions past and present that have to be repudiated to believe any one of them - I really would love to hear him declare his 1 billion countrymen and women immoral primitives for not following the one true faith.

BTW - How many died during the partition of India, solely because of their religion. Does D'Souza's family in Bombay have personal recollections of this time?

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

19. Comment #81013 by stevencarrwork on October 23, 2007 at 10:41 pm

Is this the same D'Souza who writes in the book 'What's so great about Christianity' that '"Only by examining the text in relation to the whole can we figure out how a particular line or passage is best understood."'

So Jews cannot understand the Old Testament because they do not have a New Testament in their Bible?

Christianity is implicit anti-Semitism.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

20. Comment #81014 by darek on October 23, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Inoculatedcities wrote:
"...it seems as if very very few credulous religious people have read widely or devoted much time to thinking on the matters they speak so loudly and resolutely about."

Well stated and exactly the heart of the beast which preys upon situations like these - a debate about religion. The beast, of course, being ignorance - but more specifically, a lack of an onus to further one's understanding.

It's pretty said, really, especially with the internet being available, you REALLY have to be lazy in this regard...

Other Comments by darek

21. Comment #81016 by stevencarrwork on October 23, 2007 at 10:48 pm

D'Souza '“If right and wrong is determined by instinct...'

Most of us have an instinctive revulsion against the thought of God ordering the Israelites to kill the Canaanites, man, woman, and child.

Fight against that instinct...

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

22. Comment #81018 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 10:53 pm

thirdchimpanzee,

I have good reason to think that D'Souza is totally embarassed about his Indian origin. He has said that he is fortunate that the Catholics came to Goa and converted is ancestors to Christianity, under threat of death might I add.

There was an inquisition in the Indian state of Goa in established in 1560 and not abolished until 1812.

In India Christianity is a minority faith. And Christians are known for their arrogance, becuase in India being Christian is associated with being modern and western. That is how they brand Christianity in the East. They are known to mock Hindus associating them with being pagan and tribal.

So do not expect D'Souza to speak about the greatness of the Indus Valley Civilization anytime soon. He would rather pretend that a pre-Christian India lived in the dark ages.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

23. Comment #81020 by DalaiDrivel on October 23, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Well...

I think the bias here begins from the pictures of the debaters.

Mr D'Sousa, the dignified public speaker

And Mr Hitchens, the bleak-looking smoker.

I will be disappointed with the taped debate if it ends with D'Souza saying that "Atheism is not an intellectual revolt. It is a moral one."

Hmmm. There are just too many ways for Hitchens to continue from there. If he didn't answer, I presume he was stopped.

To my mind, it's ludicrous when theists, most often Christians in the U.S. say they are persecuted by secularism, when they still get the upper hand in debate formats.

I'm referring to other instances, like the Dawkins-Lennox debate which was really an attack on the ideas of the God Delusion. One can do that for sure. But that's just attacking the book. That's not attacking (and by that I mean discussing) the philosophy behind the question of a creator to the universe.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

24. Comment #81023 by room101 on October 23, 2007 at 11:04 pm

"But seriously... we need someone speaking for atheists, who can cut right to the point on these topics - someone who is fast on their feet, concise, and who cuts right into the fallacies that are heavy in the minds of theists that watch these debates with abated breath."

Macros_Man - you took the words right out of the passage I was about to write. I agree completely. But I thought that Hitchens was THE right guy to be fast, on their feet, etc. I disagree with roach in that I think Harris is NOT a very good debater. He is too hesitant and not nearly as fluid as Hitchens. Nonetheless, I'll reserve judgement until I see the debate.

I've noticed from videos, transcripts, etc. that there are basically 3 topics these god freaks keep harping on:

1. Without the bible, there is no morality
2. What about Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc.
3. There is no evidence of transitional fossils

The rationalist side must absolutely, positively refine their answers to these issues, especially to numbers 1 and 2 (3 is easy, just google it). Especially now that Douche D'souza is "looking forward to debating other atheists."

Good f'kn christ.....

Other Comments by room101

25. Comment #81025 by DalaiDrivel on October 23, 2007 at 11:14 pm

And "dyspepsia" means "indigestion." The use of this word caught me.

Intellectial dyspepsia in the United States, to which the author says Hitchens is a contributor, must be secularism. Counter-Christianity, to Americans generally.

Grrr! Journalistic bias like this- really blatant representation of facts and events in a particular light- a style which I haven't read in a long time, is to me akin to the very rebellion of certain Christians against scientific advancement and evidence, and above all, free thought. They oppose it because it is the nature of their set of beliefs, closed and finite, to reject investigation, and not approach quandaries with a mind to objective analysis. It's evident in the very language the author has chosen, such as "dyspepsia."

That's another thing Christianity can be then. Unprofessional.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

26. Comment #81026 by stevencarrwork on October 23, 2007 at 11:16 pm

1.. Without the bible, there is no morality

Numbers 31
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

All of you who have killed anyone or touched anyone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days.

CARR
Killing and ritual purity - the two great themes of religion combined in one easy to remember passage.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

27. Comment #81027 by Russell Blackford on October 23, 2007 at 11:24 pm

I wonder why it would be a bad thing if atheism were interpreted as a moral revolt, as well as an intellectual revolt? The atheist critique is, in part, a revolt against the presumed moral authority of religious leaders and institutions, and against the ethics of misery. That sounds good to me.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

28. Comment #81028 by Vardu on October 23, 2007 at 11:30 pm

I suspect that the video will paint a very different picture than the one painted by the article above. It will certainly be interesting to see.

But I was amused by D'Sousa's comment that Christ "was one of the mildest men to ever set face on earth".
He was kidding, right?
Was he talking about the same extremely un-mild Christ that labelled his detractors 'serpents', a 'generation of vipers'?
Was it the same supposedly sensitive and sympathetic Christ who, when mocked, became vindictive, envisaging for his enemies an eternity of 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' in 'a furnace of fire', 'everlasting fire', 'fire (that) is not quenched', 'where the worm dieth not'?
Talk about petulance, not to mention vindictiveness!

Seems like believers cherry-pick which Jesus they will believe on just as they cherry-pick the rest of their sacred tome.

Other Comments by Vardu

29. Comment #81029 by SmartLX on October 23, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Freaking atheist-communist association. I'm tired of it. Has anyone brought up the following points before, here or in a debate?

1. Communism pre-supposes atheism, fine. (Stop me right now if I'm wrong there.) That's a long way from saying that atheism is the core of Communism and that all else follows. Christian governments do their deeds in the name of God; Communist governments do their deeds in the name of their leaders and above all Communism. That's the belief they declare.

There's a reason there was no symbol for atheism until so recently: nobody ever used it to marshal an army, even if the soldiers were officially atheist.


2. A religion is inseparable from its ideology, which I define roughly as its rules for living (for Christians, that's the Ten Commandments plus any direct instruction by God, Jesus or anyone else speaking with holy authority).

You could make a wobbly case that Communism is a religion but nobody would deny that it has a very strong ideology. (Speak up if there's a better word than ideology, you know what I mean by it).

Therefore any defined religion conflicts with the ideology of Communism. Communism declares atheism because every religion is competition. This is one thing Communists alone got right: they're comfortable with atheism because they know full well it isn't a religion (no accompanying ideology, see?).

Atheism is a default. It does not drive Communists to do anything, let alone commit atrocities. It just gets religion out of the way so they can start laying on their own awful propaganda. Makes it stick better.


There. That's what I'd say to D'Souza, in better public speaking language of course. What do you think?

Other Comments by SmartLX

30. Comment #81031 by DalaiDrivel on October 23, 2007 at 11:32 pm

As long as theists reject evolution for the "Well-it's-in-the-Bible-and-it-says-it's true" creationism/intelligent design, atheism will be BOTH an intellectual and a moral revolt, and atheism will exist for the reasons of using your head and respecting the scientific method and evidence.

Investigation into the origin morality itself without taking the Bible for grant I think represent intellectual revolt.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

31. Comment #81032 by Vardu on October 23, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Well put, Russell Blackford. If that's what the revolt entails, then it sounds good to me, too.

Other Comments by Vardu

32. Comment #81033 by menoone on October 23, 2007 at 11:36 pm

 avatarThey never count the sum total of all human lives taken at the hands of Christians from the 4th Century to the 21st. The World Wars, the Sever Years War, the Thirty Years War or the Hundred Years War or any of dozens and dozes more, to say nothing of the global conquests of the European christian empires.

If you are going to say that anyone who died at the hands of atheists should count against atheism, as if atheism was the cause of their deaths rather than Maoism or Stlainism or Marxism-Leninism, then any death at the hands of a theist should be tallied as well.

The logical conclusion is that theism and a-theism are nothing more than stances on a single proposition, and are not responsible for any deaths. But religions and certain secular political ideologies certainly have killed a very great many.

Other Comments by menoone

33. Comment #81034 by DalaiDrivel on October 23, 2007 at 11:38 pm

SmartLX,

I found this essay online today. I haven't read it yet. I searched for "Marxism and Atheism" after watching D'Souza say in the D'Souza-Shermer debate, "And Dawkins says that these guys (Stalin, Hitler et al) didn't do these things in the name of atheism.... really? Has he read Marx? Has he read the communist manifesto?"

http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/works/atheism.htm

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

34. Comment #81035 by Belgian Beer on October 23, 2007 at 11:38 pm

In response to Comment #81023 by room101:

There is a good answer to no. 1, but the difficulty is presenting it, or perhaps certain portions of it, in quick, snappy sound bite form for the purposes of public debate. Some of us have been discussing this point in the philosophy forum on this site.

I think no. 1 can be easily refuted on the simple basis of a lack of evidence. No one has ever demonstrated with absolute certainty the existence of a divine moral law, let alone demonstrate with absolute certainty the specific content of that law. That those who believe in a divine moral law cannot agree with one another concerning the content of that law is the clearest possible evidence that they do not in fact have access to such a law.

For example, is foreign intervention just or not? According to some Christians it is, according to others it is not. How do you choose between them? By what standard? Both appeal to divine morality and come to completely different conclusions. This is to say nothing of the wide and obvious differences between Christianity and Islam, the latter of which also claims access to divine morality. Why should one choose Christian morality over Islamic morality, or Zoroastrian morality, or Hindu morality, or Jain morality? Choice between them can only be arbitrary. Any appeal to standards other than those afforded by one's divine law effectively renders that law entirely unnecessary.

Hitchens and Dawkins rightly bring up the second problem, namely, motivation. The only motivation for obeying the divine law is the fear of eternal hellfire for disobeying it. Doing the "right" thing out of fear is obviously an appalling reason.

However, the discussion will then almost invariably turn to the origins of morality. Where do we get our morals from? I think the appeal to evolution is insufficient. Natural selection can explain why we have certain motivations and instincts, but it seems insufficient to explain the rise of complex moral systems. I think that's a historical, sociological, and anthropological question, but one which unfortunately cannot be presented in simple, sound bite form.

Needless to say, D'Souza is no moral philosopher. There are, in fact, very sophisticated Christian moral philosophers who would reject his argument that without God, there would be no ethics. Jeffrey Stout and Alasdair MacIntyre are just two such philosophers, both very much worth reading.

I agree with you, though: a solid secular argument must be prepared to challenge point no. 1 in public forums.

Other Comments by Belgian Beer

35. Comment #81037 by Vardu on October 23, 2007 at 11:44 pm

A persons atheism only encompasses what they don't believe. One negation doesn't imply all negation.
One can be an atheist and thereafter live like one of the supposed saints or one of the hypothetical devils.

For instance, while I don't believe in God, I believe in a lot of other things, such as the importance of civic virtues; personal responsibility; compassion for those who are suffering; the facts of science; the beauty of nature, and so forth.

Other Comments by Vardu

36. Comment #81039 by Philip1978 on October 24, 2007 at 12:09 am

 avatarMind Rebel, fantastic to see you back, I raise my cup of Tea in your direction sir!

D'Souza, I love the way he wants to be like Hitch but just can't make the grade, steam rollered Hitchens indeed, yeah riight matey!

I like seeing a nice balanced opinion of the event as well

Kiley Humphries, 22, the tall brunette Student Body President of King's College, was standing nearby.

"I feel like Dinesh won, because I don't feel like Hitchens ever answered the question of 'Were these people really fighting for atheism?'" she said. She said that she was originally from Wichita, Kan. and that being a student at a Christian college in Manhattan is "a fascinating clash."

WOW, D'Souza must have won cos of that clanger of a question!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

37. Comment #81041 by Zakie Chan on October 24, 2007 at 12:17 am

 avatarOk... D'souza says that only 2000 people died from the Inquisition. I am no expert on that stuff, but does anyone know where he got that number from, and if it is accurate? I did a quick google search and found numbers ranging from 40,000-100,000. So what gives?

Also I think that as long as Christians keep saying that atheism is responsible for people killed by communists, we should go ahead and say that things like the people who died from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the results of Christianity. Because hey, Harry Truman was a Baptist.

Of course, such an argument is completely stupid, but in my experience, it has worked quite well in demonstrating just that-- the argument is stupid, and correlation doesn't imply causation.

Listening to these people, hearing them say that Stalin and Kim Jong Il and whatnot are perfect examples of atheism... I cant help but but think that they arent actually listening, or reading anything that anyone says (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, etc).

Christians are fond of saying things like "I dont have enough faith to be an atheist", and all I can think is "I dont have enough intellectual dishonesty to be a theist."

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --David Eller

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

38. Comment #81042 by mrmatt on October 24, 2007 at 12:25 am

 avatarRe: Communism.

One thing that both the theists and our fellow atheists overlook is that when Marx and Engels wrote about religion they were talking about the institution.

In order to achieve its revolutionary aims, Marxism relies on a dissection of the historical and institutional influences that have led to the bourgeoise inheriting the means of production and blah blah, the proletariat being exploited and so on and so forth.

Therefore, it is very much against religion AS AN INSTITUTION. i would argue that a personal belief in a deity or deities is not incommensurate with communism at all. as long as those beliefs are not institutionalised, the communist state could not and can not be concerned by this.

it is extremely probable that there were people in the USSR who believed in a god or gods, but the communist state suffers no institutional rivals.

therefore, the extent to which either russia, china or any other communist regime "did not believe in god" has to be examined by just what they mean by "god."

a case in point is china and its relationship to the falun gong practitioners. the chinese govt only began to have a problem with falun gong when it began to grow popular (and thus threatening to grow into an institution). before the numbers swelled in this meditative practice, the chinese govt was rather indifferent to it.

if you could be bothered, im sure you could find more examples of this kind of thing in the ussr and maoist china.

the communist philosophical opposition to god is not so much towards divinity, as the religious institution that transmits it i think.

Other Comments by mrmatt

39. Comment #81043 by kevin_2050 on October 24, 2007 at 12:30 am

Mind Rebel, GREAT avatar picture. I'm a Lennon fan, as you might guess.

Can't stand d'Souza. 'Nuff said for now.

Other Comments by kevin_2050

40. Comment #81044 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 12:35 am

 avatarI find I am having some trouble keeping track of the Religion v. Atheism carnage headcount. The arguments about modern times are bad enough, but what about all those earlier times for which we have no records? At some point in the past our ancestors developed enough brain power to entertain magical thinking, and anthropological studies indicate that they probably worshiped animals. We do not exactly know when this was, but just suppose it was 30,000 years ago. So, my problem is that before our ancestors could imagine a magic world beyond, they would have been unbelievers, and so every one they killed would go in the Atheist column. This could be very bad for us because this pre-religion period might go back something like a million years, and that would count for billions of deaths if it only averaged out to a couple of thousand a year over the entire population.

Thankfully, once believers took over, they seem to have done so in every human group everywhere. That means that after some point, effectively everyone who was chopped up by someone else goes in the Religion column. We know we got a lot of help from the folks in history like the Pharos of Egypt and Alex The Great on this, but think of all those believers who went before them and brought great armies down on neighboring lands (of different believers) and slaughtered them.

Finally, I am having a problem counting the early Christians who were fed to the lions. The Romans who were doing the feeding were believers, so that is the Religion side, but we know of no religious belief systems ever attributed to any lions, so they would have to count as Atheists. That would have to go for tigers and bears as well. Atheist lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Other Comments by Quine

41. Comment #81045 by Philip1978 on October 24, 2007 at 12:45 am

 avatarZakie
Thing is he didn't mention precisely which Inquisition, there were 4 of them, start by the Wromans, then the Spanish in South America, the Portuguese and finally another Wroman one. He chose a great subject because the figures are so ambiguous he could play with them all he likes. 2000 over 300 years, what wiffle!

Sam Harris was very right wasnt he, no matter how many times this whole crapulent idea that somehow Stalin's atheism etc is the cause of the world misery because atheists have no morals blah blah blah BOLLOCKS! :) When is this rubbish going to go away, how many times do Mr Hitchens, Professor Dawkins, Sam Harris etc have to reply to this crap?

Considering what D'Souza has written in the past its plain to see his moral outlook would make Stalin blush or pat him on the back!

(The above sentence may not be true but I feel my argument is clouded by my thorough dislike of Mr D'Souza, I think he is morally repugnant to the core!)

Philip, the Atheist Leo :) (Liked that one Quine!)

Other Comments by Philip1978

42. Comment #81051 by Vaal on October 24, 2007 at 1:27 am

 avatarReally? I would like to see the actual video. I cannot believe that Hitchens didn't bury this unctuous apologist. The same straw man arguments, going around in circles, morality arose from religion hogwash, etc etc

Be nice to see a debate where they actually say something which will make me stand up and say "hmmm, maybe he has a point", instead of the same old banal drivel. As an old teacher would have said "Try harder!"

Other Comments by Vaal

43. Comment #81055 by Nefrubyr on October 24, 2007 at 1:37 am

 avatar
Last night at the Society for Ethical Culture, the big question was: whose body count is bigger? Atheism's or Christianity's?

"Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history," he declared triumphantly. "I think Hitchens by the end of the day should be chanting 'Thank God for Christianity.'"

Ah, the Christians' beloved false dichotomy, pretending that Christianity is the only non-atheist option. If you're going to choose your religion by body count, may I recommend Scientology, Wicca or Pastafarianism?

Other Comments by Nefrubyr

44. Comment #81061 by Wadsworth on October 24, 2007 at 1:52 am

The Stalin/Pol Pot etc argument also bothers me: Some possible solutions:

1. Atheists are also Primates (to quote Hitchens). Human primates do vicious things because of their Evolution. Has Christianity restrained its followers from similar crimes?--no, historically not.

2.Should we not expect Christianity to have restrained vicious behaviour?--of course; it should produce perfect behaviour, but historically it has not. Therefore it is no better than atheism.

3. Has atheism really killed more people than Christianity? possibly ,--but that is because of
modern techniques--eg Gas chambers. It was probably not possible for pre-technological Christians to kill so many people so quickly; obviously they have tried (Albigensian massacres), New World genocide.

4. Is atheism a religion? The Soviets turned it in to one,-but basically it is just a default and denial. Atheism as such does not exterminate opponents, but Christ recommended that very thing,-so Christianity is murderous at source.

5. Can atheists be moral? Of course. morality is derived from our social evolution, including Riciprocal Altruism, and Kin Selection and tribal and eventually inter-tribal cooperation. Atheism is irrelevent to it.

6. Belief in God can sanction any immoral act, and often has done.

Other Comments by Wadsworth

45. Comment #81062 by steve99 on October 24, 2007 at 1:53 am

 avatar
Morality doesn't really exist. It's a religious concept and atheists shouldn't get dragooned into trying to "one up" religion at their own game.


There certainly is morality. We each have a sense of right and wrong, both in our thoughts and in our feelings.

What there is not is objective, absolute morality written somewhere in the Laws of Nature or by God.

Other Comments by steve99

46. Comment #81065 by infidel_michael on October 24, 2007 at 2:01 am

When I see discussion like this, I start to agree with Harris that the word "atheism" is really unfortunate, especially because lots of people which we don't agree with fall into this category (e.g. communists). There are better words describing today's atheist position:

1. skeptics/freethinkers - as an attitude toward truth-seeking (rejection of dogmas, authorities and tradition)
2. humanists - as an attitude toward morality (based on empathy and solidarity, not on divine commands)

Hitler/Stalin/Mao certainly weren't skeptics/freethinkers nor humanists. Their followers weren't skeptics, they were dogmatically believing in Hitler/Stalin/Mao's authority and in their utopistic vision of the world. From our point of view, their regimes fall into the same category as religion. Today's atheist disagree with Hitler/Stalin/Mao from the same reason as they disagree with religion - because of dogmatism, blind faith in authority and violent elimination of any opposition.

It is really necessary to state our position clearly, because apologists can easily create these straw-men against us and ordinary people aren't very good at recognizing these fallacies.

When an apologist starts with "We've already seen atheistic regimes - Hitler/Stalin/Mao bla bla bla ..", we should reponse: "Their regimes were not evil because of 'atheism', but because they were dogmatic and religion-like, and that's why we are against them as well.".

Other Comments by infidel_michael

47. Comment #81069 by mrmatt on October 24, 2007 at 2:15 am

 avataragreed infidel_michael.

but these straw men have been answered and rebutted so many times that one wonders why the apologists can't come up with anything new.

oh i know! because nothing they say is ever new! it's always millenia-old mumbo-jumbo, retroactively "rationalised." ;)

Other Comments by mrmatt

48. Comment #81071 by IanG on October 24, 2007 at 2:25 am

Meredith Bryan's summary is messy to the point of being incoherent and its style suggests no real atttempt to write something balanced, perceptive and informative.

The thing's a surprisingly amateurish hotch-potch from a paper of some repute.

The caricatures of the protagonists are so toe-curling as to cast doubt upon the writer rather than light upon the issues.

I thik I'll wait until I can see the source material.

Other Comments by IanG

49. Comment #81072 by Monosilabbiq on October 24, 2007 at 2:28 am

I read a book some time ago (I think it was The Ugly American) set in a third world eastern country. Western diplomacy included the sending of masses of food as aid to the starving population. Each crate of food was marked "Produced and provided by the USA". But it was written in English. As the crates came through customs they were stamped with a sign that said in the local language "Provided by your fraternal communist friends from the USSR". As the American diplomats didn't speak the local language they didn't complain. D'Souza uses this technique when he tells Hitchens that he only gives blood and feels good about it because he has been brought up in christian world. And D'Souza's audience understood his language and not Hitchins' ! What a wonderful, illogical, argument for the religious world - everything good has been done because of religion.

Of course, any thinking person would translate D'Souza's statements into the thinking of a citizen of a country whose state religion is not christianity. They would realise that this would confirm the correctness of that religion as well. Hang on though - that means there are two gods that are the only ones in the cosmos????? Or is it three? Or four? Sod it - lets have one god for Wars and we can call him Mars, and another for ......

Other Comments by Monosilabbiq

50. Comment #81075 by Monosilabbiq on October 24, 2007 at 2:42 am

Hitchens has used the argument about "heaven" not interferring in earthly matters during the first 98000 years of Homo Sapiens' existence on a number of occasions now. His presumtion (and I agree, in that I can see no other conclusion) being that all the people in that time were consigned to "hell" as they didn't aver a faith in gentle jesus meak and mild. However, this argument hasn't worked. Why not??? Because the christians couldn't give a fig about all those people.

Hitchens is going to have to continue making up different lines of argument because the christian debaters will prepare their defence. This is what the christians do - they change their stance on a daily basis. The only consistent strand of the christian rhetoric is "and send your donation to..."

Other Comments by Monosilabbiq
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE