D'Souza's "What's So Great About Christianity"

[Stone Island]

The quote below is from an excellent interview with Dinesh D'Souza by Marcia Segelstein at Salvo Magazine: (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo7/7segelstein.php)
Atheists spend a lot of time thinking about the motives for belief. Why do religious people believe these ridiculous things? When you turn the tables on atheists and ask them why they don't believe, they will answer, "Because we don't have enough evidence. We don't believe because there's no proof." But if you think about it, this is an inadequate explanation, because if you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you're not going to bother with the matter. You're just going to live your life as if God isn't there.

I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.

Read the rest of the interview to find out what D'Souza thinks it going on.

[KingMerv00]

I don't care about belief in unicorns because belief in unicorns does not have much of an impact on society.

[arthwollipot]

The book End of the Unicorn doesn't exist because there isn't a large and significant percentage of society who believe that unicorns do exist, that unicorns directly affect their lives, and that everybody should follow what the unicorns say about how to live their lives.

If the world had more unicornists, then there would undoubtedly be people writing books like Why I Am Not A Unicornist.

[Foster Zygote]

Atheists spend a lot of time thinking about the motives for belief. Why do religious people believe these ridiculous things? When you turn the tables on atheists and ask them why they don't believe, they will answer, "Because we don't have enough evidence. We don't believe because there's no proof." But if you think about it, this is an inadequate explanation, because if you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you're not going to bother with the matter. You're just going to live your life as if God isn't there.
Strawman. As religious apologists go, there are far better than this out there. D'Souza has to be one of the most infantile.

I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.
But if you truly believe that there is no proof of unicorns, then you're not going to bother with the matter. You're just going to live your life as if unicorns aren't there.

When was the last time someone strapped a bomb to himself or herself and walked into a crowded market full of women and children then triggered the explosives killing dozens of people in the name of unicorns? I'm sorry, but D'Souza is an idiot if he truly can't see the difference.

[PixyMisa]

Read the rest of the interview to find out what D'Souza thinks it going on.
No thanks.

There's enough in what you quoted to tell us that D'Souza is either clueless or dishonest (or both), and very likely, projecting.

Even, that is, if we hadn't encountered his claptrap previously.

[slingblade]

I don't care what D'Snoozer thinks is going on. He might do your thinking for you, but he doesn't think for me.

He is right about one thing, though: there is more to it.

Some of us think some religion/religious people/theists/god-pushers hurt other people for no damn good reason. I know they think they have a reason, but it isn't any good. They seem to think they can tell others how to live, how to act, how to behave, how to talk, and even how to think, and they base it all on some imaginary thug who they think gives them the authority to behave like actual thugs.

If people were being denied civil rights because of belief in unicorns, I'd be here, talking about that.

If people were picketing funerals and screaming "Leprechauns hate Fags!" because of belief in leprechauns, I'd be here, talking about that.

If people were standing at the pulpit of the Tooth Fairy, ruining people's lives because the Tooth Fairy thinks being gay is an abomination, yet those same condemnatory people were running around snorting meth and having gay sex while wearing Fairy wings, I'd be here, talking about that.

It's not so much that we hate religion, in and of itself, necessarily, in a manner of speaking.

It's just that some of us really don't like the crap some people pull in the name of religion.
And we'd like it a whole lot if they'd stop.

That, sir, is your "something more."

[slingblade]

And don't PM me. Say it here, or don't bother.

[Foster Zygote]

And don't PM me. Say it here, or don't bother.

He just did the same to me regarding something in another thread.

[Ron_Tomkins]

The quote below is from an excellent interview with Dinesh D'Souza by Marcia Segelstein at Salvo Magazine: (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo7/7segelstein.php)


Read the rest of the interview to find out what D'Souza thinks it going on.

Go to youtube. Check the D'Souza debate with Daniel C Dennett. In it you can see mr D'Souza employing all of the basic common logical fallacies as his irrefutable arguments to support Creationism.

But, and I don't want to sound demeaning, I doubt that you will understand where he's making the fallacies at all if you're already opening a thread with this pretty poor argument of his, as if it actually had any rational validity.

My suggestion: Read some material on logical fallacies, specifically one that studies them within the context of Creationism

[jimtron]

Yeah, what you guys said. Plus:

Our former president said that he consulted with a "higher father" about invading Iraq. The Pope influences the lives of millions, and believes that homosexuality and birth control are sins. Bill O'Reilly complains about the evils of secular people. We could go on and on. We can't go on with our lives ignoring religion.

[Dr Adequate]

Obviously, most atheists don't spend any time arguing for the atheist point of view, unless actually asked what their religious views are and how they justify them (or, as is more usually the case, told to their faces stupid and hateful lies about what they believe and why). Presumably whatever dumb things D'Souza goes on to say about atheists does not, therefore, apply to the vast majority of atheists, almost none of whom have ever written any of the handful of books to which he refers.

However, some atheists do actively argue for atheism, just as (on this very forum) you can find people arguing against the existence of Bigfoot ... or alien abductions ... or the psychic skills of Jackie Barrett, "psychic detective" ... or any other silly belief that people hold, no matter how trivial. The atheist James Randi, for example, has never written a book advocating atheism, but he has written a book debunking the supposed psychic talents of Uri Geller, and another one on the prophecies of Nostradamus.

To some people, standing up for reality against silliness seems a good and praiseworthy activity; especially when (unlike belief in Bigfoot or psychic spoonbending) such silliness has often led to unspeakable atrocities.

I would not expect someone of Dinesh D'Souza's mentality to be able to understand such motives.

[slingblade]

He just did the same to me regarding something in another thread.

I find it odd. The argument is here, not in my inbox. :confused:

[jj]

Perhaps Doctor Dinesh could explain how he knows what atheists think.

He's rather, um, completely off the mark here.

Perhaps we should ask him if it's Christian to lie?

[Puppycow]

When was the last time someone strapped a bomb to himself or herself and walked into a crowded market full of women and children then triggered the explosives killing dozens of people in the name of unicorns?

Exactly.

When is the last time a missionary came to your house to try to convince you that unicorns are real and to get you to go join their unicorn-worshiping church and pay tithes to it? Was there ever a Unicorn Inquisition?

But also, guess what? I don't spend my life obsessing about religion. Most of the time I simply ignore it. When others bring it up, I'm happy to give my opinion about it, but I don't raise the issue myself. So I pretty much do exactly what he does about unicorns: ignore it most of the time and just live my life, unless someone else raises the topic.

[lionking]

The unicorn analogy is silly. If he had simply stated that some atheists tried to convince theists of the error of their ways, D'Souza may have had a point. Not a very good one, when put up against the endless proletysing of theists, but a point nevertheless.

[Safe-Keeper]

Dinesh D'SouzaI should've stopped reading at this point. Instead:

I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.Typical New Age/religion attitude: I can push my wares on you, but you can't criticize them in any way. Sorry, but I've seen through it and I'm not buying it. Religion and the alternative movement need criticizing as much as any other product out there, from ice cream and movie sequels to duracell batteries.

Read the rest of the interview to find out what D'Souza thinks it going on. No thanks. That.

[Cactus Wren]

Mr. D'Souza is hereby invited to offer his opinion when he's living in a country where every piece of money asserts "our" trust in unicorns, where children are required in school to assert that their country is under the dominion of unicorns, where unicornists are demanding that their belief in the creation of the universe by unicorns be taught as scientific fact in schools, and where people are voting to have the religious tenets of unicornism be made the law of the land for no other reason than that they are religious tenets.

[ponderingturtle]

The book End of the Unicorn doesn't exist because there isn't a large and significant percentage of society who believe that unicorns do exist, that unicorns directly affect their lives, and that everybody should follow what the unicorns say about how to live their lives.

If the world had more unicornists, then there would undoubtedly be people writing books like Why I Am Not A Unicornist.

But look at the long list of crimes comitted by Aunicornists. Every single genocide! Aunicornists clearly do not have the morals that come from unicorns.

[Mashuna]

Stone Island, as I've now read the article, which sections of it did you find excellent?

[Lord Emsworth]

The quote below is from an excellent interview with Dinesh D'Souza by Marcia Segelstein at Salvo Magazine: (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo7/7segelstein.php)


Read the rest of the interview to find out what D'Souza thinks it going on.

So myopic. Why does he himself argue spend all this time to argue about "God?" And not about, hmm, King Arthur or some such?

Plugging his theory in and applying it to himself would probably mean that for him "God" is a means for power and control, so he can play himself up as a moral authority.

The better way, of course, is to ask where morality comes from. Well, it comes from one of two places. It either comes from ourselves—these are the rules that we make up as we go along—or it comes from some transcendent source. To get rid of God, then, is to remove the shadow of moral judgment.

Tell me about it, Dinesh. Tell me what that trancendental source says, Dinesh. Tell me what it REALLY, REALLY, REALLY says, Dinesh.

We need you, Dinesh. As the Shadow of Moral Judgement.



What is "God" anyway?

[H3LL]

His "unicorn" analogy seems to be the level D'Souza chooses, I'm not sure which is most disturbing; that he feels this and other arguments are worth hearing or his contempt for the intellectual capacity of his audiences.

D'Souza, apparently unaware he could be a Muslim**, seems a little unsure of what he believes himself. It would appear he is in a poor position to pontificate on the understandings of others.

Totally pwned:

Debate: Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza (http://www.thomascenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=162&Itemid=207) **

Mother Teressa vs. Mike Tyson would be a similar miss-match.

D'Souza debates weakly with schoolboy arguments.

Note: A bit twitchy online, download it first (it's big).



Just so you know what an complete and utter **** D'Souza is, we have this:

Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen? (http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/18/where-is-atheism-when-bad-things-happen/)

and a most excellent response:

Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech (http://richarddawkins.net/article,904,Dinesh-DSouza-says-I-dont-exist-an-atheist-at-Virginia-Tech,Mapantsula-Daily-Kos)


If D'Souza told me water was wet - I would go and check.



Stone Island - your chosen hero lacks credibility in just about any area that I would consider worthy and then proceeds to argue his points weakly and childishly. This man is not a poster-child for ... well ... anything really.

[joobz]

Debate: Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza (http://www.thomascenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=162&Itemid=207)

This post justifies the existence of this thread. Thanks for the link, I'm watching it right now!

[Safe-Keeper]

Asking where atheists are after a disaster is as absurd as asking where vegetarians are in such situations.


Many Christians, probably owing to their religion's missionary tradition, like to wear their adherence to their religion like a badge when out and about, particularly when helping people. People fitting other labels, such as vegans, atheists, left-handed and Latinos... don't. Concerned Blonds Against Gun Violence was nowhere to be seen after the VT shooting, nor were there many Concerned Jeans-Wearing Citizens for a More Peaceful Society members. Come to think of it, these groups don't even exist, which, using D'Souza's logic, means that blonds and people wearing jeans don't care about helping victims of shootings:rolleyes:.


The atheist writer Richard Dawkins has observed that according to the findings of modern science, the universe has all the properties of a system that is utterly devoid of meaning.Devoid of pre-packaged meaning. I have an external hard drive sitting on my floor - just that it was empty and freshly formatted when purchased doesn't mean it's still empty.

I don't need a god to tell me what to do with my life, I can work that out for myself.

The main characteristic of the universe is pitiless indifference.But we're not talking about the universe, we're talking about the fauna and flora within. There are countless examples of animals caring about each others, even across species, and countless more about compassionate humans.

Dawkins further argues that we human beings are simply agglomerations of molecules, assembled into functional units over millennia of natural selection, and as for the soul--well, that's an illusion!

In a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules.Correct. But no one, well, no one sane anyway, says that therefore there shouldn't be morals.

To no one's surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community.Nor have any Christian biologists:D. Your point?

What this tells me is that if it's difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. On the contrary, it's very easy, once you remove an omni-both-this-and-that God to explain evil. It's instinct, societal features, etc. etc. etc. It's when you add a God that supposedly is all-mighty, all-knowing and all-loving that you run into problems.

If this is the best that modern science has to offer us, I think we need something more than modern science.I hate both the stereotype of nonbelievers as science junkies, and the strawman that atheists say science can answer all our problems and give us morals.

[Safe-Keeper]

God (no pun intended)... I tried reading the article in the OP and I'm still picking straw out of my clothes...

[joobz]

God (no pun intended)... I tried reading the article in the OP and I'm still picking straw out of my clothes...
If you want some big laughs, check out the debate that H3ll linked.

At ~58minutes, Hitchens completely took the wind out of D'souza's sails on the historical jesus argument. It's a funny thing to watch as D'Souza marched on with his argument as though Hitchens hadn't completely sidelined his point.

[Morrigan]

Is there anyone with half a brain somewhere who cannot see the obvious fallacy in what this guy writes? Seriously, he's not even trying.

[jj]

Is there anyone with half a brain somewhere who cannot see the obvious fallacy in what this guy writes? Seriously, he's not even trying.

He's preaching to the already converted, trying to "defend" his financial and monetary interests in the mythology he attempts to enforce on everyone who won't swallow his horrid arguments.

[hgc]

Go to youtube. Check the D'Souza debate with Daniel C Dennett. In it you can see mr D'Souza employing all of the basic common logical fallacies as his irrefutable arguments to support Creationism.


I once went to see D'Souza and Hitchens debate live. D'Souza used the most standard of standard strawmen, appeals to popularity, false dichotomies and every other cheap and hoary bauble from the bag o' fallacies. I got bored and left early.


As religious apologists go, there are far better than this out there. D'Souza has to be one of the most infantile.


You can say that again, brother.

[Filippo Lippi]

I went to H3ll's link to the Hitchens/D'Souza debate, clicked on "Adult Programs" only to be very disappointed. Why does god hate me?

[EvilSmurf]

Debate: Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza (http://www.thomascenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=162&Itemid=207) **


That's like sending the Los Angeles Lakers after a JV team right there, Hitchens being the Lakers of course.

[joobz]

That's like sending the Los Angeles Lakers after a JV team right there, Hitchens being the Lakers of course.
I think it's more like the Harlem Globetrotters and Washington Generals.

[Undesired Walrus]

The quote below is from an excellent interview with Dinesh D'Souza by Marcia Segelstein at Salvo Magazine: (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo7/7segelstein.php)


Read the rest of the interview to find out what D'Souza thinks it going on.

Stone,

Given that he consistently uses the fine-tuning argument, D'Souza makes frequent claims about God operating 'within the box', therefore violating NOMA. Why are you championing what you claim to be the fringe, not the centre?

[Ysidro]

I think it's more like the Harlem Globetrotters and Washington Generals.

Nah, the Washington Generals sometimes got to win.

This is more like Godzilla vs. Bambi.

[godless dave]

don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns.

Atheists don't spend any time at all obsessing about gods.

[godless dave]

wrong thread

[Foster Zygote]

Nah, the Washington Generals sometimes got to win.

This is more like Godzilla vs. Bambi.

Best. Movie. Ever.

[ponderingturtle]

That's like sending the Los Angeles Lakers after a JV team right there, Hitchens being the Lakers of course.

I don't know. Hitchens does not seem to be his best in a debate forum.

I was at this (http://www.tkc.edu/debate/) debate between them. The problem was that it was put on by a christian school and was over the merits of Christianity. Now while he had many good points, we was on topic enough to really do well in the debate.

It also sucked as I got my car broken into that night.

D'Souza is an idiot but at least he was on topic.

[hgc]

I don't know. Hitchens does not seem to be his best in a debate forum.

I was at this (http://www.tkc.edu/debate/) debate between them. The problem was that it was put on by a christian school and was over the merits of Christianity. Now while he had many good points, we was on topic enough to really do well in the debate.

It also sucked as I got my car broken into that night.

D'Souza is an idiot but at least he was on topic.


That's the one I was at. I'm surprised I didn't see ya, since we JREFers should be able to pick each other out in a crowd, use the secret handshake, etc.

The most interesting thing I learned was that there's a college located in the Empire State Building. The "debate" was very by-the-numbers.

[Pardalis]

Unicorns don't interfere with the the advancement of science, unicorns don't impede on people's right for social equality, unicorns don't encourage jihads, wars and progroms.

I'd bloody like people to believe in unicorns.

[kedo1981]

Satan is my hero? Well that explains everything, I disbelieve in the supernatural because Satan is my hero, WOW; and I'm an Atheist because I want to be a homosexual, WOW, I better tell wife of 20 years the truth now.

[Upchurch]

The quote below is from an excellent interview with Dinesh D'Souza by Marcia Segelstein at Salvo Magazine: (http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo7/7segelstein.php)


Read the rest of the interview to find out what D'Souza thinks it going on.
Wow. That's one of the dumbest things I've read on the subject. D'Souza either has no understanding of atheism or he's simply playing to his audience's stereotypes of atheism rather than addressing atheism itself.

[ponderingturtle]

That's the one I was at. I'm surprised I didn't see ya, since we JREFers should be able to pick each other out in a crowd, use the secret handshake, etc.

The most interesting thing I learned was that there's a college located in the Empire State Building. The "debate" was very by-the-numbers.

It used to be in Briar Cliff Manor. I have been to the old pool there, the fire department was testing its dry suits.

The library their also burned down a few years ago, and my brother missed it I think. He has a history of missing all the good fires.

If you knew what I looked like you probably would have seen me, I do stand out.

[porch]

As religious apologists go, there are far better than this out there. D'Souza has to be one of the most infantile.


D'Souza is pretty bad, so I'm sure there are better. Have you found any that are actually challenging, or stimulating in any way besides causing frustration?

[Aepervius]

Woot. I watched that debate from 58:00 to 63:00. That was worth the time. Talk about getting a good whipping. Dinesh then switched subject immediately afterward.

[Foster Zygote]

Stone Island seems to have abandoned this thread. I wonder if he's decided that the interview wasn't so excellent after all.

[Upchurch]

I don't know how often s/he posts, but it does appear to be a post-and-run.

[Hokulele]

D'Souza is pretty bad, so I'm sure there are better. Have you found any that are actually challenging, or stimulating in any way besides causing frustration?


That would depend on how far back you want to go.

I have always had a soft spot for C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, even if I disagree with their conclusions.

[joobz]

I have always had a soft spot for C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, even if I disagree with their conclusions.
I think you have an initialed englishman fetish.

[Hokulele]

I think you have an initialed englishman fetish.


P.G. Wodehouse makes me swoon.


(Laughing. :D)

[Foster Zygote]

That would depend on how far back you want to go.

I have always had a soft spot for C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, even if I disagree with their conclusions.

I've found Paley to be rather intelligent. His watchmaker argument is now known to be greatly flawed (and even then it could easily be noted that watches don't reproduce like living things), but even Dawkins points out in The Blind Watchmaker that Paley's argument was really quite sound in an era when there was no known mechanism by which complexity could arise from simpler origins. Darwin changed all that, of course, but Paley can't really be faulted for not anticipating future revolutionary scientific insights. Paley's main problem was not a deficiency of intellect, he was simply born too soon. The same can't be said for D'Sousa.

[SusanB-M1]

This post justifies the existence of this thread. Thanks for the link, I'm watching it right now!

Agreed. I saw the link in the BBC (Christian Topic)and watched it yesterday evening.