Can anybody write more crap? I'm sure no one has been compelled to re-think their atheism after one debate, nor do theists get bad recerption on 'secular' campuses.

I think this should be a call to us to be particularly bold this week.Let's speak to our friends and others.I feel rather inspired now.

Thanks Kelly

Let them bash with their spiritual weapons. I won't feel a thing.

The attitude and arrogance of this blogger is so typical of many theists. They immediately point to Mao and Stalin and do not mention that it was not Atheism at the core of their societys, but the worship of the state and government as God. He also negelected to mention that Hitler was Catholic. Very convenient.

Ramen to that!

Thank you so much for addressing this. I saw D'Souza's retarded column a couple days ago, and was also offended by the title. It was clearly chosen to be outrageous and attract viewers, as the content doesn't live up the the title. He doesn't actually say that he soundly bashed any atheist's ass, and instead uses it as a way to subliminally say "Look at what an awesome theist I am, I get to debate all these famous atheists. I must be famous! Bow to me!" What an ass.

I will take it as a compliment that Kelly and I both picked up on the same story. Kelly, you and Brian are my heroes!  (LOL)

If you care to see my version

http://positiveatheist.blogspot.com/

Peace

TK

Here is my response at that site.

. He doesn't get it. He confuses criticism with hate. If someone said "Thor making lighting is an absurd claim" He would absurdly call people "anti-Thor".

He rightfully rejects claims of Allah picking the sex of the baby, but refuses to apply that same logic to his own magical claims.

How meek should skeptics be according to him? If Muslims were pushing Allah in biology class, would he sit back and take it? Yet he wants education to be based on a book that offers NO formulas, or mechanisms, or control groups, and offers nothing but a "POOF" explanation to life, and then falsely accuses the people pointing this out as being "hateful".

He cant even see that THERE ARE Christians who, unlike him, can separate AND DO separate, their personal whims from the universal tool of scientific method. Just as he would object to Allah based science.

His tactic of dehumanizing those who fight back against those who turn science into faith based sci-fi wont work.

We do not expect religion to be forcibly ended by any government, nor should it be, and do value the founders concept of the "mind of the individual". But, scientific method must be protected from religious agendas.

If he wants to flame atheists, he can and no free speech lover would stop him. But for him to call blunt people Dawkins who don't sugar coat reality
hateful, is absurd, and he shouldn't be shocked when we return the favor.

WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE! GET IT!

We care what he sells is affecting lagit science in attempt to prop up his bias agenda based on an unscientific book.

 I've never been able to take this guy seriously.

Anyway, while it may seem as though our numbers aren't increasing rapidly enough, our work is clearly not as difficult as that of theists. Since joining this site, I've watched five people "deconvert" pretty casually, like "Oh. I guess I'm an atheist, too, then. Huh." No "Hosanna Rama Rama Ding Ding" or promises, just a simple realization over a beer.

I doubt most theists have seen five people convert in their lives. I've only been on here for a few months, and it's not like I'm trying. One example: a friend asked me, "What's it like to be an atheist?" I said, "Pretty much the same, except with no gods." He thought about it for a second and said, "I guess I never really bought any of that stuff anyway. I suppose I'm an atheist." His biggest concern after that was whether he had to be crabby and wear black.

"Well, you have to be crabby," I answered, "otherwise Kelly The Atheist Stripper Hive Queen will send her drones to destroy you."

"So 'no'."

"Right."

As melodramatic as it sounds, I've alwas wanted to say this; time is working against us. It's a race as to which will reach sucess first. Will atheism either be accepted for its own sake or because of numbers? Or will intolerance spread to the point of some kind of evisceration (not sure wether it is literal or figurative)?

This scares me. Not like a horror movie, and they scare me bad, but profoundly, it scares me.  Like in the old days, the Mason-Dixxon line is being drawn, and it is up to those parties to decide what this omen precludes.

As for declaring yourself an atheist, I only recently discovered how many atheists there are in my town. I thought there was only a couple (small town; more churches than people) but just recently I've been hearing there are more than I thought.

I went to the link, and saw one of the responses. It made me smile.

" I'm sorry, what did you expect? For Dinesh to come to his blog and say 'Well darn, I went to go debate those atheists but I just couldn't do it. They just had a few points I couldn't shake and were really on the ball. Too bad god didn't help me have a more convincing argument.' Right. Time to open a ski resort in hell if that ever happens.

Of course the atheists he praises he calls provincial and quaint. Oh, dead wrong, but weren't they so nice to point out that non-theistic regimes rife in autocratic and totalitarian principles killed people to! They didn't hold us to the fact that we killed people on no more substantial evidence than they float in a lake.

You think that's atheist bashing? Try the dark ages and the middle ages, where being an atheist, agnostic, deist, or otherwise 'non-believer' gave the church the right to kill you. Now that's atheist bashing. You, mr. dinesh, were speaking words. Were polls given before these debates? Were more given afterwards, where people could say if they changed their minds or not? I'd like to see the data, if you please.

Because no amount of debate or chest thumping and crowing victory is going to convince me. You, as every single theist before and after you, have yet to present to me a single conclusive bit of tangible evidence to your claim that there is a god, let alone a christian god filled with hypocracies and viciousness. If God wanted me to believe in him then he could do so by presenting a natural phenomenon that clearly violates the laws of the universe. He seemed so pleased to have angels appear with burning bushes in the past but he seems woefully mum now that people have the ability and the protection to question his existance.

If I were God, I could do so much better."

It's nice to see someone still has a functioning frontal lobe.

It's definitely rethoric like Dinesh's that keeps American atheists on the defensive. Sooo, where can I look at those debates he so confidently talks about? I'd really like to see them and, as he proposes, form my own opinion on them.

^^^^^^

I too would like to see those debates. I had to laugh when he writes:

"Many churches are already showing these debates in order to educate and instruct believers. I wonder if atheist groups will have the confidence to air them at their conferences."

The difference---the atheists would watch the entire debate, not concerned about any particular piece being seen or heard...I could only imagine the cut and paste job those churches would do for parts of the debate they couldn't explain to their flock...

 - Is it really indicative of what the "Theists" are up to? I think it's more of an opportunity for you to paint the opposition with a broad brush without having to put much work into it, just like the author of the article in question.

Attributing a physical threat is laughable; the word "bashing" is not commonly used to describe physical assault; gay bashing is used to describe critics of sam sex marriage, bush bashing is used to describe harsh criticisms of the Bush administration, etc. 

Right on, Kelly!

Will! I can't believe you lied to your friend. Didn't you tell him being an Atheist requires you to wear a blue shirt and take a picture with a sad face as your avatar. I mean its right up there with being a Dawkins Junkie. Speak the truth to your deconverts man!

Kelly, this was an excellent article, thanks for pointing this our way. I have said it before, DD, is the most dishonestly visible apologetic out there today. He is very much a discriminatory hack, and we must not take this anymore. His portrayal of Dawkins of being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein, and being terrified to debate him is absurd. Dawkins has said he won't debate people that flat out lie, which is the main trick in Dinesh's bag. I have seen the Hitchens, Shermer, and Barker debates, but will have to check out the others.
 

I think Atheists have to take on people like DD and expose them for what they are...outright liars, apologizing for nonexistent deities while using sleight of hand political tricks to never address the points they can't refute. It seriously angers me to watch him debate, get asked a question, say a few things that don't relate to the question, then turn it around to the questioner and ask him a question, without having addressed the question in the first place. In this sense, the guy is a freaking Karl Rovian genius, and to his credit, this tactic works. His intelligence and command of language really do seem to bridge the gap of his lack of good argumentation points(or any evidence and logic for that matter). I see these things as muddying up the water, kind of like the "teach the controversy" campaign. They know their arguments hold no water, but they are able to raise doubt in the mind of the audience, by attacking acts by Atheists or falsely misrepresenting the facts and beliefs of Atheists.

rant ends

At least I can look forward to Pinker debating, he seems so mild-mannered, I hope DD doesn't bulldoze him over with lies. Perhaps his poodle wig will be Dinesh's kryptonite.

I often think that the debate between atheist and theist is not really be about whether god exists.  The atheist side is concerned with whether god is imaginary or not.  The theist side often seems to be about why atheists don't want there to be a god.

Guys like Dinesh want there to be a god so badly they defend their beliefs despite any logical rational argument.  For many people like Dinesh god just has to exist because their worldview can't accept that humans are a product of Nature (evolution) and that humanity is not part of some amazingly complex hidden plan.  They need a great dramatic story involving a great deity with a great hidden agenda to explain it.

In spite of the debate, I feel that theists and atheists have pretty much the same goals.  We all want to feed the hungry, end all war, and relieve human suffering throughout the world.  Atheists want to actually figure out a plan on how to allocate resources to it rather than rely on wishful thinking and prayer.  Atheists don't blame sin on the misfortune of those who have AIDS or who are born in poverty. The blame goes to apathy. The same apathy that a jackass like Dinesh has for his fellow men and women who don't believe in his imaginary deity.

If christianity was real then Jesus Christ would defend his believers surely?

If christianity is false then we have nothing to worry about - let people be brainwashed - most of the world has been brainwashed since the beginning of time and most of the world still is.

We must stand together because we are a minority.

Not that you don't have a valid point about the double standard, Kelly, as that title is just another reflection of the fact that we're a group to whom it is still considered by many in the mainstream to discriminate or hurl invective, but I notice that the content of D'Souza's article isn't about "bashing atheists", and itseems like that title was chosen more to draw attention to the article.

I'm more interested in the fact that he asserts that Richard Dawkins was "caught by Ben Stein with his pants down", something that never occurred, as Stein and the creators of Expelled lied to Dawkins and the other evolutionist interviewees about the angle of their film, and distorted the truth of its content. 

Good luck with that. D'Souza is a master of the Bill O'Reilley school of "weasel-word and fine print" argument. If Bill's covering a demonstration that he doesn't agree with, it's "your little demonstration," or "a small group of misguided individuals." Weasel away. Later in the interveiw, Bill is guaranteed to say "most people don't agree with you, but let's move on to another question." That's the fine print bomb. 

The Hitchens vs. D'Souza debate shows D'Souza demonstrating the use of both techniques. I'd love it if someone debating him would point out both before beginning, just to see what effect it would have on him. "So ... how many fine print bombs did you guys count? Weasel words? There will be prizes after."

This situation reminds me of an idiotic opinion piece that was published in Virginia Tech's school newspaper, the Collegiate Times:

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2008/03/25/column__defending_mora...

I had to respond with similar sentiments as Kelly's:

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2008/03/27/letter__column_lacked_...

It's amazing how some people "think".

I remember asking my dad if he was an Atheist and he looked totally shocked that I would ask such a thing. He has always said, "If I can't see it or perceive it with my senses then it isn't real to me" - "I see no evidence of any kind of God" - "What is in nature is real, that's all" - so you would think he would have said "yes" to my question.  My friend Steve would never go to a church, would never look at a bible, koran or moonie book. He has said "none of them are any less crazy than Scientology and Xenu" - Yet when I asked him if he were an Atheist he got annoyed at me too... like I was trying to put him in a "club" after he just got through telling me he hates clubs! 

My friend Chris says, "I'm an Atheist... " but only to his close friends... to others he "doesn't want to make them uncomfortable.  After studying all the internet stuff on atheism, I have come to find that I am a weak atheist... I don't much care for the topic, I don't know the mysterious answers, I don't fill the gaps with a god, I'm comfortable with the mystery and will gladly believe in a deity when there is proof in the natural world.  "I'll believe it when I see it ... now let's study science"-

But listen to that term "weak atheist"... ugh.  That's not sexy at all. I'm the weak version of someone who has a lack of a belief in something. Eww.

The official numbers place American with a combined atheist and agnostic population at about 10% (in 2004). But I'll bet if you added in everyone like dad, Steve, and Chris... it would be like 30% - which makes me wonder.  Is the way to more power and respect to all declare ourselves? So many would never do it because to them the word means "in a club of people who agree on the topic of a deity" - and they reject the world roundly.

We can either do that, or we can use terms anyone can get along with that sound like SOMETHING.  "People Who Have No Desire To Practice Religion" - "Real Worldians" - "Rational Thinkers" - "The Anti and Non RELIGIOUS" - I guess what I am saying is that when I encourage my friends & family to smack Dinesh D'Souza for dissing us - I am torn between nudging them to relate to the very accurate world "Atheist" and to changing MY WORDS to include them where they already perceive themselves to be now.

"Hey dad, Dinesh D'Souza says if you don't believe in scripture and a personal god, people should "bash" you... what do you think about that?"

dad, "I don't care son... I never think about that stuff"

30% and climbing!

- Corporations_Ate_My_Baby

[ www.myspace.com/reregulation

Oh, purleaze can we have a Dinesh D'Suzy-Bashing Week? It'd be such fun.

And no need for metaphors and bon mots - just good old-fashioned thumps with heavy things. Sometimes the intellectual approach just fails to satisfy the viscera. There are many ways to vent a spleen, but few as direct as a sharp instrument just to the left of the pancreas.

I feel better already, just contemplating it...

CD

Sarcasm like that is understandable, but do always keep in mind that there are nuts who would falsely take such things seriously.

Did everyone know D'Souza used to date Ann Coulter. I couldn't ask for a better hell.

Good stuff Kelly, as usual!