It’s Christian Bashing Week!

Posted on May 2, 2008. Filed under: Atheism | Tags: , , , , , , |

How’s that headline? Do I have everybody’s attention now? Good. Because a headline like that should get your attention. Would anybody tolerate “Gay Bashing Week” or “Woman Bashing Week?” The very idea is ludicrous. Yet, Dinesh D’Souza can print an article entitled “Atheist Bashing Week” and hardly anybody bats an eyelash. There’s certainly not public outrage and condemnation for such blatant bigotry. He was just joking, you say? Even in all of our stunts, which are regularly criticized by atheists (often quite vehemently), we’ve only dared to tell people that their god doesn’t exist or encourage others to say so and post it to YouTube. Even the mind disorder controversy doesn’t encourage physical harm or even allude to it. If we haven’t had “Christian Bashing Week,” you can bet it’s because we find the notion repugnant, even in jest…(read more)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Dinesh D’Souza Spreads Dishonest Propaganda…Again

Posted on January 21, 2008. Filed under: Atheism | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Original Article

Isn’t it remarkable that Christians would like to use atheists as scapegoats for every evil action throughout history instead of admitting their own complicity? After all, they are the ones who are constantly reminding us that the inhumane actions committed by their predecessors don’t necessarily reflect upon them, so why can’t they can’t they just admit that the christians of the past were complicit in some of these atrocities?

I don’t know that I need to move beyond the first sentence to prove the absurdity of his assertion. Apparently, Mr. D’Souza has forgotten about the atheists and deists who were the true impetus for ending slavery-like Abraham Lincoln! As far as we can tell from the biographies written about Lincoln, particularly those written by some of his closest friends, he was at best a deist, possibly an atheist, and definitely opposed to organized religion and christianity. How about other atheist abolitionists like Fanny Wright, Elizur Wright and Ernestine Louise Rose?

Obviously D’Souza aims to rewrite history, much like his buddies in Congress with HR 888, to make it seem that christians were always paragons of morality and the evils of the world can be blamed on atheists. D’Souza attempts to ridicule Sam Harris by pointing out that everybody already knows that the bible sanctions slavery and that the same bible was used as justification for and against slavery…read more

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Two Confused People Discuss Atheism

Posted on November 26, 2007. Filed under: Atheism | Tags: , , , , , , |

First of all, to those of you who have been reading this blog regularly, I apologize for repeatedly writing about Dinesh D’Souza. This is occurring for multiple reasons: he’s the only person who’s promoting his biased agenda with actual fervency (which includes frequent articles or blog posts), and I was specifically asked by Ken Bronstein from NYC Atheists to continue deconstructing his propaganda. It’s like being stuck between a rock and a hard-head…oh, I meant hard place.

I must confess that I haven’t yet watched this televised discussion, although I plan to, because I would like to get this written, at least preliminarily, before suffering the inevitable loss of neurons that will occur when I watch their mutually masturbatory misinformation session. Thankfully, it was only broadcast on The 700 Club, so they were preaching to an audience that has already been tainted by this type of nonsense.

D’Souza starts out on the right foot with a little self-aggrandizement; “Atheists are expressing frustration at getting regularly skewered on this blog.” That explains why he hasn’t responded to my critiques of his pieces, both of which were sent directly to him and posted in the comments on his blog. His characterization of atheists who respond to his bigotry as “masochists” is clearly mistaken, then, since that would necessarily involve the repeated desire to be hurt, abused, or ashamed, and I haven’t seen him doing very much of that, and definitely not to anybody with a valid argument in a setting where he can’t resort to the usual bait-and-switch routine of which he is so fond.

His vacuous statement resorts to the standard malicious attack on atheists as people with the subconscious knowledge of “problems” that can only be solved by his imaginary friend. It seems that no matter how often we tell these people that, while we have problems just like everybody else, most atheists do not feel that they are lacking any of the qualities that are continually associated with religion. Allow me to make an exception for their dogmatic adherence to irrational Bronze Age statutes that promote xenophobia and the denial of logic and science which is then passed down to their progeny through this type of brainwashing and vilification of atheism.

D’Souza goes on to assume that no “dogmatic” atheist (there’s that one again—can anybody say “oxymoron”?) would read his new book, What’s so Great About Christianity, because we’re all too afraid to have our “hidden metaphysical assumptions” challenged by real science and evidence. Considering the thousands of atheists with whom I have communicated, not to mention my own experiences with religion, I am compelled to point out his blatant ignorance here. We’re right back at the dichotomy I presented in my first piece: is D’Souza dishonest or deluded? His continuous projection of the inadequacies of his own belief system should be noted, and every sentence he utters should be looked at through this lens. He has dishonestly propagated the lies that atheism is a religion, atheists are dogmatic, and atheism is based on faith, all while any reasonable person can see that these are qualities that he not only embraces personally, but encourages others to do so as well. His consistent attacks on those premises reflect his internal understanding that he is the dogmatic faithful fundamentalist who has no logical ground on which to stand…more here

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

D’Souza – Nothing to Refute Here

Posted on November 26, 2007. Filed under: Atheism | Tags: , , , , , , |

Kelly responds to Dinesh D’Souza and his “What atheists Kant refute” drivel.

Digg Kelly’s Response – Reddit Article

The question of the nature of reality is one that likely will never go away. There will always be those who support the belief that this mysterious “something” exists, and there will be those on the opposing side. We must work with the tools available to us, and those just happen to be limited to our five innate senses and the knowledge that we have gained through science and reason.

In Dinesh D’Souza’s recent piece for Christian Science Monitor, “What Atheists Kan’t Refute”, he asks why we should believe that “reality” is all there is, but the question should be, “Why should we believe otherwise?” Empirical evidence is the basis and foundation for all human advancements. All technological, scientific, and medical discoveries have been made using these faculties. Nobody would dare to base a monumental decision on anything other than evidence in their daily lives, yet they are expected to do so with regards to this one matter—one that, according to D’Souza’s religion, would be the most important decision anybody could ever make.

One of the most frequently held misconceptions that continues to be used in defense of Christianity is that atheism is a new concept. They argue that the lax moral ethos of society has created a brand-new generation of god-bashers. While it may seem that atheism is having a resurgence of sorts, it is in no way a new phenomenon. Ironically, he not only uses this argument, but then gives demonstrable proof of its falsity.

Convincing the general public that atheism is a new wave of immorality spawned by a materialistic culture is a powerful piece of propaganda. The use of Enlightenment era Kantian argumentation as the backbone of his piece shows that the battle between believers and rationalists has been raging for centuries at least and makes his previous statement seem strangely out of place. (Obviously, he wouldn’t want to mention that this has been happening since the inception of Christianity.)

His self-contradictory statements here are but the beginning of a disturbingly convoluted argument. He states, “The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know: reality itself.” What definition of “reality” is he using here? How exactly does one go about attaining knowledge of something that isn’t real? The debate between the “Rationalists” and the “Idealists” was much more complex than D’Souza’s practically dishonest representation of it. He presents conclusions from Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” as if they were definitive. Any amateur student of philosophy surely understands that one person’s ideas, even if that one person is Immanuel Kant, are not necessarily axiomatic. Kant argued in support of his belief that the five senses were insufficient tools with which to ascertain truth in regards to metaphysical claims. While this is a philosophically valid concept, it is not scientifically valid…more here

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Dinesh D’Souza’s ridiculous op-ed in USA Today

Posted on November 26, 2007. Filed under: Atheism | Tags: , , , , , |

Here’s the link to the original article and below is my response. Enjoy. Bump my response on reddit. Digg me on Digg.

Anybody who has ever perused the “Religion” section of the local bookstore has undoubtedly seen that the sheer volume of available apologetics material is most certainly not in danger of being over taken by the comparatively miniscule, if even present, section of books on atheism. That notwithstanding, the response from believers to books like Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion or Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great has been so vociferous that one would think that it was in imminent peril. As much as I would relish that notion, it is apparent that instead of diminishing, it is in fact increasing–with new names, albeit old arguments.

The newest poster-boy for defenders of Christianity is Dinesh D’Souza. He has written books in response to or publicly debated many of the forerunners of the so-called “New Atheism”. His recent op-ed in the USA Today section “On Religion” (Oct 22, 2007) is but a fragment of the kind of nonsense that passes for valid argumentation in the realm of apologetics. While reading it, one must wonder if he is either a blatant liar or simply downright deluded. (Maybe this could be the D’Souza Dilemma: Dishonest or Deluded?)

The fact that anybody with even a shred of logic or knowledge of history would make it past his opening salvo without lighting it on fire is a miracle of its own. Is he a champion of the provocation of hysteria, or does he realize that atheists don’t want to remove Christianity from the history of the founding of the country–It was never there! Does he not know that we already live in a secular society–we just want to keep it that way? That all of the values and institutions that he claims are “inextricably tied” to his faith existed before Christianity and were instilled in this country which was explicitly created to not have ties to any particular religion? Somebody should point out to him that it is this type of rhetoric against which we rail.

It is not particularly difficult to portray religion as the thorn in the side of civilization. A cursory glance at world politics will reveal that the impetus for the majority of both current and historical instances of bloodshed, terrorism, and genocide is religion. The fact that the entire basis for belief in any god is faith, the definition of which is the antithesis of reason, manifests itself in the fanaticism of its adherents. Whether you call this invisible and undetectable being Yahweh or Allah is of little consequence–were it not for the unshakable faith of the believers, people would be much less willing to kill or die in order to reap the rewards of the promised afterlife…more here

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...