This one is marketed over at the secret blog that you don’t know about, Happy Jiahd’s House of Pancakes, as Dinesh D’Souza Wouldn’t Know the Truth If It Were Examining His Prostate.

You’ll never believe what happened to me today. I read something by Dinesh D’Souza and I didn’t entirely agree with it. Isn’t that weird?

Dinesh D’Souza is a former adviser to Ronald Reagan and the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institute. I don’t know what it takes to be a fellow at the Hoover Institute, but, as we shall see from Dinesh’s example below you apparently have to be, like the vacuum cleaner the Institute is named for, a sucking dirtbag.

It’s an article, it’s at Townhall, and it’s called “Why Atheists Are So Angry.” Like everything else that has issued from Dinesh’s pen recently, it is as useful as the vacuous howling of an exceptionally inbred village idiot. Write at your readership’s level, I guess.

If you haven’t seen my “God v. Atheism” debate with philosopher Daniel Dennett, you can view it at Tothesource.org.

Thanks, Dinesh, but I’d quite frankly rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon and then eat them.

You should read the comments in response to the debate both on my AOL blog as well as on the atheist site richarddawkins.net. From the atheists you hear statements like this: “D’Souza is a goddamned idiot.” “Odious little toad.” “D’Souza is full of s**t.” “A smug, joyless twit.” “Total moron.” “Little turd.” “Two-faced liar.” Etc, etc. Now admittedly the topic of God v. atheism can be an emotional one, but you will find no comparable invective on the Christian side.

Wanna bet, Dinesh?

You know what? Let’s see how many of these epithets you validate in the space of this little article.

Why then are so many atheists so angry?

One reason I think is that they are God-haters.

BANG! INVECTIVE! You’re off to an embarrassing start…keep it up!

Atheists often like to portray themselves as “unbelievers” but this is not strictly accurate. If they were mere unbelievers they would simply live their lives as if God did not exist. I don’t believe in unicorns, but then I haven’t written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion. Clearly the atheists go beyond disbelief; they are on the warpath against God.

Even mildly retarded worms buried deep below the surface of the Jovian moon Europa can see what is wrong with that. It is not God that gets the goats (sometimes literally) of atheists. Really, I do treat him/her/it as a non-entity. I pray to him precisely as much as I pray to unicorns. The problem is the religion, the practice of behaving if there is a god. Religion is not, as you appear to believe, evidence of god or god itself, and aggressively questioning religion is not war on god, no more than demanding to know the truth about Santa from my parents was a direct assault on that right jolly old elf himself. You are not-so-subtly describing atheists as if they were religionists. I never understood why you folks do this, because any accusation of irrational belief that you ascribe to the “supposedly religious atheist” can be turned right back on the actual theist. This gives new meaning to “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!”

And you can hear their bitterness not only in their book titles but also in their mean-spirited invective.

   Here is a second reason the atheists sound so angry. They are not used to having their sophistries exposed. For the past three years the new atheists have had a virtually free ride. Dawkins and Hitchens make outrageous claims (“religion poisons everything”) and media pundits like Lou Dobbs and Tim Russert fawn all over them. But in the past few months I’ve been meeting the leading atheist spokesmen in open debate, and challenging them on the basis of the same reason and science and evidence that they say vindicates their claims.

Be patient, kind reader, and keep reading. It will be worth the wait. I promise.

After my first debate with Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, several atheists on Dawkins’ site said, “Well, D’Souza won that debate, but wait till he meets Hitchens. Hitchens will wipe the floor with him. D’Souza RIP.” Then after I debated Hitchens the atheists said, “Oh no, this one didn’t go as planned. Hitchens didn’t do so well.” Another commented that atheists could not afford to lose two in a row. Even so, one atheist hopefully noted that Hitchens was not the right guy to debate me; rather, Daniel Dennett has the scholarly weight to do the job.

Now after my Dennett debate, what’s the verdict? Well, the audience was full of Dennett supporters who began with enthusiastic applause for him but, as the debate went on, fell largely silent. Several came up to me afterward and told me that I had won. Dennett himself seemed dispirited after the event. Even so, when I posted the debate on my blog, the atheists went into damage control mode. The debate was instantly posted on atheist sites, and atheists rushed to my AOL blog to vote Dennett the winner. This effort gave atheists an early lead, but when the votes were tallied I was the victor. Interestingly my margin of victory was even bigger than that for the resolution, suggesting that several people voted that “God Is a Man-Made Invention” and still thought I won the debate.

I saw no evidence of this silencing of atheists in the audience. It’s all on YouTube. (By the way, it hurts to spoon out your eyes.) I will add, however, that Dinesh’s site, presumably, probably does not draw an unbiased crowd. People who consider him twaddling through ignorance do not spend a lot of time basking in his drivel. I happen to think that I am an exception, since apparently idiocy is like crack to me. Those results are just not relevant.

A good way to assess a debate is to see what the partisans on each side say.

No, Dinesh. It is not. The best sampling is one as random as you can get. One of the neat things about this interweb is this newfangled videotrola site called the YouTubes. The debate was parsed into 10 minute sections that divided fairly well between Dennett and D’Souza’s. Now, I went through the first eight ten-minute sessions and there was a clear difference in the rating between the sections that featured Dinesh and the sections that featured Dennett. Of the first eight sections, those that featured Dennett averaged 4 stars. Those that featured you, Dinesh, averaged 3 stars. That’s as random a sample as we’re gonna get, I’m afriad.

It’s funny that he would think that a partisan crowd would be the best judge. This, of course, explains the conservative approach to judicial appointments.

[…]

Here is a sampling of comments that I’ve taken from richarddawkins.net. “I was at the debate and thought Dennett did not prove his point.”

Let’s look at the rest of the original post:

[Dennet] did make some terrific arguments on a variety of subjects.

   I’ll also be honest, I was impressed with a few of the counterpoints that D’Souza made as well.

   I think Dennett made a good case that religion is man-made invention just like language…

   However, he didn’t prove the point of the debate which was the GOD is a man made invention.

   Dennett thanks goodness that he is alive. Some people thank God they are alive. Couldn’t you see this as exactly the same thing? I asked him this very question (after the video cut off) and he responded with “yes, in fact you can see god = goodness”)

Isn’t it always a bitch when the video cuts off? That’s when all the good stuff is apparently said. Basically, he is saying that goodness has to equal god. When Dennett says that some definitions of god equate him with goodness, this bozo says that well, it’s the same thing. Please.  Anyway, Dinesh quotes another post:

“I’m so tired of these D’Souza debates. The more people we send his way the larger his smile grows.”

Oh, I love the Internet! Dinesh, let’s read the whole comment:

Comment #92770 by Shane Williams on December 1, 2007 at 12:34 pm

   I’m so tired of these D’Souza debates. The more people we send his way the larger that smile grows. Every time we reference his god its image becomes more defined. He feeds on events like these, he needs them.

   I’m pretty much calling him ignorant, so there is no point in all of this debating. Unless of course 3 or 4 of our best could take a swing at him. Any man can argue fiction, but surely it takes more to reveal the truth.

Thanks, Shane! That was fantastic! Wow, Dinesh. Not the ringing endorsement that you proclaim it to me. But that’s not all. His deliberately cynical misuse of these people’s comments gets even more flagrant:

“I feel such debates should stop.”

This is fascinating because the full post starts off by replying to Shane’s comment (I made both of them bold so it’s easier to see):

“He feeds on events like these, he needs them.”

See? But this post goes on:

Agreed. Which is why I feel such debates should stop. There is no winning debates with those who won’t play by the rules of rational discourse, and if he can present himself as ‘winning’ against each of the supposed ‘New Atheists’, this would be regrettable.

And this is precisely what you are doing, Dinesh. This is why these farcically one-sided debates should end, because tits like you don’t have a scruple about lying about the results. I’m certain that your CV benefited more than Dennett’s did from this encounter.

I found the next quote buried way back on the Dawkins site. Goddamn you, Dinesh. I’m sending you a bill for the time I’ve wasted setting the record straight, you lying fuck:

“I love Dennett’s ideas about atheism but I do think he handled this debate poorly against Dinesh.”

In reality, the full response could not be more critical of Dinesh:

415. Comment #94053 by IPV4 on December 4, 2007 at 4:39 pm

   I love Daniel Dennets insights on atheism and such but do think he handled this debate poorly with Dinesh. I feel that he could done alot better at calling Dinesh out on his stupifying analogies such as the one when he compares the intellect of a human to that of a animal His reasoning that we will never understand the mysteries of God just like the way a dog will never understand calculus,something to that effect.

You suck, Dinesh, pretty much as a human being. Wasn’t there some religious edict about lying? Or bearing false witness? Or torturing the fuck out of people because of a bet…no wait, that last one was Job.

“Ok, Dennett sucked…Dennett’s type of responses just made him look like an ass.”

Hey guys! I found one where he wasn’t misrepresenting the author of the quote! What’s the evidence that this person is an atheist, though, Dinesh? I can’t congratulate you, however, since you should have been telling the truth it all along. The fact that it is noteworthy that you told the truth reflects poorly on your character.

“Dinesh is an amazingly talented orator, considering how hopeless a case he is arguing.”

You think this is a GOOD quote for you? And your misrepresentation of these posts just gets worse and worse. You say:

“Hitchens has had a shot, as has Dennett, and neither has succeeded in demolishing D’Souza. D’Souza has a very effective debating technique. Not only did a lot of atheists get up and fire straw-man arguments at D’Souza that he was easily able to counter and make them look foolish, but Dennett…lost his composure and his train of thought.”

The post actually said:

D’Souza has a very effective debating technique, he is aggressive and genuinely seeking to offend his opponent and any atheists who are watching the debate, and, as we saw from the footage, it worked. Not only did a lot of atheists in the room get up and fire straw men arguments at D’Souza that he was easily able to counter and in turn make them look foolish, but Dr. Dennett genuinely appeared flustered by D’Souza’s tone, and lost his composure and his train of thought. This is no slam on Dennett, for who can blame him. D’Souza was insulting and belligerent and his tone was derisive and mocking. He got my gall to rise and I wasn’t on stage debating him. […]Hitchens has had a shot, as has now Dennett, and neither succeeded in demolishing D’Souza. I see no reason why Harris would be a slam dunk. Doesn’t it make more sense to admit that D’Souza is a serious challenge than to keep looking to the next debate and trust that he will be soundly whipped then? We can admit that D’Souza is effective and has some good answers and raises some good questions, without conceding that atheism is weaker for it.

Do I need to go on? Let’s do the last one.  Dinesh quoted:

“Let’s face it, this guy has taken our best shots and still come out looking good. Maddening.”

Hey… There’s something missing, Dinesh.

Lets face it, this guy has taken our best shots and still come out looking good. Not because what he says makes any sense, but simply by virtue of his patter. Maddening.

Dinesh, you completely changed what this guy said! If I did that to you, you’d have a shit fit. If you were in my freshman composition class, I would have to fail you for academic dishonesty.

So where does this leave the atheists? These guys now seem to be 0-3. Some of the blog posters on Dawkins’ site are calling on Sam Harris and Dawkins himself to step into the ring. Harris seems willing, although he has approached me about doing a written rather than an oral debate. Dawkins continues to avoid my invitation to debate on a secular West Coast campus.

Why would he stoop to debate you? What could anyone have to gain–except perhaps an odor–from associating with an inveterate and shameless liar like you?

Otherwise the self-styled “brights” are going to face the empirical fact that when it comes to defending their views, atheists are basically losers.

That’s what you think an empirical fact looks like? No wonder you got trounced!

Remarkably, the “party of reason” is simply incompetent to vindicate those claims against an advocate of the “party of faith.” Now what could be more embarrassing than that?

How about being exposed as a liar by an asshole with an Internet connection and time on his hands? Whoever called you a two-faced liar was wrong, Dinesh. You have only one face and it is that of a liar.

In your own, misguided way, Dinesh, I think that you have unintentionally answered the question you posed at the beginning of this article, “Why are Atheists So Angry?” And please understand, Dinesh, that you do not have my permission to quote me on that.

HJ

[poll id=”

24

“]