…and this is a 
Dinesh D'Souza is a contemptible ghoul
Category: Stupidity
Posted on: April 18, 2007 4:48 PM, by PZ Myers
Dinesh D'Souza has a truly awful opinion piece up in which he basically accuses atheists of being hateful robots. Why? Because Richard Dawkins wasn't invited to any of the memorials at Virginia Tech, and because he couldn't spot any atheists in the crowds (I'm wondering what he thinks we look like, that he can say there weren't any there.)
Is this really one of the prominent thinkers of the American Right?
Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing. Even secular people like the poet Nikki Giovanni use language that is heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning.
Has Mr D'Souza tried asking around? I suspect that even when tragedies don't occur, he has problems finding atheists. Does he think we vanish in a puff of smoke when evil occurs? We're here. We're mourning the death of those students and faculty, too — that we are left out of any public acknowledgment of our existence does not mean we do not feel the pain, too.
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. The main characteristic of the universe is pitiless indifference. 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!
That is not quite correct. The universe is lacking any overarching cosmic meaning — it's almost all empty and hostile to life, for one thing, which ought to give D'Souza a clue — but that does not mean that we individual human beings, atheist or not, don't find meaning in our relationships with other people, in the interactions with our communities, in family and work. We have spouses and children. We love other people. We worry about those loved ones. When we see bloody horrors like the killings in Virginia, we feel empathy and regret and anger.
The only pitiless indifference here is D'Souza's, who dehumanizes those people who don't share his foolish faith and bestows on us a caricature of our beliefs — he is an unfeeling monster himself, who wants to deny basic humanity to us.
To no one's surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. 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. The reason is that 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.
Dawkins has not been invited to speak, true enough; it's understandable, since he is living in a far-off country and doesn't have any direct ties to Virginia Tech, as far as I know. Has the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, David Miscavage of the Church of Scientology, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Premier of the People's Republic of China, or David Hasselhoff been invited to speak? Shall we take that as a rebuke of everything they stand for?
I suspect that if Dawkins were asked, and if he felt it were appropriate, he certainly would have been willing to speak before the grieving families, and I'm sure he would have spoken words of consolation. They would not have been those false promises of religion, but they would have expressed the regret and concern that we all feel, theist and atheist. There were people in that crowd who were atheists. They lost people they cared about, and they were not babbling unfeelingly about "molecules acting upon molecules" … unlike this insensitive clod, D'Souza.
If this is the best that modern science has to offer us, I think we need something more than modern science.
Since D'Souza's cranky remarks are based on distortions and lies about atheism and science built by bigoted proponents of a mindless religion, they reflect more on that religion than anything of science. We definitely need something more than the delusions D'Souza thrives upon.
Comments
Wow, what a dick. No, I'm sorry, that's an insult to penii everywhere. What a jackhole.
Posted by: jan andrea | April 18, 2007 4:53 PM
I'd try to read the whole thing, but I'm just afraid that if I did I'd never be able to stop throwing up.
Posted by: Gene | April 18, 2007 4:54 PM
D'Souza's hate-filled stupidity is making my brain hurt.
Posted by: Stanton | April 18, 2007 4:55 PM
Thinker? Well......
Reactionary kneejerk? Yep.
Pompous and incompetent liar? Now we're getting somewhere.
Posted by: Hal | April 18, 2007 4:56 PM
Well, yes, Dinesh is a prominent right-wing, err, something. You found what they believe. Congratulations.
Posted by: stogoe | April 18, 2007 5:02 PM
Memorials seem overtly religious in nature and it wouldn't surprise me that atheists avoid them. I certainly would.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | April 18, 2007 5:03 PM
Dinesh has the inside track for Shitlord of the Week.
Posted by: Philboid Studge | April 18, 2007 5:05 PM
I agree. Empathy and love are emotions not mutually exclusive to Christianity. What a low-ball statement. This represents a typical superficial understanding of what it means to be human without deference to mythology. BTW, "those molecules" are more dependable for interpersonal solace than any non-existent fantasy. Depression and isolation contributed to the tragedy, not satan.
Posted by: John Danley | April 18, 2007 5:05 PM
Yes, Dinesh is the cream of the crop when it comes to right-wing intellectuals. (Perhaps I should have put quotes around that last word.) How clever it was of PZ to find a non-believer at Virgina Tech (the blogger at gnosos) when D'Souza could not. Of course, D'Souza wasn't really looking, was he?
Posted by: Zeno | April 18, 2007 5:05 PM
Using this incident as an attempt to jab at atheists is testimony to the man's "Christian" character. It was very sweet of him, wasn't it?
Posted by: John Danley | April 18, 2007 5:10 PM
I did notice Deepak Chopra on CNN selling his latest book, while they interviewed him and kept showing clips from memorial services (presumably from V/T). Besides being uncomfortable with their timing to 'review' his new woo (and having Deepak peddle it), doing it while referring to the shooting was a new low level for CNN. Looks like they are really trying to be like Fox News. Our 'lefty' side is not much better as long as Deepak is associated with the left.
Posted by: daenku32 | April 18, 2007 5:12 PM
Posted by: quork | April 18, 2007 5:15 PM
"I'm wondering what he thinks we look like"
Well most atheists have tails hidden beneath their trousers, but only Russian Atheists have visible horns.
Posted by: No One of Consequence | April 18, 2007 5:15 PM
This bozo just can't imagine that some folks grieve in different ways. We don't all automatically reach out for our fellow human being, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
To be blunt, I find most of those ceremonies and tributes to be utterly ridiculous, over-dramatic symptoms of how little real emotion people can naturally express these days.
Posted by: DaveX | April 18, 2007 5:15 PM
Half-witted religionists such as D'Souza in the States have their counterparts over here in the UK. Dr Sentamu,the Archbishop of York, on Saturday April 07, on BBC Radio 4, referred to 'self-fulfillment, a cynical culture, blaming others to put others down', and then, he said, without 'god-reference we become masters of ourselves & in the long run people become not friends, but enemies & think, "so I'd better turn on him".'
This is 'hate speech'! He is saying that atheists are both immoral and potentially violent - that we have no reason to not be violent to pursue our ends.
It seems to me, most violence is carried out in the name of religion.
By the way, I'm really sorry to hear about the Virginia Tech shootings, and my sympathy goes out to all who have been injured or lost a loved one or friend(s).
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | April 18, 2007 5:17 PM
The worst part is that it is in exactly these situations that atheists are most pressed to keep quiet. After all, who wants to tell a mother who has just lost her child that no, he or she is NOT in a better place right now? We're told to sit down and shut up (or else we're not being tolerant), and then surprise surprise, there aren't any atheists speaking up!
I wonder if VTech has an atheist student group, and how they are supporting each other in such a time. I find it kind of unlikely that they are "no where to be found."
Posted by: kmarissa | April 18, 2007 5:17 PM
Why do you even bother linking to these jerks? They're only spouting this drivel to bring attention to themselves (aren't they?). I mean, his, um, "argument" was so illogical that even he can't really think it's true...
Is the point simply to highlight how stupid and reactionary anti-atheist bigotry is? Or is there more to it?
(Sigh.) I'm sorry, it just bothers me that anybody pays attention to this kind of stuff at all.
Posted by: J Daley | April 18, 2007 5:18 PM
You know, I didn't really NEED any more reason to loathe and despise Dinesh D'Souza. The man has essentially done nothing but provide me with those over the years. Yet, he's done the unthinkable here and managed to revolt me even further.
I almost feel bad for the rational conservatives of the world. I mean, I may think everything D'Souza has ever said is absolute tosh, but at least he's not OSTENSIBLY speaking for me and being paid to do so. I pity the people who, while generally normal and intelligent about their conservatism, have to distance themselves from this clown's opinions. Of course, it's even sadder that he'll likely always have sponsors and some widely-viewed venue to spout off this rubbish. It's almost reason to suspect the world's sanity that so many would pay to hear his opinion on anything.
Posted by: Jared | April 18, 2007 5:19 PM
quork answered my question :)
Posted by: kmarissa | April 18, 2007 5:20 PM
Atheist here. I am sorrowful for the students, families, and townspeople affected by the shootings. I have shared in and will share in moments of silence in respect, honor, and horror. I grieve. I don't pray, and find religious words of solace smarmy, to say the least. So if you see me at a religious gathering, I'll be one of those looking around when others have their heads bowed. Try not to confuse me with law enforcement. Same stance, different reasons.
Posted by: ctenotrish | April 18, 2007 5:20 PM
I see that a few commenters on D'Souza's blog gave him what for, deservedly so.
Isn't that Gnosos kid from Va Tech who blogged on the tragedy an atheist (or agnostic)?
http://gnosos.blogspot.com/2007/04/reflections-on-mourning-for-virginia.html
Posted by: notthedroids | April 18, 2007 5:26 PM
No one asked Dinesh to speak at Va Tech either.
Hmmm...
Posted by: John Danley | April 18, 2007 5:26 PM
he's got all the logical prowess of a stoned 8th grader.
dude, if there's nothing but molecules, there can't be any such thing as "evil". and there can't be any such thing as "good", either!
duuuude...
nothing but reality exists. if i can't touch it, or if you can't make a pile of it, it doesn't exist! so that must mean there's no such thing as "dumb", or "conservative", or "demagogue" !
duuuude...
Posted by: cleek | April 18, 2007 5:28 PM
This douchenugget is coming to speak on my campus next Monday, a buddy and I are planning to go. I'd like to ask him what the difference is between his "let's become like the terrorists so they stop hating us" and "appeasement."
Needless to say, I'll be blogging about it. Extensively.
Posted by: Tom Foss | April 18, 2007 5:28 PM
Where is God when bad things happen?
yes this can go both ways...
Posted by: Geral | April 18, 2007 5:36 PM
What a fucking vulture. Way to stand on the graves of 30+ college students to lob insults at a group you don't like.
Posted by: commissarjs | April 18, 2007 5:40 PM
I see the "Dawkins is the Pope of all Atheists" Strawman is alive and well - especially int he mind of D'Souza, a moral midget who has frankly said he sympathizes with terrorist rage against the US.
Secondly, if he thinks by manipulating a terrible event for his own ends is going to make me feel his religious believes hve value, he's obviously even more ignorant than I'd previously thought.
I would probably be considered an atheist (note: I find a lot of religious terms too limiting). I somehow am going on with my life, mourning the terror, appreciating what I have in light of this horror, and hoping for the future. I don't feel a need to exploit a hideous mass murder, but D'Souza apparently does.
Posted by: DragonScholar | April 18, 2007 5:44 PM
They didn't ask a British citizen to come to speak at an American tragedy? It'll all the British guy's fault, obviously. Now the 'liberal' media just needs to repeat this 'fact' over and over again so it can become truth!
And, No One of Consequence, everyone knows that it is the Jews who have horns, not the Russian atheists, my evangelical Christian co-worker was nice enough to inform me of this fact. Now I feel bad because I'm almost 30 years old and my evil looking Jew horns never grew in!? I need something to compensate for my receding hairline...
Posted by: Anony-Moshe | April 18, 2007 5:44 PM
Did you notice that no Zoroastrians or animists were asked to speak at any of the memorials? What could be the reason, is it because they're like atheists, unworthy to be asked to make a eulogy?
Or do you suppose that religious folk might prefer rabbis, imams, priests, and ministers to be speaking to them at the time when religious rites are typically performed?
Now to be fair to Dinesh, the poetry that most people really seem to like to surround death is not typically an atheist strong point. I expect that the "softly spoken magic spells" (Pink Floyd, Dark side of the Moon) conjured up by pious saints (liars, for the blunt) will never be the stock in trade of atheists, though I'm sure that poetry for the intellectuals at the time of death could come from any number of atheists.
So bring in the pious falsehoods at this time. I don't recall any secularists taking the time to whine like D'Souza about the same old useless shit being shoveled out by the religionists (some probably did, but who cares?). We're not really troubled by fairly tales and pious frauds being given lip service for the sake of emotions and weak minds, we simply don't want to be told to make way for them every time some idiot insists that their claims of reality be taken seriously.
I expect that in the officially atheist Soviet Union, it would have been as out of place to invite some pious rusty old fart in to give the eulogy for a secular intellectual, as it would be to call in Dawkins to comfort a bunch of Abrahamic believers (plus a healthy number of secularists, no doubt). It's simply gauche to try to make something of the fact that following protocol and responding to the sympathies for the bereaved at this time of sorrow leaves out atheistic British scientists.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 18, 2007 5:45 PM
This has shown up in Pharyngula's "random quotes" several times of late:
The issue is context, D'Souza. Do you think you can understand that?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 18, 2007 5:55 PM
I forgot to credit the quote I included in post #30. It's by Kurt Vonnegut.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 18, 2007 5:57 PM
"For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules."
And for moronic theists like D'Souza, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--a ghost wearing a flesh suit damaging other ghosts' flesh suits.
Posted by: H. Humbert | April 18, 2007 5:57 PM
D'Souza's molecules are arranged in a particularly unpleasant configuration.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | April 18, 2007 6:02 PM
For anybody who understands science, theist or nontheist, that is one of the unavoidable interpretations available.
But because we actually have a rich and varied capacity for understanding, we recognize the self-ordering of molecules and the emergence of properties which make life into something that is so much more than mere atoms and molecules. Indeed, anybody who looks at a computer as if it were nothing other than atoms, molecules, and crystalline arrangements, would be seriously inadequate as a scientist.
And humans are so much more than just computers. Indeed, we are so unique that we cannot be designed, for only evolutionary contingency could produce something so complex, so precious, and so irreplaceable (either as a species or as individuals). We are not Frankenstein's creations, nor replaceable machines of some ethereal designer, we are the wonder and beauty of present complexity unreproducible events which tie us inextricably with our fellows and with the ancestors who produced and cared for us, just because we belonged to them (and not to some God who can snap his fingers to replace us with the equal or better).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 18, 2007 6:08 PM
Oh, cleek, you might be interested in my vocabulary word for yesterday.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 18, 2007 6:11 PM
God damn it. I am so sick of people like this idiot spewing their venom, telling the world at large that my family and I couldn't possibly care about other people, that we lack empathy simply because we don't respond to tragedy with mealy-mouthed platitudes about "a better place" and "God's infinite mercy [in sparing some while allowing others to die]."
I wish he could have seen me trying to explain to my seven-year-old how such things could happen. Wish he could have seen my sons at the Iraq War protest several months ago, their godless little eyes spilling over with tears at the sight of the photos of corpses of children and men and women they could never have met, killed in a country they will probably never visit. Wish he could hear my son telling his brother that "we have to be nice to each other, because each other is all we have." Wish he could hear my other son expressing compassion--compassion! for people who do such horrible things to others, "because they have something wrong with their brains that makes them do that, and it's really sad." (Even George Bush. He even feels sorry for George Freakin' Bush, because "he's not smart enough to know that what he's doing is wrong.")
I haven't responded to any posts about the V-Tech shooting anywhere, largely because I believe so strongly that this is not something to turn into a soapbox for one's pet political cause. But reading this has just busted some kind of floodgate... sorry.
Fuck you, Dinesh D'Souza, you fucking tool.
Posted by: RedMolly | April 18, 2007 6:11 PM
Oh, and my flipside on the molecules acting on molecules thing: Here's one of the common theistic takes:
"God has a divine plan that's good. Everything that happens is according to that plan. Therefore, the callous murder of several people was a good thing."
Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 18, 2007 6:14 PM
D'Souza is just doing his Bush blessed best to make it clear that there are not many Christians there, either.
There are lots of human beings. I suspect a fair number of them are atheists. Though it makes me feel a little like a Baptist, when I see D'Souza's ravigns, I see there is at least one fewer Christian than we might have expected.
If D'Souza were accused of being a Christian, is there any evidence to convict him?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | April 18, 2007 6:19 PM
In regards to 'the molecules thing'; I would call it a category error, but it's such a stupendously, incredibly, look-out-kids-it's-f*$@-off massive category error that the term doesn't do D'Souza's philosophical ineptitude justice. Perhaps 'Dinesh D'Souza is a D'Ouchebag' would be a better way of putting it.
Posted by: Magpie | April 18, 2007 6:33 PM
The VA Tech tragedy is yet another reason why human accountability should prevail over supernatural explanations. No one is going to learn or resolve anything by attributing the event to the "devil's work" and the grieving process to "God's grace." Maybe we'll use our cognitive resources in a more productive manner and stop blaming Richard Dawkins when shit hits the fan.
Posted by: John Danley | April 18, 2007 6:33 PM
The morning reports mentioned that Cho Seung-Hui's written rants included criticism of the American culture of permissiveness. Books and theses will be written on the tragedy, but in some sense, he seems another right-winger, another gun drooler, with fewer controls than usual on his behavior.
Posted by: dkew | April 18, 2007 6:35 PM
What kind of thought process could lead a fairly prominent writer like D'Souza to use the VT tragedy as an opportunity to spew hatred of those in the minority? I didn't know that much about him before, but this certainly puts him in the same category of nutjobs as Debbie Schlussel and Fred Phelps.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | April 18, 2007 6:37 PM
The Strawkins strikes again. Strawkins is my name for the strawman of Richard Dawkins that is so popular among theopologists. Any resemblence to actual persons is slim to none.
Just kick around the Strawkins and your column practically writes itself. I am so disgusted by the vultures who dance their pinhead angels on the memories of the murdered.
(BTW, the real Richard Dawkins does a beautiful memorial. Examples here: http://edge.org/documents/adams_index.html)
Posted by: Skeptyk | April 18, 2007 6:41 PM
Huh.
I just attended a completely god-free funeral service for a great humanitarian, activist, volunteer, husband, father, grandfather and friend Monday afternoon. We mourned, listened to great words (Ingersoll's) and great music. The only difference between this gathering of loving secularists celebrating a great 89-year life and a non-secular funeral is that we didn't have to listen to the inanities of church doctrine. The service was ALL meaningful with none of the nonsensical, death-denying drivel usually spewed at funerals.
Posted by: Sonja | April 18, 2007 6:43 PM
You know what I'd like to know? Where are all the mathematicians?
They're always so quick with their equations and formulas, but whenever there's a tragedy, they're nowhere to be found. If this is all math has to offer us, we need something else. And don't get me started on the gardeners.
Posted by: Nevyn | April 18, 2007 6:43 PM
Posh Spice was also conspicuously absent.
Distort D'Newsa strikes again.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 18, 2007 6:51 PM
I have heard calls, for example from the VA Governer, for a sort of waiting period on being an asshole following this event ... to get your political point.
But there has been no waiting at all on two things: Gun nuts who advocate that studentsa nd faculty should have been packing, and this dick-head who has the protection of the lord jesus.
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 18, 2007 6:53 PM
D'Souza's argument seems to hinge on the notion that either a) life has innate, external meaning or b) life is a collage of meaningless events. Or more specifically, God (be it Jehovah, Zeus or whatever diety of choice) defines life's meaning or (b). But of course, this entirely disregards our own ability to define worth and meaning. I see no reason to conclude a person or society cannot exert meaning. The sheer variety of cults seems to undercut the God meaning only view, since each religious and cultural group defines meaning differently. If, as exclusionary religions assert, only one cult's God can be real and many cultures have different godly meanings, then only one meaning is indeed godly and the rest are defined by culture and society.
Posted by: MR | April 18, 2007 7:00 PM
Mr. D'Souza may be a fellow at Stanford, but it appears that he got his position more by virtue of politics than accomplishment. He was a policy wonk for the Republicans and has the grand academic rank of a Bachelor's in English. If I were him, I would be keeping my head down and not nattering quite so much. He is far too obviously a lucky conservative lapdog.
Posted by: Tim Altom | April 18, 2007 7:01 PM
The argument that "materialism" negates things like love, morals, and meaning is probably the most common, popular argument against atheism. Yes, it's a category error, where people confuse things like abstractions and ideas with supernatural spirits and souls. "You can't see 'love' under a microscope, therefore a materialist will say it can't exist."
Couple this with a childlike understanding of morality as "obedience to your authority" and "what you get punished for when you don't follow it" and you've got a nasty little conglomeration of Bad Arguments appealing directly to the unthinking intuitions of the primitive human brain. And just as cleek can cleverly reduce the fallacy into the language of the "logical prowess of a stoned 8th grader" (comment #23), it can be paraphrased very skillfully into a much more sophisticated form in order to demonstrate the logical prowess of the respected theologian, bemoaning the metaphysical inability of Naturalism to account for metaphysical Meaning.
And, there is a possibility it can get worse. According to an recent AP news story, the killer's final note is
"a typed, eight-page rant against rich kids and religion... Cho indicated in his letter that the end was near, and that there was a deed to be done, the official said. He also expressed disappointment in his own religion, and made several references to Christianity."
So there's going to be some sort of connection with being "against religion." Doesn't sound good. D'Souza and his ilk will practically orgasm if so.
Posted by: Sastra | April 18, 2007 7:03 PM
I'm puzzled at D'Souza's claim that Nikki Giovanni used religious imagery. Maybe she did, but I don't see it in this transcript.
http://www.vt.edu/tragedy/giovanni_transcript.php
It strikes me that she's studiously avoided looking for some kind of uplifting meaning and just shares everyone's shock and grief as eloquently as she can.
Am I missing something? Did she make any other statements that D'Souza could reasonably claim were "heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning" or is he just blowing smoke?
Posted by: PaulC | April 18, 2007 7:03 PM
Sonja (#44), your post is the best rebuke to D'Souza's tripe.
Posted by: Taylor | April 18, 2007 7:05 PM
Ah, Paul C, but of course Giovanni's use of the word "tragedy" is "heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning." Remember, in a natural, material universe nothing is tragic or comic, nothing is good or bad, it's all atoms bumping into one another. You just can't avoid that religious symbolism and meaning.
Posted by: Sastra | April 18, 2007 7:08 PM
If Hasselhof had been invited, and sung, there might be a few more atheists at that service...
Posted by: John Wilkins | April 18, 2007 7:17 PM
Can the guy fit anymore strawman arguments in his article? There isn't an "atheism" as this implies a set of beliefs associated with being an atheist.
Anyone who is an atheist knows that the word 'atheist' only describes what someone does not believe in, not what they do.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | April 18, 2007 7:32 PM
Wow, you esteem Dawkins as much as them?
Posted by: Epistaxis | April 18, 2007 7:35 PM
The real irony is that Bush did speak and he's directly responsible for 10 times the VA Tech atrocity in dead Americans, not to mention all of the dead Iraqis.
Posted by: Mickey | April 18, 2007 7:38 PM
I mean 100 times
Posted by: Mickey | April 18, 2007 7:39 PM
Why on earth would he make a public statement? It has absolutely nothing to do with him.
I'm starting to think that Richard Dawkins should explicitly state that he believes the Holocaust occurred. If current trends continue, his critics will take his silence as evidence that he's a Holocaust denier.
Posted by: hyperdeath | April 18, 2007 7:43 PM
So a terrible event that leaves us all stunned and horrified becomes no more than an occasion for Mr. D/Souza to trumpet his moral superiority over a group he fears and despises. This guy clearly needs help--sadly, he doesn't seem to know it. From 'Osama is right about western culture' to 'look, look, the atheists don't care the way real human beings do'-- what'll he say next, I wonder? Something just as ugly and stupid, no doubt.
Posted by: Bryson Brown | April 18, 2007 7:45 PM
PZ:
Evil Atheist Conspiracy Standing Order #1872 :
Of course he couldn't spot any.
Posted by: llewelly | April 18, 2007 7:51 PM
Apparently, D'Souza does.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 18, 2007 7:51 PM
I can't speak for PZ, but I hold Dawkins in far higher regard than most political or religious leaders. Why? Because their ilk is largely interested in the exercise of power, while Dr. Dawkins is concerned with the question of what is true. I greatly prefer the latter.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | April 18, 2007 7:55 PM
The reason why all this talk about God becomes so prevalent in times of tragedy is that the christianists (and I use that word deliberately) are jumping all over one another to be the first and the loudest in their proclamations of piety. It has nothing whatsoever to do with comforting the bereaved, and everything to do with pure, naked, drooling hubris.
Posted by: PaulK | April 18, 2007 7:55 PM
Posted by: quork | April 18, 2007 7:59 PM
Dinesh is a turd enjoying his days of being a standout piece of shit on the right-wing scum pond, but eventually his writings will regarded with pitiless indifference and he will be seen as someone who created an intellectual life devoid of "deeper meaning."
Richard Dawkins is a giant next to that twerp.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 18, 2007 8:06 PM
I sent my response directly to Mr. D'Souza
dineshjdsouza@aol.com
Posted by: MarcusA | April 18, 2007 8:11 PM
My cousin is an engineering student at Virginia Tech and a friend of his was one of the wounded. He's kind of freaked and still trying to come to terms with this whole reality (aren't we all).
I've been trying to take the high road. Emotions are running very high right now, so I didn't deem it appropriate to bash the religiose or the gun people. But ...
This is just insane. And speaking of religious references, I'll give you one guess who said this
Off topic, let's not forget the 183+ people who died in Baghdad today.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | April 18, 2007 8:26 PM
"http://www.vt.edu/tragedy/giovanni_transcript.php
Just reading the excerpt PaulC quoted, Giovanni expresses what I'd been thinking. For a bit of a change of pace, one of her poems:
Winter Poem
once a snowflake fell
on my brow and i loved
it so much and i kissed
it and it was happy and called its cousins
and brothers and a web
of snow engulfed me then
i reached to love them all
and i squeezed them and they became
a spring rain and i stood perfectly
still and was a flower
Posted by: Dan S. | April 18, 2007 8:30 PM
What does David Hasselhoff stand for?
Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 8:35 PM
Certainly in a religious society people are going to turn to religion for solace. But there's more to it than that. Theists pretty much have to show up for tragedies like this since they happen on their god's watch. Theists have to be able to explain away events like this as part of "god's plan". God "wins" whether somebody survives (is saved/spared preserved by god), or is killed (taken home/in a better place/with the angels, or, conversly, punished/reaping the reward for sinful ways). Same thing for plane crashes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. Even though it's "win win" for god on the surface, theists have to make excuses for their god. They have to be able to show that an all good, all powerful diety is somehow still in control. (But if god is in control,isn't it god's fault? See how easily questions can arise?) The theists must put senseless tragedies like this into that context as part of their world view, maybe as nuch for themselves as for the victims they hope to comfort. It's hard work to get your omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent diety unscathed and unchallenged through events like this. Surely this is a test of people's faith in such a diety, a point at which some come to the conclusion that there is no such entity guiding events to some sane, loving sensible end. Yes I know that god is alleged to work in mysterious ways, that "his ways are not our ways" but that explanation wears thin after a bit. Atheists, on the other have no need to explain anything; we have no
"problem of evil" to deal with. Shit happens. We all suffer. We all die. We help each other get through it. It's the helping each other that brings "meaning" into the picture. No god, no devil, just each other.
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | April 18, 2007 8:40 PM
For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules."
And for moronic theists like D'Souza, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way... The world is full of sin after the Fall of Adam and the curse of God - Cho was sinful so he shot people up randomly; those he killed were covered by the sin of Adam so they were died; Din'turd would be pleased to know that those kooky theists who protest at funerals blaming death and destruction on our evil ways, evilutionism and other things share his sentiments.
Posted by: kanaadaa | April 18, 2007 8:47 PM
I understand that Rev.(god hates fags) Phelps plans to spread some of his good time Christan compassion and understanding at the funerals of the shooting victims. Mr. D'Souza may not be able to spot the atheist in a crowd, but if he was to attend the funerals he certainly would have no problem at identifying the Christians.
Posted by: Stew | April 18, 2007 8:51 PM
D'Souza didn't need to write his latest to prove that he is a jerk. He has shown himself to be an unfeeling, mean-spirited, self-righteous prig from his earliest public days. D'Souza and his ilk are the priest and Levite in Luke 10, 25-37 who do not help the man who was robbed and beated on the road to Jericho: big talkers, great selfpromoters, but one step removed from the devil.
Posted by: hephaistos | April 18, 2007 8:54 PM
I have no children of my own but I've taught many, many college students and loved them all: I feel awful. How much worse it must be for the parents of these victims.
Now I don't mean to sound cynical, but am I the only person in America who is disturbed by the practice of turning the death of other people's family members into an excuse for getting together for some public mourning and, dare I say it, having a good time showing how much we care.
I'm sure that the participants gather, cry together, bring teddy bears, and light candles because of what they think they sincerely feel. But it seems a bit too automatic/predictable/stereotyped to me. Seems to have started with Princess Diana's death, and turned into a phenomenon.
Posted by: hephaistos | April 18, 2007 9:07 PM
D'Souza is apparently mentally challenged, so poor is his logic.
Posted by: Ric | April 18, 2007 9:08 PM
Science Pundit brings up an excellent point...
While I don't mean to downplay the tragedy of 33 senseless deaths at VT, a death toll of 33 is a pretty slow day in Iraq.
If there were this much wailing and gnashing of teeth every time people in Iraq got killed (both US personnel and Iraqis), perhaps the situation there would be very different now.
Back to the topic, I'm not familiar with this D'Souza person, but all I can say is: What an Asshole! (yes, with a capital A.)
What the fuck does Dawkins' not being invited to speak at VT have to do with anything? Have Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Ken Ham been invited to speak? I guess VT must not be a god-fearing school!
How about any prominent Muslim clerics? Jewish?
Where are the god-fearing people?!
Posted by: ZacharySmith | April 18, 2007 9:12 PM
If you think D'Souza appears mentally challenged, do NOT read today's article by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe. We really did get stuck with some pretty shitty right-wing columnists here in Boston. Jacoby's an idiot, and Howie Carr is Imus in a hooded sheet.
Posted by: MAJeff | April 18, 2007 9:13 PM
In addition to the freethinkers group at VT that Quork found, Blacksburg is also home to the Atheists of the New River Valley. I suspect both groups are more than willing to lend a shoulder to those in need, and, unlike most religious, expecting nothing in return other than the personal satisfaction of being helpful.
Posted by: Keanus | April 18, 2007 9:18 PM
Jeff, we get crappy commentators here because MA is a pretty crappy place to be a conservative (the long reign of Weld and Romney notwithstanding). The real talent takes the plum jobs elsewhere. I guess one day we'll have D'Souza writing rabble-rousers for the Herald, and it's hard to believe that would be a step up, but it might just be.
NotBruce #71, nice post. May I please quote you to my "Everything Happens For A Reason" friends?
Posted by: Kseniya | April 18, 2007 9:20 PM
Gnosos, the guy who's at VT and was linked to by PZ yesterday, just posted a response to Dinesh. She page 6 of the comments.
I think it's worth pointing out that the substance and tone of Cho's manifesto are very similar to Dinesh's book. It's all about the evil, debauched, hedonistic students at VT. It's like a blurb from the back of Dinesh's book.
We'll need to keep an eye on how the media treats the religious language in Cho's work. So far I keep hearing that he was "anti religion," yet the actual text and video I've seen sure reads like someone who was quite into Christianity but was disillusioned with the piety of others. I mean, how is someone who compares himself to Christ being "anti religion"? WTF?
Posted by: tinisoli | April 18, 2007 9:24 PM
I don't use Kwikcode often enough to get it straight, especially when there is more than one version out there. So here's a second try!
In addition to the freethinkers group at VT that Quork found, Blacksburg is also home to the Atheists of the New River Valley.
Posted by: Keanus | April 18, 2007 9:37 PM
I agree with tinisoli. Right wing zealots often sound just like the ramblings (that we've seen/heard so far) of Cho. Both conjure up strawmen who are evil, vile, amoral self-centered demons. Both need evil to justify their own failures and the failures of society. I wouldn't be surpised if one put one of D'Souza's screeds alongside part of Cho's without author attribution, they would be remarkably similar. Even Dubya's and Rumsfeld's public ramblings about "evil doers", "dead-enders", "bad people"; and D'Souza's atheists and materialists sound remarkably similar to Cho's demons. To my mind such demonization of one's enemies, imaginary or real, marks an unthinking mind at best and a sure path to failure. One needs to know the real enemy, not the imaginary one, to confront them. D'Souza knows neither.
Posted by: Keanus | April 18, 2007 9:48 PM