Saturday, April 21, 2007

D’Souza’s utter puztiude

An atheist professor's magnificent smackdown of freedom-hating totalitarian theocratic uber-putz Dinesh D'Souza's contemptible misrepresentations of atheism.

I shudder to contemplate the kind of twisted, perverted sort of person that admires D'Souza's work.


  1. Unfortunately, the sort of person who admires his work is the sort of person who still considers Bush to be doing a fantastic job and who supports what he's doing 100%. And this is the sort of person who currently controls a huge chunk of our government.

  2. dbb's right---they're those 35-38% who are still on board with Bush & co. Maybe they're the 48% who say they wouldn't vote for an atheist as president. They're the people who cheered the recent SCOTUS bullshit regarding abortion.

    Whoever they are,they seem to be everywhere, and they need a proper flogging.

  3. D (bullshit) oozing down your leg is VERY VERY popular in "right" thinking Amerika. Some even consider him to one of the truly bright stars of "conservative" thinking.

  4. Well, there are different flavors of atheism, are there not Monsieur BB. Perezoso respects the intelligent sort of skepticism, following Hume, or perhaps Voltaire (and Bertrand Russell and even the boorish Dawkins or---Hitchens (quite a witty boy, really)---in those ranks); the unintelligent sort, er, Marxism, multiculturalism, celebrity pop-leftism, we respect not. And you, ethical subjectivist par excellence, must grant that many naive "leftists" often invoke some objective morality (Bush is "Evil") at the drop of their espresso mug. Atheism does not imply one decides to join the Pelosicrats; indeed, it could imply the contrary, given the sentimentality of many of the left, nearly as nauseating as the biblethumper right.

    (and more to come on semantic inertness---surrrprize: Quine follows Bertrand Russell on denotation (and descriptions/existence claims), more or less, and "analyticity" merely a matter of defining synonymies, even at the level of formal logic and mathematics).


Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.