Someone on G+ encouraged atheists to watch a speech by Dinesh D'Souza.  It was fascinating, the complete suspension of reason.

”Today we are living to a degree not seen before in secular culture.  That means that Christian assumptions which used to be taken for granted in our society are no longer shared.”

Did he just pull that out of his ass?  By secular, he means non Christian, and he is speaking from a Christian point of view, and therefore discounts all other religions, present and past.  IF it can said that Christian assumptions have ever been taken for granted, we are talking about a period when Christianity reached further than most other religions, or less than 2000 years.  Compared to the rest of human history it’s just a drop in the bucket.  So the statement, “not seen before” is very presumptuous, and simply whitewashes all of human history prior to Christianity.

He states that 20 years ago atheists didn’t have mass appeal.  He starts discounting all other religions, asserting Christianity is the only religion worth considering. 

New atheists have a different agenda.  Before it was separation of church and state.  Now they want to attack Christianity?  What about the other religions? 

Really, he’s going to attack Christopher Hitchens demeanor, and the way he looks?  How does that contribute?

He states that the “new atheists” want Christians to feel like total idiots for believing.  That is incorrect.  Christians feel like total idiots when confronted with the statements and arguments that people like Harris and Hitchens produce.

Atheist threat?  Exactly how is atheism a threat?

“My mind was getting in the way.”

How can anyone say that with a straight face?

”I think a second reason that, as Christians, we sometimes have difficulty with the new atheists, is because we are accustomed, when we are faced with a problem, a question, to turn to the bible.”

“An atheist would say that they reject the authority of the book, and as Christians we are lost, because that was our argument.”

It still is today, nothing has changed.

He accuses atheists of ‘corralling young people, pushing them up against the wall”.  He calls it ‘cunning’.  That is a good example of projecting if I’ve ever seen one.

He brings up the argument that Christians reject other religions, just as atheists do, and promises to address it.  Then, nothing.

Scientists are revealing truths that religion used to try to address.  It’s ‘creeping’ it’s way into textbooks.

Examples of recent science discoveries support theism.  

Time is infinite.  Augustan answers in an astounding way.  “God created time along with the universe.”  The Big Bang is proof that time began.  That’s his answer?

The ancient Hebrews said, there was nothing, and now there is a universe. They conducted no experiments.  Two thousand years later scientists theorize a Big Bang, which corroborates the ancient Hebrew’s assertion that “God told us.”

The universe is governed by numbers and laws.  If they change, things would change in the universe.  The anthropic principle puts atheists on the defensive?  It posits a god as evidence for god.

He talks about the theory of multiple universes, then ridicules that there is no evidence.  He wants empirical evidence for this theory, but expects his theory of a deity creating the universe to be taken without such.  He then accuses scientists of creating the notion of alternate universes for the sole purpose of discounting the concept of a deity.

They laugh at the fact that King Henry VIII murdered his wives, then uses that to segue into talking about morality.

He brings up violence among extremists today, and is used as an argument against religion.  He says that people today are fighting about self-determination, not religion.  This is true, but they use religion to justify their violence.  Crimes are committed by atheists, dictators that discounted religion.  They didn’t, however, use this atheism as the reason for their evil actions.  Dawkins uses this reasoning, and D’Souza discounts the reasoning by attacking Dawkins as being a biologist, and therefore not an authority worth considering.

Nobody debates the fact that there are no unicorns. That’s because nobody is trying to force the premise down another’s throat.

His argument is new atheists need to be discounted because they lack morality?