Monday, January 28, 2008 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version

'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

by Wold Net Daily

Thanks to Carl H. Silverman for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59905

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily exclusive columnist Vox Day's new book, "The Irrational Atheist," scores a direct hit on atheism's most well-known practitioners. Using reason, science and historical documentation – not theology – Day argues the atheists into an inescapable corner.

WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah recently interviewed Day about the new book, which is available at WND's online store.

Joseph Farah: The title of "The Irrational Atheist" refers to the Unholy Trinity of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, while Dawkins.Net is advertising the Four Horsemen of Atheism, which includes Daniel Dennett. Given that you wrote a chapter about Dennett, why didn't you include him in with the other three?

Vox Day: Originally, I intended to do just that. But after reading four of his books, it became quite clear that for all his atheism, Dennett really doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the other three. Despite his occasional problems with logic, Dennett is a respectable intellectual. He is seriously interested in the scientific questions, and he is very willing to ask hard questions about his own assumptions and core beliefs too. This is totally different than Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, who are entirely occupied with making groundless assertions when they aren't busy drawing errant conclusions from incorrect data.

Farah: Why have we seen this explosion of atheist titles?

Day: It's a bit strange because the so-called New Atheists are really not new at all. There is very little that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens say that was not already said by Jean Meslier prior to his death in 1729. If Sam Harris didn't talk so much about Islam and make so many egregious errors, you'd think that he was Bertrand Russell's parrot. I suspect the reason is related to the current state of physics and the increasing uncertainty scientists feel about the universe based on the very, very low probability that the universe randomly happened to turn out the way it is now observed to be. Atheists have felt that science was on their side ever since the Enlightenment, and now they see it slipping away from them. So, this recent explosion of atheist books is not a sign of strength; it's a sign of desperation.

Farah: Are atheists becoming more militant? Extreme? Why?

Day: The outspoken ones are certainly becoming more desperate and shrill. Part of this is because they've got such terrible front-men. They've got these spokesmen who are demonstrably incapable of making a sober and rational case for atheism, so they have to make up for it by setting off rhetorical fireworks and making outlandish statements – for example, Dawkins's stupid assertion that a religious upbringing is worse than sexual child abuse. If I were an atheist, I'd be deeply embarrassed to have these clowns as the public face of my religious identification. I think the end result will be more atheists identifying themselves as agnostics, which is a much more reasonable perspective.

Farah: What are the consequences of widespread atheism?

Day: There are none, because atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it's a parasitic phenomenon that can't survive on its own. As Chesterton pointed out long ago, atheism rapidly mutates into paganism and diverse forms of spiritual absurdity. And we're already seeing signs that the post-Christian West is returning to paganism; it's not transforming into some sort of shiny, super-rational, post-superstitious science fiction society.

Farah: Why do you refer to Richard Dawkins as Darwin's Judas?

Day: He only finds Darwin useful insofar as his theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to eliminate the basis for a belief in a Creator God. As Dawkins states in his own words, he's "a passionate anti-Darwinian" with regards to the proper conduct of human affairs. Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins' opinion on life, the universe and everything. Just like philosophers, you can always count on a scientist to come around eventually to the concept of rule by scientist-king.

Farah: You compare Sam Harris to Michael Bellesiles, who was convicted of academic fraud and lost the Bancroft Prize awarded to him. Is that a fair comparison?

Day: It's probably not fair to Bellesiles. He may have made stuff up, but at least he can handle elementary school division. I also suspect he knows the difference between difficult concepts like "counties" and "states." Harris demonstrably does not.

Farah: What are the most common mistakes made by Christian apologists when dealing with atheism? How is "The Irrational Atheist" different?

Day: Too many Christians forget that their basic assumptions are not shared by the atheist with whom they're talking. Christians always want to quote the Bible to try to prove a point, but to the atheist, that's no more meaningful than reading Shakespeare at them. And Christians often want to talk about the way God makes them feel, forgetting that the atheist's feelings are equally relevant. My book doesn't rely on the Bible or theological gymnastics or emotional appeals; it simply makes use of detailed historical and scientific evidence in order to expose the logical and factual flaws in every atheist argument you're likely to encounter. "The Irrational Atheist" isn't a defense of God or Christianity; I assume the Creator Lord of the Universe can defend Himself. He doesn't need my help.

Farah: Are you considering an apologetic sequel making a case for Christianity?

Day: Not at the moment. Right now, I'm more interested in the philosophical implications of biotechnology. Cross some of biotech's more questionable developments with globalism and post-Christian paganism, and it's not hard to see that we're looking at some crazy days ahead.

Farah: I've heard the book has gotten off to a great start. So why are you making the entire book available as a free download from your blog?

Day: Yeah, it's already on its second print-run ahead of the official release date. As for the download, my theory is that the main problem from which most books suffer is that too few potential readers have heard about them, so I figure that word of mouth from someone who's read the ebook is just as important as that from someone who's read the hardcover. Also, if people like a book that they've read, whether it's a download, a library book or just one they borrowed from a friend, they want to have it. I must have four or five copies of Eco's "The Name of the Rose" myself, not counting translations. But "The Irrational Atheist" ebook isn't a free download per se. It's a Radiohead-style pay-what-you want setup, which includes the option to pay nothing. Various formats including PDF, PDB and LIT will be available starting on the official publication date of Feb. 1.

Farah: Or they could buy it right here at WorldNetDaily today.

Day: That would be even better.

Farah: One last question, and it's an important one. When are you going to lose that ridiculous mohawk and grow a righteous mustache like mine?

Day: The hawk is gone, I'm sad to say. But I'm not sure I've got what it takes pull off the Magnum P.I. look.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, January 28, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 151 - 200 of 1993 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

151. Comment #117884 by DragonOfColour on January 29, 2008 at 10:56 pm

This book is parasitic on the success of the Dawkins (et al) books. Doesn't he realise this?

Other Comments by DragonOfColour

152. Comment #117899 by Bigorra on January 29, 2008 at 11:59 pm

This is totally different than Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, who are entirely occupied with making groundless assertions when they aren't busy drawing errant conclusions from incorrect data.

Coming from Vox Day, the accusation that Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are entirely occupied with making groundless assertions is as laughable as anything I've heard that passes for intelligent comment when it comes from the master of groundless assertions himself. The science column posted earlier is full of groundless assertions and incorrect data:

If medical science can justly claim to have saved many lives, it must also take responsibility for the estimated 783,000 annual iatrogenic deaths it now causes every year.

The American Iatrogenic Association (www.iatrogenic.org) cites a study that the average number of in-hospital deaths from medical errors averaged 195,000 for the years 2000-2002, based on a search of 37 million health records. This study was released in 2004 by HealthGrades. Incorrect data anyone?

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/iatrogenic/message/1451

Most inventors are not scientists and most scientists are not inventors; whereas Oppenheimer and Einstein gave us the nuclear bomb, Steve Wozniak gave us the personal computer and Al Gore gave us the Internet.

Al Gore gave us the Internet!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! I can't believe he'd give a Democrat like Al credit for anything, but now, by-God, Al invented the Internet.

But presenting Vox with his own errors is like having a crap throwing fight with a chimpanzee. The chimp might not care one way or the other, but I don't want to smell like crap. I can't resist presenting him one last time in his own words. He is currently bragging on his forum (I had to peek) about the commentary taking place here, thumping his chest, calling Dawkins and everyone here bitches, and apparently turning poet:

A Dog Named Flea

Assuredly he lacks the spine
To ascertain the big canine.
Should we encounter in debate
He'll meet a most odorous fate.
For in taking him down a peg
I have merely to lift my leg,
And R. Dawkins will slink away
Wet, and wearing Eau de Vox Day.

Look out, Maya Angelou, you've got competition!

I will remember this brilliant poem whenever any person says they take this guy seriously. In his own words, intelligent debate is a pissing contest. I don't need to wait for his book, as the level of reasoning in any randomly selected column on his website shows how little value the book will likely hold. Going forward, I will hold with Aquaria and not give him any more attention. There were just some things I had to share.

Other Comments by Bigorra

153. Comment #117901 by rk3001 on January 30, 2008 at 12:10 am

Several people are upset at Day's claim that Dawkins said raising a child religiously is worse than child sexual abuse. Several have said that Dawkins never said that.

From page 317 of The God Delusion (which I have in front of me) second paragraph, second sentence beginning in the middle of the third line of text for said paragraph "I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

So yes Dawkins did in fact say what Day claimed he said get the book and check for yourself, I did, it's easy). The thing I find funny is how so many of you want to accuse Day of not checking his facts, when apparently you can't even be bothered to read the book of your 'champion'.

I haven't read Day's book so I can't say anything about it, but I have read through quite a few of the comments here. And if this is an example of atheist intelligence, I'm glad I'm agnostic (which does not mean undecided btw, it means I don't know nor does anybody else. all claims to the contrary are crap.)

Other Comments by rk3001

154. Comment #117908 by mblarson323 on January 30, 2008 at 12:31 am

"Using reason, science and historical documentation – not theology – Day argues the atheists into an inescapable corner"

Upon first stumbling upon this description of Vox's book in WorldNetDaily, my initial reaction was positive. "Perhaps" I thought to myself, "I will finally be treated to a well-reasoned argument in support of theism. One that is build upon objective, verifiable premises that collectively lead to a rational conclusion in support of their belief system." After all, anyone who claims to be a rationalist, regardless of their position on the subject of religion, would very much welcome such argument in contrast to of the vitriol-laden diatribes that are so often served up by these pietistic pretenders to reason. Once again, I was sadly disappointed. After reading the article in that introduces the book, it was apparent that all Vox has to offer is more of the same old arguments dressed up in somewhat more florid prose.

I won't bother to comment on any of the arguments themselves, because they have all been thoroughly and repeated discredited in too many other reputable sources to count. The purpose of this comment is to point out that, for two very clear reasons, we should abandon all hope of ever being treated to such an argument by a true believer. The first, and most obvious reason, is that no such argument exists. If it hasn't been posited in the last 2000 years, there's little reason to expect it to emerge, fully conceived, any time in the near future. But the second reason derives from the very nature of the messenger. In order to be a true believer, one must both embrace a belief system that which has no basis in logic and at the same time, engage in a persistent and diligent effort to prop up the inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in those beliefs with equally inconsistent and contradictory evidence. The simple truth is that, in the course of "learning" to be religious, one gradually loses all capacity for logical discourse – or for that matter, even logical thinking!

Of course theists will always claim, as does the description of the article by Vox, to use "reason" and "science" to support their arguments. But a cursory study of these specious polemics quickly and consistently exposes them as little more than "sows dressed in fine silks."

I'd like to say "Nice try" Vox, but it wasn't even that

Other Comments by mblarson323

155. Comment #117910 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 12:57 am

rk3001:

Several people are upset at Day's claim that Dawkins said raising a child religiously is worse than child sexual abuse. Several have said that Dawkins never said that.

From page 317 of The God Delusion (which I have in front of me) second paragraph, second sentence beginning in the middle of the third line of text for said paragraph "I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

So yes Dawkins did in fact say what Day claimed he said get the book and check for yourself, I did, it's easy). The thing I find funny is how so many of you want to accuse Day of not checking his facts, when apparently you can't even be bothered to read the book of your 'champion'.

I haven't read Day's book so I can't say anything about it, but I have read through quite a few of the comments here. And if this is an example of atheist intelligence, I'm glad I'm agnostic (which does not mean undecided btw, it means I don't know nor does anybody else. all claims to the contrary are crap.)

Dawkins did compare apples to oranges, then again, I've never defended Dawkins on that particular point. That's one of the pitfalls of having celebrities as role models.

However, agnosticism is just silly. Being agnostic about God is like being "agnostic" about a leprachaun made of exotic unknown matter that lives in the sun, or any other far-fetched thing you can dream up. Most self-described atheists think God's existence is unlikely, not certain.

Most "agnostics" are probably weak atheists.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

156. Comment #117914 by AtheistAspy on January 30, 2008 at 1:24 am

rk3001:

One more thing, I don't need to read Vox's book to know it's nonsense. Saying I do, is like saying I need to read every "holy" book ever written before I can write off all religions, or that I MUST read what someone writes just because he can come up with something, albeit unoriginal. I've heard all the arguments theists have to offer. If they had better ones, I would have heard them by now.

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

157. Comment #117919 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 1:42 am

I guess that, as a consummate poet with a profound understanding of medieval Latin, our dearly beloved Mr. Beale will be able fully to appreciate this little tribute to his overweening narcissistic arrogance that I came up with:

Pulex pravus librum scripsit,

In quo nichil novum dixit,

Donat nobis, iners vates,

Sophismas, non veritates.

Credit sese redarguisse,

Argumenta ei missa,

Sed agitur actus reus,

In fatuitate eius:

Eius liber est in finem,

Nugatoris ad hominem,

Odit nimis Dawkins nostri,

Immemor rationis claustri.

Cur sic cogitet non scio,

Nisi fertur delusio -

Virus virulens in mente,

Eum faciens repente,

Arrogantiam sumere,

Dum caput impletur aere.

Vale, pulex, vir inanis,

Liber tuus valde vanis!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

158. Comment #117923 by Goldy on January 30, 2008 at 1:52 am

I haven't read Day's book so I can't say anything about it, but I have read through quite a few of the comments here. And if this is an example of atheist intelligence, I'm glad I'm agnostic (which does not mean undecided btw, it means I don't know nor does anybody else. all claims to the contrary are crap.)

Being an intelligent athiest, may I point out I never made any such claim and neither has my wife or daughter. That's a whole family of athiests (daughter will have to make up her own mind, but I'm buggered if a 2 year old has any inkling of a god) who prove your rule.
If being wrong about athiests makes you glad to be an agnostic, what can I say. You aren't sure about one and definitely not sure about the other. That fence you're sitting on must seem mighty shaky now...
BTW, there is no god. Dismiss my claim all you will, but there is as much proof of gods as there are of unicorns. You waver on unicorn denial too?

Edit - having also read said quotation, would you care to share the rest of what was written? Makes your point a bit less forceful, so I'll not be holding my breath....

Other Comments by Goldy

159. Comment #117928 by oisha on January 30, 2008 at 2:12 am

Frankus1122,

You bemoan the comments in this forum and claim that "it has already been stated that [Irrational Atheist] will be drivel and full of logical inconsistencies etc." As far as I can see, I was the only poster to have specifically used the phrasing "logically inconsistent". I can only therefore presume that you are referring, at least in part, to comments made by me.

If this is the case, you have grossly misrepresented what I said. If you care to read my posts fully, I explicitly stated that I was critiquing Vox Day's 'Case Against Science', which a previous poster made available. I did not try to refute arguments I had not read; I refuted arguments which Vox Day has already published in full on a different topic, which may or may not be featured in Irrational Atheist, but which nevertheless deserved refuting on their own merit (or lack thereof). I was not pre-empting or attempting to anticipate his arguments in Irrational Atheist.

Insofar as I had anything to say on Irrational Atheist it was that Day's 'Case Against Science' contained the glaring logical fallacies of inconsistency and major unstated premise. In addition, his interview demonstrates the further fallacies of straw man, ad hominem and outright misrepresentation. On this evidence, I do not think I am unjustified in expecting more of the same from Irrational Atheist. Nor do I consider myself unjustified for concluding that someone who has displayed little application of formal logic and is demonstrably unable to recognise logical fallacies in his own work is not the best person to write a book on the subject of fallacies in the arguments of others. This is not an argument against the arguments of his book, which will need to be evaluated on their own terms. It is a provisional judgment of Day's critical abilities, which will have some bearing on whether I do or do not choose to expend valuable time reading his book, and whether or not I would reasonably expect him to say anything which I have not heard before.

His book aside though, it is simply not enough for Day to assert that Dawkins et al. are "clowns", for him to suggest that Sam Harris is a "Parrot" and a "fraudster" who can't handle difficult concepts like elementary division, and then for him to opine, 'but if you want evidence, you'll just have to read my book when it comes out'. Such a ploy is intellectual cowardice of the worst kind, and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Just because his book isn't available yet, this doesn't grant him amnesty from criticism for the many comments he has already asserted without substantiation, and he should be held accountable for them. Given the highly personal and belittling nature of his comments, Day owed it to the people he was criticizing, and to all decent standards of scholarship, to explain himself at the time of the interview. He did not do this, but instead remained mysteriously silent on the actual substance of his book. If the form of the interview did not allow even a summary explanation (which I would find very surprising), then he had a moral and intellectual responsibility to confine such comments to an appropriate medium where his claims COULD be substantiated.

Of course, it could be argued that if he did this he would not sell or circulate as many books. But if he can't achieve the same end with a reasoned statement of his book's actual content, and must instead resort to unverified personal attacks and sensationalism, then it doesn't say much for the substance of his book and I cannot see that he leaves us any cause to give him the honour of a full hearing.

Other Comments by oisha

160. Comment #117929 by irate_atheist on January 30, 2008 at 2:18 am

116. Comment #117698 by steveroot -

I want to see Irate Atheist mano a mano with Irrational Atheist

These bell-ends aren't worth my time. As Samual Goldwyn once said about film critics:

"Critics? Don't listen to them. Don't even ignore them."

Other Comments by irate_atheist

161. Comment #117935 by Smith on January 30, 2008 at 2:53 am

rk3001: Several people are upset at Day's claim that Dawkins said raising a child religiously is worse than child sexual abuse. Several have said that Dawkins never said that.
From page 317 of The God Delusion (which I have in front of me) second paragraph, second sentence beginning in the middle of the third line of text for said paragraph "I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

The following two statements are quite different:
1. Action A is worse than action B.
2. The damage inflicted by action B was arguably less than the long term psycological demage inflicted by action A.
Statement 1 is a comparison between two actions. Statement 2 is a comparison between certain specified effects resulted from these actions.
I'll leave it to you to check TGD again to find out what Richard Dawkins really says.

Other Comments by Smith

162. Comment #117939 by notsobad on January 30, 2008 at 3:11 am

Several people are upset at Day's claim that Dawkins said raising a child religiously is worse than child sexual abuse. Several have said that Dawkins never said that.

From page 317 of The God Delusion (which I have in front of me) second paragraph, second sentence beginning in the middle of the third line of text for said paragraph "I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

So yes Dawkins did in fact say what Day claimed he said get the book and check for yourself, I did, it's easy). The thing I find funny is how so many of you want to accuse Day of not checking his facts, when apparently you can't even be bothered to read the book of your 'champion'.

That was a particular case of two people. It does not apply generally.
There are levels of religious upbringing just like there are levels of sexual abuse.
Day generalizes and deals in absolutes here.

Other Comments by notsobad

163. Comment #117960 by wice on January 30, 2008 at 4:34 am

it's interesting to see, that people, who try to depict belief in god(s) as a rational point of view, tend to resort more and more to a style-over-substance tactic. they basically look at what atheists say about religion (backed up with evidence and arguments), remove the evidence and arguments, say the same about atheism, and declare themselves the winners. somehow they seem to think that the whole point of a debate is what you say about your opponent's point of view, and not what you back your claims up with. the same goes for the creationism vs evolution topic.

and i'm afraid there is a huge amount of people, who actually buy this sad attitude.

Other Comments by wice

164. Comment #117963 by oisha on January 30, 2008 at 4:49 am

Edit: having posted this I see that others have now got in while I was writing it - sorry for any repetition - but my argument stands.

rk3001,

I suggest it is you yourself who needs to take out their copy of The God Delusion again.

If you do so, you'll find that the quote you cite (p.317) is qualified by the very important inclusion of the word "arguably", which by all conventional understandings of the English language implies that Dawkins does not necessarily espouse the view he has just announced, but that he thinks a case could plausibly be made in its favour – as indicated by his later comment, "it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds" (p.318). There is a crucial difference here.

Importantly, such qualification allows for the possibility that child abuse is not ALWAYS worse than a religious upbringing, but sometimes may be. If you'd bothered to turn over the page, you'd find that Dawkins provides anecdotal evidence of a correspondent who, by her own testimony, was more affected by fear of Hell than by the wandering hands of her priest, and then goes on to say, "the example shows that it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical". This seems to me a thoroughly sensible observation which is entirely consistent with what we know of mental trauma.

In short, Richard Dawkins did not say "religious upbringing IS worse than sexual child abuse" and you are wrong to claim that he did. What he said is that the religious upbringing CAN, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, cause greater PSYCHOLOGICAL trauma than child abuse" - and for understandable reasons given the prevalence of Hell doctrine. This is not a matter of mere semantics, but of basic reading comprehension.

Dawkins's contention is not that we should treat sexual abuse as any less abhorrent, but that clergy or parents who tell children that they will go to Hell if they don't believe in God are mentally abusing their children. Dawkins's suggestion is that such parents deserve much greater condemnation than is conventionally the case, and that in some cases such condemnation should be qualitatively on a par with that accorded child rapists. It is another of Dawkins's famous exercises in consciousness-raising.

But of course, never mind me - I'm just an unintelligent atheist who's full of crap. I couldn't possibly have read The God Delusion and simply been more awake to the nuances of the English language - and indeed Dawkins actual position - than your intelligent agnostic self and Vox Day in his infinite wisdom.

Other Comments by oisha

165. Comment #117967 by Steve Zara on January 30, 2008 at 5:11 am

Several people are upset at Day's claim that Dawkins said raising a child religiously is worse than child sexual abuse. Several have said that Dawkins never said that.

From page 317 of The God Delusion (which I have in front of me) second paragraph, second sentence beginning in the middle of the third line of text for said paragraph "I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

Even if you want to stretch Dawkins' argument to breaking point by ignoring the word "arguably" and you are still wrong. Dawkins specifically mentions Catholicism. I doubt he would have the same issues with Buddhism.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

166. Comment #117972 by Peacebeuponme on January 30, 2008 at 5:29 am

That statement is just pathetic. Even if it is right, and even if it exludes people who would have died anyway with no treatment it does nothing to weaken the claim that medical science has improved our lives greatly. A lot more people would have short painful lives if there were no doctors, surgeons or hospitals.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

167. Comment #117977 by Roland_F on January 30, 2008 at 5:38 am

Several people are upset at Day's claim that Dawkins said raising a child religiously is worse than child sexual abuse. Several have said that Dawkins never said that.

Quoting fractions out of context or only the first part of an argument and suppressing the following explanation is quite bad style for an 'intelligent agnostic'.
When I remember right this was not the story about a brutal rape compared to attending Catholic schools but it was about the statement of the victim itself that the idea of her friend going to hell (because she is Protestant) causing a long and deep trauma whereas being touched by a priest was just some small annoyance (maybe not fully consciously perceived what was happening).

Other Comments by Roland_F

168. Comment #118007 by nordicthunder on January 30, 2008 at 8:05 am

funny thing, most of the "open minded" here are simply refusing to even read TIA before passing judgement. I have read both, TIA is better written and logically unassailable. It will be available as a free download tomorrow to anyone here with "an open mind"

Other Comments by nordicthunder

169. Comment #118010 by annabanana on January 30, 2008 at 8:13 am

nordicthunder, it would be much easier for people here to be "open minded" and take this book seriously had the author/publisher not completely ripped off the cover from Sam Harris' End of Faith. If the title, book jacket, etc. are unoriginal and poorly thought out, what would lead anyone to think that the contents of the book are original and well-thought out? If they guy can't sell books without stealing the publicity of a well-known book, I'd be doubtful that he has anything of importance to say and if indeed he does, then he needs to fire his publicist.

Other Comments by annabanana

170. Comment #118011 by Tyler Durden on January 30, 2008 at 8:15 am

TIA is better written

Than what?

and logically unassailable

I seriously doubt it. Examples please.

Vox who?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

171. Comment #118014 by nordicthunder on January 30, 2008 at 8:23 am

so anna bananna, judging the book cover is indicative of its content in your mind ? once again, very open minded. But you look like a smart girl

Other Comments by nordicthunder

172. Comment #118016 by irate_atheist on January 30, 2008 at 8:31 am

169. Comment #118007 by nordicthunder -

funny thing, most of the "open minded" here are simply refusing to even read TIA before passing judgement.

There's a difference between being 'open minded' and letting your brain fall out.

When someone writes, "Day: He only finds Darwin useful insofar as his theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to eliminate the basis for a belief in a Creator God." it's reasonable to assume anything else he says is equally deluded, ignorant, mendacious or malicious.

In the words of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones, ruling on the Dover I.D case - 'Breathtaking inanity'.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

173. Comment #118017 by Verylee on January 30, 2008 at 8:31 am

I perused(?) the blog and comments on VD's site and many of the comments were to the effect that none of the shrill and abusive atheists had even read "The Book" and yet they deigned to critque it in their usual shrill and abusive manner. My earlier comments were actually made based on the interview transcript in which I thought that he had come across as very arrogant....but for myself, faith is just not a good enough reason to believe...so unless his book can provide me (a layman) with evidence (proof of the existence) of Allah/Thor/FSM I will stick with my shrill and abusive fellow atheists.

Other Comments by Verylee

174. Comment #118019 by irate_atheist on January 30, 2008 at 8:33 am

172. Comment #118014 by nordicthunder -

so anna bananna, judging the book cover is indicative of its content in your mind ? once again, very open minded. But you look like a smart girl

Two sentences, one glaring internal consistency already. Keep going, you might make the record books.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

175. Comment #118022 by annabanana on January 30, 2008 at 8:40 am

nordicthunder, I see that grasping the contents of my delicate analysis of the cover of the book is beyond you. Either that or you just didn't read a word of what I said. I would encourage you to get a brain before you come here.

Other Comments by annabanana

176. Comment #118023 by Quetzalcoatl on January 30, 2008 at 8:40 am

I must admit I am actually tempted to download it- I was sucked in by the magical phrase "free download". But since I haven't read any of Sam Harris's books, I'm wondering how much use I'll get from it.

But I must agree that if the entire book follows the tone of the interview, I'm not sure it'll be worth it.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

177. Comment #118024 by Quetzalcoatl on January 30, 2008 at 8:43 am

Annabanana-

At the risk of sticking my nose in: I did actually think he was trying for irony when he made the "smart girl" comment, although it didn't come across very well.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

178. Comment #118028 by Tyler Durden on January 30, 2008 at 8:56 am

Comment #118007 by nordicthunder:

TIA is better written and logically unassailable.

"logically unassailable" Examples please.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

179. Comment #118032 by al-rawandi on January 30, 2008 at 9:00 am

nordicthunder,

The book isn't even out yet. And I would lay off Anna, she is pretty fucking smart by my estimation of things.

logically unassailable

So you have read the book?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

180. Comment #118040 by righton on January 30, 2008 at 9:10 am

nordicthunder = Vox Day

Nice try buddy.

Other Comments by righton

181. Comment #118043 by Tyler Durden on January 30, 2008 at 9:13 am

Hellloooooo. Earth calling nordicthunder, come in nordicthunder. Where are you?

Please furnish us with examples of how TIA is "logically unassailable". Many thanks!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

182. Comment #118045 by annabanana on January 30, 2008 at 9:14 am

I thought that there was a possibility that nordicthunder was trying to be ironic, but judging by the poor grammar and unsupported assertions, I thought it to be accidental. Additionally, I supported my argument for judging this book by its cover and no where in my argument did I ever say that judging a book by its cover is appropriate in all instances.

Also, thanks al-rawandi!

Other Comments by annabanana

183. Comment #118046 by Double Bass Atheist on January 30, 2008 at 9:15 am

and logically unassailable.

I never heard of anyone who looked at all the available evidence/data with an "open mind" and concluded, based upon said evidence, that a god must exist!
There is no argument in favor of 'god' that is "logically unassailable". Just try to present one… you'll see what I mean.

So, nordicthunder before you take shots at annabanana (or anyone else on these boards) you really need to present EVIDENCE, not just smart-ass commentary.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

184. Comment #118047 by al-rawandi on January 30, 2008 at 9:16 am

Tyler,

The theist argument:

Atheists are nihilists
Hitler was an atheist (argumentum ad hitlerum)
Evolution is a theory
Second law of thermodynamics
Pascal's wager
Can't disprove God
I am busy and have to go

It is always the same. It NEVER changes, ever.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

185. Comment #118051 by annabanana on January 30, 2008 at 9:20 am

Hahahaha, argumentum ad hitlerum, I like it.

Other Comments by annabanana

186. Comment #118058 by irate_atheist on January 30, 2008 at 9:26 am

185. Comment #118047 by al-rawandi -

Missing option:

I know he exists! (To be said in a high pitched, nasal, whiny tone)

Other Comments by irate_atheist

187. Comment #118059 by righton on January 30, 2008 at 9:27 am

What is the theist argument using the second law of thermodynamics?

Other Comments by righton

188. Comment #118060 by al-rawandi on January 30, 2008 at 9:28 am

Anna,

Look it up, that is a REAL logical fallacy.

Irate,

Once again you one up me. Damn it.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

189. Comment #118062 by irate_atheist on January 30, 2008 at 9:30 am

189. Comment #118060 by al-rawandi -

Well, with no gods to suck up to, I have to make my own purpose in life...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

190. Comment #118063 by al-rawandi on January 30, 2008 at 9:31 am

righton,

The second law of thermodynamics states (loosely) that systems tend to get less complicated not more. And this being true means evolution is possible.

1-2-3-789 (that sort of logic)

It has been excoriated here about, well, everytime a theist drops in.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

191. Comment #118067 by Double Bass Atheist on January 30, 2008 at 9:37 am

al-rawandi

(argumentum ad hitlerum)

Nicely put, very nicely put! …and pretty funny too! That is a real logical fallacy, but I've just never heard it put that way. I'll have to remember this one.

Second law of thermodynamics

When I hear this, my first thought is always, "Oh, not the entropy thing again!"
righton- The theists argument is based upon a huge misunderstanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics. See this for an example link:
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/slot.html

I am busy and have to go

What one hears after correcting all of the above misunderstandings

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

192. Comment #118070 by righton on January 30, 2008 at 9:39 am

"The second law of thermodynamics states (loosely) that systems tend to get less complicated not more. And this being true means evolution is possible."

Did you mean not possible?

Other Comments by righton

193. Comment #118071 by al-rawandi on January 30, 2008 at 9:39 am

I meant "impossible"

That was a Freudian slip, because I know evolution is possible.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

194. Comment #118074 by oisha on January 30, 2008 at 9:42 am

Edit: Looks like I was beaten to the post again - but here's my 2c worth anyway.

nordicthunder,

I think you perhaps confuse a lack of openmindedness for a lack of time. For my part, I would happily read TIA and critique its arguments. However, my time is valuable and limited and there are any number of books which I would like to read, not all of them pertaining to religion and not all of them non-fiction (though I'm not sure that a book claiming God exists qualifies for that latter title either).

By dint of circumstance, I must necessarily be discerning in my choice of reading material. And this, I suspect, would be true for most posters here. No library borrower or book buyer is indiscriminately pluralistic, nor is discriminant pluralism a sign of closed-mindedness. Rather, it is a necessary reality.

There are many ways by which people determine whether a particular book might be worth the time that it takes to read it, and most of these do not actually involve reading the book itself. That's the entire point! Consider it the literary world's equivalent of natural selection, if you will. Such selection may or may not be an accurate reflection of a book's intrinsic value, but it's the best we can do in our limitations.

Some people decide to read a particular book because they've guaged the response of other readers based on reviews. Others do so on the recommendation of a friend. Some make their choice according to cover design, currency, a cursory glimpse at the contents page, a more detailed reading of the introduction, the author's past work or (in the case of older books) their historical impact.

In my case, I did indeed come to Vox Day with an open mind. I read a number of Day's other articles, and arrived at the conclusion that his existing body of work was uninspired and logically defective. Forgive me if I do not take your word for the fact that TIA does not conform to this precedent and is "logically unassailable"; however I remain sceptical.

I am not saying that I would NEVER read TIA, but I don't think it would be to my detriment if I didn't. And that really is the crux of the matter.

As with everything in matters of scepticism, the onus is not on the nonreader to justify their nonreading, the onus is on the author to persuade me, with positive evidence, that his book deserves to be read. The above interview with Day was his opportunity to convince me that I should read his book above any one of the millions of other books out there on any subject (or the many unread books on my own book shelf). To my mind his most effective strategy would have been to knock me over with some pearl of wisdom from his book. He failed pitifully.

As I said in an earlier post, if in the course of a promotional interview for any book, an author can't provide some reasonable indication of the book's actual content, and must instead resort to personal attacks, groundless assertions and shameless sensationalism, then in my book (no pun intended) that invalidates any claims he may have upon my attention.

That said, I have just spent my summer holidays reading a number of other books by believers which were quite worthy of an atheist's attention (perhaps I will list them here by way of recommendation), and C.S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' is at present sitting on my desk waiting to be read. I will turn to that before I turn to Vox Day, if only for the fact that C.S. Lewis has stood the test of time and is so often touted as the favorite poster boy for pop-Christian apologists. (Which should make for much more rewarding hunting.)

Other Comments by oisha

195. Comment #118084 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 10:05 am

If this book is "logically unassailable" it is also "logically unassailable" that "nordicthunder" is likely little more than the product of combining Carlsberg beer and lutefisk. But I'm not going to bother testing that either.

Other Comments by Radesq

196. Comment #118089 by oisha on January 30, 2008 at 10:15 am

"nordicthunder = Vox Day. Nice try buddy."

Great call! I was thinking the exact same thing. Groundless assertions, lack of evidence, precise knowledge of the publication date, claims of an early preview, potential ploy to drum up sales and publicity. nordicthunder's got Vox Day written all over him - or could it be the Son of Vox: Vox Jesus.

"The second law of thermodynamics states (loosely) that systems tend to get less complicated not more. And this being true means evolution is impossible."

Huh?

So let me get this right. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics predicts a cold death for the universe. All those stars which are large enough to do so, will collapse down to blackholes. The smaller ones will simply exhaust themselves, and all life will become extinct as a result.

And this is an argument FOR God's existence?

Hmmm, this Creator fellow is a really nice chap. Presumably he'll have Raptured all the Christians up to Heaven by then. At least us heathens can take consolation from the fact that Hell WILL freeze over eventually.

Other Comments by oisha

197. Comment #118091 by al-rawandi on January 30, 2008 at 10:17 am

oisha,

That is why the things I listed that theists constantly get reduced to are all fallacies.

In another post I named several causes of death for theistic arguments. They are like clockwork. And in the end they claim to be incredibly busy and disappear (not from the world, but from the thread).

Other Comments by al-rawandi

198. Comment #118093 by righton on January 30, 2008 at 10:26 am

I wouldnt even download this book if it was free. WASTE OF TIME to read this. That is just my opinion, I wouldnt want to discourage the seeking of knowledge by boycotting a book but this one is just obvious.

Other Comments by righton

199. Comment #118097 by Verylee on January 30, 2008 at 10:36 am

I won't be downloading it either...don't want my computer to stop working on the sabbath....the (pseudo?)name of the author is enough to put me off/vomit.

Other Comments by Verylee

200. Comment #118100 by annabanana on January 30, 2008 at 10:46 am

I hope that nordicthunder isn't Vox Day. If he is, then this guy is one arrogant a$$----! Even if I wrote a book that I thought was superb, I wouldn't say so aloud and I would certainly never say that my arguments were logically unassailable!

Other Comments by annabanana

Reload Comments | Back to Top