The Irrational Atheist - anybody read it?

[dogjones]

A lot of my Christian friends are crowing about Vox Day's book, The Irrational Atheist, saying it effectively trounces Dawkins & Hitchens with logic and historical fact. Apparently rather than argue for theism, it simply exposes flaws in their arguments. I've ordered a copy but meanwhile I was wondering if anyone has read it - any comments?

Dog

[slingblade]

The book is apparently available at the author's blogspot for free download.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/

ETA: in fact, the author posts several reviews, critical and supportive, at the same site. But then, the author critiques the reviews. :boggled: I mean, I'm not trying to say he can't do so, especially on his own blogspot, but I'm certainly not used to seeing it. Well, I suppose there's nothing really wrong with that, and it could even be helpful, seeing how an author handles criticism.

Anyway, though it makes me seem closed-minded, I probably won't read it any time soon. Sounds like something that would just make me angry. But then, I haven't read any of the atheist "manfestos," either, and probably won't. So, fair's fair, I guess.

[Careyp74]

I started reading through the first chapter. At the start, the author is just making baseless attacks of drug use and alcoholism on the three main subjects of the book, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris, in an attempt to discredit them.

It is funny how after all of this bashing he urges the reader not to fall for the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority because of the status of these three gentlemen in society. jackass, I got another one for you. Ad Hominem. Or did that one not come up on your 'smart thing of the day' calander.

Dog, what I suggest is that when someone asks you about the book, sit them down and point out all the problems with what he is saying. In fact, why don't we do that here and now?

My first contribution will come shortly.

[Safe-Keeper]

The first thing I saw accessing the site was this:It is becoming increasingly difficult for people who live in the real world to communicate with those who don'tThe rest of the site notwithstanding, I really liked this phrase.

ETA: I'll download the book. I predict his 'historical evidence' will be the typical fundamentalist 'all atheist countries have gone to H*** in a hand basket' history revisionism. I hope he proves me wrong.

[Nihilus]

Just reading through the first few portions of the e-book there are glaring misconceptions.

He references "researchers" who have yielded results that suggest "nearly half of those who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic nevertheless believe in life after death as well as in Heaven and Hell...".

What researchers we don't know, because Day does not mention his source for such an outlandish presumption. I may have run into one or two, but no atheist I can recall places any belief in the afterlife.

Day likes finding seeming contradictions in his targets' ideologies, for instance when he attacks Sam Harris for, at once, disregarding deities and faith yet having a favorable preference towards buddhism. Day apparently doesn't like that Harris does not consider (presumably) buddhist philosophies as religious because he desperately wants them to be so (when scholarly assessments I'm familiar with do not consider them religious/theistic as there is no deity and, with looser interpretations [zen] no actual ritual either). Day disregards that buddhism is, by and large, not considered an actual religion (for these reasons) and calls such appraisals a "rather neat trick", because if he didn't, Day would lose the apparent contradiction he has painted Harris into.

I have yet to read on further, but I suspect we'll just see more that mimics the mentality of an IDer debating evolutionary scientists: trying desperately to shown where holes exist in others' views while trying to lure the reader into a false dichotomy that, in turn, will exonerate his flavor of beliefs from scrutiny.

[Kopji]

So, my conclusion is that the leukemia inflicted on Andrew is either a
random occurrence or intentionally inflicted by the evil being that both
Paul and Jesus Christ recognized as the ruling power of this world. I believe
that doctors, secular and Christian alike, are doing God’s work as they war
against sickness and disease, just as Jesus Christ commanded his disciples.
-from his "book"

I don't even need to read more. He simply believes that this world is in control of EVIL supernatural beings rather than God. Or maybe something random. But not God. Because God is gracious.

His kind is a noxious evil because he sleeps well instead of being bothered by his belief that evil supernatural beings infest the planet.

He does not need "new" atheists to stand against him, Carl Sagan stood against his kind years ago.

[Careyp74]

He references "researchers" who have yielded results that suggest "nearly half of those who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic nevertheless believe in life after death as well as in Heaven and Hell...".


this is the survey he is referencing

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=150

you can easily see the mistakes that he makes using this information. The survey groups atheists and agnostics together. The comment he makes (this was far from the only serious contradiction revealed by the polling) must be referring to the part of the survey discussing born again christians, because there were no other atheistic contradictions. Perhaps because of the grouping of atheists with agnostics, these problems arise. He doesn't say this though, only makes us believe there are more contradictions with atheists.

[AkuManiMani]

A lot of my Christian friends are crowing about Vox Day's book, The Irrational Atheist, saying it effectively trounces Dawkins & Hitchens with logic and historical fact. Apparently rather than argue for theism, it simply exposes flaws in their arguments. I've ordered a copy but meanwhile I was wondering if anyone has read it - any comments?

Dog

Theists don't have a monopoly on being wrong, it would seem.

[GreyICE]

A lot of my Christian friends are crowing about Vox Day's book, The Irrational Atheist, saying it effectively trounces Dawkins & Hitchens with logic and historical fact. Apparently rather than argue for theism, it simply exposes flaws in their arguments. I've ordered a copy but meanwhile I was wondering if anyone has read it - any comments?

Dog
There's lots of flaws in their arguments. That doesn't mean we all have to go believe in this religion nonsense.

The only thing I dislike more than religion is when atheists seem to think that we have to defend other atheists because they share our lack of belief system. Dawkins and Hitchens both make mistakes, they both write arguments I don't agree in, they both advocate things that I don't. And hey, that's life. We don't have to agree on everything.

The good thing about being an atheist is that I don't have to worry about getting called 'not a real atheist' for disagreeing with those people. And I can listen to the people who believe in God, and learn from them, and even agree with their arguments. Doesn't mean I have to believe in their God.

[JoeEllison]

There's lots of flaws in their arguments. That doesn't mean we all have to go believe in this religion nonsense.

The only thing I dislike more than religion is when atheists seem to think that we have to defend other atheists because they share our lack of belief system. Dawkins and Hitchens both make mistakes, they both write arguments I don't agree in, they both advocate things that I don't. And hey, that's life. We don't have to agree on everything.

The good thing about being an atheist is that I don't have to worry about getting called 'not a real atheist' for disagreeing with those people. And I can listen to the people who believe in God, and learn from them, and even agree with their arguments. Doesn't mean I have to believe in their God.

I think there's a valid place for defending reality and truth against delusion and lies. I won't defend someone who is wrong just because they agree with me on something else, and I won't attack someone who is right just because I disagree with them on another issue. If you can point out flaws in Dawkins or Hitchens, feel free to hammer them all day on those flaws.

What I commonly see, however, is people using poor arguments to attack atheists, just because they are atheists. That, friends and neighbors, I can't tolerate.

[GreyICE]

I think there's a valid place for defending reality and truth against delusion and lies. I won't defend someone who is wrong just because they agree with me on something else, and I won't attack someone who is right just because I disagree with them on another issue. If you can point out flaws in Dawkins or Hitchens, feel free to hammer them all day on those flaws. Certainly. And if they're right, I'll agree with them regardless of anything else they have said. That's just rational.



What I commonly see, however, is people using poor arguments to attack atheists, just because they are atheists. That, friends and neighbors, I can't tolerate. Well that crap is ridiculous, but expected. The only response an irrational system has to a rational argument is to try to provoke an emotional response (hence the hysterical claims of immorality and such).

[phrenicgermal]

There's lots of flaws in their arguments. That doesn't mean we all have to go believe in this religion nonsense.

The only thing I dislike more than religion is when atheists seem to think that we have to defend other atheists because they share our lack of belief system. Dawkins and Hitchens both make mistakes, they both write arguments I don't agree in, they both advocate things that I don't. And hey, that's life. We don't have to agree on everything.

The good thing about being an atheist is that I don't have to worry about getting called 'not a real atheist' for disagreeing with those people. And I can listen to the people who believe in God, and learn from them, and even agree with their arguments. Doesn't mean I have to believe in their God.

I'll have to agree with you. Intellectual honusty is number 1. It's how many of us came to be atheists and It also is a way to gain respect for what we have to say.

[plumjam]

What I commonly see, however, is people using poor arguments to attack atheists, just because they are atheists. That, friends and neighbors, I can't tolerate.

Do you commonly see people using poor arguments to attack theists, just because they are theists? If so, do you tolerate that or not?
If so, why?

[JoeEllison]

Do you commonly see people using poor arguments to attack theists, just because they are theists? If so, do you tolerate that or not?
If so, why?

I don't commonly see poor arguments used to attack theists. However, I admit to being selective in the sources I choose to read.

If you have an argument that you consider to be particularly "poor" I would appreciate you sharing it with me. There is no easier way for me to make my personal point than with the most specific examples possible. :D

[GreyICE]

I don't commonly see poor arguments used to attack theists. However, I admit to being selective in the sources I choose to read. I do all the time. Of course, 99.99% of the time, poor arguments being used to attack theists are coming from other theists who don't subscribe to their particular brand of theism. And my input that both their arguments are poor and that they're both not thinking things through is usually about as welcome as a dead skunk.

[plumjam]

I don't commonly see poor arguments used to attack theists. However, I admit to being selective in the sources I choose to read.

If you have an argument that you consider to be particularly "poor" I would appreciate you sharing it with me. There is no easier way for me to make my personal point than with the most specific examples possible. :D

Well, you hang out at this forum, and this place is stuffed with poor arguments against theism. As of yet I haven't seen you intervene in the way you obviously were preening yourself for doing in the case of atheists rather than theists.

Yes, I could trawl through the archive and provide you with some specific examples of poor arguments but my intuition says don't bother. This due to the fact that your style is to avoid any real substantive debate; remaining safely on the sidelines throwing out short posts composed mainly of attempts at cleverness, snide remarks and accusations (two favourite words of yours appearing to be "racist" and "bigot").

Just being straight with you, mate :p Your God-given free will means you can always change your style.

[Careyp74]

There's lots of flaws in their arguments.

Examples? Not saying your wrong, but I would like to hear some examples of this instead of taking your word.

[JoeEllison]

Well, you hang out at this forum, and this place is stuffed with poor arguments against theism. As of yet I haven't seen you intervene in the way you obviously were preening yourself for doing in the case of atheists rather than theists.

Yes, I could trawl through the archive and provide you with some specific examples of poor arguments but my intuition says don't bother. This due to the fact that your style is to avoid any real substantive debate; remaining safely on the sidelines throwing out short posts composed mainly of attempts at cleverness, snide remarks and accusations (two favourite words of yours appearing to be "racist" and "bigot").

Just being straight with you, mate :p Your God-given free will means you can always change your style.

In other words, you're attacking me, lying about me, and avoiding answering my very simple question. Par for the course with you.

[Foster Zygote]

Well, you hang out at this forum, and this place is stuffed with poor arguments against theism. As of yet I haven't seen you intervene in the way you obviously were preening yourself for doing in the case of atheists rather than theists.

Yes, I could trawl through the archive and provide you with some specific examples of poor arguments but my intuition says don't bother. This due to the fact that your style is to avoid any real substantive debate; remaining safely on the sidelines throwing out short posts composed mainly of attempts at cleverness, snide remarks and accusations (two favourite words of yours appearing to be "racist" and "bigot").

Just being straight with you, mate :p Your God-given free will means you can always change your style.

Have you posted a single argument in the R&P forum that hasn't been completely dismantled?

[Careyp74]

Another Vox argument:
"Richard Dawkins begins reasonably enough by suggesting that one's theistic tendencies may be viewed on a gradient of seven degrees, ranging from complete certainty in the existence of God to complete certainty in His non-existence. However, he promptly disappoints the reader by rating himself a six, or an agnostic who believes there is a very low probability of God's existence. But how could this be? Why, it's as if the Archbishop of Canterbury were to declare that all Christians should doubt the existence of God!"

If we read the passage of Dawkins' 'The God Delusion" that Vox is talking about, we see that the rating of 6 is:
"6. Very low probability (of god) but short of zero. De Facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'"
and Dawkins describes himself as:
"category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"

Do you get the same idea from Dawkins' writing as Vox? Does Dawkins really sound as wishy washy as made out to be here?

[Foster Zygote]

Another Vox argument:
"Richard Dawkins begins reasonably enough by suggesting that one's theistic tendencies may be viewed on a gradient of seven degrees, ranging from complete certainty in the existence of God to complete certainty in His non-existence. However, he promptly disappoints the reader by rating himself a six, or an agnostic who believes there is a very low probability of God's existence. But how could this be? Why, it's as if the Archbishop of Canterbury were to declare that all Christians should doubt the existence of God!"

If we read the passage of Dawkins' 'The God Delusion" that Vox is talking about, we see that the rating of 6 is:
"6. Very low probability (of god) but short of zero. De Facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'"
and Dawkins describes himself as:
"category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"

Do you get the same idea from Dawkins' writing as Vox? Does Dawkins really sound as wishy washy as made out to be here?

I agree. Day is deliberately misrepresenting Dawkins' position for his own purposes. Dawkins is simply acknowledging that one cannot prove the nonexistence of gods any more than one can prove the nonexistence of invisible pink unicorns or interplanetary teapots. But the inability to prove that such things are nonexistent is no good reason to assume that they must.

[JoeEllison]

Do you get the same idea from Dawkins' writing as Vox? Does Dawkins really sound as wishy washy as made out to be here?

Nope, he's got the wrong idea about Dawkins... or is giving the wrong idea intentionally, in order to mislead.

[Rufo]

It annoys me a lot, but sometimes I get the feeling that atheists could refute the arguments for atheism better than these people who write books about it.

[PAC]

A lot of my Christian friends are crowing about Vox Day's book, The Irrational Atheist, saying it effectively trounces Dawkins & Hitchens with logic and historical fact. Apparently rather than argue for theism, it simply exposes flaws in their arguments. I've ordered a copy but meanwhile I was wondering if anyone has read it - any comments?

Dog



Why do they believe? Because they want to. So they will believe this book as well. Most of my frustration with the religious is that I have yet to have a rational discussion with any of them. They go to the belief, latch on to it, hide behind it and refuse to "come out and play". There is little reason to believe they will discuss this book with any rational approach.

[plumjam]

In other words, you're attacking me, lying about me, and avoiding answering my very simple question. Par for the course with you.

Thanks. You just confirmed my intuition about you yet again.

[GreyICE]

Examples? Not saying your wrong, but I would like to hear some examples of this instead of taking your word.
One I remember off hand is Dawkins argument that if we could clone an intelligent non-human (Cro-Magnan or Neandrathal, I forget which at the moment) it would prove to pro-lifers and the rest of us that there was no difference between us and animals, and that they couldn't oppose abortion without opposing any form of animal killing.

He refers to that as an absolutist view, that humans are separate from animals. I just call it intelligence - we have it, they don't. And yes, I think we could pretty much draw the dividing line for neandrathals too, without accidentally including chimps or apes or monkeys.

He also dislikes trial by jury, for reasons I consider inadequate (considering the flaming mess that trial by judge has been historically).

But honestly, that's neither here nor there. I'd rather not debate them in this perfectly serviceable thread.

[JoeEllison]

Thanks. You just confirmed my intuition about you yet again.

Another personal attack from you. Here's my request, again:If you have an argument that you consider to be particularly "poor" I would appreciate you sharing it with me. There is no easier way for me to make my personal point than with the most specific examples possible.

Put up or shut up, plumjam. Discuss the topic of the thread, or at least stop making personal attacks on me. The ball is in you court.

[fuelair]

A lot of my Christian friends are crowing about Vox Day's book, The Irrational Atheist, saying it effectively trounces Dawkins & Hitchens with logic and historical fact. Apparently rather than argue for theism, it simply exposes flaws in their arguments. I've ordered a copy but meanwhile I was wondering if anyone has read it - any comments?

Dog
It's already remaindered.

[rocketdodger]

Well, you hang out at this forum, and this place is stuffed with poor arguments against theism. As of yet I haven't seen you intervene in the way you obviously were preening yourself for doing in the case of atheists rather than theists.

Yes, I could trawl through the archive and provide you with some specific examples of poor arguments but my intuition says don't bother. This due to the fact that your style is to avoid any real substantive debate; remaining safely on the sidelines throwing out short posts composed mainly of attempts at cleverness, snide remarks and accusations (two favourite words of yours appearing to be "racist" and "bigot").

Just being straight with you, mate :p Your God-given free will means you can always change your style.

Go ahead and try it with me, then, plumjam -- certainly you would not claim that my "style" is to "avoid any real substantive debate."

[rocketdodger]

He refers to that as an absolutist view, that humans are separate from animals. I just call it intelligence - we have it, they don't. And yes, I think we could pretty much draw the dividing line for neandrathals too, without accidentally including chimps or apes or monkeys.

Except the more we learn about cognition and animal intelligence, the smaller this "dividing line" of which you speak becomes. Futhermore, most humans do not use intelligence as the dividing line anyway -- mentally handicapped humans are still considered one of "us" by the great majority.

You might disagree, but that doesn't mean there is a "flaw." I find no flaws in this argument.

He also dislikes trial by jury, for reasons I consider inadequate (considering the flaming mess that trial by judge has been historically).

Again, this doesn't imply there is a flaw in the argument.

But honestly, that's neither here nor there. I'd rather not debate them in this perfectly serviceable thread.

Too bad!!!

[plumjam]

Go ahead and try it with me, then, plumjam -- certainly you would not claim that my "style" is to "avoid any real substantive debate."

No. I'd say your style is so unwarrantedly and irrationally aggressive that only a fool would choose to spend his time getting involved with you.
Have a nice Sunday though :D

[Foster Zygote]

This due to the fact that your style is to avoid any real substantive debate; remaining safely on the sidelines throwing out short posts composed mainly of attempts at cleverness, snide remarks and accusations...

Have you presented any arguments on the R&P forum that have not been completely dismantled?

[plumjam]

Another personal attack from you. Here's my request, again:If you have an argument that you consider to be particularly "poor" I would appreciate you sharing it with me. There is no easier way for me to make my personal point than with the most specific examples possible.

Put up or shut up, plumjam. Discuss the topic of the thread, or at least stop making personal attacks on me. The ball is in you court.

If you're wondering why I spoke up, it's due to the fact that I have witnessed you make quite a few pretty nasty and unjustified attacks on people here lately. That might be a little more forgivable if you were someone who actually contributed something of positive substance in debate. However, sadly, you are not; preferring to sit on the sidelines and carp and criticise like some anti-cheerleader.
Witnessing this again and again from you I felt perhaps interjecting with a reality check might be worthwhile.
Probably not today, but later you might reflect on this, and modify your style to something more positive, interesting, and substantial.
So, to that extent, the ball is in your court, not mine.
All the best with that.
No, I won't be continuing this conversation with you. Message delivered.

[Foster Zygote]

This due to the fact that your style is to avoid any real substantive debate...

Have you presented any arguments on the R&P forum that have not been completely dismantled?

[ceo_esq]

It's already remaindered.

And? ...

At any rate, it does not appear to be remaindered already. Amazon.com is discounting it (though not at a remainder level), but nowadays Amazon.com puts all remaindered books in the "Bargain Books" section (you may recall that years ago the company ran into trouble for not disclosing clearly when a book was remaindered) - and The Irrational Atheist isn't there. There's no indication on the publisher's site that the publisher has remaindered it, either.

[GreyICE]

Except the more we learn about cognition and animal intelligence, the smaller this "dividing line" of which you speak becomes. Futhermore, most humans do not use intelligence as the dividing line anyway -- mentally handicapped humans are still considered one of "us" by the great majority.

You might disagree, but that doesn't mean there is a "flaw." I find no flaws in this argument.
I do. I think that defining the dividing line as self-awareness is reasonably simple. I also think that mentally handicapped people who are self-aware are still intelligent. If they are so brain-damaged that they are not, they aren't human anymore, except genetically. I have a signed document saying if I'm ever in that state, kill me. The dividing line is not small, it is reasonably simple, and I reject Dawkins argument.


Again, this doesn't imply there is a flaw in the argument. Yes it does. He argues that jury trials produce bad results and trial by judge is superior. The problem is that trial by judge is only superior because the vast majority of trials are trials by jury. If there were more trials by judge, there would become sufficient impetus for corruption of the judiciary that we'd see the same historic corruption that there usually was before the establishment of the jury. Thus, his precious judge trials only exist because of the jury trials he maligns.

Now when he discusses reforming the jury system, I can get behind that. Two 6 man juries kept in strict non-communication would be a very interesting improvement on the system. But the system in its current form is significantly better than the old judge system.

Too bad!!! Okay, I'm game. But answer me this - are you willing to say that every single thing Dawkins says is correct and without flaw?

[Careyp74]

Okay, I'm game. But answer me this - are you willing to say that every single thing Dawkins says is correct and without flaw?

What kind of standard are you trying to hold him to? What if the answer is, no, there are some flaws. What does that prove, that he doesn't know anything? Also, about your cloning comment, what book is that from? Or was this an example given by someone like Day that you never bothered to lok up yourself?

[GreyICE]

What kind of standard are you trying to hold him to? What if the answer is, no, there are some flaws. What does that prove, that he doesn't know anything? Also, about your cloning comment, what book is that from? Or was this an example given by someone like Day that you never bothered to lok up yourself? My comment was more to illustrate that I'm not about to reflexively hop to Dawkins defense if I hear he's being criticized. Do I agree with most of what he's saying? Yes. But I'm not going to attack a criticism before I read it, and I'm certainly not going to imply the man is without flaws in his arguments. Of course I'll admit some of its personal - I intensely dislike his style of writing, even when I agree with what he's saying, which is irrational of me.

As for the cloning, I believe it was one of his essays actually. I'll try to look it up. When I find it, do I get an apology for insinuating that I would ever draw my opinion of someone's writing from a critic?

[Robin]

Do you commonly see people using poor arguments to attack theists, just because they are theists? If so, do you tolerate that or not?
If so, why?
Speaking for myself, I will attack what I see as bad arguments from atheists as well as theists.

For example in this forum I spent one of the longest threads demonstrating that the famous war between religion and science is, for the most part, a myth.

I got involved in this whole forum in the first place because I wanted to tell someone how stupid Massimo Pigliucci was.

[schlitt]

Another thread where plumjam contibutes nothing of substance and uses passive agressive statements to cloak his belligerent nature, and avoid dealing with the arguments he is not capable of answering.

Suprise, suprise.

On topic, I have been wondering about this book myself. I was having a discussion with my mother recently, about evolution and i mentioned to her she needs to do some reading as she still holds many of the most basic misconceptions (why are apes still around? etc). So she said she will read a book of my choosing if i read the irrational atheist (which she has not read).
I find it funny how theists will often endorse something they have not read or know practically nothing about, just because it is pro what they believe.

[Careyp74]

As for the cloning, I believe it was one of his essays actually. I'll try to look it up. When I find it, do I get an apology for insinuating that I would ever draw my opinion of someone's writing from a critic?

That was a question, because I do not know you (as much as you can know someone on a forum) And apologize now if you were offended. I would be offended if accused of that too, sorry.

I am not as much coming to Dawkins' defense as I am venting frustration for having read Vox's horrible writing. I much prefer Dawkins' style to Vox's run on sentences and foul language being passed as humor.

[Careyp74]

On topic, I have been wondering about this book myself. I was having a discussion with my mother recently, about evolution and i mentioned to her she needs to do some reading as she still holds many of the most basic misconceptions (why are apes still around? etc). So she said she will read a book of my choosing if i read the irrational atheist (which she has not read).
I find it funny how theists will often endorse something they have not read or know practically nothing about, just because it is pro what they believe.

I would like to guess at the reasoning here. I believe it might deal with your quest for knowledge, leading you to atheistic views, and her quest to convert you to christianity(?) not needing to read anything to maintain her beliefs. Let me guess something else here. You have read the bible, she hasn't?

[schlitt]

I would like to guess at the reasoning here. I believe it might deal with your quest for knowledge, leading you to atheistic views, and her quest to convert you to christianity(?) not needing to read anything to maintain her beliefs. Let me guess something else here. You have read the bible, she hasn't?

Close, yes she is utterly convinced of the validity of her beliefs, and makes no attempts to seek knowledge if it could in any way be contradictory to her beliefs. A willful state of ignorance. However she is quite well read in chrisitian apologetics, and reads the bible often (although selective parts usually). I think it is common for most believers (or even people in general) to seek out knowledge supporting what they want to believe, and stay ignorant in areas that additional knowledge will create possible contradictions for their belief.

[Egg]

A lot of my Christian friends are crowing about Vox Day's book, The Irrational Atheist, saying it effectively trounces Dawkins & Hitchens with logic and historical fact. Apparently rather than argue for theism, it simply exposes flaws in their arguments. I've ordered a copy but meanwhile I was wondering if anyone has read it - any comments?

Dog

Thanks for the link. I gave the book a quick read over the weekend, so I'll attempt to give a brief review.

I'm not sure many of the atheists here will be too happy with Day's definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic". I got the impression he was basing his opinions on his experiences of those who describe themselves by those labels. He makes an interesting distinction between "high church" and "low church" atheists (the low being the sort who wouldn't even consider visiting a forum such as this). I think it might be tempting for some readers to stop too early in the book because of this first chapter, but Day's more impressive arguments are yet to come.

I'm more familiar with Dawkins' writings than that of Harris and Hitchens, so I couldn't really say if he misrepresents their arguments. Sometimes it feels Day's lumping all their views together and arguing against an overall "new atheist" view, but mostly he appears to be responding to specific quotes and includes references. He does discuss Dennett's writing too, but mostly only has praise for his intellectual honesty.

As might be expected, Day can be pretty scathing of "the unholy trinity" as he calls them, but writes in an easy to read, informal style with a nice scattering of humour. There's not a great deal of Ad Homs or Well Poisoning, as most of his more insulting comments are not usually part of the argument, and when they are, Day attempts to back up his accusations with evidence and reasoning.

While Day tries to deal with various arguments, his main thrust is against the notions that religion is harmful and that faith poses a great threat to both science and world peace. He's certainly done his homework here and presents a convincing argument based strongly on historical evidence, whilst pointing out some pretty lazy thinking in the writers who have asserted such ideas and the historical evidence of the dangers that believing such ideas can lead to.

I'm sure there is plenty in this book that many here would take issue with, but those approaching the books Day criticises with a sceptical attitude would probably see some of his points.

I think there's little chance of this book changing anyone's minds over the existence of God and this doesn't appear to be Day's intention, but I would say it was essential reading for any atheist who might use some of the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens arguments for themselves without checking out the validity of them more thoroughly or for anyone who has accepted such arguments with little critical thought.

[dogjones]

I skimmed it as well and at first glance I'm mostly in agreement with Egg. He does pull some rhetorical naughties but there are definitely some impressive arguments and yes, his writing is quite snappily humorous. I want to look at it in more detail and pick the arguments apart though. The thing is (and this is a terrible thing to admit to), I have never read Dawkins', Hitchens' or Harris' atheist tracts. I just never really bothered as I am an atheist, Q.E.D, and need no reinforcement. Looks like I've got reading to do now though...

Dog

[Careyp74]

I will agree with egg that Vox has put a lot of research into this book, however I still think we need to look at the arguments raised, like dog suggests. I already found a bunch of easily disputed ones against Dawkins in the first chapter, some I have already posted here, which only leads me to believe there are a ton more.

[rocketdodger]

Okay, I'm game. But answer me this - are you willing to say that every single thing Dawkins says is correct and without flaw?

No, not at all. Its just that after spending a few years debating with idiots, I come to think of flaws as logical contradictions, outright wrong information, things like that -- things that are obviously wrong on the surface.

Problems with arguments on the level of "you may be wrong, if we actually tested the theory in practice, but there is a chance it might go either way," don't seem to be flaws to me. I guess we are just talking about semantics here.

[rocketdodger]

No. I'd say your style is so unwarrantedly and irrationally aggressive that only a fool would choose to spend his time getting involved with you.
Have a nice Sunday though :D

Only a fool or, perhaps, someone who isn't afraid to argue with me.

[GreyICE]

No, not at all. Its just that after spending a few years debating with idiots, I come to think of flaws as logical contradictions, outright wrong information, things like that -- things that are obviously wrong on the surface.

Problems with arguments on the level of "you may be wrong, if we actually tested the theory in practice, but there is a chance it might go either way," don't seem to be flaws to me. I guess we are just talking about semantics here. Oh, okay. I tend to think of flaws as "I'm not sure your logic holds together from premise to conclusion," not outright inaccuracies or falsehoods.

I agree I've never seen Dawkins make a cognitively dissonant claim, offer bad information, snowball anecdotes into data, or do anything that's just painful from a logical point of view. Anyone who wants to argue his points better come prepared - he has his facts right, and his logic usually holds together well.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I haven't read it yet; but if it's anything like his column of the same name I'm not likely to read it anytime soon.

The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.

That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.

The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.

In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.

The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.

In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.

Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.

I am saying nothing new here. It is an ancient concept. More than 2,000 years ago, the first atheist martyr, Socrates, declared "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Being fully aware of the repercussions of this teaching, he also argued that it was necessary to keep such virtuous knowledge to the elite.

"I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects ... these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd ... breaking out into rebellion."

The Romans, ever practical, understood this as well. Seneca the Younger wrote: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." It is more than useful for a civilized society, though, it is a downright necessity.

Even the great champions of reason accepted this bitter truth. Alvin Bernstein writes of Voltaire: "He regarded belief in God and in an afterlife of rewards and punishments as requisites of ethical behavior ... Voltaire was convinced that the lower classes must fear God in order to be ethical. His religious outlook ... is a stepping-stone toward a full secular outlook in which moral judgments have nothing to do with religious and spiritual abstractions.

This is not to say there are no atheists who are rational, that there are none who are true to their godless convictions. Friedrich Nietzsche is the foremost example, but there are certainly others who do not fear to determine their own moral compass. Today, we call them sociopaths and suicides.

Without God, there is only the left-hand path of the philosopher. It leads invariably to Hell, by way of the guillotine, the gulag and the gas chamber. The atheist is irrational because he has no other choice – because the rational consequences of his non-belief are simply too terrible to bear.

[ravdin]

Without God, there is only the left-hand path of the philosopher. It leads invariably to Hell, by way of the guillotine, the gulag and the gas chamber. The atheist is irrational because he has no other choice – because the rational consequences of his non-belief are simply too terrible to bear.

The last paragraph of the previous lengthy quote caught my attention. It appears that VD isn't making a case for the existence of any gods so much as he's making a case for the necessity of believing in one. That's a very common argument- we need fear of divine punishment to keep the proles in line.

Even if Day is correct about that, it still doesn't prove the infallibility of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ, the ascension of the Virgin Mary, etc. It only vindicates the virtue of belief in belief.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

The last paragraph of the previous lengthy quote caught my attention. It appears that VD isn't making a case for the existence of any gods so much as he's making a case for the necessity of believing in one. That's a very common argument- we need fear of divine punishment to keep the proles in line.

Even if Day is correct about that, it still doesn't prove the infallibility of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ, the ascension of the Virgin Mary, etc. It only vindicates the virtue of belief in belief.

I've never found it to be a valid argument; why on earth is God in heaven supposed to be a better deterant of crime than the cop around the corner? In an article about why a women who is raped but engages in extramarital sex (date rape) cannot be considered a "wholly innocent victim" Vox Day makes a clear distinction between moral law (God's Law) and the laws of nations. In it, VD states that running a red light is illegal but not immoral; so it offends mans law but not gods. If God in heaven is really the main deterant of crime in society why aren't more Theists running red lights at a more frequent rate is my question.

[Moochie]

I haven't read it yet; but if it's anything like his column of the same name I'm not likely to read it anytime soon.

Reading this makes me think he's preaching to the converted, i.e., fellow believers -- it's just that bad.

M.

[Nim Chimpsky]

The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.

In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.



Wow, you would think he has enough sense to avoid the good 'ol argument from ignorance.

It's now clearer to me. I had a very lengthy discussion with a not so bright young man on another board a few months back. He was parrotting this argument almost verbatim. We actually got to discussing gravity and he kept accusing me of:

"not being able to prove it or explain it".

the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.

Ah, the bitter irony and hypocrisy of that statement makes me laugh. Please, oh ALL KNOWING ONE Mr. Day.......do explain to me in detail this God thing and all that you purport to KNOW about him/her/it.

[Kopji]

Maybe I just expected more: Christians throwing this up in atheist faces and all that.
It's like this...

The guy puts forth some nice complex objections to a complex subject, but in the end, his reasoning leads him to believe that his son's illness was caused by a supernatural evil being who wanders the earth seeking to undermine God's purposes.

Does that really compare with sharing an innate human capacity for abstract thinking that enhances our survival ability?

I honestly don't know the name for this kind of conclusion, or if it is even a fallacy, but it would get filed under: "author wasted my time".

It's like reading a book on particle physics and in the last paragraphs finding the sentence "therefore I believe in the pink flying elephants".

[Careyp74]

I think we have already come to the conclusion that this book is a waste of time. However, keeping with the thread, what are we to say to those that don't realize this conclusion, when confronted by them. Next time Aunt Helen asks us about the book, and how it disproves everything that "The Three (plus one)" have concluded, how do we respond?

[Egg]

I think we have already come to the conclusion that this book is a waste of time. However, keeping with the thread, what are we to say to those that don't realize this conclusion, when confronted by them. Next time Aunt Helen asks us about the book, and how it disproves everything that "The Three (plus one)" have concluded, how do we respond?

I disagree that it's a waste of time - unless you have no interest in the subjects being discussed.

I think it would be a little foolish to dismiss the whole book on the basis of disagreeing with some of his earlier arguments. Would you think it reasonable for someone finding something in the work of "the three" that wasn't such a great argument or misrepresented the position of believers and therefore concluding that the rest of their arguments must be nonsense?

To answer your question, I would say that either saying that Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens always present solid and sound arguments or saying that Day disproves everything that they concluded would be likely to be overgeneralising to the point of falseness.

There's no quick and easy here. If you want to argue against Day arguing against "the three", you're going to have to take it on a subject by subject basis, explore the evidence and reasoning behind the points made and apply critical thinking to both sides of the arguments.

[Careyp74]

I disagree that it's a waste of time - unless you have no interest in the subjects being discussed.

I think it would be a little foolish to dismiss the whole book on the basis of disagreeing with some of his earlier arguments. Would you think it reasonable for someone finding something in the work of "the three" that wasn't such a great argument or misrepresented the position of believers and therefore concluding that the rest of their arguments must be nonsense?


If I went to an art gallery and the first three exhibits were crayola drawings from 6 year olds showing mommy and daddy in stick figure, I would probably not continue with the tour.

I am not saying the whole book is wrong based on the first chapter, but if the strength of the first chapter is so weak, what are the chances that the rest of it is better written?

Two things that turned me off. The first is the blatant mistruths about the three in the beginning, the second is the writing structure. The book came off as a rant, imo.

I do have interest in the subject, I wish it was someone else that wrote this book.

[Egg]

If I went to an art gallery and the first three exhibits were crayola drawings from 6 year olds showing mommy and daddy in stick figure, I would probably not continue with the tour.

I am not saying the whole book is wrong based on the first chapter, but if the strength of the first chapter is so weak, what are the chances that the rest of it is better written?

Two things that turned me off. The first is the blatant mistruths about the three in the beginning, the second is the writing structure. The book came off as a rant, imo.

I do have interest in the subject, I wish it was someone else that wrote this book.

Well, obviously that's fine. You don't have to read a book you aren't enjoying. When Aunt Helen mentions the book and says how it disproves the writings of "the three", you can just say "I've not read enough to be able to comment on his arguments, but I didn't like his style of writing in the first chapter".

There are other books dealing with the same kinds of arguments. The advantage of this one is that it's free to anyone with an internet connection.