Print
'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.
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 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 1999 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #117384 by Matt7895 on January 28, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I just did a symbolic middle-finger gesture at my monitor. That is all I have to say to this 'book'. Other Comments by Matt7895
3. Comment #117385 by Ohnhai on January 28, 2008 at 6:06 pm
another attempt to 'define' away the atheists. Agnostics are fine as they are undecided, but atheists? NOO! you are not allowed to disagree with us. If you do we will call you sad desperate and shrill...Fcuk off.
Other Comments by Ohnhai
4. Comment #117386 by Goldy on January 28, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Vox Day? He of the blog mentioned in these threads before? One who gets stuff wrong at times?Well, nice he sat and wrote a book. Probably will fall a bit short of the hype, but hey, he tried.
Other Comments by Goldy
5. Comment #117389 by ScareCrow on January 28, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I have heard of him before. His real name is Theodore Beale and he is a computer game designer gone bad if i remember correctly. His book was listed in the flea section a long time ago. Not really worth paying attention to in my opinion. Other Comments by ScareCrow
6. Comment #117392 by Cartomancer on January 28, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Yawn... I think I preferred John on Radio Leeds. At least he seemed vaguely surprised to have his deep ignorance pointed out to him. When you theists have a decent champion to put forward against us, do give me a call..."In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience." - Oscar Wilde
Other Comments by Cartomancer
7. Comment #117395 by ScareCrow on January 28, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Yeah i mean we have super intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet, journalist supreme Christopher Hitchens, Super HERO Ayaan Ali and Sam Harris (sorry cant think of an apropriate title for him). Who do the christian elite offer? Mcgrath? D'souza? This guy? Its almost sad...
Other Comments by ScareCrow
8. Comment #117399 by cal_mertes on January 28, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Why is it that these authors promise "killer" blows that turn out to be nothing but a mud spot?And where did he get the "detailed historical and scientific evidence" to support his claim? why hasn't already been debunked?
Other Comments by cal_mertes
9. Comment #117400 by al-rawandi on January 28, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Joseph Farah is an odious snake. His arrogant diatribes while in self congratulatory roundelay do nothing but enrage me.The man is disgusting, it appears Vox Day is pretty bad too.
ScareCrow,
If you see ol' Vox Day, tell him I love Halo 3.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
10. Comment #117403 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 6:32 pm
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.
Post-Christian paganism? What post Christian paganism? Is this some sort of European phenomena or a figment of this guy's imagination. Is the next "British Invasion" going to consist of Neo-Druid nanobots?
Other Comments by Radesq
11. Comment #117408 by Electric Monk on January 28, 2008 at 6:46 pm
"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"This has got to be close to the stupidest statement ever made about Dawkins!
Other Comments by Electric Monk
12. Comment #117409 by Olliedog on January 28, 2008 at 6:48 pm
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.
Pay nothing? I would expect compensation for downloading this bile. It's already cost me some neurons just pondering the claim that Sam Harris can't handle division. WTF?
Other Comments by Olliedog
13. Comment #117410 by movingshadow on January 28, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I still have trouble believing worldnetdaily is not a landover style parody Other Comments by movingshadow
14. Comment #117412 by DanPinto on January 28, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I, for one, would be proud to be called Bertrand Russell's parrot!Something else that strikes me. Whenever Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett etc are interviewed they are asked, however briefly, to explain their position and give some kind of evidence. The same is almost never asked of the Theists.
Other Comments by DanPinto
15. Comment #117414 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Electronic Monk -- just wait a day or two someone will top it. A quick internet search on this guy Day/Beale and his dad will show you some background. Apparently dad was a founder of the Christian Coalition of Minnesota and is a board member of WorldNet Daily. Maybe others already knew this. I've never even heard of this publication...I've seen the WeeklyWorldNews is this the same company?http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
Other Comments by Radesq
16. Comment #117416 by Steve Zara on January 28, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I am normally mild mannered and polite, but there are limits. This guy is a mendacious hypocritical ignorant slime-ball.
There is no point trying to refute what he says in this article, as he can barely form coherent sentences, let alone construct a decent argument. His writing seems to consist of nothing more that stream-of-consciousness rants.
Sorry, but he is beyond my ability to tolerate.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
17. Comment #117419 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Easy Dr. Steve...don't fly off the handle! I'll talk you down.:)~ All I've read of this guy is what's in the article above it's hilarious. No need to get torqued off about this guy, I think this post was meant to be comic relief.
Other Comments by Radesq
18. Comment #117420 by Mango on January 28, 2008 at 6:59 pm
The interviewer's leading questions clearly outline his biases. Pathetic journalism. Other Comments by Mango
19. Comment #117422 by al-rawandi on January 28, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Steve-oJoseph Farah may be even worse. Both of these arrogant pricks make me mad as hell. I share your sentiments.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
20. Comment #117424 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Farah: Are you considering an apologetic sequel making a case for Christianity?
Day: Not at the moment. Right now, I'm more interested in... writing something that someone will actually buy
(what he should have said in italics)
I cannot stop laughing...it is like they sat down and said "ok I've started the recorder now just start saying the most baseless and obviously false stuff you can think of".
Other Comments by Radesq
21. Comment #117427 by He-man Daunted World on January 28, 2008 at 7:19 pm
What's this about Sam Harris and elementary school division?Other Comments by He-man Daunted World
22. Comment #117428 by evolver23 on January 28, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I was considering skimming this book for the sake of open-mindedness, but after reading Austin Cline's blog re: this fuckwit, I think I'd rather do something that isn't a complete waste of time, like clipping my toenails maybe.http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/18/the-irrational-atheist.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/22/irrational-atheist-part-2.htm
Other Comments by evolver23
23. Comment #117429 by drcancerman on January 28, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I just raised an eyebrow and had a look of "wtf"? Then ended up talking to myself; "what the f*ck is that guy smoking? Must be goo...d!"Then I started to ponder, are they(Christians) that desperate? The answer is YES.
Other Comments by drcancerman
24. Comment #117432 by He-man Daunted World on January 28, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Interesting quote from Vox Day, found via evolver23's links:Perhaps you don't need a God to prevent you from behaving in an immoral manner. I certainly do.
Which fits nicely with a quote from PZ Myers:
Religions have spent millennia confusing ethics with obedience
Other Comments by He-man Daunted World
25. Comment #117433 by Radesq on January 28, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Given his other comments in this article perhaps he needs more than one (bring on the Neo Druids and their nanobots). If that doesn't make sense read my post 11 above - actually it still won't make any sense. Other Comments by Radesq
26. Comment #117435 by LorienRyan on January 28, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Day - "...because atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it's a parasitic phenomenon that can't survive on its own."Just like Day's parasitic book - just another flea.
Other Comments by LorienRyan
27. Comment #117436 by al-rawandi on January 28, 2008 at 7:50 pm
He-Man,I had a religious friend who told me if he weren't religious he would be out "bedding" as many women as possible. I noted that behaving because he fears god makes him a sex crazed coward and nothing more. That was not well received.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
28. Comment #117441 by SPS on January 28, 2008 at 8:14 pm
If the arguments are so rock solid in this book, then bring 'em. Where are these irrefutable arguments from the theists? Where are the words and the proofs that will convert us all? Why are they always conspicuously absent? I suspect they are casting insults from behind the apron of pseudo-science, wanting to at once rail against and lay claim to scientific progress. Like so many other theists I expect they offer a lot of insults, word games, and misrepresented "facts". As far as his atheists' "sign of desperation" comment, it's a very common tactic to portray your opponent as the exact thing that you yourself are. It's odd that people who claim to have the corner on values are such eager practitioners of deception and the purveyors of thinly veiled hate.Other Comments by SPS
29. Comment #117442 by righton on January 28, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Pathetic attempt to sell books.So obvious! He talks shit about RD, CH, SH, but puts up no arguments. Just shit talkin.
Other Comments by righton
30. Comment #117448 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 9:03 pm
More baseless assertions. He didn't go into detail, to say the least. BTW, what is it with his claim that secular countries become pagan/new age? Even if that were true, what does that have to do with the truth of atheism?
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
31. Comment #117454 by HeyBishop on January 28, 2008 at 9:32 pm
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.
I can't deny that this point is ture. Mind you, it's the only point I agree with in this interview. It is something I often try to convey to Christians when debating.
Other Comments by HeyBishop
32. Comment #117456 by monoape on January 28, 2008 at 9:48 pm
I posted the following at http://voxday.blogspot.com/ (look for 'TIA reviews and interview' and then click 'Comments' below it to add your own):From "'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers" (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59905):
"... Dawkins's stupid assertion that a religious upbringing is worse than sexual child abuse"
Professor Dawkins has never said any such thing. He had said that labelling a child 'Christian', 'Muslim', etc. is "a form of abuse".
"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"
A ludicrous assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up.
So, rather than using "reason, science and historical documentation" to argue "the atheists into an inescapable corner", you've employed blatant and crude straw men, ad hominem and hysterical, baseless assertions? Doesn't bode well for the quality of the rest of the book, does it?
"... atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon"
Someone better 'phone Sweden and let them know - up to ~80% of Swedes profess no belief in gods, fairies, etc. And Sweden, by many measures, is one of the healthiest, happiest countries on the planet. Similar stats apply to other 'godless' countries, such as Norway, Japan. And in every developed country on the planet, the incidence of disbelief is increasing (ignoring the influx of Muslims to Europe, which is artificially inflating the percentage of religious whackos there). Facts. Real inconvenient at times. No wonder you religious apologists are squawking and flapping so loudly at the moment!
The 'irrational' atheists will look forward to dismantling the rest of the book when it becomes available for download.
Other Comments by monoape
33. Comment #117458 by quill on January 28, 2008 at 9:56 pm
"Vox Day"?I guess Ted is trying to characterize himself as Vox Dei or voice of God, which just goes to reinforce my old hypothesis that "religion" is what happens when ignorant people get too full of themselves.
Other Comments by quill
34. Comment #117464 by Russell's Teapot on January 28, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I came across this on my atheism Google News feed and just stopped when I got to the word "shrill". Fleeeeeeeea... Other Comments by Russell's Teapot
35. Comment #117467 by Spinoza on January 28, 2008 at 10:49 pm
To be perfectly honest, the point about "atheists" turning to neo-paganism and superstition is a fair point... not about ALL atheists, but about the kind that "convert" or view atheism as a cause... the ones who don't care about it, intellectually speaking...I know SO MANY people who say "I don't believe in organized religion, but I do believe in a higher power, but I don't know what it is... Gaia, or Nature... whatever." ... which annoys the hell out of me, because they're just not thinking clearly enough... but of course, we can't expect the majority of people to be capable of the sufficient amount of thought required for intelligent ANYTHING...
Such is the world we live in...
Ah well, I remember when I first showed up here and I said that I really did wish that Atheism were still an Ivory Tower, academic, esoteric phenomenon... one that could afford to be righteous because it was so well thought out and well argued...
I admire the sentiment of the whole movement to get people to own up to their atheism... I mean, I really do agree with it, I do think a lot of people are just afraid to say it out loud or in public...
But it really does scare and annoy me that with larger numbers, atheism will inevitably have to deal with a lack of intellectual rigour amongst the majority its proponents.
And most don't seem to care (of course, why would they?!)
... you can lambaste me for this post... but I think it always needs to be said...
Other Comments by Spinoza
36. Comment #117477 by Dinah on January 28, 2008 at 11:21 pm
This article can be summed up as 'I have no real arguments to refute atheism, so instead I will insult and defame several famous atheists. This will show what a clever, thinking reasonable chap I am and prove beyond doubt my invisible magic friend exists, and loves me.'Other Comments by Dinah
37. Comment #117482 by mrjonno on January 28, 2008 at 11:40 pm
In reference to point 37, the vast majority of Europeans are irreligious through not necessarily atheist.However the amount of believe in bad science, alternative medicine, astrology and many other irrational concepts is strong
Other Comments by mrjonno
38. Comment #117483 by jfincher42 on January 28, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Spinoza: People like this join all sorts of religions and turn into something else completely. This is how new Protestant religions and "Mel Gibson" Catholic sects are born.I'll be interested to DL this guys book for free and see what his POV is. Of course, if the books sucks, and it truly is a "pay what it's worth" deal, I'll enter a negative number and see if he sends me some money...
Other Comments by jfincher42
39. Comment #117485 by Robert Maynard on January 29, 2008 at 12:05 am
I'm grateful he's offering it for free - I would never pay money to read a flea book, but I am quite curious about what they fill all those pages with. Other Comments by Robert Maynard
40. Comment #117486 by JemyM on January 29, 2008 at 12:07 am
It lights up the issue with "atheism" once again. Atheism is a pointless name that seem to indicate a group when it's rather the rejection of one idea. Other Comments by JemyM
41. Comment #117488 by Richard Morgan on January 29, 2008 at 12:22 am
Spinoza :But it really does scare and annoy me that with larger numbers, atheism will inevitably have to deal with a lack of intellectual rigour amongst the majority its proponents.
You're talking as if atheism is a cause, or a philosophy. Atheism doesn't have to deal with anything at all! In some countries atheists have to deal with other people - I can understand and sympathise. But language like this really does make atheism sound like a sect or worse, a religion.
How can not believing something have proponents?
It's almost like you're saying, "What scares me is the number of stupid people who don't believe in the tooth fairy."
mrjonno
the vast majority of Europeans are irreligious through not necessarily atheist.According to official figures, in 2006, 50% of the French population claimed to be catholic. And of these people, 50% also claimed to be atheist.
So in France there are probably more than 10,000,000 atheist catholics.
Which is probably one way of handling weddings and mistresses.
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
42. Comment #117490 by Duffski on January 29, 2008 at 12:34 am
Well, what a load of waffle! Where is his argument, where does he clearly explain his method and evidence? This is all just theist posturing and a vain attempt to get some publicity. ...because atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it's a parasitic phenomenon that can't survive on its own... atheism rapidly mutates into paganism and diverse forms of spiritual absurdity. ...Such as worshipping an invisible man/force/all-knowing being in the sky that can't be seen or detected in any way and requires deep faith, not science, to be believed in?
He made one good point that I agreed with, and that was how he described the normal way in which theists seek to debunk atheists (except that I would be infinitely more happy with any theist that quoted Shakespeare at me rather than the bible):
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.
Other Comments by Duffski
43. Comment #117494 by AdrianB on January 29, 2008 at 1:16 am
Just being a supercilious atheist, that article made me chuckle and snicker.But it is totally irrelevant what we think.
Some time ago I posted what a Catholic friend of mine thinks of Richard Dawkins. That he is a "horrible man" that has accused her of "paedophilia".
WTF!!
(I checked this with her again recently, and she really does think that Dawkins thinks she is a paedophile! She takes her children to church, that is child abuse, and paedophilia is child abuse. Simple.)
Well that's what her church has told her, and she believes it. She really is one of the nicest people I know, but her church is "protecting" her from Dawkins. She will never ever read THAT book.
But that is not good enough. The Church knows that their congregations are aware of the "new-atheists" books, and that people are actually reading them and agreeing with them. What about that? This is where the second line of "ostrich defence" kicks in. Acknowledge that the "new-atheists" books exist, but point to all the fleas. It doesn't matter what a rational person thinks of the arguments, that we might chuckle and snicker, it only matters what the church tells its flock what the arguments are. Church flocks all over the world will think that Vox Day's book does indeed trounce the "new-atheists" books' (that they will never read) arguments. That is all that is important.
Other Comments by AdrianB
44. Comment #117495 by Tyler Durden on January 29, 2008 at 1:19 am
If I were an atheist, I'd be deeply embarrassed to have these clowns as the public face of my religious identification.Atheism is not a religion, douchebag!
Farah: Are atheists becoming more militant? Extreme? Why?Huh? Not "If so, why?", simply "Why?", talk about biased questioning.
So why are you making the entire book available as a free download from your blog?Desperation! Pure and simple desperation: "Somebody read my book, pleeaasee!!"
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
45. Comment #117498 by windweaver on January 29, 2008 at 1:31 am
I note that this guy describes himself as a "Christian libertarian". He's also a member of the Southern Baptist convention. With credentials like these is it any wonder he's giving his book away for free? Other Comments by windweaver
46. Comment #117501 by Fanusi Khiyal on January 29, 2008 at 1:38 am
The outspoken ones are certainly becoming more desperate and shrill.
May I remind everyone that this guy is writing for WorldNetDaily? This isn't the pot and the kettle. This is the pot and fine china.
If Sam Harris didn't talk so much about Islam and make so many egregious errors
Such as? Come on, name one! Hello?
Yeah, I thought so.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
47. Comment #117502 by Fanusi Khiyal on January 29, 2008 at 1:41 am
Oi, monoape don't send us links to Voxday's blog, when not all of us may have enough duct tape to wrap around our heads to keep them from exploding.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
48. Comment #117504 by irate_atheist on January 29, 2008 at 1:44 am
Fucktard? Other Comments by irate_atheist
49. Comment #117507 by nogodsever on January 29, 2008 at 2:09 am
I just have one question: what's more insignificant than a flea? Whatever it is, this guy qualifies. Other Comments by nogodsever
50. Comment #117508 by lazarus on January 29, 2008 at 2:12 am
Is it available for download yet? Any idea where from?I think I'll give it a read, I'm interested in how it "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."
Other Comments by lazarus
More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next | Last
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Hot on the heels of its magnanimous pardoning of Galileo, the Vatican has now moved with even more lightning speed to recognise the truth of Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration--courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth."
H.L. Mencken
"Sex brought into existence the gene pool, made meaningful the species, and changed the whole ball game of evolution itself."
Richard Dawkins
"if you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Intelligent Thought
John Brockman (Editor)
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
Kluge
Gary Marcus
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
Donald R. Prothero
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Voices of Science' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #117382 by John Done on January 28, 2008 at 5:58 pm
World Net Daily? No comment. No need.C'mon! Look at the cover! Total flea.
Other Comments by John Done