Wed 30 Jan 2008
Worldnet Daily’s columnist, Vox Day (blogger, “Christian Libertarian”, football
lover and member of SFWA, Mensa and IGDA), has published a new book entitled, “The Irrational Atheist - Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens,” and boy is it a doosy! WND goes so far as to say that this book “trounces God-deniers,” and provides a review on their website from “atheist” critic Brent Rasmussen with the following quotes:
“I am not going to go into a point by point review of the various arguments that Day addressed in ‘The Irrational Atheist.’ Suffice it to say that by the end of the chapters dealing with the individual [atheist] authors, I was happy that it was over. It was a thorough, detailed, dispassionate (with a little snarky levity thrown into the footnotes for flavor), and completely disheartening take-down of some of the best arguments that the godless have put into print – on their own terms, without using the Bible (in the first part of the book, that is), or any other sacred text to do it with. Amazing. And depressing. It is not my place to defend their books. I truly hope that they do find time to defend and clarify their books, specifically to the counter-arguments and claims made by Vox Day in TIA, though, because they really need to. Trust me, it wasn’t pretty.”
“My advice is to read this book – and then do your damnedest to find something in it that you can argue against.”
Well Brent, never fear, someone with a better critical eye than your own has done that very thing, and before the book was even published! Many of Day’s foundations for his book came from an essay of the same name, found here. This essay will give you a good idea of what Day is trying to get at within the bloated 320 pages he has published through BenBella Books (specializing in science fiction and pop culture).
The blog, “Socrates’ elegy” skillfully refutes Day’s reasoning, while providing valid incites into the mindset of the rational atheist. Here is just one example, because you should really click on the blog link and check out all of what it has to say:
Mr. Day continues,
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.
This is an unsupported assumption. The atheist has at least one good ethical
motivation: self-interest in the preservation of civilization. Acting
on this an atheist has at his disposal our common humanity: the body of
knowledge we draw upon to establish codes of conduct, points of order,
and define the rights and responsibilities we as citizens must observe
in order to maintain civilization. While religion attempts to encompass
some of this, albeit in a haphazard, dangerously inconsistent manner;
the concept of common humanity transcends religious morality in that it
is not exclusionary. Also, the atheist is never tempted to “play God”
by claiming to speak for him.
After all of this, I am going to give Vox Day 
1 halo, because he needs to stick with what his horrible haircut is telling him and keep writing science fiction. Obviously, pseudo-philosophical, theistic essay is not his strong point.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:52 am
Utterly flabbergasted at your sheer level of fail. First you hold up elegy’s review of a freaking essay written 4 years ago as something worth drawing on and secondly your refutation of Vox’s point fails. Your refute of him leaves you open to the argument of the atheist raising up the state as god. Not to mention it allows me to suggest you would be open to the slavery of Negroes, since scientifically it has been show that the DNA of the Negro makes him less likely to be intelligent.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Day’s essay established his arguments, which are foundational to his book, entitled the same as his 4 year old essay. His foundation was refuted then, and it holds as a refutation for his new, bloated text. Are we supposed to automatically not refute ideas because they were written “x” number of years ago (and then revisited in new collections, mind you)? What is your arbitrary number of years, so that I don’t commit this flabbergasting “fail” in the future?
As far as the atheist raising up the state as god thing, what makes you immediately leap to that argument? Obviously social organization is going to produce some form of shared morality, otherwise the social organization doesn’t last very long. This in no way means that automatic deification of the state will take place. You’re asserting something that is unfounded.
Also, it allows you to suggest that I would be open to the slavery of Negroes? If you’re going to waltz around the internet claiming “fails,” you should be a little more cautious in using slippery slope arguments… asshat.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
If you are convinced that Vox’s essay somehow suffices to encapsulate the well articulated and nuanced arguments in his book, then you are largely misinformed. Why are you so thoroughly lacking in refutation? Having read the book - from the vantage point of agnosticism - I have found the logic lacking only in innocuous points. The real meaty arguments, predominantly in chapters 4 and beyond, are much harder to refute. If you could please refute Vox’s refutation of Sam Harris’ infamous Red State - Blue State argument. Or Could you please refute his refutation of Richard Dawkins “Religions as Child Abuse” argument. Do not be a pompous ignoramus by unfoundedly assuming that a small essay is anything like reading the entire book. If you want to talk about slippery slope arguments, I would have to encourage you to consider your own slippery predicament- YOU ONLY QUOTED ONE ARGUMENT THAT IS NOT EVEN A SECTION IN THE BOOK! If you think the book is wrong - prove it! Just like Kelly from the Rational Responders is trying to do. But it should be noted - her first three reviews have already been aptly torn to pieces on Vox’s blog - she, like all the other reviewers, seems incapable of moving forward to chapter 4…the meaty stuff.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
At the end of the day, the foundation for Vox’s arguments come from a belief in mysticism and superstition. He plays on the ideas that Atheists are immoral and evil simply because they don’t believe in supernatural, magic, omnipotent deities. Kelly is doing a fine job tearing down his arguments and Vox’s rebuttals have not been sufficient to this point. Proclaim it all you like, but it just isn’t so. The quoted argument from my post is not a section in his book, but is a fundamental part in his argument against Atheism as a whole. If he truly believes that Atheists have no good reason to adhere to defined universal moral standards, simply because they are not commanded to, then his perception on why people adhere to morality is skewed from the onset. My post here was to draw awareness that the book was present and to show the perspective from which the author was writing it. It was not intended to review the book. Kelly is doing a fine job of that.
Also, as an agnostic, your perspective is skewed, because a part of you still wants to believe in magic and mysticism, or you would be admit that those things don’t exist. You don’t need absolute knowledge to understand that supernatural mysticism is fantasy. I guess the 1 millionth time you throw the stone at the supernatural window, it might not break, but up until now, we’ve seen that windows break when you throw stones at them. Your agnosticism should be cured by now by the complete lack of evidence for supernatural entities, especially those that were supposed to have created everything and intervene through prayer.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Best ugg boots for sale for ur choice
uggs outlet
uggs outlet store
ugg outlet
ugg outlet stores
February 27th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Yep, they all think crying foul stands in for argument. It must be painful to need something to be true so badly reason gets the toss…