…and this is a 
Sorry, Vox, I don't debate crazy pipsqueaks any more
Category: Creationism • Kooks
Posted on: June 9, 2008 1:06 PM, by PZ Myers
A while back, I said, "Somebody somewhere is going to have to someday point me to some intelligent arguments for gods, because I've sure never found them. And I know, someone is going to complain that I always pick on the weak arguments…while not bothering to tell me what the strong ones are."
In a fit of unwarranted hubris, the odious Theodore Beale/Vox Day rushed to arrange a debate on a local conservative radio show. Unfortunately, he didn't stop to think — how would debating Vox Day, christofascist misogynist, beneficiary of wingnut welfare, prominent freakshow participant, possibly rebut the complaint that I only pick on the weak arguments?
Besides, I learned my lesson in the Geoffrey Simmons radio debate: it's a waste of time to go up against one of these insane babblers, because all they can do is high-frequency repetition of nonsensical claims. I've also acquired a deep distrust of conservative radio — the outcome of that debate, in which Simmons was flattened, was that they merely reinvited him back on the show without me around to puncture his claims. The fact that the Northern Alliance radio show actually thinks Vox Day is a credible voice for conservative thought tells me right away that there is something wrong with them, and no, I'm not going to trust them at all.
I've also read Day's horrible little book, The Irrational Atheist. Well, to be honest, I read a few chapters of dreck, then flipped through the rest rather quickly. It's actually the "Vox Day Hates Sam Harris" book, with occasional potshots at other New Atheists, and it's really not very good. You would think that if he had a strong rational argument with evidence for any gods, then he would have put it in there — nothing would more seriously deflate one of us scientific atheists who claim there is no evidence for god than, say, presenting credible evidence for god. That was what I actually skimmed through the book for, but it wasn't there.
I would think that if he had some zinger of an argument, there would be better ways to reveal it than on an obscure AM radio talk show in a debate with an equally obscure professor at a liberal arts college. He could, for instance, put it right at the top of his web page, where we could all marvel at it before rushing off to our much-neglected church.
Comments
Posted by: CC | June 9, 2008 1:16 PM
As the saying goes, "Yeah, that debate might look good on your CV ... not so good on mine."
Posted by: Rich | June 9, 2008 1:18 PM
Some associated well-poisoning
(1) FtK Loves Vox (she calls him an "Alpha Male")
(2) http://bp0.blogger.com/_c8hGP_Vc8nA/Rssw8TByBEI/AAAAAAAAAHE/BZkYzaa-CQg/s400/Vox.jpe
Here he is looking like a bell-end
(3) Kristine is a witch. BURN HER!
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 9, 2008 1:20 PM
For God's sake, why doesn't VD give us any meaningful argument for God, instead of offering another blather-session?
It's not like we couldn't discuss it here, and if something worthwhile in favor of theism appeared, that could be pursued on any number of venues.
In other words, demonstrate that there is a conversation to be had, instead of seeking for more time to assert what can't be evidenced.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Dennis N | June 9, 2008 1:21 PM
And the sock puppet incursion is getting annoying.
Posted by: Aegis | June 9, 2008 1:24 PM
The fact that he calls himself Vox Day is goofy enough, but to suggest that he has the intellectual fortitude to survive a debate with the Squidster is high comedy indeed.
Has everyone noticed that every time we fail to follow Professor Dawkin's 'no debates' rule, we always give ground to the side of irrationality. The quote in comment 1 perfectly sums up why belittling them is the proper response.
Posted by: Aegis | June 9, 2008 1:25 PM
Damn, couldn't stop the post: "Dawkins' " , not "Dawkin's "
Posted by: Bob L | June 9, 2008 1:31 PM
I guess Vox's & co theory is if they say the same thing enough times we closed minded, evidence obsessed rationalists will begin to believe it.
Posted by: jsn | June 9, 2008 1:32 PM
So what you are saying, PZ, is that you're a chickenshit. Unsurprising.
Posted by: Roger, FCD | June 9, 2008 1:37 PM
@jsn: would you enjoin a debate with a paranoid schizophrenic about how they really ARE out to get him? Same thing here. Vox Day can't face up to reality on its own terms, it scares him too much.
Posted by: Ric | June 9, 2008 1:38 PM
It has been well established that VD is a racist, secist lunatic. PZ has nothing to gain by debating him, except possibly fleas (which one gets by lying down with dogs).
Posted by: tintin | June 9, 2008 1:39 PM
Can I be really rude and go off topic with a 'personality test for Christians' that I've just filled in for a Christian friend of mine. The sample result graphic can be seen on Heart Styles.
"The HeartStyles™ Indicator (HSI)
HSI measures behavioural responses to whether our heart is following the pattern of the world or the pattern of heaven. The ways of the world are dysfunctional (separated from God, insecure, low self-worth, ego driven and motivated by fear) and the ways of heaven are functional (in relationship with God, secure in God, high self-worth, focused to be like Jesus and motivated by love)."
Where/How to begin to explain to her what complete balderdash this is? With every sentence she came out with to explain its validity I disputed the language used and the base assumptions.
Posted by: Irene Delse | June 9, 2008 1:40 PM
You have to wonder at the delusion in somebody like VD. He's still pushing the same fallacies that Austin Cline debunked 5 years ago...
http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/18/the-irrational-atheist.htm
Posted by: NonyNony | June 9, 2008 1:41 PM
Bah - never get into a debate in an arena where the moderators favor one opponent and have the ability to cut of mikes and otherwise make you look foolish.
If Theodore "Vox Day" Beale wants a debate he should go ahead and start one. You both have blogs, after all. He can post his "intelligent arguments for the existence of gods" and you can go about shredding them. It's a great format for such things, as both debaters are forced into taking a turn, no one can "cut off the mike" of their opponent, the tactic of "screaming louder than my opponent so he can't respond" make you look like the jackass you are instead of working, links to references can be embedded into the post to support your claims, and it's far, far more public than some crappy AM talk show.
Of course, crappy AM talk show debates reward those who can scream, obfuscate, and control the debate. Internet debates favor those who can actually present evidence for their position in a rational, well-written manner. So I can see why Theodore Beale might want to have the argument on ground that favors him, but only a fool or someone really good at screaming and obfuscation would take him up on it.
Posted by: Holbach | June 9, 2008 1:46 PM
Screw those morons. I'll make a condition for a debate with these insane retards: You bring your god with you as a second and then we'll have a debate. Why waste brain cells on these demented shits?
Posted by: iwdw | June 9, 2008 1:46 PM
I'm sure most people know this, but Evangelical Realism has been dissecting Vox Day's masterpiece a bit at a time (every Tuesday).
Posted by: Steve Zara | June 9, 2008 1:47 PM
#3
For God's sake, why doesn't VD give us any meaningful argument for God, instead of offering another blather-session?
If you have the stomach to read his book, he has tried.
It is all highly confused nonsense though.
Posted by: tsg | June 9, 2008 1:52 PM
The single best reason for avoiding debates like this is that facts aren't decided by who can present them better.
Posted by: Davis | June 9, 2008 1:53 PM
The traditional religioso refrain has always been "the lord works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform." But now that they want to argue from a scientific perspective, they have to lie, lie, and lie some more.
I would like to have a word with the Great Designer about my wisdom teeth.
Posted by: No One of Consequence | June 9, 2008 1:57 PM
He's trying to get you to fall for one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less known is "never get into a debate with a creationist on a conservative radio show when
deathreality is on the line."Posted by: Chuck | June 9, 2008 1:59 PM
If he's willing to engage in a verbal debate, there's no reason why he shouldn't engage in a written one.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | June 9, 2008 2:00 PM
I agree with NonyNony.
I'm getting a little fatigued with the debate as a forum for this kinds of issues. I think it's perhaps useful for those folks who aren't familiar with the subject, and haven't heard the common arguments on both sides. For instance, I'd listen to a debate between PZ and another scientists on some interesting, not-overly-technical scientific subject. But my impression is that, for the most part, theism/atheism debates are mostly attended by partisans of one side or another, and are "judged" by who comes up with the cleverest bon mot or loudest denunciation. When I hear atheists praising the "debate skills" of Dinesh D'Souza, it makes me question the value of the whole process.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | June 9, 2008 2:01 PM
"For God's sake, why doesn't VD give us any meaningful argument for God, instead of offering another blather-session?
Because they want to feel like they're actually thinking through things, and making intellectual headway. They are not, as is obvious, but has that ever stopped conservatives? If they're losing, they set up biased "debate" sessions where they can try and use argument ad populum and a couple flicks of the mic switch to prove their claims. They know that doing it on a blog will not be visible out in public, and that's where they like screaming and whining.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 9, 2008 2:06 PM
When I hear atheists praising the "debate skills" of Dinesh D'Souza, it makes me question the value of the whole process.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey
Could you please point out those atheist who do that? Distort D'Newsia merely uses a variation of the Gish Gallop.
Posted by: Brian W. | June 9, 2008 2:10 PM
I said this before but i don't think it can be said enough. Next time your at the bookstore and see his book look at the back cover. It says something along the lines of "Girls who have been raped are 50 times more likely to commit suicide than ones that were raised Catholic."
That's how this idiot thinks.
Posted by: matt | June 9, 2008 2:10 PM
The other day I clicked on a link that said there was evidence for god so strong you had to be stupid to not get it.
the evidence? Language. That we humans developed a written means of communication.
I don't get it.
Posted by: dziban | June 9, 2008 2:13 PM
PZ, have you got a copy of that debate you had with VD? ...Vox Day, not venereal disease, although they are equally disgusting. In any case, I'd like to give a listen to the destruction.
Posted by: thisisfunny | June 9, 2008 2:13 PM
Yeah, some people just look for cute short summaries, arguments, proofs etc... Good on ya for not engaging in this debate, debating each other's metaphysics has no place in the academic science world...
Posted by: Dennis N | June 9, 2008 2:21 PM
I didn't know Vox Day was part of the academic science world.
Posted by: thisisfunny | June 9, 2008 2:24 PM
Well at least now you know he is not.
Posted by: Tim B. | June 9, 2008 2:24 PM
Just curious: what kind of evidence would constitute proof of a god or set theism on a firm footing? I remember someone (maybe here?) remarking that a distinct cosmic message via star alignment or something like that would qualify. What else? I'm stumped.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 9, 2008 2:26 PM
I didn't know Vox Day was part of the academic science world.
Posted by: Dennis N
VD knows enough about that realm to know there are too many women in it.
Posted by: SC | June 9, 2008 2:28 PM
Vox Day is to academic science as Ben Stein is to Holocaust scholarship.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | June 9, 2008 2:29 PM
Janine ID @ 23: "Could you please point out those atheist who [praise D'Souza's debate skills]?"
Just to clarify: I agree with your assessment of D'Souza.
I'm going on recollection from comment threads at, for instance, Dawkins's web site. There were a lot of comments to the effect that D'Souza "beat" Harris or Dennett or whoever, and how "we" needed to use only our "best" debaters against him. Of course, my "atheist-dar" doesn't always work, so I suppose those praising him might not have been atheists. If it's an important point, I can try to dig up some examples later today.
Posted by: thisisfunny | June 9, 2008 2:29 PM
Vitalism and teleology.
Also, read up on a the hypothesis of quantum consciousness.
The Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction model.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 9, 2008 2:33 PM
Thank you, Screechy Monkey. I have listened to a few D'Sousa debates and was not impressed.
There is no need to dig those up. Any "atheist" who is impressed by his style does not understand what he is doing.
Posted by: Mena | June 9, 2008 2:34 PM
I have actually given up on the creationists. I really don't think that it's any more possible to teach them how to follow a reasoned well-documented argument (hopefully they don't end up on juries!) than it would be to teach my cat how to count to two. There really just seems to be something wrong with their brains. The creationists that is, not the cat. Cats are not dumb, just different. Creationists are dumb and more.
Posted by: jase | June 9, 2008 2:37 PM
jsn,
I wish PZ would disemvowel you or just ban you outright, you sack of shit.
Roger,
you posted:"@jsn: would you enjoin a debate with a paranoid schizophrenic about how they really ARE out to get him?"
Unfortunately you were talking to someone just as idiotic as VD. jsn doesn't comprehend reason so don't waste your time.
Posted by: Bad | June 9, 2008 2:38 PM
I heartily endorse the idea of not engaging in talk radio debates: if people have decent arguments, both sides can better present their cases and counters in writing.
But folks here shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that their opponents arguments are a patently dumb and preposterous as hyperbole and content-free dismissal allows. That's a good way to get lazy and sloppy.
Posted by: Mena | June 9, 2008 2:38 PM
Damn you Rich @#2! I need gallons of eye bleach now because of that picture!
Posted by: Neil | June 9, 2008 2:39 PM
Re: Irene Delse #12
Thanks for mentioning Austin Cline's work. He only deals with one article as far as I know, but that is already more attention than Vox Day is worth, except as a case study of the kind of ridiculous, hateful dogshit that passes for conservative "thought" these days. Austin's writing is always clear, and his logic is as clean as any I've read. I don't know how he finds the time or the patience to do what he does, but it is appreciated.
Posted by: Patricia | June 9, 2008 2:40 PM
I'm with Holbach on this one. Trot out your god and I'll believe.
Tim there are plenty of verses in the bible that state how god will reappear on Earth, as well as the much ballyhoo'd grand entrance Jesus will make. I'll settle for that one. The thief in the night version wouldn't be good enough for me.
My favorite view of the Almighty is the naked backside flying Jehovah in the Sistine Chapel.
Posted by: Alex | June 9, 2008 2:43 PM
"Just curious: what kind of evidence would constitute proof of a god or set theism on a firm footing?"
But that's exactly the core of the issue. They need to produce something falsifiable. That's impossible when the argument is about something "outside" of Nature. It's a complete fallacy. It's hard to believe that anyone takes the claim seriously after spending about 2 minutes thinking it through. If a deity was to be proven, it would be shown to be a merely "physical" (read: of Nature) phenomenon. This would make the deity forever entangled with its creation, but it needs to be separate from its creation because it "existed" before it created Nature. It's a really stupifying argument.
Posted by: Chris Lamb | June 9, 2008 2:44 PM
Hi PZ,
Just wanted to say that while I certainly appreciate your reluctance to get in any kind of debate with the IDiots I really hope I'll get another chance to hear to beating down more fools like Simmons.
I know other scientists such as Dawkin's make good arguments, expressing the futility of a "debate" with such ignorance but as an atheist there's nothing quite like hearing a creationist getting their ass handed to them the way you did with Simmons. I've played clips of that to family and friends (who have no interest in either side of the issue) and have watched them laugh out loud at the verbal thrashing you delivered.
I certainly would not suggest you go on such a biased forum again as we've seen how low they'll stoop but man, hearing a creationist stumble, stutter and backtrack as you demonstrate (with remarkable eloquence) the breathtaking flaws in their arguments is something I think the world would be worse off without.
Posted by: JeffreyD | June 9, 2008 2:48 PM
I just do not understand the problem, sure it is embarrassing, but the way to deal with VD is to treat it quickly. A couple of shots of a Penicillin derivative usually cures it quickly.
What? Oh. Really? Well, the advice above might still work.
Ciao y'all
Posted by: Mena | June 9, 2008 2:52 PM
Wow, I just went over to see what ol' Vox had to say about this (I was right, he's a brave warrior and PZ is scared) and was just amazed. Sure there were some posts trying to get answers to questions that these people have never wanted to answer, but most of it was just a black hole of stupid. Yes, the stupid there is so concentrated that not a single intelligent thought comes out. Oh, and the distortions have nothing to do with time or space. Poor truth. It's always the first casualty isn't it?
Posted by: SteveG | June 9, 2008 2:53 PM
I really respect you P.Z. but I disagree with your decision here. I realize that not all venues are set up the way they really should be set up to deal with controversial discussion fairly. However, on the other hand you have an opportunity, even with the imposed handicap, to present your position to people who will otherwise not hear your position presented as it should be presented at all. Yes, the station may be an advocate of a position opposite of yours. Yes, they may bring the other guy back later to talk without criticism so he can try to clean up after you expose his errors.
But that still means you passed an opportunity by. I hope you will reconsider, if you can. I say this because I know what you can bring to the table when you are in the discussion.
I do want to tell you that my attitude toward this is influenced a bit by my own personal history. I used to be a young earth creationist. Ever since finding my way out of that morass I have always found it a bit irritating when scientists take the ivory tower escape hatch (we don't need to deal with those dirty creationists, we'll just ignore them). If scientists and others who take science seriously would have openly confronted creationists head-on early on in the early 1960s and thereafter, I sincerely believe that we would not be in the mess we're in right now, because I don't think creationism would have grown as it has. Creationism has grown up among about two generations now because it was basically allowed to grow unchecked by scientists who didn't want to "get their hands dirty" by getting down in the trenches to deal with the dirty creationists. (I'm also reminded of several years ago in Kansas when scientists en masse decided to bail out of dealing with the problem because, again, they didn't want to get their hands dirty because the venue was political rather than a proper scientific venue. This is just a wrong-headed approach to dealing with the problem. Face the problem squarely and confront them with the forthright criticism they deserve. Hit them on every front with all artillery guided shells programmed for their targets.)
At the same time I fully realize that in specific cases there are pragmatic considerations and judgment calls based on those considerations that must be made, and there will be disagreements at the margins. But I want to cast my vote for influencing effective spokesmen to jump in with both two feet - even when the venue is not ideal - in order to keep injecting some sanity into the mix of discussion in the culture.
Okay I'll shut up now.
Posted by: Sonja | June 9, 2008 2:54 PM
I suppose you don't consider "tornadoes always hit trailer parks" as credible evidence.
It's still the best I've ever heard.
Posted by: keith | June 9, 2008 2:55 PM
I don't want Pee Wee Myers to debate . I simply want him to announce that he has cancer in both balls, liver, pancreas and brain, so I can go get drunk.
Posted by: Brenda | June 9, 2008 2:58 PM
I could provide you with an actual "not insane" argument for the existence of a "God" if you like. On the proviso that it is understood I would not be making the argument as my own. I don't believe in god. I'm not sure it would be accessible to many people here though as it calls for a bit more logic and philosophy than many are accustomed to. It's basically a reductio ad absurdum against the principle of sufficient reason. Mind you, I don't think the argument succeeds, just that it is non batshit crazy like most of the low hanging fruit popular here.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 9, 2008 2:59 PM
Brenda, can you make just one post without being condescending and arrogant?
Posted by: H.H. | June 9, 2008 3:03 PM
[BrendaUpdate] More preening and insinuations she's the smartest person posting here, no actual content to support that claim. [/BrendaUpdate]
Posted by: John Huey | June 9, 2008 3:03 PM
Formal debates are fun entertainment but, really, they decide nothing except you is the better debater. I joined the debate club in high school and the biggest challenge for me was when I was saddled with the position that I didn't believe in. The idea that I could "win" a debate using arguments that were wrong but persuasive proved to me that debates are not the way to resolve an issue.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | June 9, 2008 3:03 PM
Brenda is datyew? And Keith what's stopping you? Go ahead & get drunk moron. You'll always be fergivin rite?
Posted by: dinkum | June 9, 2008 3:07 PM
Wasted a lunch hour over there.
Mena's right. "Black hole of stupid."
Debate is futile with that bunch. They don't use words such as "reason" or "evidence" the way one might expect, so there is no baseline for communication. If it doesn't confirm their presuppositions, it doesn't exist or didn't happen.
Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig likes it anyway.
Posted by: JeffreyD | June 9, 2008 3:09 PM
Oh Brenda, I forgot you were here, you may go now. Leave the shotgun.
Another popular culture reference and I do not think Brenda really has a shotgun. The rest of it stands well, though.
See you at the free clinic?
Ciao
Posted by: Bob L | June 9, 2008 3:12 PM
Keith in #48; even with testicular cancer he'd still have more manhood than you do Keith. PZ is the one out in public, not posting vicious little anonymous comments like your' cowardly ass.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | June 9, 2008 3:13 PM
We're saved! Brendas' here. Thank gooodness. All that low hanging fruit was too ripe.
Posted by: kermit | June 9, 2008 3:15 PM
Alex@42: "If a deity was to be proven, it would be shown to be a merely "physical" (read: of Nature) phenomenon. This would make the deity forever entangled with its creation, but it needs to be separate from its creation because it "existed" before it created Nature. It's a really stupifying argument."
Not necessarily stupifying. When I was a kid - long before personal computers - I envisioned Heaven and God as a sort of Uber world, the "Real" world, and ours a simulation. Think of the Matrix virtual world, and similar books and movies. The programmer (or game-player) could manifest in any way in our universe, and do *anything (as far as we could tell) with no effort. Angels and trumpets? Easy. Wipe out a whole galaxy? Sure! Just reconfigure the game.
But we have no reason to think there is anything *like this; I only claim that it is not incoherent and the physical appearance of such a god would not constrain him to material limitations - it could be an avatar of sorts. Of course, Yahweh could also be Norbert the nerd playing a game of Sims 47 in his mom's basement. Just because an entity is omnipotent doesn't mean he is admirable or trustworthy. How could we tell?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 9, 2008 3:16 PM
What a silly idea. There's nothing to debate. As soon as the creotards advance some evidence (other than "I'm ignorant and don't know X could have happened, therefore there is a god" or "you don't know how X could have happened therefore there is a god") then there's something to debate. Otherwise it's just nitpicking trench warfare attempting to put reality on trial.
Posted by: raven | June 9, 2008 3:16 PM
I just skip over anything Vox Day posts. My impression is that he is very seriously mentally ill. And just might go berserk in a Cho Seung Paul Hill kind of way.
Not that kind of VD. You treat cockroaches, ants, termites and Vox Day's with pesticides. A can of Raid should do it. Retreat if necessary because some insects are unresponsive to insecticides due to evolved resistance.
Posted by: Holbach | June 9, 2008 3:18 PM
Janine and Screech Monkey: That smarmy and smirky D'sousa does not impress me at all. I watched that debate he had with Harris and the latter was not up to D'crappas fast delivery and almost off-center topic. Harris was definitely not at his best, and I'm almost tempted to say that he might have been dwelling on buddha and did not want to be too forceful with D'crappa in keeping with the principles of that idea which will cause people of our ilk to question his veracity. I say screw that polite crap when debating with a religious retard. They can be brought down like any weak-minded cretin with the right questions and demand of proof for their insanity. Deepcrap Chopper is another fool who deserves layered scorn. Politeness has it's uses, but not when dealing with demented turnips. This reminds me of Sean Connery's remark in the "Untouchables": "If they bring a knife to a fight, you bring a gun." Give the demented rabble no quarter.
Posted by: Interrobang | June 9, 2008 3:19 PM
If scientists and others who take science seriously would have openly confronted creationists head-on early on in the early 1960s and thereafter, I sincerely believe that we would not be in the mess we're in right now
Nice victim-blaming, there, SteveG. Sheesh.
The thing is, PZ has the right of it, because you can't debate these guys: They don't debate. They lie, cheat, quote-mine, cherry-pick, stack the venue, do the Gish Gallop (spew out so many falsehoods at once that there's not enough time in a standard debate format to address them all), project, slander, and rack up full cards on the Logical Fallacy Bingo. You can't even confront them effectively, because they don't play fair, so anybody who does is at an automatic handicap.
Personally, I don't think anything scientists could have done would have helped; the resurgence in creationism has very little to do with science and very much to do with the organised campaign the US religious and political right wing mounted starting in the late 1960s to essentially undo the New Deal and the Great Society. They realised very early on that in the religious right, they had a huge bloc of easily-manipulable voters, and exploited the hell out of them while they were busily funneling the proceeds of their vast fund-raising efforts into promoting the religious right's ideology.
You want some people to blame for this, don't blame scientists, blame Richard Viguerie and Howard Ahmanson and Richard Mellon Scaife and Joseph Coors et cetera et cetera... They're the ones who made Duane Gish (and, by extension, Vox Day) possible.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 9, 2008 3:20 PM
If you have the stomach to read his book, he has tried.
I gave most of it a quick read-through a few months ago and don't recollect seeing anything remotely resembling a proof that there is a god. I saw a bunch of word-gaming about Dawkins being intellectually inconsistent, which VD seemed to think was extremely clever - but that was about it.
Maybe someone can post the page number of the proof or summarize it here for us. Only, please, not as wordily as his Voxness does.
Posted by: windy | June 9, 2008 3:21 PM
I might regret asking this, but let's say your argument works out, how is this an argument for God?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 9, 2008 3:28 PM
"VD" used to be the British term for sexually transmitted diseases ("venereal diseases"). I guess they changed it to STD in order to avoid the repellent association with the disgusting mess that goes by the name of Vox Day.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 9, 2008 3:37 PM
"We often continue believing in things--and this is true of religions as well as ideologies--long after the circumstances that gave rise to the beliefs have disappeared." - Joseph Heller.
The time for debate about God was over a long, long time ago. There's nothing to debate anymore.
We have moved light years beyond Vox Day's silly ideas about God. The only topic worth debating is why he clings to them with such stubborn ferocity.
Posted by: Alex | June 9, 2008 3:39 PM
Kermit @ #58
If this entity can change the rules of the game then there is no reliable way of testing for its existence. It this entity can't change the rules then it is not a deity. That's all. I am open to being shown the fault in that line of thinking. Testing for something outside the scope of Nature is folly. If it can be tested, it is withing the scope of Nature. This is how we determine falsifiability. This is what constitutes legitimate evidence.
Posted by: steve zara | June 9, 2008 3:42 PM
I gave most of it a quick read-through a few months ago and don't recollect seeing anything remotely resembling a proof that there is a god.
There is some confused stuff about complexity theory and fractals in the Dawkins chapter.
Posted by: Alex | June 9, 2008 3:42 PM
Pardon my typos. Geesh. Gettin' sloppy.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 9, 2008 3:43 PM
Public debating is a kind of competitive performance. As an intervarsity debater, I often had my ass handed to me when I thought I had a watertight logical argument. I was outperformed, out-anticipated, out-debated, and out-thought, that's all. On another occasion, I demolished the other side with a single joke. It has nothing to do with truth and falsehood or right and wrong.The reality is that Dinesh D'Souza is good at playing to a gallery stuffed with theists: he knows what they want to hear, he says it "passionately", and they love it. He's not interested in the fraction of the audience who'll sit there appalled at the stream of non-sequiturs and tired old bullshit, he's interested in the majority, who wouldn't recognise a logical fallacy snarling in their face after it had bitten their balls off.
What makes D'Souza an odious slimy little shit is that he pretends that debates are about having the best arguments, which is like Bill Shatner claiming to have captained a spaceship with phasers and teleporters.
Posted by: jase | June 9, 2008 3:46 PM
Keith,
In the immortal words of David Mamet: " I wouldn't piss in your mouth if your tongue was on fire."
Obviously you fell down as an example of a good christian. So here's another Point/Counterpoint quote just for you:" ...you ignorant slut. Had I been alive when your mother concieved you, I not only would have supplied the coat hanger, but the vacuum as well." G'night Dickless.
Posted by: jase | June 9, 2008 3:48 PM
Keith,
In the immortal words of David Mamet: " I wouldn't piss in your mouth if your tongue was on fire."
Obviously you fell down as an example of a good christian. So here's another SNL Point/Counterpoint quote just for you:" ...you ignorant slut. Had I been alive when your mother concieved you, I not only would have supplied the coat hanger, but the vacuum as well." G'night Dickless.
Posted by: Brenda | June 9, 2008 3:48 PM
Dennis
can you make just one post without being condescending and arrogant?
??? There was no attempt on my part to be condescending at all. I just thought you'd like something with a bit more substance than candy fluff like Vox. That crap can't be good for anyone.
windy
let's say your argument works out, how is this an argument for God?
It's not my argument, didn't I say that? All arguments for a god or gods are arguments for god whether they succeed or fail are they not? It's fairly longish and is a re-hash of Dr. Hud Hudson's article where he argues against the PSR in Australasion Journal of Philosophy: "Brute Facts" Vol. 75, No. 1, 1997: 77-82. It would also be off topic I suppose.
Posted by: jase | June 9, 2008 3:50 PM
oops, two for the price of one...
Posted by: Barklikeadog | June 9, 2008 3:52 PM
OK Brenda, stike while the iron is hot.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | June 9, 2008 3:53 PM
#73 Brenda,
"There was no attempt on my part to be condescending at all."
But this seemed kind of condescending...
"I'm not sure it would be accessible to many people here though as it calls for a bit more logic and philosophy than many are accustomed to."
Posted by: speedwell | June 9, 2008 3:53 PM
Brenda, you sound like a fashion plate trying to impress her friends by saying, "Oh, of course I own a famous diamond, but I'll never take it out of the vault."
Are you afraid that if you actually, um, speak your wonderful intellectual piece, it might get tarnished? Quit pretending to be an intellectual and pretending to have an argument. Around here we don't believe you have an argument until we see it.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | June 9, 2008 3:54 PM
That's STRIKE. sorry
Posted by: Holbach | June 9, 2008 3:55 PM
Brenda @ 49 I still maintain that you are a religionist and not an atheist as you claim. Your inadvertant references to quasi-religious and atheistic views tends to be ever so obvious to real atheists. You keep posting here because you hope to have some of our superior commenting perhaps rub off on you and allow entry to the real world of rationalism. You say you don't believe in god; I say I don't believe in a god or gods. Semantics at play here.
You say that you can provide us with an actual "not insane" argument for the existence of a"God" if you like. On the proviso that it is understood I would not be making the argument as my own. There, you proved my suspicion of you as I noted in the beginning. Your "god" is capitalized, and "not insane" argument gives you away even with the proviso that "you are not making the argument as my own". Are you conscious that you are putting forth these statements with the belief that we can not decipher the hidden bullshit behind them? Have you checked first that is Pharyngula and not the brain dead sites you should be posting to? Good grief, is there more of this to follow?
Posted by: speedwell | June 9, 2008 3:59 PM
Hmm... Vox Day supposedly has a zinger of an argument that he'll only divulge when the circumstances suit him? And Brenda is the same sort of coy tease? Coincidence?
Posted by: CortxVortx | June 9, 2008 4:01 PM
Re: #74
Because it bore repeating. I am adding that line to my arsenal!
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 9, 2008 4:02 PM
Here's another one to add to the "no debate" list:
Yomin Postelnik has proof of God
Posted by: SteveM | June 9, 2008 4:03 PM
Brenda, "I'm not sure it would be accessible to many people here though as it calls for a bit more logic and philosophy than many are accustomed to."
Sounds condescending and arrogant to me.
Posted by: Lord Zero | June 9, 2008 4:04 PM
Well, PZ, waiting for evidence to come
with open arms its the way of the scientist...
But when they are shooting you with
bullshit instead of logical factual evidence...
Anyway, i feel more anger than pity for them
actually.
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 9, 2008 4:05 PM
Thisisfunny #34,
I remember Hameroff's speech at Beyondbelief. I was particularly impressed, but intringued.
This is what he commented on his website :
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/skunk.htm
Does anybody know more about this research ? Is this interesting or another pseudo-scientific woo-woo waste of time ?
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | June 9, 2008 4:06 PM
It's the way of all ideologues, left and right, strange and charmed.
They fire shotgun blasts all over the place, each pellet requiring a whole debate all on its own. They are little more than the "fun sized" version of a chanting mob.
I recall a debate back where I got my undergraduate degree about SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative). The "pro" side was a quiet little bespectacled researcher from the university. The "anti" side was some sort of political scientist and seasoned speaker brought in from outside.
The audience was constantly cheering the anti-guy constantly and booing the pro-guy. Eventually, the "pro" professor was just shouted down by the audience if he tried to say anything. It was ugly.
But the anti-guy hardly ever even mentioned SDI or the feasibility of its technology. And when he did it was bullshit, like saying that anti-missile lasers in orbit could be used to incinerate entire cities.
Never mind that, you know, that's the designed-for functionality of the *missiles* the lasers would attempt to stop.
All he had was quips and slogans and anecdotes, and as far as I could tell I was the only one to see it. The whole audience was