He is so uncertain about his principles that he excoriates John Scalzi for daring to expose sensitive little atheist minds to ideas that might frighten them and reveal that they’re not quite as smart as Mommy always told them:
Anyway, having spent a bunch of time recently complaining about a lack of moderation among the local militant atheists, I should probably take this opportunity to calmly and moderately say: “Vox Day” is a fucking lunatic…. So, really, the chances of him making a useful and important contribution to the discourse on the question of religion are about as good as the chances of a bunny made of cheese materializing on my desk and singing “I’m a Little Teapot.”
Never mind the fact that I have refuted 36 specific atheist arguments made by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, as well as another eight commonly heard atheist arguments. Never mind that I have shown the Euthyphro Dilemma to be nothing of the sort, either in Christian terms or by Socrates’s own measure. Never mind the fact that Sam Harris has already conceded several of the points I made in the book. Never mind that an American philosopher has said that TIA raises the intellectual level of the religion/atheism discourse, (while admittedly lowering its tone at the same time). And especially never mind the fact that TIA has forced even Whatever atheists to admit that the atheist bestsellers are not works of science or reason, but mere rhetorical propaganda… and not very effective propaganda at that.
Of course, it is most likely that latter fact which so troubles the likes of Orzel. It’s getting a little tiresome listening to all of this atheist chest-thumping, forever talking about how smart they are and how terrible my arguments must be while simultaneously burying their heads in the sand and hiding from them. It’s hardly my fault that their atheist champions can’t construct a logical case against God, Christianity, religion or religious faith capable of standing up to logic and empirical evidence. I’d love to see Mr. Orzel attempt to defend Sam Harris’s Extinction Equation or Red State argument, or Daniel Dennett’s justification of a scientific division of doxastic labor. I wonder what atheists would have concluded if Christians had responded to Dawkins and company the way Mr. Orzel seems to think atheists should respond to criticism of their arguments?
I knew that many atheists are irrational, but it wasn’t until TIA was published that I learned how many of them are complete intellectual cowards. If you think you can actually refute any of the arguments made in TIA, then bring it, Orzel. If you don’t, we’ll all know that you’re just another cowardly little atheist, deluded about his own level of intelligence and capable of nothing more than barking at the big dogs from a distance.