wEz notices events following a predictable course:
I’ve noticed an interesting trend; whether its on dawkins.net or Orzel’s science blog, etc. Regardless of the site (and i’ve read most of them all the way through), the same story tends to play itself out with a bunch of hard-core atheists who proceed to rip Vox with:
1) ad hominem attacks on his credibility
2) strawmen arguments and twisting his words or positions
3) simple “passing by” personal insults, void of wanting any serious deliberation of the facts.Here’s how it all usually goes down:
Most of the pawn atheists will mock and ridicule Vox, after which, a few swoop in and question his character by means of ad hominem, while a couple of others bust out strawmen based on fellow reader assessments since they themselves haven’t read the book. Now after this, the new atheists feel all high-and-mighty for a while until Vox decides to show up and go toe-to-toe with them on their own turf (just like in TIA). At this point, most of the sheep who were ridiculing him fall back in line with the herd once they notice Vox is a heavyweight.
Still, some think they can take on the challenge, then proceed in getting bitch-slapped thoroughly before ultimately conceding via KO, or passively wilting away after a round or two. The ones who are still standing at this point are either weak quiet bystanders, or fellow atheists unwilling to engage in their inevitable pummeling (mainly due to pride), by saying Vox and his book are both ultimately frivolous to atheism in general.
As always, I welcome any challenge. I don’t mind anyone claiming that I’ve gotten something wrong in TIA, but if you’re going to make that claim then you’d better be prepared to back it up. Of course, if I am the idiot and lunatic that so many atheists repeatedly insist I am, it should be a piece of cake for you to demolish my arguments.