Author: VD

Just one example of why I enjoy the religion/atheism discourse:

VD: “This [move from “error theory” to “compartmental “theory”] hasn’t yet made its way down to the run-of-the-mill internet atheists, whose primary form of “debate” still consists of calling people stupid despite the fact that all of the available evidence demonstrates rather conclusively that the objects of their ridicule are, as a point of fact, rather more intelligent than the atheist himself.”

Skepdude: “Personally from what’ I’ve seen, atheist bloggers mainly go after specific behaviors rather than people.”

Skepdude’s commenter: “Vox Day is a complete idiot. Don’t even waste time or typing on him.”

I suppose this is the point where, if I was an atheist or a left-liberal, I would be expected to make use of that silly, self-aggrandizing, overused, and oft-unjustified metaphor: “the X, it burns”. But it doesn’t, you know, it’s just moderately amusing. Note that I didn’t refer solely to “atheist bloggers”, but rather “internet atheists”, which of course includes both commenters and bloggers.

Anyhow, enough about that. This would probably be as good time as any to inform you that TIA will be published in paperback next year in the USA, the UK, and a number of overseas markets. I don’t know which languages yet, but I’m most interested in seeing an Italian edition published, for obvious reasons. I plan to do a moderate revision of the structure, which, as many of you noted, takes about two chapters too long to get to the heart of the matter. I also hope to fill in some of the bits I feel I’ve missed and shore up any perceived weak spots. So, in order to accomplish the latter, I’d be most appreciative if the Ilk would remind me of any common atheist arguments I happened to miss in Chapter XIV, Occam’s Chainsaw. I already know that “Extraordinary Claims” and “Burden of Proof” need to be added, while the “Argument from Evidence” could use the inclusion of a dictionary definition or two, but if anything else needs to be there – or if any atheist reading this feels he’s got a particularly effective argument even if it doesn’t happen to be one of the common ones – just let me know.

I’ll have other requests as I go along with the revisions, but at this point, I’d just like to make sure that all of the relevant arguments are included. I should probably mention that I’m also writing that other book I’d previously mentioned, which will appear before the TIA paperback, so forgive me if I don’t always readily respond to your suggestions.

The Magic Negro or your lying eyes?

The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets. “It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah,” said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The hilarious thing is that this statement just undercut all of the Obamatons who have been defending this, um, nonexistent bow as being totally appropriate.

“I have no doubt that if Obama had refused to bow to the King he would have been criticized for cultural insensitivity.”

“Bowing is showing respect. Our prez calling for an end to nuclear weapons and showing respect to Muslim leaders? These are things that I could only have dreamed about the past 8 years.”

“Obama is one of the brightest minds to enter the White House in a very long time. He was on a multi-country tour with so many new people to meet and the best you can do is come up with a video of him trying to be respectful.”

It’s hard to stay on track when the conductor keeps changing the beat on you.

All right, we’ll call it a draw:

First, Mr. Vox wants to take a shot at my challenge of his claim that they (religious) are more intelligent than us (atheists). While it is quite ridiculous to make that statement for any group in relation to any other group, nevertheless he clearly means to say that religious people are smarter than the atheists.

Read it again, o valiant black knight of atheism. The fact that I have repeatedly explained, both in TIA and on this blog, why atheists are more intelligent on average than theists, is sufficient to demolish your attempt to construct this demonstrable strawman.

Basically Vox thinks that “I think so” should be considered good evidence. Well, personally I would expect something a little more firm such as say, at the very least, an article in a major wold newspaper, referring to some survey/study with a title of something like, oh I don’t know “Intelligent people ‘less likely to believe in God” perhaps? Or this one maybe? Now that is what I would consider as evidence, but Vox’s word, unfortunately does not count. Sorry Vox but that’s just the way it is and it doesn’t matter how much you deny it, evidence will never be defined as one person’s word in any dictionary!…

No Mr Day, having strict standards for evidence is not a shortcoming of skeptics and atheists as you would like to suggest, at the contrary it is a virtue. Some very intelligent men have said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and is there a more extraordinary claim than God? Vox uses the typical strategy of most anti-scientists, more specifically trying to use the everyday use definitions of certain words in an effort to minimize or avoid the more rigorous requirements that a scientific approach demands.

Vox thinks absolutely nothing of the kind. I’ve already pointed out that, as per the usual First Law Fandango, Skepdude doesn’t even understand what I wrote in the first place. Now he’s quibbling with the dictionary definition of evidence. Again, that’s fairly par for the course when dealing with a run-of-the-mill internet atheist. An atheist can reasonably attempt to argue that there is no “scientific evidence” for God. An atheist who attempts to argue that there is no “evidence” for God is not only an ignorant and maleducated fool, he is very easily shown to be an incorrect, ignorant, and maleducated fool. No one is permitted to completely redefine standard, well-defined words in the interest of supporting their arguments.

So did he make an assertion that atheism has been around for a long time? Sure he did. But did he not also call all atheists fools? See it is right there, in the middle of the second sentence. He is paraphrasing the Bible, but it is clear, I think, that this is a statement that he agrees with. How do I know he accepts what the Bible says on the issue? Because he is using that paraphrased verse to support his statement, namely that “Atheism will always exist”. You don’t use an untrue statement to support your own claim now do you? So I don’t know why Vox is embarrassing himself implying that he doesn’t think we’re all fools over here. I don’t know what Vox is thinking. Pointing at claim/statement #1 does not negate that you made claim/statement #2.

It is entirely obvious that Skepdude doesn’t know what Vox is thinking; one of his problems is that he keeps claiming, incorrectly, that he does. The veritable farrago of First Law Fandangos raises the question if he is even potentially capable of understanding what Vox is writing, let alone thinking. A single “claim/statement” is obviously not the same thing as “a primary form of debate” so it’s not possible to even begin build a theoretical case for hypocrisy here, let alone present a convincing one. As for the request for evidence of comparative intelligences, I respectfully submit that this pair of exchanges should more than suffice even without the previous compendium of readily available documentary evidence in support of the same conclusion. One final note – on what internet do atheists only describe theistic beliefs as stupid rather than the theists themselves?

UPDATE: Skepdude simply can’t figure it out:

How is it that you think that atheist are on average smarter than theists, but then turn around that the internet atheists are less intelligent than the theists?

Because internet atheists are a small subset of all atheists, and the theists they make a habit of calling stupid – the specific objects of ridicule listed were Alister McGrath, Dinesh D’Souza, and me – are an extremely small subset of theists.

As for the “challenge”, Skepdude’s argument(s) clearly qualified for Strawman under step 1 of the Wikipedia definition. He repeatedly presented “a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position” because, among other things, he failed to understand who I was describing when I wrote “the objects of their ridicule”. I even provided three examples, which made it clear that I was not talking about all of the nearly 6 billion theists on the planet, but rather a specific subset of theists who have written responses to the New Atheists. Consider what we already know about all three theists specifically mentioned: they are all authors who have been published at least six times apiece and their books clearly indicate a level of intelligence that ranges somewhere between +2 and +4SD above the norm. All three attended elite universities and have the track record of tangible success expected of highly intelligent individuals. One is even confirmed at least a +2SD IQ due to the Mensa requirements….

On the other hand, the inability of run-of-the-mill internet atheists to demonstrate even basic reading comprehension skills, combined with their predilection for spelling, grammatical, and logical errors as well as their easily verifiable ignorance of basic dictionary terms, indicates intelligence levels ranging from -1SD to +2SD. While we don’t have absolute proof that Skepdude or any of the Internet atheists he mentioned don’t have 175+ IQs or that McGrath doesn’t have an 85 IQ – for that we’d need to collect the confirmed IQ results for everyone concerned – we do possess a rather large body of documentary evidence that permits one to reach the logical conclusion that I did: run-of-the-mill internet atheists regularly describe certain theists who are observably more intelligent than they are as stupid. Now, Skepdude may not be guilty of explicitly engaging in this practice, but, as I pointed out, his commenters clearly are. Skepdude even implicitly indulges in this practice himself, as the idea that I, or anyone else with a confirmed 132 IQ or better, require further education in order to understand something as simple as a strawman argument would be insulting if it wasn’t so ludicrous.

I already explained this in my first post, but it seems that some people require it to be spelled out for them. Which is not a problem, but, it should be noted, also tends to support my original point. Skepdude could have easily saved himself a considerable amount of Strawman construction had he simply elected to ask “specifically what do you mean by objects of ridicule” rather than leaping at the perceived opportunity to hurl charges of error and hypocrisy. But, this is the internet, and would-be critics seldom look before they leap.

And yes, I am now officially bored with the subject. No doubt you are too.

In which all Minnesota residents are cordially invited to enumerate their reasons for why the Star Tribune should not be saved. These can be posted in the comments there or emailed to me; ideally I’d like to post a new one every day. There’s really a whole host of reasons, but let’s face it, at the end of the day, this is the news organization that voluntarily inflicted Nick Coleman’s column on Minnesotans for years.

Bankruptcy is too kind a fate.

Minnesota bloggers who would like to be listed on the Kill the Strib blogroll should send me the name and URL of their blog. And don’t forget to vote!

I wonder how many more of these cases will happen before it occurs to womens’ rights advocates that perhaps stacking the deck in favor of female divorcees may not actually be in the best interests of women. A house, full custody, and an oversized child-support subsidy isn’t worth much to a dead woman:

A man facing a divorce trial shot and killed his estranged wife, their teenage daughter and two other relatives in rural north Alabama before returning to his home in a nearby town and killing himself, authorities said Tuesday. Kevin Garner’s body was found Tuesday afternoon near his Priceville home, which burned to the ground overnight. His divorce trial was to start Wednesday.

The current system of assigning the maximum possible blame and financial responsibility to the male half of the divorcing couple is pure madness. It simply has to end before it tears civil society into shreds. I was in a fantasy football league – not the VPFL – with one man whose ex-wife was a useless and unemployed mother less capable of raising children than the average wolf. She wanted out of the marriage in order to pursue the fun that she felt she’d missed out on in her younger days, and was initially happy to accept a reasonably equitable joint-custody arrangment that gave the man plenty of time with his kids.

However, once the ex-wife belatedly realized that the gravy train was over, she went out of her way to provoke a confrontation at his house after surreptitiously arranging to send the potential witness away by lying about one of her ex-relations. She called the police because he yelled at her for violating the custody order and trespassing in his house, the man got slapped with a restraining order, had his custody suspended, and couldn’t see his kids without supervision for a few weeks. The Family Court judge was completely uninterested in hearing any testimony about her provable deceit, or indeed, hearing any testimony about her at all. Fortunately, the woman was ultimately unsuccessful in her attempt to reduce his custody or increase his forced contribution to her lifestyle. But if she’d succeeded, I wouldn’t have found it impossible to understand if he elected to respond by blowing the bitch’s head off.

When the courts will not give justice, the Devil is always pleased to proffer revenge.

In which the nearly irresistible Brontë reference is manfully resisted:

Ann Althouse, 58, is a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison who blogs about politics, law and cultural whatnots in a sharp, occasionally ribald tone. She admires Rush Limbaugh, voted for George Bush in ’04 and Barack Obama in ’08. She attracts derision and applause from 500,000 monthly visitors. The jeers spiked ever since the March 22 announcement on her blog that this divorced mother of two adult sons, stalwartly single for more than 20 years, is engaged to a commenter known simply as “Meade.” Except for her closest readers, the blogosphere was taken by surprise.

Good for Ann. And, for that matter, Meade. I don’t think it speaks well of Kaus, Sullivan, or anyone else who mocks the upcoming nuptials. People meet in all sorts of varying circumstances, many stranger than this, and at least the medium of a blog provides two individuals the ability to get to know each other on a philosophical plane without the usual fog of pheromones, looks, and other physical complications obscuring the larger issues.

So, I hope you will join me in wishing the two of them very well.

A woman has the bright idea to hire only women for her new media startup. Hilarity ensues:

Five years ago, I was working as a TV executive producer making shows for top channels such as MTV, and based in Los Angeles. It sounds like a dream job and it could have been – if I’d been male. Working in TV is notoriously difficult for women. There is a powerful old boys’ network, robust glass ceiling and the majority of bosses are misogynistic males.

Gradually, what had started out as a daydream – wouldn’t it be great if there were no men where I worked? – turned into an exciting concept. I decided to create the first all-female production company where smart, intelligent, career-orientated women could work harmoniously, free from the bravado of the opposite sex.

Anyone who has any experience of women in the office can probably guess how well the experiment worked out, but the story really has to be read in order to appreciate the comedic fullness of the disaster. Her conclusion: “[I]f I were to do it again, I’d definitely employ men. In fact, I’d probably employ only men.”

Now, I don’t mind employing women myself; in certain detail-oriented roles I tend to prefer them. There are no shortage of women who make excellent employees, especially those whose personal strengths fit their responsibilities well. But these women usually tend to get along well with men and have no problem being held to objective standards. The problem is that the pettiness and narcissism to which many women are prone is an absolute workplace cancer, especially if a woman with such tendencies finds herself in a position of power over anyone.

Whoschad and wife make the move:

I’ve been a reader of your blog for quite awhile now. Anyway, my wife and I decided to take the plunge and homeschool our kids. I remember you mentioning something about Spacebunny having some online resources for this, but I couldn’t find anything posted when I looked.

Congratulations, I very much doubt you will regret it. I’m sure a lot of people will have suggestions for you, and SB also has the aforementioned discussion group. As for online resources, here are a few little reading aids.

It’s hardly shocking that economists are taking a dim view of the TARP program:

The government’s official view that toxic assets are incorrectly priced due to illiquidity “fire sales” is wrong, a new study by Harvard and Princeton finance professors suggests…. This latest paper effectively demolishes the “fire sale” view. It draws three important conclusions.

Many banks are now insolvent.
“…many major US banks are now legitimately insolvent. This insolvency can no longer be viewed as an artifact of bank assets being marked to artificially depressed prices coming out of an illiquid market. It means that bank assets are being fairly priced at valuations that sum to less than bank liabilities.”

Supporting markets in toxic assets has no purpose other than transfering money from taxpayers to banks. 
“…any taxpayer dollars allocated to supporting these markets will simply transfer wealth to the current owners of these securities.”

We’re making it worse.
“…policies that attempt to prevent a widespread mark-down in the value of credit-sensitive assets are likely to only delay – and perhaps even worsen – the day of reckoning.”

The Wall Street bailout was never about stabilizing the economy, much less fixing it. It was simply a means of insulating the banks from the consequences of their actions and the consequences that their actions have had on the economy. Years before the current crisis became evident, it was apparent that Washington runs for the benefit of the bankers, not the electorate. Which is why, as more and more economists are coming to realize, it simply isn’t going to work.

“What the Obama team is proposing is disconcertingly similar to the actions of Japanese Prime Ministers Hashimoti, Obuchi, and Mori in 1995 and 1998: Rather than ask the legislature for straightforward recapitalization money, you have the political leadership preferring to risk overpaying current owners of toxic assets rather than forcing sales. For all of Japan’s supposed intervention in markets, its government still lacked the stomach for taking over banks, let alone closing them.”

Keen economic historians will probably recall that Japan was not exactly known for its economic growth during this time. This isn’t to say that I support nationalizing the banks, as the UK has done, only that nationalization is actually a less disastrous approach.

JW asks if he is wasting his time protesting with the Tea Party:

What are your thoughts of the coming tax day tea parties on April 15th? I know that “protests” are nearly always irrelevant for creating change, but I also think that it is one the very few things a can do to create change despite the very insignificant chance that it will change anything. Perhaps a blog post in the near future can help provide so more outside insight on whether or not I am wasting my time standing outside with a stick and John Galt T-shirt.

Yes, I’m not a big fan of protests myself, as to me they usually appear to be events that are manufactured in order to provide an rationale for pushing something that is in the works anyhow. But the reaction of the media in attempting to bury these anti-government protests indicates that they are important; if nothing else, it makes it clear to the rest of the nation and the world that America is not supinely submitting to its financial rape.

Will it change anything? I don’t see how it really can. Washington demonstrated its complete contempt for public opinion in forcing the House of Representatives to vote until it got it right on the Wall Street bailout despite the overwhelming opposition of the American public, and it’s no secret that I have long believed the die is already cast. But, is it worthwhile? I think that it probably is, especially for those conservatives and Republicans who rightly feel conscience-stricken about putting Bush and the GOP into power in 2000. Even if such protests are little more than the difference between striking out while swinging and getting caught looking, the distinction is one of character and conscience. Also, as Daniel Hannan pointed out last week, you just never know what is going to be the last straw on the camel’s back.

So, I fully support the Tea Party movement, in fact, I think that would be an excellent name for a third party not just focused on limited government, but genuinely limiting the size and scope of government.