Category: Uncategorized

The PZ Myers Memorial Debate update I

While I can’t say many of the atheists who have been demanding that I make a positive case for the existence of gods for literally years have exactly covered themselves with glory in their willingness to step into the intellectual Octagon and take their chances, I have to give due credit to Gay Germ, Mark DiStefano, Roffle, and Thrasymachus, who, unlike the rest of their fellow non-believers, were willing to publicly defend the atheist position.

However, since Dominic Saltarelli did not hesitate to step up to the plate, and because he is known and respected as an intelligent commenter who originally hails from richarddawkins.net, I have decided to accept his challenge as the atheist champion. Just to make it interesting, Dominic and I have decided that the first round will be in English, the second round in Italian, and the third round in Latin.

The first PZ Myers Memorial Debate features Dominic Saltarelli vs Vox Day and concerns the evidence and logic for the existence or nonexistence of gods.

Now, as to the judges, we appear to be rather light on agnostics, which I suppose isn’t all that surprising because agnostics are naturally less interested in the subject and can’t be bothered with it. Here are the proposed judges, and I invite the relevant groups to discuss them. Please do not suggest any new names now, as everyone has had sufficient time to come forward.

Christian: Markku, Ms Pilgrim, cl, Stilicho, Josh, Gene, Gregory, Salt.

Agnostic: Crowhill, Alexamenos

Atheist: Mark Di Stefano, Thrasymachus, Roffle, ScottScheule

Now is the time to for discussion among the three groups in order to settle upon a judge who is deemed to be representative, impartial, and intelligent. I have no preference on either the agnostic or atheist judges, but for the Christian judge, I suggest that cl might be ideal because he is not a reader of this blog. However, I leave that for the Christians here to decide. After the three judges are selected, I will ask Dominic if he has any objection to any of them, and then we can move onto a discussion on how the scoring will be done. After that, Dominic and I will send our first round submissions, (which will consist of an initial statement and a response to the other’s statement), to the judges; the following day all four pieces will be posted here for general perusal. The judges will be expected to post their scores, along with any relevant comments supporting those scores, within two days of receiving the submissions.

E se non è gia tutto chiaro, la cosa delle lingue era solo un scherzo. Naturalmente faremmo tutto il dibattimento in latina, come i clàssici.

To protect and be serviced

No wonder walking the beat is so exhausting:

Combining data on police arrests from the Chicago Police Department and the results of the authors’ own survey, the study estimates that prostitutes are arrested only once in every 450 tricks, but only one in ten of these arrests will lead to a prison sentence. Johns are arrested even less frequently, with only one john arrested for every 1,200 tricks.

But perhaps more striking is the rate at which a police officer can extort free sex from a prostitute. Levitt and Venkatesh found that about one in 30 tricks performed by a prostitute is a freebie to the police in return for avoiding arrest. In other words, a prostitute is more likely to have sex with an on-duty police officer than to be arrested by one.

You know, it’s remarkable that all those good men on the police force never appear to notice that tiny number of bad apples in their midst boffing all the hookers.

They can’t read, they can’t write

Naturally, it’s the perfect time to teach them quasi-scientific myths:

Children as young as five should have lessons in the basic principles of evolution, a leading atheist has said. Professor Richard Dawkins claims Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is so important that every primary school in Britain should have it on their curriculum, he told The Times.

The evolutionary biologist believes youngsters are able to grasp the basic principles of the theory which underpin the study of biology.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear an evolutionist posturing as a critical thinker. This should remove any last vestiges of doubt that Dawkins is no longer even pretending to be a scientist, but is nothing more than a full-fledged pedopropagandist for atheism and scientific materialism. It’s also amusing to see his insistence that children who can’t read can grasp the basic principles of the theory while his acolytes insist that university educated adult Mensans cannot.

Even if it is 100 percent true, evolution isn’t important at all. Even if every single transition from amoeba to homo sapiens sapiens could be mapped out precisely, this will have literally zero material impact on anyone, except for a very small number of professionals working in the field. But it is somewhat amusing to think of what the graduates of schools in which 12 years of what passes for education are dedicated to recycling, gay indigenous women’s studies, and evolution in lieu of reading, writing and math would look like. Only one thing is certain. A more sanctimonious and less useful collection of little bastards would be hard to find.

Anyhow, neither evolution nor science, except a single course on general science, should be taught in high schools. Teaching science is a complete waste of time at that level, much less doing so any earlier, and it is quite obvious, from talking to any high school graduate, that practically none of the students who are presently forced to sit through science instruction retain any as much as a genuinely interested ten year old.

You know, I always liked her

But after seeing this, I have to say that if it weren’t for SB, I’d be forced to conclude Mila Kunis is, in fact, the Platonic ideal of woman:


Lots of women pretend to like games and sports since it’s an easy and intelligent way of winning favor with men. But it’s never hard to tell who is serious and who isn’t. It is interesting how your guild gets to know you over time without having to meet you. My old guild used to refer to me as Shakespeare after the incident when I happened to offer a some appropriate commentary concerning the amusingly panicked flight of a gnome from an Ursan village.

Mailvox: the benefits of post-mortem battery

RM appreciates the number performed on the Dead Horse of 2004:

Back in ’04 you went adnausem on “Me so Michelle” about why the INJ could never have invaded the US. The other day I read a post on a blog about the “Rifle behind every blade of grass” quote attributed to Yamamoto. I confidently called BS based on your blog from ’04 based on what I learned. Took little other than a brief search of WND archives to get the pertinent facts from a column.

And here some of you thought it was a wasted month!

WND column

The Christian Nation

“While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all the confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any farther comment. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.”
– Alexis de Tocqueville, “American Institutions and Their Influence,” 1851

One of the repetitive themes that developed in The Irrational Atheist over the course of its writing is the profound historical unreliability of atheists. Atheists, particularly the aggressive variety, tend to repeat the same talking points over and over with such assurance that the average historically illiterate individual, regardless of his religious faith, has a tendency to accept them at face value. But this is foolish, as historical arguments presented by atheists almost invariably rely upon taking one small piece of historical evidence and twisting it beyond all recognition while simultaneously ignoring the larger part of the historical record.

Mailvox: a skeptic’s case

EG wonders how I would go about attempting to defend evolutionary theory:

Let’s assume that you were not skeptical of evolution by (probably) natural selection, and let assume that you wanted to try to give a defense of the ‘theory’. How would you proceed to salvage the theory and make it eminently attractive to the skeptics and the deniers?

The first thing I would do is walk through the logic of the theory in reference to itself alone. By this, I mean not proposing it as a more sensible alternative to something else or getting sidetracked in discussing other matters. For example, no amount of Keynesian critique will succeed in establishing relevance of the Austrian Business Cycle. This should allow one to identify the key problems that require empirical support.

The second thing I would do is marshal the empirical facts. This is a methodical, mathematical approach that appears to be foreign to most biologists, for example, my erstwhile biology tutor was outright confused when I asked him what the average rate of evolution was, even though, if evolution did indeed take place, logic dictates that rate must exist as a matter of historical fact and be accordingly calculable according to a variety of metrics. Of course, given the poor performance of econometrics versus Austrian logic and behavioral empiricism, perhaps we should not expect too much from any theoretical evolumetrics.

The third step is comparing the logic with the metrics, to show that both are well in accord with each other despite the unavoidable gaps in the latter, and how the combination serves to provide meaningful and testable predictions even though it is presently incomplete. While this wouldn’t serve as a proof, it would amount to a reasonable working assumption.

Needless to say, this bears almost no similarity to the “assum, imagine, and apply” method which is utilized by most advocates of evolutionary theory. Because they have no respect for logic and subscribe to Bacon’s dogmatic empiricism, they begin with the second step rather than the first and prevent themselves from being able to progress to the third step. Their tactical problem is that while scientific empiricism works very well within small time limits, it is like trying to use a microscope to look at a blue whale when considering matters that stretch outside an observable time scale. Thus they are forced to use logic without ever admitting it or having any familiarity with it, usually with the consequences one would expect.

And their strategic problem is that in most cases, evolutionary theory is intended as a weapon to serve their real object, which is the advancement of materialism, Dennett’s skyhook. The reasonable working assumption that my method could theoretically provide simply isn’t enough to serve their larger purposes, which tends to support their blind adherence to the purely empirical and deceitful insistence that the unprovable has, in fact, been proved.

Running, running

After having already announced he will no longer debate Creationists, apparently PZ Myers felt it necessary to explain, yet again, why he will not be debating me at any point now or in the future:

Who is Vox Day? He’s a recipient of wingnut welfare, a pretentious nobody who had a rich and rotten crook for a father and who writes cheesy fantasy novels in between penning cheesy political discourse. I’m not some bigshot in my field, but I can recognize an ambitious nobody with nothing to offer, so no, I won’t ever be debating that clown.

What an astonishing surprise! I find it totally indicative of his characteristic laziness with regards to facts that Paul Zachary should assert I am a recipient of “wingnut welfare”, as if that was relevant anyhow. First, it is public knowledge that I had a record contract, a music publishing contract, a book contract, a national syndication contract, and three different million dollar game contracts before I turned 28. None of these had anything to do with Daddy’s computer graphics hardware company, which I left after two years of working there after college. I never needed any welfare, and unlike Paul Zachary, I never lived off the taxpayer either.

Those who like to imagine my father’s investment in WND had anything to do with my column being published there are clearly finding it convenient to forget that I was nationally syndicated by the syndicate arm of the San Francisco Chronicle, that bastion of wingnuttery, five years before I wrote my first column for WND.

What the butterfly collector is too stubborn to accept is that his continued evasion of my two challenges on the existence of gods and evolution will always haunt his intellectual credibility as a would-be spokesman for atheism and scientific materialism. I have heard from numerous atheists who find his intellectual cowardice to be more than a little troubling given his usual tendency to create conflict rather than to avoid it. And he has handed an out to every single individual he ever hopes to challenge in the future. Why should they debate a nobody like him, a clown who isn’t even a bigshot in his own field?

As for the PZ Myers Memorial Debate, we are still in search of an atheist to champion the argument that the logic and evidence for the nonexistence of gods is stronger than the logic and evidence for the existence of gods. It is certainly informative to see how many atheists do not appear to believe they are able to effectively make this case; in light of this, many Christians may find this to be a useful tactical approach when confronted by aggressive atheists in the future. This tends to confirm my previous observations that while atheists like to challenge the beliefs of others, they are very ill-prepared, and in many cases downright unwilling, to defend their own. So, if you want to shut them up, simply go on the attack. They’ll run away with alacrity.

When the criticism of my WND columns on Pharyngula was first brought to my attention, I referred to Paul Zachary as Pharyngurl because I genuinely thought he was a woman on the basis of the arguments he was presenting. Years later, it is highly amusing indeed to see that he still runs like a girl.

Kelo, six years later

A classic example of why government should never be permitted to seize private property for any reason:

Kelo Aftermath — The Final Indignity

As regular readers of this blog know, the redevelopment project that gave rise to the wretched U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, never came about. In spite of the city’s boasting about the quality of its plans, nothing was ever built on the Fort Trumbull site from which the city displaced an entire unoffending, well maintained lower middle-class neighborhood. Though the formal taking took place in 2000 and the U.S. Supreme Court gave its approval to it in 2005, the city’s project has been a failure, with 91 acres of waterfront property sitting there empty and overgrown by weeds.

Still, despite the loss of the tax base, the forced seizure of the neighborhood was probably worth it. After all, even weeds are to be preferred to those ghastly lower middle-class people who drink beer, call in to vote on American Idol, and indulge in lawn ornaments. Brrrrrrrr! But wouldn’t it be tremendously interesting to see local governments start applying Kelo to eliminate low tax revenue neighborhoods that just happen to be vibrant?

Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it

Libertarians hunt humans

It’s true, we do, at least those of us who can afford it. But in our defense, the most dangerous game does make for excellent blood sport. There’s nothing like tracking down a frightened, naked liberal you’ve given a twelve hour start, following the crimson trail left by her bleeding feet, then luring her from her hiding place with a soft call of “universal health care”. The look on her face through the scope is always hilarious; sometimes it’s even hard to make the kill shot because you’re shaking too hard with laughter.

Libertarians also drink expensive wine out of human skulls. In fact, that’s what inspired Byron to write “Lines Inscribed Upon A Cup Formed From A Skull”, only the real lines were quotes from Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard.