What do you think?
Rate this book
The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens
The Irrational Atheist is not a book about God, but about those who seek to replace Him. In this devastating critique of the anti-theistic arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michel Onfray, Day skillfully demonstrates to even the most skeptical reader that the New Atheists are no champions of Reason, but rather abandon Reason in their arguments against religion. Drawing upon history and philosophers from Socrates to Tupac Shakur, Vox Day combines intellectual precision with wit in presenting a powerful defense of religion’s rightful place in modern society.
305 pages, Hardcover
First published February 1, 2008
57 people are currently reading
481 people want to read
About the author
Vox Day
68 books450 followers Theodore Beale does much of his writing under the pseudonym Vox Day. Three-time Hugo Award nominee Vox Day writes epic fantasy as well as non-fiction about religion, philosophy, and economics. His literary focus is military realism, historical verisimilitude, and plausible characters who represent the full spectrum of human behavior. He is a professional game designer who speaks four languages and a three-time Billboard top 40 recording artist.
He maintains a pair of popular blogs, Vox Popoli and Alpha Game, which between them average over 20 million annual pageviews. He is a Native American and his books have been translated into ten languages.
He is the Lead Editor of Castalia House, and is also, with Tom Kratman, the co-creator of the military science fiction anthology series, RIDING THE RED HORSE.
He maintains a pair of popular blogs, Vox Popoli and Alpha Game, which between them average over 20 million annual pageviews. He is a Native American and his books have been translated into ten languages.
He is the Lead Editor of Castalia House, and is also, with Tom Kratman, the co-creator of the military science fiction anthology series, RIDING THE RED HORSE.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
March 23, 2008
This guy says things like "the Christian God, the god towards whom Dawkins directs the great majority of his attacks, makes no broad claims to omniscience". His "logic" is all very loose. A lot of the book seems to assume that people are idiots,and they must be if he's smarter than them, which he also seems to assume- he's in mensa, after all. He seems to make fun or scoff at people who never graduated high school a lot, but then he also implies that educational degrees are no more than "pieces of paper collected from paper-selling institutions". His arguments are petty and not logically sound. His chapter "occam's chainsaw" he describes atheist arguments for why god does not exist. The major argument I've heard is lack of evidence. He decides this is a good rebuttal to there being no evidence of God: "But then, there is no scientific evidence that your mother exists, either, much less that she loves you." You've seen your mom, you've hugged your mom, and your mom has told you she loves you. Those are all physically measurable things. An objective observer would come to the same conclusion. That is what scientific evidence means.
Oh well, I got a good laugh out of the book.
Oh well, I got a good laugh out of the book.
August 11, 2010
What a load of crap.
February 16, 2016
If someone feels moved to go to great lengths to tell you that they're a genius -- they're probably not. A membership in Mensa does not bestow wisdom either.
I concur that Dawkins is an arrogant jerk, but so is Vox Day, and he has rather less to show for. I find Christian dominionism as attractive as the equivalent Islamic version -- thanks, but no thanks to arguments that claim some inherent superiority elevating Christians over anyone else. This book is wholly self-indulgent, and argues in bad faith (there is no actual dichotomy between strong atheism and evangelical Christianity; the world of spirituality and morality encompasses many more choices). If you only ever discuss your faith with arrogant jerks who haven't actually thought through the arguments they're regurgitating wholesale from prominent new atheists, then this will give you ammunition to engage in flamewars with them on the internet -- if that is your life's goal, by all means, go ahead and waste your energy.
If you've long grown beyond that, pass on this book. Seriously, if you are a believer, why do you even care? No atheist will knock on your door trying to convert you, nobody's absence of faith impacts yours at all. And if you take the fight to them, you will convince nobody with these arguments -- atheists simply do not accept them as superior because you are arguing from an authority that is as unreal to them as unicorns. Read some of the great religious thinkers instead, it'll be more personally rewarding. Same goes for fellow atheists, actually. Don't go for the low-hanging fruit to hone your thinking skills.
I concur that Dawkins is an arrogant jerk, but so is Vox Day, and he has rather less to show for. I find Christian dominionism as attractive as the equivalent Islamic version -- thanks, but no thanks to arguments that claim some inherent superiority elevating Christians over anyone else. This book is wholly self-indulgent, and argues in bad faith (there is no actual dichotomy between strong atheism and evangelical Christianity; the world of spirituality and morality encompasses many more choices). If you only ever discuss your faith with arrogant jerks who haven't actually thought through the arguments they're regurgitating wholesale from prominent new atheists, then this will give you ammunition to engage in flamewars with them on the internet -- if that is your life's goal, by all means, go ahead and waste your energy.
If you've long grown beyond that, pass on this book. Seriously, if you are a believer, why do you even care? No atheist will knock on your door trying to convert you, nobody's absence of faith impacts yours at all. And if you take the fight to them, you will convince nobody with these arguments -- atheists simply do not accept them as superior because you are arguing from an authority that is as unreal to them as unicorns. Read some of the great religious thinkers instead, it'll be more personally rewarding. Same goes for fellow atheists, actually. Don't go for the low-hanging fruit to hone your thinking skills.
June 14, 2008
For the most part, Day attempts to show the factual errors in many of the claims made by the new atheists. He succeeds.
This doesn't do much for me. I'm not saying that this is wrong, in principle. But it doesn't move the discussion where it needs to go, in my opinion. Rather than looking at the statistics of, say, how many wars have been caused by religion, one can simply point out that even if this were true the Bible claims that men are sinners and will do evil things. So, to point out that men do evil things is confirmation of the biblical claims about anthropology rather than disconfirmation.
I'd also rather the discussion go to the philosophical presuppositions rather than ending at statistics. I know Day said this wasn't his goal...but.
He also seemed a bit too dismissive of a few theological arguments viz. the ontological argument, experiential argument, etc. These are much stronger than he leads on. Furthermore, some of them need not be taken as reasons for the unbeliever to believe but, rather, reasons why the believer believes. In other words, they can serve as reasons or evidence for the believer, thus serving a value for him.
One of the reviewers below commented that we do have scientific evidence that our mother exists. Well, we don't. Saying that, "You've seen your mom, you've hugged your mom, and your mom has told you she loves you," doesn't count as scientific evidence. Hugging some person who says she is your mom doesn't entail that she is. And, furthermore, in this objection, since the Bible is taken to be God's revelation that he exists and loves us, then I guess we do have "scientific evidence" that God exists and loves us--he told us he did! Now, if the reviewer says: "But you can't trust that the Bible is his word," then you can't trust your "mother's" word. Furthermore, why should I believe you have a mother? You could say that you have seen her. Okay, but then people say Jesus, who was God in human flesh. So, we could just ask them. if you are saying that everyone must personally see another's mom in order to conclude they have a mother, then I must believe that 99% of the people I see don't have mothers!
Unfortunately, the reviewer misunderstands Day's argument. Day states that: "While it is reasonable to state that you have not seen any evidence for God's existence, it is illogical and incorrect to assert that no such evidence exists" (IA, 253).
Okay, so Day is clearly implying that he believes said evidence does exist. He says it is fine to say that you have not seen any. What would one "base" this claim on? Says Day: "Once can certainly state that no scientific evidence for God exists, based on its absence from scientific literature" (ibid, p. 253)
So, are we following? Day is saying that the person who says "there is no evidence" is justified in saying that in the sense that said person has not seen the evidence for God in the "scientific literature." That would be the published journals, books, etc.
Day then goes on to rightfully claim: "But then there is no scientific evidence that your mother exists, much less that she loves you" (ibid, 253). Here's the point: Sticking with Day's context, he is claiming that there is no scientific evidence that your mother exists "based on" the scientific journals!
Day isn't claiming that there is no scientific evidence that could be produced whatever. Just as he wasn't admitting that about God. His context is that one can't reason from the evidence that they've seen to the conclusion that there is no evidence whatever therefore we should suspend belief in God, or else the person, if consistent, would have to reason that way with respect to their own mother.
And, the broader evidentialist constraint as applied to religion is false. There are many things that we don't have propositional evidence for, such as: the existence of a past, other minds, the reliability of memory, sense perception, etc. Moreover, the evidentialist theists boils down to an infinite regress. If you must have evidence for any belief to be rationally held, then what is the evidence for this belief? If you give it, then do you believe that the evidence supports your first belief? If so, then to rationally believe it you must provide evidence for this new belief. Ad infinitum.
In this Day would be correct. Unfortunately he doesn't go through what I just did above. The absence of almost any philosophical analysis made this book far weaker than it could have been.
I also have no idea why the subtitle read: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. The book mentioned Dan Dennett just as much as Hitchens, and Michael Onfrey only slightly less.
Now, there was some funny rhetoric employed by Day, but this got old real fast. I'd say Wilson's response to Harris employed rhetoric much better.
Though I thought the book could have been more potent, it will serve useful to have in your library as a reference to some statistics in response to some statistical claims made by the New Atheists. But I doubt anything in here will convince any New Atheist of any major flaws in the arguments of Dawkins et. al. That's because she flies by the seat of her emotional pants in rejecting Christianity. Argument isn't always effective against emotional temper tantrums.
This doesn't do much for me. I'm not saying that this is wrong, in principle. But it doesn't move the discussion where it needs to go, in my opinion. Rather than looking at the statistics of, say, how many wars have been caused by religion, one can simply point out that even if this were true the Bible claims that men are sinners and will do evil things. So, to point out that men do evil things is confirmation of the biblical claims about anthropology rather than disconfirmation.
I'd also rather the discussion go to the philosophical presuppositions rather than ending at statistics. I know Day said this wasn't his goal...but.
He also seemed a bit too dismissive of a few theological arguments viz. the ontological argument, experiential argument, etc. These are much stronger than he leads on. Furthermore, some of them need not be taken as reasons for the unbeliever to believe but, rather, reasons why the believer believes. In other words, they can serve as reasons or evidence for the believer, thus serving a value for him.
One of the reviewers below commented that we do have scientific evidence that our mother exists. Well, we don't. Saying that, "You've seen your mom, you've hugged your mom, and your mom has told you she loves you," doesn't count as scientific evidence. Hugging some person who says she is your mom doesn't entail that she is. And, furthermore, in this objection, since the Bible is taken to be God's revelation that he exists and loves us, then I guess we do have "scientific evidence" that God exists and loves us--he told us he did! Now, if the reviewer says: "But you can't trust that the Bible is his word," then you can't trust your "mother's" word. Furthermore, why should I believe you have a mother? You could say that you have seen her. Okay, but then people say Jesus, who was God in human flesh. So, we could just ask them. if you are saying that everyone must personally see another's mom in order to conclude they have a mother, then I must believe that 99% of the people I see don't have mothers!
Unfortunately, the reviewer misunderstands Day's argument. Day states that: "While it is reasonable to state that you have not seen any evidence for God's existence, it is illogical and incorrect to assert that no such evidence exists" (IA, 253).
Okay, so Day is clearly implying that he believes said evidence does exist. He says it is fine to say that you have not seen any. What would one "base" this claim on? Says Day: "Once can certainly state that no scientific evidence for God exists, based on its absence from scientific literature" (ibid, p. 253)
So, are we following? Day is saying that the person who says "there is no evidence" is justified in saying that in the sense that said person has not seen the evidence for God in the "scientific literature." That would be the published journals, books, etc.
Day then goes on to rightfully claim: "But then there is no scientific evidence that your mother exists, much less that she loves you" (ibid, 253). Here's the point: Sticking with Day's context, he is claiming that there is no scientific evidence that your mother exists "based on" the scientific journals!
Day isn't claiming that there is no scientific evidence that could be produced whatever. Just as he wasn't admitting that about God. His context is that one can't reason from the evidence that they've seen to the conclusion that there is no evidence whatever therefore we should suspend belief in God, or else the person, if consistent, would have to reason that way with respect to their own mother.
And, the broader evidentialist constraint as applied to religion is false. There are many things that we don't have propositional evidence for, such as: the existence of a past, other minds, the reliability of memory, sense perception, etc. Moreover, the evidentialist theists boils down to an infinite regress. If you must have evidence for any belief to be rationally held, then what is the evidence for this belief? If you give it, then do you believe that the evidence supports your first belief? If so, then to rationally believe it you must provide evidence for this new belief. Ad infinitum.
In this Day would be correct. Unfortunately he doesn't go through what I just did above. The absence of almost any philosophical analysis made this book far weaker than it could have been.
I also have no idea why the subtitle read: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. The book mentioned Dan Dennett just as much as Hitchens, and Michael Onfrey only slightly less.
Now, there was some funny rhetoric employed by Day, but this got old real fast. I'd say Wilson's response to Harris employed rhetoric much better.
Though I thought the book could have been more potent, it will serve useful to have in your library as a reference to some statistics in response to some statistical claims made by the New Atheists. But I doubt anything in here will convince any New Atheist of any major flaws in the arguments of Dawkins et. al. That's because she flies by the seat of her emotional pants in rejecting Christianity. Argument isn't always effective against emotional temper tantrums.
March 2, 2015
I loved this book. Vox lays out the case that science, instead of religion, is responsible for the most destruction on this planet; all the while showing facts and statistics to back it up. He dices through Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins with ease, sparing Dennett and his beard. Pick this book up ASAP and check his blog out also.
August 26, 2013
Video game blogger turned theology academic, enough said.
March 5, 2024
Claiming to use logic to dissect your opponents' arguments -- only to then expect the reader to accept your claim of deity as a premise is rather insulting.
And this isn't even touching upon his wyt supremacist views (which is on point for the Christian brand). For those who might claim "ad hominem," I'd point out the various pot-shots that Beale engages in opens the door to this critique.
And this isn't even touching upon his wyt supremacist views (which is on point for the Christian brand). For those who might claim "ad hominem," I'd point out the various pot-shots that Beale engages in opens the door to this critique.
February 27, 2014
Vox Day doesn't even attempt to prove the existence of God, but he does prove that Dawkins is a total asshat. The Irrational Atheist is a thought provoking read for skeptics and believers alike.
October 8, 2012
Couldn´t even finish. POS.
January 31, 2017
I made it to chapter 4. I really gave it my best. I Just finished reading all of the Four Horsemen books, and I found this book lying around at my parent's house, so I thought, why not?
Vox Day (a pen name, which means "Voice of God" in Latin) is an alt-right nutjob. He writes in the preface that this book isn't in any way a defense of religion. Instead, it's a book entirely about destroying the arguments of Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and sometimes Dennett when it's convenient.
Basically, he takes a sentence out of context from one of these authors, misrepresents its original intention, and spends five pages condescendingly explaining why he disagrees. It reads like an angry blog post. As it turns out, "blogger" is Day's only credential, as he runs an alt-right blog. He admits in the Acknowledgements section that he has already blogged about this material and received feedback from his followers. So that's why it reads like a blog post.
I had to stop reading when he tried to argue that atheists should never have been able to hold political offices. I was making notes in the margins of the book (typically there wasn't enough space), but at that point, what is there to say? Oh, you think that atheists aren't capable of holding public office. Okay, I think we're done here!
Vox Day (a pen name, which means "Voice of God" in Latin) is an alt-right nutjob. He writes in the preface that this book isn't in any way a defense of religion. Instead, it's a book entirely about destroying the arguments of Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and sometimes Dennett when it's convenient.
Basically, he takes a sentence out of context from one of these authors, misrepresents its original intention, and spends five pages condescendingly explaining why he disagrees. It reads like an angry blog post. As it turns out, "blogger" is Day's only credential, as he runs an alt-right blog. He admits in the Acknowledgements section that he has already blogged about this material and received feedback from his followers. So that's why it reads like a blog post.
I had to stop reading when he tried to argue that atheists should never have been able to hold political offices. I was making notes in the margins of the book (typically there wasn't enough space), but at that point, what is there to say? Oh, you think that atheists aren't capable of holding public office. Okay, I think we're done here!
December 26, 2015
This book is simply extraordinary: Compelling, arch but not snarky, and delightfully readable.
If one can know a man by the enemies he makes, the 1-star reviews (and how poorly they're written) sing lustily the praises of Vox.
If one can know a man by the enemies he makes, the 1-star reviews (and how poorly they're written) sing lustily the praises of Vox.
April 3, 2016
Now that was fun. (and a bit nasty!)
I enjoyed every second of the ridicule towards Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. I've been tolerating their (for entertainment only) abuse for a decade now - it's great to see someone throw it back in their faces. These people really are idiots and horrible scholars, and Vox Day just helped us to see exactly how.
I'm still not fully sure what exactly Vox believes as far as Biblical Christianity goes. He tends to lean in the correct direction - and he's extremely rebellious and snarky LIKE ME (I think Elijah and a few other Biblical prophets had that same problem.) But at the end of the day: truth is truth, and it must be defended and shared.
,
Mark 16:15
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Psalm 96:3
Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples!
To share the truth in LOVE is not always a pleasant thing. It seems Paul, Peter and Stephen had dangerous results when speaking the truth. If everyone is glad to hear your message - it's probably the wrong message. :D
I enjoyed every second of the ridicule towards Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. I've been tolerating their (for entertainment only) abuse for a decade now - it's great to see someone throw it back in their faces. These people really are idiots and horrible scholars, and Vox Day just helped us to see exactly how.
I'm still not fully sure what exactly Vox believes as far as Biblical Christianity goes. He tends to lean in the correct direction - and he's extremely rebellious and snarky LIKE ME (I think Elijah and a few other Biblical prophets had that same problem.) But at the end of the day: truth is truth, and it must be defended and shared.
,
Mark 16:15
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Psalm 96:3
Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples!
To share the truth in LOVE is not always a pleasant thing. It seems Paul, Peter and Stephen had dangerous results when speaking the truth. If everyone is glad to hear your message - it's probably the wrong message. :D
March 23, 2021
I'm not much in the habit of writing reviews for books, but in this case, I feel obligated to spare any potential reader the evening or week (depending on time available and reading speed) that might be wasted in reading this one.
Before beginning my review, I would like to note that I do not define myself as an atheist, theist, or agnostic because of the ridiculous connotations with which they are often associated. In fact, I think labels of this sort lead to unnecessary disputes and hasty condemnations of character. If I were to begrudgingly accept a title of any kind, it would be that of an empirical skeptic.
First of all, if you are looking for any arguments for or against the existence of god, this is not the book for you. If you are looking for even the most elementary of philosophical arguments or scientific disputes regarding the basis of theistic or atheistic postulations, this is not the book for you. In fact, the author says so himself in the introduction. For anyone interested in the nature of theories surrounding the question of god, this book is far from helpful and, indeed, it never claims to be.
(On another note, If you are looking for a comprehensive outline of philosophical arguments on the matter, I would recommend the following books:
1. Critique of Religion and Philosophy by Walter Kaufmann
2. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God by John Leslie Mackie
If you want a serious look at all of the arguments for and against god, these books are as in-depth and far-reaching as they get.)
The only thing I can honestly say this book makes any serious attempt to do is to show that the new atheist movement is extreme and the leaders of the movement: Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, etc. are not fit for the task.
Outside of this, the book is nothing more than one odd amalgamation of hand-picked statistics and historical references that serve to bolster the complex melange of personal attacks and random references to the author's own political and social views.
Although the truth-value of statements are not invalidated by the character of those who wrote them, it may prove useful to do a little bit of research on the author (Vox Day) before reading this book, if only to gain an idea of where he is coming from. Because I do not want to be hypocritical in the way that the author was by using personal attacks as substitute (or as supplement, at the very least) to scholarly critique, I can only encourage you to investigate some of his views for yourselves; you may find his opinions on race, gender, etc. a bit curious.
Rather than go any further with my own observations, I have provided a list of direct quotes with page numbers that outline a few of the author's "Intellectual Arguments" in *The Irrational Atheist.*
Enjoy!
(Page Numbers Correspond to Word Document Version)
1. "Richard Dawkins is wrong. Daniel C. Dennett is wrong. Christopher Hitchens is drunk, and he’s wrong. Michel Onfray is French, and he’s wrong. Sam Harris is so superlatively wrong that it will require the development of esoteric mathematics operating simultaneously in multiple dimensions to fully comprehend the orders of magnitude of his wrongness." - Page 10
2. "There’s mediocre prose, there’s bad prose, and then there’s Sam Harris waxing creative. How he didn’t win a Bulwer-Lytton award for that ghastly first page of The End of Faith, I’ll never know. When he’s not being self-consciously literate, his writing is all right, but light a candle to St. Darwin and pray that he never decides to inflict a novel on humanity." - Page 19
3. "Agnostic: “I don’t believe there is a God. Because I haven’t seen the evidence.”
Atheist: “There is no God. Because I’m an asshole.”" - Page 21
4. "High Church atheism may be little more than a mental disorder taking the form of a literal autism." - Page 21
5. "It’s not difficult to falsify Christianity, however. Ergo, Christianity is science." - Page 35
6. "The supposed incompatibility between religion and science can’t be all that great if it is necessary to threaten the Islamic Republic with air strikes and invasion in order to prevent its scientists from performing research in unapproved areas." - Page 45
7. "I am a global warming skeptic myself. Greenland is still colder now than it was when Norse settlers were raising crops there in the eleventh century. So I don’t see why a return to those temperatures should present a problem. Of course, when you grew up waiting for the school bus in 40 below zero wind chills, global warming just doesn’t sound all that ominous." - Page 50
8. One could certainly argue that the threat to humanity from science is not really all that dire, but then it would be necessary to admit that religious faith poses no threat to humanity either, thus demonstrating Harris’s thesis to be entirely bankrupt. - Page 52
9. "The end of science is a much more practical goal for the benefit of humanity than the end of faith." - Page 58
10. "This poses a real danger to the credibility of science, which is particularly ill-timed in light of the very real danger that science presently poses to humanity. After all, it would be far easier to eliminate a few hundred thousand scientists, even a few million scientists, than 4.85 billion religious adherents." - Page 64
11. "History demonstrates that the ambitious atheist who seeks political power is significantly more likely to reject the moral proscription on things such as slaughtering large numbers of people who stand in the way of establishing a godless utopia.
The peg-legged crack whore, on the other hand, only wants to shift agricultural subsidies from cereal crops to coca plants and poppies and install disco balls in the White House. This is why the philosopher John Locke reached the conclusion that atheists could be tolerated in civil society, so long as they were not permitted to hold positions of political authority." - Page 67
12. "Hitchens, meanwhile, is almost completely indifferent to getting either the science or the theology straight. (He’s just a journalist after all; he’s not expected to.)" - Page 69
13. "The undeniable fact is that the absurdity most often believed by those who have committed Man’s greatest atrocities is that there is no God." - Page 80
14. "History clearly demonstrates that religious faith is not a tool in the hands of those who practice the arts of war." - Page 95
15. "Lennon was a talented musician, but he was also the English equivalent of the kid who has to take the GED instead of the SAT. And then fails it." - Page 98
16. "Religious war is actually less lethal to Americans than their dogs, as they annually suffer 15.7 fatalities due to dog bites." - Page 101
17. "The historical evidence is conclusive. Religious faith very seldom causes war, either implicitly or explicitly. Therefore, God is not the problem." - Page 110
18. "Sam Harris is an ignorant, incompetent, and intellectually dishonest individual who attacks religious faith because it stands in the way of his dream of the ultimate destruction of America." - Page 113
19. "It’s worth noting that Harris has probably caused greater human unhappiness with his books than the serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, ever did with his exotic diet of human flesh, so by his own reckoning, Harris is less moral than Dahmer." - Page 117
20. "At Richard Dawkins’s core is a band geek who is unable to accept the reality that marching tubas and embroidered uniforms will never impress the girls. For all its passionate and detailed explanations of water droplets and entirely new variants of suns, Unweaving the Rainbow ultimately amounts to little more than an unconvincing and repetitive refrain of “This one time, at band camp . . .” - Page 138
Before beginning my review, I would like to note that I do not define myself as an atheist, theist, or agnostic because of the ridiculous connotations with which they are often associated. In fact, I think labels of this sort lead to unnecessary disputes and hasty condemnations of character. If I were to begrudgingly accept a title of any kind, it would be that of an empirical skeptic.
First of all, if you are looking for any arguments for or against the existence of god, this is not the book for you. If you are looking for even the most elementary of philosophical arguments or scientific disputes regarding the basis of theistic or atheistic postulations, this is not the book for you. In fact, the author says so himself in the introduction. For anyone interested in the nature of theories surrounding the question of god, this book is far from helpful and, indeed, it never claims to be.
(On another note, If you are looking for a comprehensive outline of philosophical arguments on the matter, I would recommend the following books:
1. Critique of Religion and Philosophy by Walter Kaufmann
2. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God by John Leslie Mackie
If you want a serious look at all of the arguments for and against god, these books are as in-depth and far-reaching as they get.)
The only thing I can honestly say this book makes any serious attempt to do is to show that the new atheist movement is extreme and the leaders of the movement: Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, etc. are not fit for the task.
Outside of this, the book is nothing more than one odd amalgamation of hand-picked statistics and historical references that serve to bolster the complex melange of personal attacks and random references to the author's own political and social views.
Although the truth-value of statements are not invalidated by the character of those who wrote them, it may prove useful to do a little bit of research on the author (Vox Day) before reading this book, if only to gain an idea of where he is coming from. Because I do not want to be hypocritical in the way that the author was by using personal attacks as substitute (or as supplement, at the very least) to scholarly critique, I can only encourage you to investigate some of his views for yourselves; you may find his opinions on race, gender, etc. a bit curious.
Rather than go any further with my own observations, I have provided a list of direct quotes with page numbers that outline a few of the author's "Intellectual Arguments" in *The Irrational Atheist.*
Enjoy!
(Page Numbers Correspond to Word Document Version)
1. "Richard Dawkins is wrong. Daniel C. Dennett is wrong. Christopher Hitchens is drunk, and he’s wrong. Michel Onfray is French, and he’s wrong. Sam Harris is so superlatively wrong that it will require the development of esoteric mathematics operating simultaneously in multiple dimensions to fully comprehend the orders of magnitude of his wrongness." - Page 10
2. "There’s mediocre prose, there’s bad prose, and then there’s Sam Harris waxing creative. How he didn’t win a Bulwer-Lytton award for that ghastly first page of The End of Faith, I’ll never know. When he’s not being self-consciously literate, his writing is all right, but light a candle to St. Darwin and pray that he never decides to inflict a novel on humanity." - Page 19
3. "Agnostic: “I don’t believe there is a God. Because I haven’t seen the evidence.”
Atheist: “There is no God. Because I’m an asshole.”" - Page 21
4. "High Church atheism may be little more than a mental disorder taking the form of a literal autism." - Page 21
5. "It’s not difficult to falsify Christianity, however. Ergo, Christianity is science." - Page 35
6. "The supposed incompatibility between religion and science can’t be all that great if it is necessary to threaten the Islamic Republic with air strikes and invasion in order to prevent its scientists from performing research in unapproved areas." - Page 45
7. "I am a global warming skeptic myself. Greenland is still colder now than it was when Norse settlers were raising crops there in the eleventh century. So I don’t see why a return to those temperatures should present a problem. Of course, when you grew up waiting for the school bus in 40 below zero wind chills, global warming just doesn’t sound all that ominous." - Page 50
8. One could certainly argue that the threat to humanity from science is not really all that dire, but then it would be necessary to admit that religious faith poses no threat to humanity either, thus demonstrating Harris’s thesis to be entirely bankrupt. - Page 52
9. "The end of science is a much more practical goal for the benefit of humanity than the end of faith." - Page 58
10. "This poses a real danger to the credibility of science, which is particularly ill-timed in light of the very real danger that science presently poses to humanity. After all, it would be far easier to eliminate a few hundred thousand scientists, even a few million scientists, than 4.85 billion religious adherents." - Page 64
11. "History demonstrates that the ambitious atheist who seeks political power is significantly more likely to reject the moral proscription on things such as slaughtering large numbers of people who stand in the way of establishing a godless utopia.
The peg-legged crack whore, on the other hand, only wants to shift agricultural subsidies from cereal crops to coca plants and poppies and install disco balls in the White House. This is why the philosopher John Locke reached the conclusion that atheists could be tolerated in civil society, so long as they were not permitted to hold positions of political authority." - Page 67
12. "Hitchens, meanwhile, is almost completely indifferent to getting either the science or the theology straight. (He’s just a journalist after all; he’s not expected to.)" - Page 69
13. "The undeniable fact is that the absurdity most often believed by those who have committed Man’s greatest atrocities is that there is no God." - Page 80
14. "History clearly demonstrates that religious faith is not a tool in the hands of those who practice the arts of war." - Page 95
15. "Lennon was a talented musician, but he was also the English equivalent of the kid who has to take the GED instead of the SAT. And then fails it." - Page 98
16. "Religious war is actually less lethal to Americans than their dogs, as they annually suffer 15.7 fatalities due to dog bites." - Page 101
17. "The historical evidence is conclusive. Religious faith very seldom causes war, either implicitly or explicitly. Therefore, God is not the problem." - Page 110
18. "Sam Harris is an ignorant, incompetent, and intellectually dishonest individual who attacks religious faith because it stands in the way of his dream of the ultimate destruction of America." - Page 113
19. "It’s worth noting that Harris has probably caused greater human unhappiness with his books than the serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, ever did with his exotic diet of human flesh, so by his own reckoning, Harris is less moral than Dahmer." - Page 117
20. "At Richard Dawkins’s core is a band geek who is unable to accept the reality that marching tubas and embroidered uniforms will never impress the girls. For all its passionate and detailed explanations of water droplets and entirely new variants of suns, Unweaving the Rainbow ultimately amounts to little more than an unconvincing and repetitive refrain of “This one time, at band camp . . .” - Page 138
January 25, 2013
Vox Day is very specifically NOT making a case for Christianity. He is setting about to examine, dissect, and ultimately disprove claims made by prominent Atheists, using only history, logic, and reason as his tools. In this he succeeds very well; The Irrational Atheist is a stimulating work which provides an intellectual challenge to understand, even to the Christian.
Vox is an outspoken Christian; and although he holds some beliefs that I don't really see as biblical, he nevertheless is an extremely intelligent, shrewd individual, and TIA goes a long way to show that the so-called intellectual reasons to disdain religion are actually almost universally groundless.
Vox is an outspoken Christian; and although he holds some beliefs that I don't really see as biblical, he nevertheless is an extremely intelligent, shrewd individual, and TIA goes a long way to show that the so-called intellectual reasons to disdain religion are actually almost universally groundless.
May 27, 2014
This book is painful if you have have secluded yourself in an atheist social group. He destroys so many atheist myths. Its a short easy read and well backed up. But if you are looking for a Christian apologetic, this book is not really that. We are talking an anti new atheist book here. And it just kills them. Look at the ratings most the guys one staring this book have not even read it.
January 3, 2016
This book will explain to you all the flaws in most of the common atheist arguments, by examining in detail the arguments used by three of the most famous contemporary atheists. And flawed they are. For all the other arguments, you will have no trouble doing it yourself by following the same kind of reasoning that is shown on this book.
December 4, 2015
Excellent! Pokes all kind of holes in what passes for reason from Dawkins and other frauds like him.
January 2, 2016
Outstanding use of classic logic and reason to dismantle prominent atheists illogical reasoning.
August 24, 2013
Very good, provided logical and philosophical arguments against atheism rather than the general apologetics which rely on historical records and such.
July 8, 2008
food for thought if you take the facts of the book that are presented. Although this book is more of a rebuttal to the 'unholy trinity' than a dialog to the readers, which makes it a different read.
October 25, 2010
Devastating critique of the leading advocates of Atheism in our day: the "unholy trinity" of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, with chapters as well on Daniel Dennett and Michael Onfray. The author takes apart their arguments, but only engages in minimal apologetics of his own. Is religion really the chief cause for conflict and war in the world? Are the "unbelieving" blue states really doing better in crime, prosperity, and health? Can Reason really provide ethical guidance? Is being raised religious really akin to having been abused? The author provides a refreshing examination of all these claims, and a strong affirmation of the value, nay, the necessity, of belief.
November 30, 2018
Vox Day succeeds and fails. He succeeds in refuting many fallicious and factually incorrect arguments made by prominent atheists.
But he fails to do this without coming across as an arrogant jerk on the same scale as Dawkins. Rather than stick to the logic, arguments and facts like he says he means to, he gets personal on a very regular basis. He evidently enjoys pointing out that Dawkins has had more wives than children, that Hitchens probably drinks too much, and that Michael Onfray is French.
He also enjoys tootling his own horn, reminding everyone that he's been in a band, that he's a member of Mensa, and that he thinks evolutionary theory is wrong and man-made climate change isn't happening (apparently those last two are something to be proud of).
As if the unhelpful number of snarky comments in the main text weren't enough, he evidently took glee in inserting a few extra remarks in the form of footnotes. Footnotes are also used for the more usual book references and additional stats, which I don't mind, but the huge number of just plain irritating footnotes (probably around half the total) meant that towards the end of the book I would flinch every time I saw a new one.
Maybe he's just trying to be funny. Perhaps he doesn't only think he's an intellectual genius but a comic one, too.
He also has an agenda he's trying to push throughout the books. He things socialism is stupid. He has a particularly large beef with science. He devotes an entire chapter to arguing why science will Kill Us All, notionally to refute an argument made by Harris about how science will save us all. But I couldn't help but feel that when devoting a whole chapter to what could have been done in a couple of pages, Vox Day was pushing his own agenda.
If I wanted to read about how much Vox Day Hates Science And Socialism, I'd probably be reading a book bearing that title. But I'm not. If he wants to vent his frustration of the world, perhaps he should consider alternate approaches in future. I dunno, maybe screaming into a pillow or something. That at least wouldn't add pointless drivel to a book.
If he just stuck to the arguments against atheism without trying to be funny, and without trying to push his own agenda, I'd be tempted to give this 4. When he does lay his ego to one side, he provides some very thoughtful, well-written discussions which made genuinely enjoyable reading. It's just a shame that much of the book is peppered with such a nasty overtone.
But he fails to do this without coming across as an arrogant jerk on the same scale as Dawkins. Rather than stick to the logic, arguments and facts like he says he means to, he gets personal on a very regular basis. He evidently enjoys pointing out that Dawkins has had more wives than children, that Hitchens probably drinks too much, and that Michael Onfray is French.
He also enjoys tootling his own horn, reminding everyone that he's been in a band, that he's a member of Mensa, and that he thinks evolutionary theory is wrong and man-made climate change isn't happening (apparently those last two are something to be proud of).
As if the unhelpful number of snarky comments in the main text weren't enough, he evidently took glee in inserting a few extra remarks in the form of footnotes. Footnotes are also used for the more usual book references and additional stats, which I don't mind, but the huge number of just plain irritating footnotes (probably around half the total) meant that towards the end of the book I would flinch every time I saw a new one.
Maybe he's just trying to be funny. Perhaps he doesn't only think he's an intellectual genius but a comic one, too.
He also has an agenda he's trying to push throughout the books. He things socialism is stupid. He has a particularly large beef with science. He devotes an entire chapter to arguing why science will Kill Us All, notionally to refute an argument made by Harris about how science will save us all. But I couldn't help but feel that when devoting a whole chapter to what could have been done in a couple of pages, Vox Day was pushing his own agenda.
If I wanted to read about how much Vox Day Hates Science And Socialism, I'd probably be reading a book bearing that title. But I'm not. If he wants to vent his frustration of the world, perhaps he should consider alternate approaches in future. I dunno, maybe screaming into a pillow or something. That at least wouldn't add pointless drivel to a book.
If he just stuck to the arguments against atheism without trying to be funny, and without trying to push his own agenda, I'd be tempted to give this 4. When he does lay his ego to one side, he provides some very thoughtful, well-written discussions which made genuinely enjoyable reading. It's just a shame that much of the book is peppered with such a nasty overtone.
August 16, 2021
8.5/10.
Vox Day brings his well-trained wit and an incisive logical analysis to the statements of the New Atheologians. He shows that, contrary to their statements (inevitably made without any look at the evidence, contrary to their professed love of "science" and the "evidence"), religion does not poison everything, although history teaches us that atheism certainly does. The Spanish Inquisition only managed to kill 9 people per year, whereas Communist regimes, who are professedly atheistic, have managed to kill somewhere near 1.5 million people per year from 1917-2007. Even childrens' bicycles are 14x more dangerous than the Spanish inquisition! The Irrational Bicyclist, coming to stores near you. Don't teach your children how to bicycle or you are literally worse than Satan (oh wait)!
I digress. Day's book uses statistics, historical fact, and logical analysis to flip the New Atheists on their head and show that belief in God is most necessary for both individuals and societies. He shows how their arguments either make no sense or are so divorced from historical fact to show that their authors employ no reason at all. This is a very necessary book when some of the New Atheist arguments are often portrayed as obvious, especially by collegiate know-it-alls. Most ominously, the solution to religion for Sam Harris is a one world government. So it looks as if the New Atheists were just another attempt to push this most desired outcome of the elites into the minds of the masses. Read this book so you know of the intellectual incompetence of their arguments and so you can proclaim Deus, Rex, et Gens!, in the name of history, Hoppe, and God.
Addendum:
Atheists have three ways of being rationally atheist in their society. (1) They can be moral parasites, practicing the morality of their religious society in all areas required, but acting according to their desires in all areas where their society cannot punish them. This usually means having sex in sinful ways. Note that the religious are more sexually satisfied than the non-religious, who practice more sexual promiscuity. (2) Atheists can be Nietzscheans/Crowleyites, who deify their Will as God and pursue their wants no matter what. They will become the Ubermensch, liable to no one and no morality but their own. If one actually followed such a philosophy, it would lead you to being a sociopath. People do not think, then act; they act, then think to justify their act. A Nietzschean Ubermensch would be a passion-driven animal who exploits others for his own pleasure. (3) Atheists can be "post-Nietzscheans", as VD calls them, wanting to create a utilitarian society of Nietzscheans as previously described. They want to unleash the maximum pursuit of personal pleasure unto all, to free everyone from the so called shackles of morality. This type of atheism, if put into practice, would literally lead to the war of all against all. Rampant crime, little cooperation, and immense laziness would characterize such a society before order is put back in place through a religion.
Vox Day brings his well-trained wit and an incisive logical analysis to the statements of the New Atheologians. He shows that, contrary to their statements (inevitably made without any look at the evidence, contrary to their professed love of "science" and the "evidence"), religion does not poison everything, although history teaches us that atheism certainly does. The Spanish Inquisition only managed to kill 9 people per year, whereas Communist regimes, who are professedly atheistic, have managed to kill somewhere near 1.5 million people per year from 1917-2007. Even childrens' bicycles are 14x more dangerous than the Spanish inquisition! The Irrational Bicyclist, coming to stores near you. Don't teach your children how to bicycle or you are literally worse than Satan (oh wait)!
I digress. Day's book uses statistics, historical fact, and logical analysis to flip the New Atheists on their head and show that belief in God is most necessary for both individuals and societies. He shows how their arguments either make no sense or are so divorced from historical fact to show that their authors employ no reason at all. This is a very necessary book when some of the New Atheist arguments are often portrayed as obvious, especially by collegiate know-it-alls. Most ominously, the solution to religion for Sam Harris is a one world government. So it looks as if the New Atheists were just another attempt to push this most desired outcome of the elites into the minds of the masses. Read this book so you know of the intellectual incompetence of their arguments and so you can proclaim Deus, Rex, et Gens!, in the name of history, Hoppe, and God.
Addendum:
Atheists have three ways of being rationally atheist in their society. (1) They can be moral parasites, practicing the morality of their religious society in all areas required, but acting according to their desires in all areas where their society cannot punish them. This usually means having sex in sinful ways. Note that the religious are more sexually satisfied than the non-religious, who practice more sexual promiscuity. (2) Atheists can be Nietzscheans/Crowleyites, who deify their Will as God and pursue their wants no matter what. They will become the Ubermensch, liable to no one and no morality but their own. If one actually followed such a philosophy, it would lead you to being a sociopath. People do not think, then act; they act, then think to justify their act. A Nietzschean Ubermensch would be a passion-driven animal who exploits others for his own pleasure. (3) Atheists can be "post-Nietzscheans", as VD calls them, wanting to create a utilitarian society of Nietzscheans as previously described. They want to unleash the maximum pursuit of personal pleasure unto all, to free everyone from the so called shackles of morality. This type of atheism, if put into practice, would literally lead to the war of all against all. Rampant crime, little cooperation, and immense laziness would characterize such a society before order is put back in place through a religion.
May 1, 2009
I have mixed feelings about his book. On one hand I am finally glad that someone wrote a book that didn't deal specifically with promoting christian belief some much as poke holes in arguments that atheist have been leveling against religion. And not only poking holes but doing it with the arrogance and pomp that is close to that of Christopher Hitchens.
On the whole the book makes good points and makes arguments that the opposition will need to deal with. But sometimes I think the author is so instant on making the other side pay for their intellectual sins that he commits some of his own. At one point Day says that science doesn't belong to atheist and shouldn't be demonized for its past atrocities, but then in the next chapter proceeds to demonize science anyway.
Day also targets people who maybe should be left out of the debate, like those hoping for a "singularity" of technology and humanity. Yes, they maybe atheist but believing that technology and humanity might meld someday is not explicitly against religious belief. Also, if Day wants to pick this fight he would have to go into more depth on worldviews and eschatology than he has in this book and it wouldn't be worth driving that far off course.
Day also makes point that would have been better off not mentions because they were either to weak to be worth it or a general misconception of what was being said by the atheists. When Day deals with these arguments with the same bravado as he does with his strong ones, he lessens his influence and those good point fall on deaf ears.
I am glad I thumbed through it but I was ultimately left unsatisfied.
On the whole the book makes good points and makes arguments that the opposition will need to deal with. But sometimes I think the author is so instant on making the other side pay for their intellectual sins that he commits some of his own. At one point Day says that science doesn't belong to atheist and shouldn't be demonized for its past atrocities, but then in the next chapter proceeds to demonize science anyway.
Day also targets people who maybe should be left out of the debate, like those hoping for a "singularity" of technology and humanity. Yes, they maybe atheist but believing that technology and humanity might meld someday is not explicitly against religious belief. Also, if Day wants to pick this fight he would have to go into more depth on worldviews and eschatology than he has in this book and it wouldn't be worth driving that far off course.
Day also makes point that would have been better off not mentions because they were either to weak to be worth it or a general misconception of what was being said by the atheists. When Day deals with these arguments with the same bravado as he does with his strong ones, he lessens his influence and those good point fall on deaf ears.
I am glad I thumbed through it but I was ultimately left unsatisfied.
January 4, 2016
Got this book for free download when Vox first put it on his website years ago as a free pdf. Was deployed to Afghanistan at the time, and read it over a couple of days. I've re-read it twice since and had my 15 year old read it also. Brilliant is all I can say. Vox is one of the best when it comes to rational arguments. He is honest, but brutal. Not a good book if you are a Churchian, but a great book if you want to defend the existence of God. Every Christian should have their teenager read it before even considering sending them off to college.
January 5, 2016
A thought provoking examination of the arguments of atheist thought. One of the first books I have read from this author, it displays a remarkable depth of thought and understanding of logic. One may wonder at times if atheists just don't understand Christianity, or any theistic perspective for that matter. This book lays waste to such a conciliatory opinion by revealing the movement’s bankruptcy of both integrity and, as the book title declares, rational argument.
January 5, 2016
Interesting counterpoints to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Eye opening to see that no matter what they say, the atheist authors have agendas they want to push and will distort the truth to further them.
January 13, 2016
It's a narrowly targeted book, intended to show some self-proclaimed champions of reason are neither consistently logical, nor sufficiently educated, in their attacks on theism and Christianity.
July 6, 2013
I really like this book. I like the way Day carefully analyzes and takes apart the unargued assumptions of the famous atheists he talks about. Unfortunately, he makes a few unargued assumptions of his own.
For example, 37% of the way through the book, he writes "there is no such thing as Islamic fascism. Islamic fascism does not exist and it never has existed, either as a political ideology or as a practical system of government. The concept is a meaningless term of propaganda used primarily by American neocons and third-rate political pundits seeking to stir up public support for the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism during the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion". Vox provides no evidence to back up this claim. Also, since the term "fascism" was coined my Mussolini, I will use his definition, which was "all in the state, nothing outside the state." It certainly seems like Iran and Saudi Arabia have a system of government where the government controls everything (or at least tries to) and the government is Islamic, so this looks like Islamic fascism. I have therefore provided two examples of Islamic fascism, countering Day's claim that it does not exist.
Also, 43% of the way through the book, he writes "Even the most skilled polemicist occasionally gets carried away on the winds of his own rhetoric. It happens, one minute Ann Coulter is the shining blonde star of National Review Online, and the next she is gone, blown off the pixel pages due to the fallout fro her notorious post-9/11 column." Day provides the Coulter quote in a footnote: "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." It might be true that occasionally great writers get carried away and write some things that are not so smart, but the example Day cites from Ann Coulter is not one of those. I agree with Coulter's statements as written in the footnote. Day has not provided any evidence to back up this assertion.
Also, 68% of the way through the book, Day cites Richard Dawkins' mistaken conclusion that God's omniscience and omnipotence are "mutually incompatible" because God's knowing all supposedly prevents God from changing his mind, therefore God is not omnipotent. Of course Dawkins has made a mistake. The problem here is that Day goes into a long and complex explanation of computer games and AI, then jumps to a conclusion not based on theology or the Bible that God doesn't really know everything, just more than we know. While that might be true, Day's argument is unconvincing. There is a far simpler explanation why Dawkins is wrong. God's omnipotence does NOT mean He can do anything. It means He can do anything that is consistent with his nature. Changing his mind would not be consistent with God's nature so he cannot do it. He is still omnipotent. If God could change his mind, we could not rely on his instructions on how to behave or what to believe, because he could decide something different later.
Overall I really like the book. I wish Day would fix the problems I cited in the next version.
For example, 37% of the way through the book, he writes "there is no such thing as Islamic fascism. Islamic fascism does not exist and it never has existed, either as a political ideology or as a practical system of government. The concept is a meaningless term of propaganda used primarily by American neocons and third-rate political pundits seeking to stir up public support for the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism during the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion". Vox provides no evidence to back up this claim. Also, since the term "fascism" was coined my Mussolini, I will use his definition, which was "all in the state, nothing outside the state." It certainly seems like Iran and Saudi Arabia have a system of government where the government controls everything (or at least tries to) and the government is Islamic, so this looks like Islamic fascism. I have therefore provided two examples of Islamic fascism, countering Day's claim that it does not exist.
Also, 43% of the way through the book, he writes "Even the most skilled polemicist occasionally gets carried away on the winds of his own rhetoric. It happens, one minute Ann Coulter is the shining blonde star of National Review Online, and the next she is gone, blown off the pixel pages due to the fallout fro her notorious post-9/11 column." Day provides the Coulter quote in a footnote: "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." It might be true that occasionally great writers get carried away and write some things that are not so smart, but the example Day cites from Ann Coulter is not one of those. I agree with Coulter's statements as written in the footnote. Day has not provided any evidence to back up this assertion.
Also, 68% of the way through the book, Day cites Richard Dawkins' mistaken conclusion that God's omniscience and omnipotence are "mutually incompatible" because God's knowing all supposedly prevents God from changing his mind, therefore God is not omnipotent. Of course Dawkins has made a mistake. The problem here is that Day goes into a long and complex explanation of computer games and AI, then jumps to a conclusion not based on theology or the Bible that God doesn't really know everything, just more than we know. While that might be true, Day's argument is unconvincing. There is a far simpler explanation why Dawkins is wrong. God's omnipotence does NOT mean He can do anything. It means He can do anything that is consistent with his nature. Changing his mind would not be consistent with God's nature so he cannot do it. He is still omnipotent. If God could change his mind, we could not rely on his instructions on how to behave or what to believe, because he could decide something different later.
Overall I really like the book. I wish Day would fix the problems I cited in the next version.
Read
September 8, 2011Vox Day is both an intelligent and capable communicator. He does a very good job of pulling back the veil and looking behind the arguments the New Atheists present as being unassailable. Vox has done a tremendous amount of research, and presents his finding well.
The New Atheists present their arguments in an attempt to show that religion is behind all the ills we face in society, and while their arguments present their case, Vox Day exposes either their lack of study of the facts, or their intellectual dishonesty. The New Atheists count on the fact that most readers are either too lazy to check the facts presented, or else they have been too lazy to check their facts well. Either way Vox Day has done his homework and in so doing has turned the arguments of the New Atheists back on their own heads.
The Irrational Atheist highlights the truth that when all facts are considered, it is religion that has served to temper natural human tendencies. He clearly demonstrates that most Atheists consider themselves to be very moralistic, but Vox Day demonstrates well that their morality is generally adopted from the overriding cultural norms that society follows, but those morals have been established by religion. Those that are true to atheism, Vox demonstrates, have no basis for morality, and so they are free to live as they choose. That is the type of true "fundamental" atheism that was followed by the great butchers of the past such as Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung.
Whether you agree with Vox Day or not, it is clear he has done his homework and has more than ably presented his case in "The Irrational Atheist." For those seeking for a good apologetic in defense of Christianity, you will find it in "The Irrational Atheist," though Vox Day's style is a bit rough around the edges for the more conservative among us. It is a good read!
The New Atheists present their arguments in an attempt to show that religion is behind all the ills we face in society, and while their arguments present their case, Vox Day exposes either their lack of study of the facts, or their intellectual dishonesty. The New Atheists count on the fact that most readers are either too lazy to check the facts presented, or else they have been too lazy to check their facts well. Either way Vox Day has done his homework and in so doing has turned the arguments of the New Atheists back on their own heads.
The Irrational Atheist highlights the truth that when all facts are considered, it is religion that has served to temper natural human tendencies. He clearly demonstrates that most Atheists consider themselves to be very moralistic, but Vox Day demonstrates well that their morality is generally adopted from the overriding cultural norms that society follows, but those morals have been established by religion. Those that are true to atheism, Vox demonstrates, have no basis for morality, and so they are free to live as they choose. That is the type of true "fundamental" atheism that was followed by the great butchers of the past such as Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung.
Whether you agree with Vox Day or not, it is clear he has done his homework and has more than ably presented his case in "The Irrational Atheist." For those seeking for a good apologetic in defense of Christianity, you will find it in "The Irrational Atheist," though Vox Day's style is a bit rough around the edges for the more conservative among us. It is a good read!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews