Life’s little mysteriesJune 12, 2008 — Deacon Duncan
Here’s Vox Day, in the comments on his own post, wondering about one of life’s little mysteries:
Let me get this straight. I tell you what I’m going to do, then I do it, and I repeatedly demonstrate that I am willing to back up my arguments. You think this looks pathetic and ridiculous. PZ, on the other hand, does absolutely nothing but make insulting statements that he does not back up or support in any way, and yet you find that impressive.
Please explain how this makes any sense. I’m genuinely curious about your thought processes here.
Yeah, “willing to back up my arguments” without ever actually publishing what those so-called “strong arguments for gods” even are. Back them up with what, Vox? Poses?
PZ has published his arguments. He published them before Vox even issued his challenge. Vox based his challenge on PZ’s prior critiques of weak theistic arguments for God. And now here’s Vox, who shows up and demands that PZ–what was the expression Vox used?–“perform like a trained seal” on Vox’s schedule, and then when PZ declines (as Vox says he has done under similar circumstances), Vox declares victory and runs away without ever publishing his so-called strong arguments. PZ produced the goods; Vox did not, and produced only posturing and boasting.
Is it really so hard to see what kind of thought process finds PZ’s performance more impressive than Vox’s?