Life’s little mysteries

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?

 
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...Loading...
Posted in Unapologetics, XFiles. 5 Comments »

5 Responses to “Life’s little mysteries”

  1. Harebell Says:

    Not at all
    Vox is really only comfortable in front of his adoring minions.
    They love him for his super-secret, all-slaying argument that asking him what it is is showing a lack of faith.
    You cannot test vox for to do so means you are a backslider.

  2. jorgaba Says:

    “I repeatedly demonstrate that I am willing to back up my arguments. ”

    But that’s the whole problem — he hasn’t done this. He said:

    “It is my contention that there is not only substantial evidence for the existence of gods, but that the logic for the existence of gods is superior to the logic for the nonexistence of them as presented by yourself, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, to name a few.”

    He hasn’t backed this up at all; he just asserted it out of the blue, and placed stupid conditions other people had to meet in order for him to spend the effort backing it up with any kind of argument. All PZ did was refuse the conditions, leaving Vox where he began — with an unsupported assertion.

    In what bizarre alternate universe does Vox’s position make more sense than PZ’s?

  3. yoyo Says:

    I’d only read him a few times and had tried to pull him up on his homophobia but I’m just gobsmacked by his misogyny

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/06/educational-cancer.html
    Whole piece is basically that education is wasted on us wimmun folk.
    and his commentators need to crawl back under the little steeaming piles of stick books they live in.

  4. merkur Says:

    “It is my contention that there is not only substantial evidence for the existence of gods, but that the logic for the existence of gods is superior to the logic for the nonexistence of them as presented by yourself, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, to name a few.”

    Vox believes that his book The Irrational Atheist demonstrates this convincingly. Tragically it does not, although you might find his colossally inept “God is a Computer Game Designer” hypothesis amusing.

  5. » Vox Day’s favorite theistic argument Evangelical Realism Says:

    [...] Notice what he’s doing here: he’s claiming to have evidence (”difficult to refute” evidence, no less), without ever offering any actual examples. I can well believe that this sort of empty boast is Vox’s favorite argument, as we’ve seen him use it before. [...]