Speaking of Vox, I recently finished (well, close enough) my chapter by chapter rebuttal of the book and I found some of the same flaws as you, though I found some you didn’t seem to catch. Two examples, if memory serves, are Vox’s claim that Harris’ examples of religious wars are actually not religious in nature are false. The fact is if you research those conflicts, they are religious, at least in part.

Vox’s FBI statistics proving that religious doesn’t cause much conflict is also false. In fact, Vox distorted what the New Atheists were arguing and fudged the stats. The fact is religion in the second leading cause of hate crime, and not just in 2005, the date of the stats he cited.

If you’d like to take a look at my contribution and give your opinion I’d really appreciate it.

http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2011/02/irrational-atheist-refutation.html

Thanks!

Maybe he should also stop “flaunting” HIS ATHLETIC SKILLS as well, drawing attention to himself apart from his team, and setting himself up for the mass public adulation of EVERYBODY…

The content is unable to meet the standards of the most basic logical or empirical analysis.

It is often difficult (because I too like to have my biases confirmed), but I try hard to not confuse glibness with intelligence.

Initially I thought this as well. Then I read some of his stuff and analyzed some of his beliefs. He often flummoxes himself with his own illogic; he has grave objections to evolution without understanding it; he thinks global warming is bunk without knowing the first thing about climate science and he think women should be demoted and deprived of suffrage because of a bizarre economic theory. These are not the ideas of an intelligent man. Theodore Beale is a stupid ignoramus.

Like another reader, I must thank Vox for existing, without his pusillanimous rants I never would have found the link to this site – his by comparison is a “register to comment” blog with the apparent regular commenters probably overwhelmed with their cleverness at managing the registration process. That’s one big quagmire of teh stoopid.

Vox is obviously an intelligent guy, but his intelligence is all raw. He has only allowed his mind to be shaped by those who he already agreed with, and that is a terrible waste.

Convoluted logic at its best. Turn it around 180º to make it correct: Religion is no substitute for reason; it can never be.

VD: “Rev 22:20-21″ : “He who testifies to these things says ” Surely I am coming quickly. . . ”

Quickly ? 2000+ years and counting. The religious man reads this and has no problem with ‘quickly’ = 2000 years. The ‘rational’ man reads this and concludes: false prophesy.

Deacon Duncan: “I’ve read worse books, but not many , and very few that I would have bothered reading through to the end. Fortunately, it’s over now, and if my insignificant contribution spares even one person the time they might otherwise have wasted on it, then it will have been worth the effort.”

It was like watching an impending train wreck. You know it’s going to be bad, but you just can’t turn away. Deacon, your astute analysis made Vox’s book enjoyable to me because I couldn’t wait for you to take vox apart, point by point. Thank you Deacon for a penetrating and sometimes profound dissection of Vox’s convoluted logic. When the book first came out, no skeptic would touch it. Brent Rasmussen ran up the white flag early. PZ Meyers chose to ignore it. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, etc. little, if any, response. You and you alone took on Vox Day head-on , point-by-point, chapter-by-chapter and IMHO , you won. No small victory – Vox is smart and can be philosophically complex.Vox complains a lot about PZ and the big 3 refusing to debate him. I think you could take him. (Vox may think so too – probably why he has ignored your review. ) Great job !

Yes, in my simplistic, sub-Mensa opinion, I find the Deacon is honest, modest, cogent and direct – the antithesis of VD.
So it’s with no sense of hypocrisy that I write this:
VD:

What the Unholy Trinity have failed to take into account in constructing their collective case against religion is the fact that Man is not, and never will be, entirely rational.

Such misplaced arrogance, to foolishly patronise his betters. Heh.

Deacon, I have before and will no doubt again point others to your TIA posts when the issue arises.
I doff my (metaphorical) hat to you.

Let the record show that I came for the Vox, but I’m staying for the modus ponens.

Two triumphant endings are better than one?