(cache) No, You’re Not a Dummy for Believing in God

ABOUT TOM WOODS

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 12 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown (on the financial crisis). A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods has appeared on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX News, FOX Business, C-SPAN, Bloomberg Television, and hundreds of radio programs... (Read More)

Tweets by @ThomasEWoods

LEARN MORE

The Tom Woods App

Amazon.com Widgets

No, You’re Not a Dummy for Believing in God

27th October 2014

by: Tom Woods

Among libertarians one finds quite a spectrum with regard to belief in God. Among the atheists, some (though by no means all) seem to have a bit of superiority complex — why, they’re just too darn sophisticated to believe in God, unlike these weaklings who need a crutch, etc.

On my show today I explained why it is not at all unreasonable or “irrational” to believe in God. I went through one of Thomas Aquinas’ “five ways.” The chances that an undergraduate will be exposed at any length to Thomism is about on par with his chances of encountering Austrian economics. It is surprising and disappointing to see libertarians acting like Paul Krugman, who can’t be bothered even to state Austrian business cycle theory correctly before laughing it off. We must demand more of ourselves. Even if you don’t ultimately agree with theists, at least find out what they’re saying before launching into ridicule.

I also address the ridiculous “Flying Spaghetti Monster” thing — that hey, these religious believers may as well revere the Flying Spaghetti Monster while they’re at it! If you have a background in Thomism, it takes precisely 20 seconds to refute this. What’s both sad and funny is that people who throw the Flying Spaghetti Monster around as a way of insulting the intelligence of theists really think they’re sticking it to their opponents, when in fact they are simply making fools of themselves in front of anyone who has actually read the works of classical Western theism.

We owe each other respect and intellectual honesty, in other words, not this kind of gratuitous abuse.

If the material in today’s episode interests you, I recommend these books by Edward Feser: The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism and Aquinas. (Even though Aquinas is part of a “Beginner’s Guide” series, I caution you that it is challenging reading.)

Check out the YouTube version of today’s episode below, and get a commute-sized portion of liberty education Monday through Friday by subscribing to the Tom Woods Show on iTunes or Stitcher!

Adilson Jr

I’m very sorry about you and your parents.
Nobody has perfect parents, and forgiving can be very hard.
I don’t know you, so I can’t say anything more ’bout this.
But, I still think your unability (or reluctance) to understand, or to let yourself to experience , the healing love of our Father, is linked to what you feel about your fathers.

P.s. I English is not OUR language. You’re Chilean (?) and I’m Brazilian.
I had some unforgettable moments in Viña del Mar. If you ever come to Salvador, let me know. ;)
Derek

Hi Tom,
I appreciate your willingness to tackle a topic that would generate such response. You explain the first mover principle well… as you say you are pretty good at explaining things. And Aquinas has to get lots of credit for doing such a thorough thought experiment given his spot in history.

But… and I hope you take these criticisms in the friendly manner they are offered…

It is all just an exercise in circular semantics. At the end of your sequence, you and Aquinas have a “being that is pure act, no potential.” You further point out that without potential comes unchangeability, even perfections. However, the lack of something is also defined as a potential. The cold egg lacks heat, so hasn’t met its potential to be a hot egg. The hot egg lacks cold, so hasn’t met its potential to be a cold egg. the pure act lacks potential, so hasn’t met its potential to be a thing with potential. It is circular. Interesting, but circular.

It actually breaks down when the hand that moves the stick is not moved by ME, but by the neurons and nervous system, which then is moved by… what exactly? It completely cuts out the ME of the situation, in which I move things by MY own will and decision. I am reduced to a puppet of some other actor, some unseen, unknown first mover who moves my nervous system (brain) for me. FWIW, My faith tradition is pretty close to Catholic, yet assures me that God gives me my will and wants me to exercise it. Bypassing human or even animal will with a hand-wave to arrive at the unseen first mover is just cheating, IMO.

Your hang-up on FSM is also just semantics. Flying Spaghetti is not a description of an actual monster, any more than God is an actual description of an old man in the sky. It’s just another name for the thing that is pure act without potential – all encompassing, perfect, and omniscient. The point of the FSM counter-argument is to illustrate the illogicality of an old man in the sky running things.

Your spirited explanation of the pure act, unchangeable first mover actually demonstrates an *agreement* that old men in the sky and flying spaghetti monsters are probably not really the true nature of God, presupposing there is such a thing as God. If you aren’t arguing the existence of an old man in the sky who runs things, makes decisions, and chooses winners and losers (which does not sound like a pure act, unchangeable first mover to me!), then you have no need to refute the FSM.

Even after your terrific explanation of the first mover, my poor imagination struggled to think of this thing as God — I could only find a thin equivalence between your un-changeable first mover and the universe as a whole: the physical system that causes all of the chemical, atomic, and quantum changes to behave the way they do. The moon constantly “moves,” spinning and rotating around the earth. The earth “moves” it, but not through action – rather through the magic of gravity, which oh-by-the-way is unchanging and all-permeable, in a way that might tempt us to call it a first mover. Maybe God is gravity? The unseen first mover that allows the universe to exist, change, and continue?
http://www.FortGalt.com Gabriel Scheare

Forgiveness, like love, must be earned. They have not earned our forgiveness and have no interest in doing so… but this has nothing to do with your imaginary god.
I am from Canada, actually. I moved to Chile 8 months ago.
Benjamin Wenham

Actually, the FSM originated as a satire the decision to give intelligent design equal time to actual biology in Kansas public schools.

The joke is based on the establishment clause, a praises creationists, before going on to request equal time for the Pastafarian intelligent design beliefs, that we are shaped in his noodle image.

The FSM has grown beyond that use, but really honestly, Mr. Woods would probably be better of citing the invisible pink unicorn or Russle’s tea pot.

Of cause, rambling on in a faux-logical manner about meta-physics is a great way to deflect attention from the fact that there is no empirical evidence to believe in the existence of god or gods, and in such absence, it is irrational to believe in such, especially when the interaction between physical laws in a probabilistic multiverse is both supported by evidence and more parsimonious than “magic man done it”.
Adilson Jr

Maybe you’re being too lenient with God. By giving Him the gift of inexistence, you exempt Him from being held accountable for your bad childhood.
http://www.FortGalt.com Gabriel Scheare

I hold people accountable for their own actions. I do not blame imaginary characters for the actions of real people.
Adilson Jr

As I said: you make it easier to God. Worst for you, who could squeeze Him for some answers…
Enema Of The State

So what you are saying is the laws of nature have no and need no explanation.
Gerard

I was just looking back at your initial “manifesto” which did nothing to address or counter the argument from motion since you consistently attach it to your straw man definition of God and not what Aquinas argues.
Frankly, it’s obvious from your avoidance and dodging and failure to answer even simple questions, you don’t know what you agree with or disagree with on Aquinas. You’ve not demonstrated any working knowledge of what Aquinas was stating. Rather you keep trying to steer the conversation to avoid the building up of a case but rather limit the conversation to your less comprehensive treatment of the subject of God.

Hell, you can’t even get the Genesis story of the fall correct. You’re flat out wrong when you state the serpent was truthful. The serpent lied, Adam and Eve did die and were not as Gods. Most of your misconceptions about “God” are some kind of infantile caricatures anthropomorphosizing God into something you can find a reason to reject. The “contradictions” you see are simply elements of the discussion that you haven’t refuted the arguments by Aquinas. You wouldn’t write your complaint about omniscience and omnipotence of God if you read about “contingency” and “necessity.” or the understanding of God knowing all things, and all things that are not.

Despite what Dr. Woods explained concerning what “motion” is, you don’t demonstrate any knowledge of being able to refute it. Ideas are a form of “motion” by the way.

Instead of reasoning logically, you remove attributes from God ad hoc because it’s convenient to make your deconstruction seem possible. You presume that God being “outside of time” is explicitly an added on attribute to escape criticism and then you diminish God into a temporal sphere where there is an unproven claim of “impossibility” and “contradiction.” Your criticisms are not original to you and Aquinas dealt with virtually all of them centuries before some bad, heretical Christians with a distorted understanding of God imparted that onto you for your to reject.

If you really think you are a philosopher, ( and you are not yet.) You need to deal with the real arguments, not convenient caricatures.
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm
Gerard

Forests have distinct features and functions separate from an individual tree, storage of carbon dioxide. There are definitions that consist of ranges and functions and not simply measurement. Clouds have ranges of saturation points in which the vapor condensates and the clouds precipitate rain. So once again. You’re wrong.

You can set up all the straw man arguments you like and call them lazy, superstitious and cop-outs. But the last thing you are comfortable with is dealing with the real arguments and you don’t admit you are ignorant concerning them. Motion if you understand the concept leads back to the unmoved mover. The argument stands, you have made no effort to refute it by logic. You claim your failure to disprove it, demonstrates that failure to concede a point is somehow genuine ignorance. And the theists are pathetic? Hah!

By constantly repeating your unproven assertions of God being an “idea” (trying to convince yourself through repetition) you demonstrate that you can’t disprove the original point and you avoid the argument entirely by clinging to the comfort of your false idea.

You talk about enacting ideas (motion) and simultaneously claim that ideas do not affect physical reality. The fact is, people are often the tools of ideas in which they act in the physical reality. The “intellectual reality” affects the “physical reality” through the medium of the person.
Gerard

Do you claim that moral agency, rights and responsibilities exist or not? It’s just an encapsulation of your own stated position. IF it’s non-sensical, the problem is with your inconsistency.

“Theists claim that God exists in and directly affects physical reality.”–What does Aquinas claim on these matters? We’re here discussing Aquinas, not what unnamed “theists” claim.
http://www.FortGalt.com Gabriel Scheare

Aquinas claims that all motion ultimately stems from a prime mover but doesn’t bother to explain where the mover came from. All such discussion is pointless because a) there is no way to empirically verify claims about the universe in an age before human existence and b) God is self-contradictory by nature and thus cannot possibly exist. Details about certain ancient mythologies are irrelevant because they are mere works of fiction. Claiming that he exists in another realm where the impossible is possible (“outside of time”) is pointless because the claim of theists is that God objectively exists and directly affects our physical reality. I’m rather enjoying your numerous ad hominems, by the way. Keep them coming. :)
http://www.FortGalt.com Gabriel Scheare

No, forests are not things that are different from trees. Multiplying something doesn’t result in a new and different thing, it just results in more of the same thing. Condensation and precipitation is merely the cooling of the water droplets. It’s elementary school science class material.
I dealt with all your claims in my very first post. Everything since then has been my patiently dealing with your ignorant and irrational reactions. I’m very comfortable with this and have been rather enjoy it, actually. I’m not convincing myself of anything, nor do I expect to convince you. We are both only representing positions to an audience and if you review our now lengthy string of exchanges, you’ll notice that my arguments have been netting the majority of bystander support. I consider this a win. I have not come to learn from you, I have come to publicly crush your feeble position in the critical eyes of the public and you have been most helpful to me in achieving this end.
Sweet dreams. :)
http://www.FortGalt.com Gabriel Scheare

They are of the mind, not of matter. Ideas, not things. It’s important to tell the difference between the two. You and I exist in physical reality (things) while God only exists as a character in our minds (ideas).
Aquinas is only being discussed because he championed the claim that God exists. I reveal that as the lie that it is and thus render him otherwise irrelevant.
Gerard

Nice dodge. I’ll ask again, does moral agency,rights and responsibility exist? Yes or No?

Aquinas’ argument is being discussed because that’s the topic of the thread. Your claims about “theists” are irrelevant to the discussion and straw man arguments.

And you failed miserably in disproving anything Aquinas stated and instead you complain because you want Aquinas to provide a square circle, frozen fire, (the moved Unmoved Mover) What was it you said? Oh Yes. “If you tell me that a square circle cannot exist, and I then create an imaginary realm outside our reality where square circles can exist, we are not at an impasse; I have just abandoned reality, rationality, and quite possibly my sanity.”

Yet you demand the mover of the unmoved mover.

I’m learning so much and enjoying this! Can’t wait for your replies, will you dodge some more? How many tangents? Will you actually concede your multiple and manifest errors? Will you display any working knowledge of what Aquinas was teaching? So much to look forward to.
Gerard

Forests are a biomass. Collectively, they do more than any individual tree can do. RE Clouds, you need to go back to elementary school since you’ve neglected pressure changes. And individual water droplet by the way can’t block out the sun and lower the temperature of the area below it and the air in between.

Your bloviating aside, you did not deal with “my claims” since I didn’t make any. You did not deal with Aquinas’ argument from motion. But rather you’ve set up a straw man and some fallacious statements and concluded that you are correct and declared victory.

I guess my ignorant and irrational reactions are simply things like asking you questions that you avoid answering. Your first post did not address the question of being and existence. So, again, your hyperbole undoes your position.

Regarding you considering this a “win” and your desire to crush my “feeble position” al. that tells me is this: You claimed you have no stake here, but it’s obvious you do. So, you contradict yourself once again. And we are presenting arguments ( or dodges in some cases) to readers, not an “audience.”

I haven’t paid any attention to any support given to any discussions. Never do. Don’t need it. If you do, if your argumentation is solely to gain “likes” or “up votes” then, you are less concerned with the veracity of your argument and more concerned with misleading people. Votes don’t change the logic of the argument. It’s better to be “Athanasius contra mundum” than a popular fraud.

So, you’re wrong on the argument from motion, because you pretend to understand it, but then make the asinine criticism that Aquinas provides no mover for the Unmoved Mover. All of your false conclusions are wrong because you simply do not understand the material you argue against.

Your wrong in your basic reading of Genesis. You claim the serpent was truthful when it’s there in the basic text in all languages in all editions of all sorts of denominations that the serpent lied. It doesn’t matter whether you believe the events described are true, Revelation or mythology, your error is in the realm of reading comprehension.
Gerard

So your complaint about Aquiinas is that he doesn’t explain what moved the Unmoved Mover. a) you are not dealing with the argument from motion. Reasoning isn’t limited to empirical evidence. b) the argument from motion proves you wrong. Your comments about what you claim are mythologies are irrelevant because you didn’t’ comprehend the argument from motion. Otherwise, you would not make a self-contradicting demand by asking what moved the unmoved. The argument from motion doesn’t claim he exists in another realm. We can have a discussion about God’s presence from a Thomistic understanding at another time, but we can’t proceed until you’ve actually learned the position of Thomas concerning the cosmological argument. Then you have the right to credibly try to criticize it. But seriously, claiming that Thomas doesn’t bother to explain what moved the unmoved is hilarious.
I hope you more than enjoy the ad hominems, and I hope you realize that not all ad hominens are fallacious. For example, you personally claimed yourself to be a philosopher, I dispute that based on your own presentation. To state that you are no philosopher is a reasoned ad hominem.
http://www.FortGalt.com Gabriel Scheare

I’ve already explained this numerous times. No. Abstractions do not exist in physical reality. Not sure what part of that is confusing you.
No, the thread is called “No, You’re not a dummy for believing in God.” I have taken a firm position in direct opposition to that claim.
I don’t “want” Aquinas to provide anything. I merely rejected his claim. He is no more significant to me than anyone else making similar claims. He was just another liar among many others in history. I’m not demanding anything. I am simply refusing to accept the nonsensical claim that you continue to represent.
Keep it up though. It’s good for giggles and doesn’t cost anything.
http://www.FortGalt.com Gabriel Scheare

No, forests are not biomass. Trees are. Trees and other such pieces of biomass exist in physical reality while forests don’t.
Barometric pressure has nothing to do with my earlier statement about the water droplets that are counted among those of a cloud.
Yes, as I already explained, I have no interest in converting you or convincing you of anything. I’m only using you as a means by which to educate curious onlookers. You’ve been a wonderful assistant thus far so thanks for that.
Oh and you are absolutely right about the spectators being readers and not an audience. Good catch! :)
You might even be correct about that bit in the Genesis story. A pity that it’s fiction and has no bearing on reality.
Gerard

Ah… the dodge again. I didn’t ask if they exist in “physical reality” I asked if they exist at all. I’m not confused about why you won’t answer the question posed to you at all. I’m just entertained witnessing the twisting in the wind.

Aquinas’ significance to you personally is irrelevant to the truth of his argument. . Your rejection of his argument is also irrelevant because you haven’t provided a dissuasive argument against his persuasive argument. Calling him a liar doesn’t make him a liar. You can’t even demonstrate that you comprehend his argument.

What it comes down to is you call frozen fire and square circles insanity, but because you are not comprehending what Aquinas’ argument is. You claimed you wanted Aquinas to provide the mover of the unmoved mover to prove his argument. You own that nonsense. I guess that’s why you’re giggling. :)
Gerard

Trees living in a symbiotic relationship with other life forms are tri-dimensional forms perceivable to the senses. They are forests. Precipitation and barometric pressure are effects and forces that affect change in groupings of water droplets that do not have the same effect on a single droplet not included in the cloud. The “visible mass of condensed water vapor floating in the atmosphere, typically high above the ground.”

RE: Genesis, You definitely got that one wrong. There’s no shame in being honestly wrong,

Fiction or not, it has influenced millions upon millions of people in “physical reality” or any other reality you care to mention. In fact, in “physical reality” you typed an error concerning the events in the book. So, an “idea” not in physical reality actually acted upon your own mind which in turn, put your physical structure into motion. That makes for an interesting anecdotal verification of what Aquinas states concerning motion.

And while you are conceding points, don’t forget that you didn’t understand Aquinas’ argument and asked for the equivalent of a square circle or frozen fire by demanding the mover of the Unmoved Mover. :)
http://www.FortGalt.com Gabriel Scheare

Even if you believe that everything must trace back to an unmoved mover, this does nothing to prove the existence of God. It
only claiming that that there was an original source aka “first cause” and it says nothing about the nature, abilities,
kindness, mental well being or interest of the first cause in human
affairs.
http://www.FortGalt.com Gabriel Scheare

What hight does fog become a cloud? How far may a droplet of vapor stray before it is no longer considered part of the cloud? How many trees does it take to constitute a forest and how close together must they be? There is no answers to these questions because they are dealing with abstractions that vary from observer to observer.
I suppose you could argue that the God character was literally correct when he said “you will surely die” because they ultimately did die eventually. However, if you were to tell to your simple-minded son or daughter “don’t do X or you will die,” they would certainly understand that as you telling them that the act of doing X is itself fatally dangerous and would result in immediate death as a direct result of doing the forbidden deed. This was revealed by the serpent to not be the case. I understand your point about that and concede your technical accuracy in regards to that detail.

I most certainly do agree that The Bible has influenced people. I didn’t mean to dispute that.

I understood Aquinas’ claim but I didn’t accept it as being complete or sound. I see his unmoved mover as being just like the big bang that so many people claim to know so much about. It’s like when a young child continuously asks “and where did that come from” over and over until his/her parent gets tired and puts a stop to the infinite line of questioning by making up a final answer like “and that came from God” or “and that all came from the big bang.” The child could ask “and where did that come from” again except that the parent has asserted his/her authority and claimed knowledge of this ultimate origin so the child is at a loss to press the matter any further…
jda2000

Does not compile.
jda2000

Don’t worry about it. There isn’t a single shred of actual evidence that death is not what it obviously is.
Benjamin Wenham

True; i am a noob with programing.

The point remains however.

It is possible to describe a set of rules, in such a form that mathematically demonstrate the ability of natural forces to account actions, without the need for said unmoved mover, which means that the unmoved mover is an unnecessary level of complexity, and their for parsimonious.
Gerard

Fog is already a low laying cloud. Distinctions are made by the altitude of clouds. It’s a “type” You are simply asking the wrong questions. They are insufficient to address the phenomena operating in the formation of clouds or forests. You’re confusing materialism with realism and abstractions with phenomena. See: Cloud Physics.

Re: Genesis, there is a lot you are missing regarding the event described concerning the nature of man, the fall, the expulsion for paradise and the proto-evangelium. But to use modern analogy, by learning of evil, man caught a virus that limited his ability to thrive in his environment, paradise and living eternally while damaged would have been just, but merciless on the part of God. So, he allowed death to happen to them, despite the fact that they were not designed for death in their original habitat. The insurmountable task of making reparations to God could only be accomplished by God Himself. So, He would partake of human nature in order to allow us to choose to partake of His Divinity. So, the restoration is an improvement on the original paradise.

Aquinas’ argument is sound and rational. The Big Bang doesn’t address the “Big Banger” so it’s not really anything but a cause and effect on a large scale. The UnMoved Mover is a rational conclusion to address the impossible and irrational conclusion of infinite regress.

I’m not a fan of Fr. Barron’s theology but this is a good explanation of Aquinas’ first argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdjjqFSEJ_Y

Aquinas doesn’t claim that the first way is complete to get to the conclusion of God the Creator, and he doesn’t claim it’s possible to get to the Trinitarian God through the Five Ways. But the Five Ways build upon one another to get to a natural understanding of the God that revealed Himself to humanity through the Jewish and Christian tradition.
Gerard

The First Argument of Aquinas doesn’t claim to make a complete argument. It’s “the first step” on the way to exploring what must of necessity be the essence, and our understanding of characteristics of God. The subsequent arguments address different characteristics and build on the overall outline of the conception of God. First Cause, Necessary Being,

If you are given a Rubik’s cube, you have to sometimes go a long way to get one square in its proper place, and the final moves to solving it seem really counter intuitive since you have to deconstruct to reconstruct, but the principal of knowing that it was solved when you took it out of the box and it must by its nature be able to be put back together can.

I’ve sent you this link to a series of chapter links in Thomas’ Summa Contra Gentiles where he gets into more detail. I’m sure there are concepts that Thomas concludes are associated with God that you had not previously thought about.

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm
Norcal Mike

Good work Derek, thanks for typing that out, Tom forwards a great argument for God being the same phenomena as natural law (as opposed to the physical things that obey natural law): Pure actuality, no potentiality. Gravity is a good example. Laws of thermodynamics too.

No potentiality means never making a decision over any other, lacking form and emotion. Never creating anything, and obviously never choosing to send an emissary down to spread the good word on Earth. Just being, not a Just Being.

One is not a dummy for believing in God, the term God means a different thing to each person. Being lazy enough to outsource your philosophical framework to a 600 or 1,600 year-old package of earlier fables is, alas, to be a dummy.
brianmacker

Was Aquinas a first rate thinker? Every time someone brings up his ideas they are full of errors and fallacies. What did he ever get right?
brianmacker

There are lots of alternate arguments. One for each of the errors made. Aquinas is agruing from analogy to physics. If he had his physics correct then even with a newtonian system you can have two objects orbiting each other, which doesn’t require an infinite regress of objects, and also does not require any paritcular object to initiate the act. Each of the two objects moves the other from its inertial straigh line path continously. There is no need for a first mover.
brianmacker

Huh? This stuff was refuted long ago. Woods’ talk was full of errors.
brianmacker

How could he “use magic” if he can’t do anything? Using magic just like flying requires the potential to act in that fashion in the future. Wood’s has ruled out the ability of this god to change from one actual state to another actual state.

BTW, he gets potential wrong. Potential is a future, not a present condition and is probablistic. A child is in an actual state now and has the potential in the future to change into another actual state of being an adult, or being dead. The child never moves from a current potential state to a future actual state as Tom claims. The child is always moving from actual state to actual state. When we speak of potentials we are speaking of multiple possible actual states in the future.
brianmacker

There is a deeper error here. Perfection assumes a standard and a set of values. Perfect by what standard and who’s values? Why is infinity just assumed to be something which is to be valued? Maybe being infinite is an imperfection that prevents existence. This whole structure rests on a quicksand of false and unmerited assumptions, then uses non sequitur to arrive at improper conclusions even if the assumptions were true.
brianmacker

No but you can send a link to Tom’s talk for that exercise. That might be too easy an assignment though.
brianmacker

What if your neighbor believes in a god that requires everyone not to work on Sunday, or the stoning of people who have sex outside marriage? “Militant” atheists undermine religious claims to special knowledge of gods precisely because those claims come prepackaged with additional claims of special authority over others.
brianmacker

There are actual people who believe exactly that. That conciousness is primary and that we create existence by observation. They use crank versions of quantum mechanics to claim that science supports their view.
brianmacker

No you can’t jump to the meta-level, sorry. Aquinas’ analogy is to motion, not physics.
brianmacker

Hey, Can I play this game? You have to concede that most theists read neither the ancient argument for theism nor the devastating criticisms of them, whose age is irrelevant to the fact they are valid criticisms.
brianmacker

That something could just be another rock that is orbiting the rock for which you are asking, “why does it turn instead of continuing straight as entropy would have it do?”
brianmacker

What I wrote is still above and there is NO mention of you personally, and no claims to knowledge about you. You either have reading comprehension problems or are a liar.
brianmacker

It’s his typical tripe so far. The guy has a god complex. What of value do you expect me to get out of it? I already disagree with Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris on many issues. I wouldn’t want to waste a whole day reading this pompous asses long winded and self congratulatory statements just to get to the few places he has a point to make.
brianmacker

Correction, I’m too intelligent to pay for his book.
brianmacker

Wrong. The phrase “argument from ignorance” has a specific meaning. It is a form of fallacy. You are just plain ignorant in the area you are trying to discuss. You are also so uneducated you are not comprehending what is being discussed in other areas, and are making all sorts of amature mistakes. This is why others disagreeing with you are getting fed up with you.
brianmacker

If you want an example of me eating Vox Day’s intellectual lunch then google:

Vox “Brian Macker” “I am an atheist and”

In the comments section of the Dr. Helen article on free will I destroy his nonsense.
knoxharrington

I think he is for a variety of reasons not the least of which is that his ideas, even if wrong, merit discussion. I completely disagree with Karl Marx but I can still respect the effort, by way of example.

ABOUT TOM WOODS

The Tom Woods App

No, You’re Not a Dummy for Believing in God

BLOGROLL

UPCOMING EVENTS

FACEBOOK