Vox Day wants to refute atheist arguments

It would seem Vox Day has a new project in mind: trying to come up with clear, rational and logical refutations to some of the strongest and/or most common arguments used by atheists to criticize religion. Which, considering Vox Day’s known inability in the ways of anything resembling clear and logic-based argumentation, should certainly prove at least moderately interesting.

I'm in the process of putting together a tool that I think people may find useful in confronting aggressive atheists making spurious arguments. TIA has its place, of course, but the reality is that few people on either side of the debate are never going to read more than a few pages of any of the books that address the matter. Here are the seven New Atheist arguments that I've already addressed; you may note that I have chosen to select arguments that can be easily and graphically refuted utilizing empirical evidence.

^[1]Religion Causes War
^[2]Religion Inspires Violence
^[3]Religion Inhibits Science
^[4]Sam Harris's Extinction Equation
^[5]Sam Harris's Red State Argument
^[6]Atheists Commit Less Crime
^[7]Richard Dawkins's Improbability of Divine Complexity

What arguments most demand attention in your opinion? Which arguments are most often brought up by the militant atheists of your acquaintance? Alternatively, if you are an atheist, what are the arguments that you feel most powerfully make the case for atheism?

Let’s look at these arguments one by one, keeping it all short and simple, shall we?

#1: “Religion Causes War”

Actually, there are two ways this argument works: either that religion is a direct cause for war and other motives are secondary or immaterial, or that religion is just an excuse, a convenient argument, for launching into war with an enemy whom one already wishes to attack. Both have their own merits, though it is true that in most cases (if not even the vast majority of them), religious leaders and forces merely reach to their faith and their token deities both to smear the enemy, and to rally up their populaces and get them to wage battles that they may ordinarily never have fought in. After all, what better way to convince your people that you are going to win and that the war is a right one to wage if you get them to believe that it’s the will of their deity(s)?

However, there have also been a fair few wars in which religion, or conflicts between peoples whose differing faiths were the primary instigator in their hostilities, did play a primary role in the offensives. Just look at one of the longest and bloodiest wars in history, the Crusades, where Latin Europe launched a lengthy series of offensives against various targets, particularly the Holy Land (Jerusalem, Palestine, etc.) with the prominent goal of trying to recapture territory from Muslims and reclaim it as Christian territory. Other examples of religiously-motivated wars where religion was more than just a cover, but was an actual prime instigator, include the 16^th century French Wars of Religion between French Catholics and Protestants (particularly the Hugenots), the Thirty Years War in the first half of the 17^th century between the German states, Scandinavia (primarily Sweden) and Poland and fueled by tensions between Catholics and Calvinists, and the Saxon Wars (though in this case, conquering new land and peoples played an equal role to religiously-motivated conflict).

So, in short, is it a good argument for atheists to use, that “religion causes war”? Half-and-half. Merely saying that religion is a cause for war is technically correct, but incomplete, as it leaves out the notion of religion being used as a cover for other motives, primarily political. However, to deny that many wars have been waged primarily, or even solely, in the name of religion, would be both foolhardy and historically ignorant. Let’s see how Vox plans to refute this one.

#2: “Religion Inspires Violence”

Here’s an argument that’s about as clear-cut as they come. Yes, religion can inspire violence – a shitload of it. What else would you call different religious groups constantly clashing and uprising against each other? It’s not (mostly) for the money, the land or the glory – it’s because their enemies are filthy unbelievers and need to be crushed. Of course, I say this in a very general manner, but the point remains: religious differences cause tensions that, if left unresolved, can quickly escalate into bloody violence.

Of course, no-one is saying that “all religion always leads to violence”. This is stupid and would constitute no more than a particularly pathetic strawman fallacy were it used in a debate against atheists and their arguments. Religion can indeed foster peace and tranquility – in times of peace and tranquility. But when tensions arise, political or otherwise, one will notice how quickly religious people tend to forget all about that whole “peace and love” thing.

I’m really curious to see which statistics Vox plans to distort or ignore in order to refute this one.

#3: “Religion Inhibits Science”

Now we’re just getting blindingly obvious. No rational and learned person can possibly claim that religion doesn’t inhibit scientific research, knowledge or teachings – for Christ’s sake, just look at their influence in American schools, where Creationists are constantly trying to sneak their brand of superstitious nonsense into science classrooms. And that’s just for starters. One only has to think about the very, very, very long recorded history of religious persecution of scientific research and enlightened individuals – such as the religiously-motivated campaigns to try and ban Stem Cell Research, to use a modern-day example – to realize how crippling religion can be towards scientific progress.

Oh, and I hope Vox won’t actually stoop to such silliness as bringing up the old argument about how science actually began in religion, with the scientific methods having its roots in Christianity, and so on. The fact that science had a religious origin and that early scientists were religious is proof of absolutely nothing, other than that an offshoot of mind-rot was able to grow clean and clear and eventually surpass its roots and form the logic- and evidence-based methodology that it is today.

In other words: if science is religion’s baby, then science has long since outgrown religion and is now fervently and effectively kicking its ass out the door.

#4: “Sam Harris’s Extinction Equation”

I’ve never read Sam Harris’s books – or any other tomes on atheism and arguments against religion – and, therefore, do not know anything about Harris’s arguments. Even Google fails to turn up any relevant information. So, let’s skip this one.

#5: “Sam Harris’s Red State Argument”

Same as above.

#6: “Atheists Commit Less Crime”

This has to be the most well-founded and statistics-backed claim I’ve yet heard atheists make, even though I do dispute its relevance in most contexts. I don’t really see how atheists committing less crimes is relevant to religion, considering as there could be any number of other reasons or influences behind the statistics. But nonetheless, to claim that “religious nones” don’t commit less crimes than religious people would be absolutely and hilariously stupid, even by Vox Day standards, considering the tons of statistical evidence directly contradicting such a notion.

#7: “Richard Dawkins’s Improbability of Divine Complexity”

Once again, no idea which argument this is.

Finally, Vox asks which arguments make the best case for atheism, which I presume means both how atheism is better than religion, and how religion is flawed. Honestly, I’m going to cheat here and diverge a little: my best argument against religion and religious thinking, and just about everything that comes with it?

“Why are there absolutely no signs of any divine or supernatural entities?”

If God (or any gods, or any supernatural forces, period) existed, and particularly if he were the Creator and all that, than it’s obvious he would have some form of influence over the universe, particularly what we can see, touch, measure, etc. But, as I’ve often said at length: there are absolutely no good reasons to believe in God, gods, or any metaphysical beings or forces. None at all. There is zero evidence, zero supporting logic, and therefore, zero credibility. Every single argument ever used to try and rationalize the existence of an entity that cannot be seen, touched, felt, heard or quantified in any way has been debunked, time and time again, in so many ways that it’s an exercise in futility to try and rehash them again.

So … if there are no logical, rational and credible reasons to believe in the existence of God/gods/hocus-pocus, then why should we? Or, more appropriately, why is this belief then used to support the concept of faith and religion, if this belief is so fundamentally flawed to the point where it’s a wholly unsubstantiated absurdity? How can anyone believe in something that they have no reason to believe is even there?

Just askin’.