There is a particular type of atheist who just can’t help but strike a pose of sneering superiority every time someone posts my testimony somewhere on the Internet:

These guys usually turn out to be the variety of atheist known as “anklebiter,” described by Vox Day here:

Anklebiters are a brain-damaged form of midwit. They are almost always atheist, further pointing towards the atypical neurological profile required for that, they are usually male, and they tend to be unexpectedly poorly educated and badly read despite their observable intelligence. Most importantly, they lack the normal ability to admit failure, back up, and start over that normal individuals possess. And lacking it, they therefore lack any ability to improve their arguments or even to question any of their adopted beliefs.

That’s why anklebiters are always disappearing when trounced, only to reappear again and make the exact same arguments that have already been dismissed. The problem … is that this renders them immune to dialectic, and they tend to ignore pure rhetoric because they are not emotionally invested in their nonsense arguments. The more virulent form, the trolls, are sociopathic and have no meaningful human emotions to which one can appeal.

In effect, anklebiters are little more than genetically human bots, which is why there is no point in arguing with them or insulting them. They are not capable of adding anything to the discourse, so as soon as an anklebiter is identified, they are best ignored…

If they start showing up here in numbers, I will probably have to take that advice. For now, I tend to engage them, because I can practically guarantee they will disappear as soon as I invite them to participate in meaningful discussion. 

I have not heard from this person since. Maybe he’s reading through the website and formulating a response. If he fails to respond with anything substantial, it will be consistent with the anklebiter profile.

Speaking of which, our old friend OpenMind back popped up again to suggest I read some book or other:

Never got a response to that. Maybe he’s reading Vox’s book, but I tend to doubt it. I challenged another atheist who was email-pelting me with endless questions to read it, and never heard back from him. (Vox’s book seems to have the same affect on atheists that a crucifix has on vampires.)

[If you’re wondering what a midwit is, see here.]

12 thoughts on “Anklebiters

  1. Jerry Coyne? He’s a philosophical dunderhead.

    “Another problem is that scientists like me are intimidated by philosophical jargon, and hence didn’t interrupt the monologues to ask for clarification for fear of looking stupid. I therefore spent a fair amount of time Googling stuff like “epistemology” and “ontology” (I can never get those terms straight since I rarely use them).”

    He’s confused at the Philosophy 101 level. From the Maverick Philosopher: “It would be as if a philosopher couldn’t distinguish between velocity and acceleration, or mass and weight, or a scalar and a vector, or thought that a light-year was a measure of time.”

    In the linked video, ~27:06, Coyne destroys his own no free will argument by stating “We can overcome the tyranny of our selfish genes.” Previously, he’s said “It’s impossible, anyway, to act as though we don’t have it: you’ll pretend to choose your New Year’s resolutions, and the laws of physics will determine whether you keep them.” He’s incompetent.

    Further, he’s utterly ignorant of history. No where in the world has the scientific methodology flourished but under Christianity. If anything, science is utterly dependent on a functioning Christian civilization. I stopped watching soon after that, he has no wisdom.

    I’m starting to think that Atheism is incompatible with reason, logic, and science beyond the basics.

  2. I remember briefly looking at something Coyne had written, and thinking, this guy isn’t tall enough for this ride. I’m not surprised he’s not conversant in basic philosophy, but I am surprised that he would make such an embarrassingly honest confession.

    And you’re right; atheism is not compatible with reason, logic, and science. Which is not at all to say that individual atheists are not able to do good science, but that science needs to operate within the framework of Christianity to function adequately.

  3. I’ve a question about the author of the Irrational Atheist, which I have not read yet. Wikipedia describes Vox Day as an arrogant, insulting white supremacist who has stated that women should be deprived the right to vote and that African-Americans are half savage? Is this the tone of Irrational Atheist?


    1) “arrogant.” Yes.
    2) “white supremacist.” No.
    3) “who has stated that women should be deprived the right to vote.” See the link, he’s in favor of direct democracy.
    4) “African-Americans are half savage.” No. He called one writer who was behaving poorly, she turned around and proudly declared herself to be a full savage.

    “Is this the tone of Irrational Atheist?”

    You’re asking if Wikipedia’s biased hit piece of the author connotes the tone of one of his books? Do you really need someone to answer that?

  5. connie, the Wikipedia entry for Vox Day is grossly inaccurate, and I would disregard it. There are a lot of politically motivated editors at Wikipedia who are determined to paint as unflattering a picture of Christian public figures as possible.

    Vox Day is my editor at Castalia House, and I consider him a mentor and a friend. He may tend towards a bit of arrogance, but that is typical of people with high IQ. The label of white supremacist is laughably incorrect, considering that he is exactly as white as President Obama.

    Vox has never said that blacks are half-savage. He referred to one particular black author, NK Jemisin, as “half-savage” after she started harassing Vox unprovoked and threatened him with violence. This was not in reference to her race, but to her behavior.

    I would not concern yourself over the tone of The Irrational Atheist. It is an enjoyable and enlightening read, even if it’s contemptuous of the New Atheists — but they deserve contempt.

  6. I hope you enjoy it, connie. It blows the lid off the idea that the New Atheists occupy the intellectual high ground, and it’s great ammo against a lot of their arguments.

  7. Good lord, you’re certifiable.

    connie: You might want to consider reading the actual books by the people being attacked, rather than a book bashing them.

Comments are closed.