1. Comment #85814 by djpreach on November 7, 2007 at 9:10 am

Just to "correct" the blurb..

"By demonstrating how Crean's criticisms rest on misunderstandings, superficial readings, poor argumentation, a lack of historical awareness, and not a little prejudice, Crean reveals himself to be out of his philosophical and theological depth, and his case for God to be fundamentally flawed."

Other Comments by djpreach

2. Comment #85815 by gr_man on November 7, 2007 at 9:10 am

Wait a minute....WE pick and choose our morals? That seems almost laughable when they pick and choose to suit the times from their pathetic book of moral guidance.

Other Comments by gr_man

3. Comment #85818 by irate_atheist on November 7, 2007 at 9:13 am

I haven't read the book so therefore feel well placed to comment on it.

1. Thomas Crean sets up a series of straw man arguments.

2. Argues that 'my God's not like that'

3. Says 'not all religion is the same'

4. Completely redefines religion to mean something different anyway.

5. Fails to put up a single supporting fact for what he asserts in his book.

6. Misquotes and misrepresents the 'opposition'.


Can I have my reviewer's fee please?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

4. Comment #85820 by Godless Heathen on November 7, 2007 at 9:17 am

All these no-name authors jumping on the flea bandwagon hoping to make a buck off Dawkins, Harris, et al. Why can't they come up with their own ideas and make an honest buck?!

Other Comments by Godless Heathen

5. Comment #85823 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 9:22 am

God is no delusion in the mind of the deluded.

Other Comments by monkey2

6. Comment #85824 by BaronOchs on November 7, 2007 at 9:25 am

In the circle of Richard's fleas look at the book "A Catholic replies to Professor Dawkins". It's also by Thomas Crean O.P.

Is it the same book under two titles (i.e. one for america one for britain or something)?

[unless a lack of real inquisitions to co-ordinate is giving the dominicans too much surplus time to write books?]

Other Comments by BaronOchs

7. Comment #85827 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 9:29 am

Free Rorschach inkblot test with every book cover. Mmm.. Rusty dagger?

Other Comments by monkey2

8. Comment #85829 by Cartomancer on November 7, 2007 at 9:33 am

The Dominicans have always had too much time on their hands. Wasting parchment is just about all they've ever been good for. Deep Fat Friar Thomas Aquinas and his endless stream of verbiage anybody?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

9. Comment #85831 by Matt7895 on November 7, 2007 at 9:39 am

As Daniel Dennett says, the argument has been won. Now its a propaganda war. All the flea books are from either delusional people who are otherwise reasonable minded, or just plain liars.

Other Comments by Matt7895

10. Comment #85833 by brainsys on November 7, 2007 at 9:45 am

"... reducing morality to the individual's subjective likes and dislikes"

Frightening to think this Catholic can't trust his own morality but has to rely on someone else's to avoid doing evil.

I guess that's the case for promoting christianity to the morally inept. As long as they stick to the nicer bits of the bible ... but then catholicsm doesn't have the greatest track record on morality or of not scaring the children with tales of hideous punishment for what other parts of christendom think quite normal.

Other Comments by brainsys

11. Comment #85836 by Silent.Bomber on November 7, 2007 at 9:50 am

Yes, I am always critical of 'books written to criticise other books'. These 'fleas' are opportunistic and are in it for some easy money which they can get by recycling some of their old material and chucking in the words 'Dawkins', 'dogmatist' and 'arrogant' every now and then, it really disgusts me.
Apparently, he shows 'how God is important for a coherent understanding of morality'. Oh goody, I look forward to that one. Dawkins is out of his 'theological depth', well it's certainly not the deepest of pools. I hope they aren't going to return to the 'you can't make an opinion on whether Christianity is a load of horse-shit without reading the Bible' argument. That's like saying you can't make a balanced and informed analysis of whether Sauron the Master of the One Ring actually exists without first reading the entire back-story of Middle Earth.

Other Comments by Silent.Bomber

12. Comment #85839 by notsobad on November 7, 2007 at 9:59 am

he uses reason and evidence to defend such things as miracles and the authority of the Bible.

I'd like to see a single piece of evidence from this "writer".

Other Comments by notsobad

13. Comment #85843 by STLstrike3 on November 7, 2007 at 10:07 am

The flood of these "response" books are the intellectual equivalent of swiping all of the chess pieces off of the board when you're checkmated and shouting "I win!".

Other Comments by STLstrike3

14. Comment #85852 by ksskidude on November 7, 2007 at 10:22 am

The following was published in the Kansas City Star as an op-ed. I just want to puke when I read crap like this.

More on atheism
In response to the reader who wrote that if there were more atheists there might be fewer foxholes, I have some history for her.

In communist, atheistic Russia, Stalin and his minions managed to wipe out at least 30 million fellow countrymen. In communist, atheistic China, Chairman Mao perpetrated similar slaughter during the Cultural Revolution.

Charlie Birmingham
Spring Hill

Don't you feel sorry for the atheist lying in his casket all dressed up and no place to go?

Vera Newbold
Shawnee

If you would like to comment, please go to www.kansascity.com the Unfettered Letters Section and sign in to comment. You'll see my comment there already.

Other Comments by ksskidude

15. Comment #85856 by TeapotTheist on November 7, 2007 at 10:39 am

Still no fleas on Hitch?

I suppose "God IS Great - how religion sweetens everything" wouldn't sell so well :)

Other Comments by TeapotTheist

16. Comment #85858 by Dower on November 7, 2007 at 10:46 am

Monkey2 says:

God is no delusion in the mind of the deluded.

Priceless.

Other Comments by Dower

17. Comment #85860 by bbittner on November 7, 2007 at 10:49 am

I'd love to see how many copies each of these titles are selling.

Other Comments by bbittner

18. Comment #85863 by epeeist on November 7, 2007 at 10:56 am

Comment #85827 by monkey2

Free Rorschach inkblot test with every book cover. Mmm.. Rusty dagger?

Close - its actually an Italian foil with a cross-bar and a ricasso blade ;-)

Other Comments by epeeist

19. Comment #85871 by jesus_christ_himself on November 7, 2007 at 11:18 am

That silhouette of a crucified jesus on the front cover looks like it's made of dogshit.

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

20. Comment #85876 by maton100 on November 7, 2007 at 11:32 am

Well, where is the non-delusion? Maybe under my sofa?

Other Comments by maton100

21. Comment #85877 by GoatBoy36 on November 7, 2007 at 11:34 am

ksskidude,

I went across to the newspaper's website and read the letters page you mentioned. Unfortunately I couldn't send in a letter, I just got a "404" message and it was a no go.

If I may however: It seems to me that the actions of people like Hitler and those other nasties commonly found in that particular theistic argument pose a greater problem to the theist!

I believe I'm right in saying that CS Lewis argued that humans possess a moral conscience, which can discern an objective morality (which does exist), as is shown by everyone thinking the Nazis were evil. And enough people certainly fought to defeat Hitler, right enough. Mind you, God, being all powerful, could have settled Hitler's hash in the blink of an eye. Why didn't he?

This is the problem of evil. I suggest you turn the comments made by old Charlie and Vera back on them, and ask why their all powerful and wholly good deity did nothing while millions died in WWII.

God could have given Hitler an MI, no problem. But maybe the theistic view is that their God won't actually kill anyone himself. After all, that's murder, and that is wrong. (Which is pretty funny, having read the OT.) God could have made Hitler mute though. Imagine: no Nuremberg rallies, no inspiring speeches, just a funny wee mannie with a hilarious moustache! No one would ever have taken Hitler seriously, it would have been like watching a Spike Milligan programme on TV! Therefore, no holocaust.

But did God do even that? No. And why not ... well you and I know the answer to that question, but perhaps it might be a good idea to ask Vera or Charlie, & see what they have to say for themselves.

good luck, as I say I tried to send that in to the paper myself but it was a non starter.

gb.

Other Comments by GoatBoy36

22. Comment #85878 by GoatBoy36 on November 7, 2007 at 11:44 am

That is a horrible book cover, right enough. I wonder what "O.P." stands for. I've never come across that before. Old Person?

Other Comments by GoatBoy36

23. Comment #85885 by notsobad on November 7, 2007 at 12:09 pm

ksskidude,
in this case, saying that "if there were more atheists there might be fewer foxholes" is ambiguous at best.

Now if the OP said "if there were fewer theists, there might be fewer foxholes" he/she would have a valid point (and would be grammatically correct too :).

Other Comments by notsobad

24. Comment #85897 by dvespertilio on November 7, 2007 at 12:42 pm

OP stands for Order of Preachers, which is what the dominicans are supposed to do in the rc church, teach and preach the dogmas and doctrines of the church.

Other Comments by dvespertilio

25. Comment #85898 by D'Arcy on November 7, 2007 at 12:43 pm

That is a horrible book cover, right enough. I wonder what "O.P." stands for. I've never come across that before. Old Person?

I may be wrong, but I think OP stands for opening post.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

26. Comment #85903 by Matt7895 on November 7, 2007 at 12:51 pm

ksskidude quoted the following:

'"Don't you feel sorry for the atheist lying in his casket all dressed up and no place to go?'"

Vera Newbold
Shawnee'

What a horrible woman, is all I have to say.

Other Comments by Matt7895

27. Comment #85904 by BigJohn on November 7, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Comment #85818 by irate_atheist

Good review, but, you don't get a fee for it. It was just too easy a job to collect a fee for.

Other Comments by BigJohn

28. Comment #85907 by BaronOchs on November 7, 2007 at 1:00 pm

O.P. = Order of Preachers. a.k.a.the Dominicans.

[ah dvespertillo i'm too slow!]

Other Comments by BaronOchs

29. Comment #85909 by dloubet on November 7, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Alas, in this case, STLstrike3, I think it would be checkers.

And you're right, jesus_Christ_himself, dogshit was the first thing I thought of when I saw the cover. What the hell were they thinking?

Other Comments by dloubet

30. Comment #85912 by socratzsche on November 7, 2007 at 1:08 pm

"[...] he uses reason and evidence to defend such things as miracles [...]"

Since when are "miracles" defended by reason and evidence? Miracles stand above causality.

Here's something that describes every "flea" author:

"When a man feels that he has a divine mission, say to lift up, to save or to liberate mankind--when a man feels the divine spark in his heart and believes that he is the mouthpiece of supernatural imperatives--when such a mission inflames him, it is only natural that he should stand beyond all merely reasonable standards of judgment. He feels that he is himself sanctified by this mission, that he is himself a type of a higher order!...What has a priest to do with philosophy! He stands far above it!--And hitherto the priest has ruled!--He has determined the meaning of "true" and "not true"!

Other Comments by socratzsche

31. Comment #85933 by flobear on November 7, 2007 at 2:02 pm

jesus_christ_himself: That silhouette of a crucified jesus on the front cover looks like it's made of dogshit.

JCH: That literally made me laugh out loud. My guess is that the author's dog made it, he recognized it as a miracle and then decided to write the book. It's only a matter of time before we see St. Rex.

Other Comments by flobear

32. Comment #85958 by Cartomancer on November 7, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Well, I've been sitting on this for some time now, but I thought it might be appropriate. Best Gilbert and Sullivan voices please oh choir of atheists to whom our good Professor is preaching:

He is the very model of a major modern atheist
Accreditations as a writer, humanist, and scientist
He knows the works of Darwin, and can quote from verse poetical
To peddlers of religious faith his thought is antithetical

He's very well acquainted, too, with matters cosmological
He understands the theories of beginnings biological
About the book of Genesis he's keen to point out that it's tripe
With many cheerful facts about the genome and the phenotype

With many cheerful facts about the genome and the phenotype
With many cheerful facts about the genome and the phenotype
With many cheerful facts about the genome and the phenophenotype

He's very good at pointing out the flaws of fundamentalists
He knows the answer to the claim that any sort of god exists
In short, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

In short, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

He gives the lie to theists on their frankly loopy moral claim
He answers the apologists who bring up Adolf Hitler's name
He quotes in measured sentences the crimes of child labelling
And points out that the moderates are merely faith-enabling

His works inspire charlatans and liars to cacophonies
He treats with great bemusement all the writings of the lot of these
Their arguments a fugue of which we hear a hundred times a day
An order Siphonapterid with nothing of their own to say

An order Siphonapterid with nothing of their own to say
An order Siphonapterid with nothing of their own to say
An order Siphonapterid with nothing of their own to, own to say

He wants to rid our lives of morals writ in ancient cuneiform
And show we might as well believe in pastel-coloured unicorns
In short, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

In short, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

In fact, since he knows what is meant by Russell's flying crockery
Since he can tell at sight a valid argument made properly
Since he renounces theists, be they pope or seminarian
And since he knows precisely what is meant by "pastafarian"

Since he has learned what progress could be lost to ID flummery
and since he sees the child abuse that goes on in a nunnery
In short, since he exposes many dangerous hypocrisies
You'll say a better atheist there hasn't been since Socrates!

You'll say a better atheist there hasn't been since Socrates!
You'll say a better atheist there hasn't been since Socrates!
You'll say a better atheist there hasn't been since Socrasocrates!

Our much beloved Dawkins, light of Oxford's University
encouraging us atheists to come out universally
Indeed, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

Indeed, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

Other Comments by Cartomancer

33. Comment #85961 by steveroot on November 7, 2007 at 3:34 pm

26. Comment #85898 by D'Arcy on November 7, 2007 at 12:43 pm

That is a horrible book cover, right enough. I wonder what "O.P." stands for. I've never come across that before. Old Person?

I may be wrong, but I think OP stands for opening post.

"Obnoxious Prick"? :-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

34. Comment #85968 by The Truth, the light on November 7, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Obviously a very new book (or possibly just not popular). The only independent review I could find said:

Crean has the IQ of a fence post.

Other Comments by The Truth, the light

35. Comment #85970 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Don't you feel sorry for the atheist lying in his casket all dressed up and no place to go?

Taken one stage further can you imagine the theist in his Sunday best. His finger wriggling his collar for eternity.

Other Comments by monkey2

36. Comment #85998 by Zaphod on November 7, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Is this going to be another book refuting a strawman.

Other Comments by Zaphod

37. Comment #86001 by A. Person on November 7, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Socratzsche, what was that quote from? It reads vaguely like Nietzsche, but it's not ringing any bells.

Other Comments by A. Person

38. Comment #86010 by Russell Blackford on November 7, 2007 at 8:17 pm

"OP" signifies the Catholic order he belongs to - in this case, apparently, the Dominicans. But it would be nice if it stood for "Order of Paramecia" or "Order of Platyhelminths" or something of the kind.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

39. Comment #86049 by mr-zero on November 8, 2007 at 1:18 am

I don't understand the cover.
Isn't that supposed to be a Rorschach inkblot test?
Isn't the idea of an inkblot test to use pareidolia to get you to see things that AREN'T THERE thus revealing your inner psyche?!
Are they saying that there is no god? We only imagine we see his shape in the clouds, tea leaves and ink blots.
Z

Other Comments by mr-zero

40. Comment #86051 by Philip1978 on November 8, 2007 at 1:36 am

ksskidude

You are holding you own on that forum, I just love that Sammy chap - Evolution hasn't been proved yet- hilarious! Plus I love the others who are chanting "But Jesus did this that and the other- that's why we have morality and ksskidude is going off to kill us all cos he is being guided by satan!"

I think you should write something like "Yes, and thanks to Satan, I know where you all live..."

Have fun on there and keep up the good work!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

41. Comment #86057 by Duff on November 8, 2007 at 2:54 am

"Crean...uses evidence and reason to prove miracles..."!
In that case, since we now have "evidence", faith is superfluous.

Other Comments by Duff

42. Comment #86076 by stephenray on November 8, 2007 at 4:33 am

Notice how he presents "straightforward" arguments for the existence of god.

That's because - presumably - those pesky convoluted arguments are just too durn hard to follow!!

Other Comments by stephenray

43. Comment #86099 by Acleron on November 8, 2007 at 6:21 am

uses reason and evidence to defend such things as miracles

One of the significant events on my journey to atheism was a English Lang and Lit teacher at school trying to scientifically prove the miracles. The one I remember best was the parting of the Red Sea which he ascribed to a wind blowing across it. At the age of fourteen I pointed out that such a wind would have caused considerable difficulties to the people trying to cross. His response was along the lines of 'god moves in mysterious ways'. We were much too polite (and afraid) to laugh at this but many of us couldn't take him seriously again.
Must get a copy of this for another good laugh.

Other Comments by Acleron

44. Comment #86153 by Corylus on November 8, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Free Rorschach inkblot test with every book cover. Mmm.. Rusty dagger?

And

Close - its actually an Italian foil with a cross-bar and a ricasso blade ;-)

No! Always, always say it's a butterfly – no matter what it sodding well looks like.

You will be deemed thick, unimaginative and a dozy hippy, but at least the buggers won't admit you to the ward ;)

Other Comments by Corylus

45. Comment #86163 by jeepyjay on November 8, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Cartomancer, I enjoyed your Gilbert and Sullivan parody (even if no one else seems to have noticed it). Great stuff!

I have to report another "flea". Last night I went to a lecture by the Bishop of London with the title "Climate Change and The God Delusion". My report is here:

http://secsoc.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html

In fact it was nothing about Richard Dawkins' book. The Bishop thinks that Humanists have the delusion that we are little gods ourselves.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

46. Comment #86173 by Summer Seale on November 8, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Why does anyone actually have to go out of their way to write a book trying to prove to everyone else that God exists?

Can't...God do it? The bible is a few thousand years old. I'd like an updated copy, please. Is it that hard for Mr. Omnipotent to get re-published?

Seriously. Anyone who doesn't understand how this question just kills religion and God is a complete and total idiot and a waste of space.

Other Comments by Summer Seale

47. Comment #86177 by ridelo on November 8, 2007 at 2:38 pm

From Comment #85852 by ksskidude on November 7, 2007 at 10:22 am

In communist, atheistic Russia, Stalin and his minions managed to wipe out at least 30 million fellow countrymen. In communist, atheistic China, Chairman Mao perpetrated similar slaughter during the Cultural Revolution.

I always ask myself how they can think that people who were superstitious (and)(or) religious (what's the difference?) for thousands of years could become atheistic overnight. In a time that almost every Russian or Chinese was an analphabetic. If they had had the Net in those days...

Other Comments by ridelo

48. Comment #86202 by clearthinker on November 8, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Has anyone read any of these 'flea' books? Could someone review them and make comparisons? It would be helpful to have the perspective of people who have read individual ones - obviously no-one is going to have read them all? Why are there so many of them? Are they written for different constituencies or are they all just out to make money? Also why are they all referred to as 'flea' books?

Other Comments by clearthinker

49. Comment #86212 by oriole on November 8, 2007 at 5:53 pm

I enjoy a good argument, especially on topics I have strong feelings about; it's invigorating to be challenged. That's why it's so disappointing to read all those inevitably pathetic faith-head responses: repetitious, dishonest, circular.

Maybe we atheists should get up a collection to present some sort of award to any faith-head who manages to come up with any sort of original, valid argument in favour of Abrahamic religion. I'm sorry to say I've gotten so I don't even bother to read what the faith-heads write anymore, since it's invariably another long-winded, time-wasting, circular piece of tripe.

If we could encourage someone to come up with something worth reading with some sort of award, maybe we could finally generate an interesting debate. But to be honest, I can't figure out anything sensible which the faith-heads might say myself.

Other Comments by oriole

50. Comment #86680 by clearthinker on November 10, 2007 at 12:16 am

Does this count as another 'flea' book? CHristopher Hitchins - the Portable Atheist?

"Christopher Hitchens, the acclaimed journalist and best-selling author of "God Is Not Great", selects and introduces an illuminating collection of the most essential and influential writings for the non-believer, including contributions from Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Karl Marx, Richard Dawkins, H.L. Mencken, Sam Harris, and more."

Other Comments by clearthinker