Monday, February 25, 2008 | Reason : Backlash | print version

Add another flea to the list...

by RichardDawkins.net

The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

http://www.amazon.com/Delusion-Disbelief-Atheism-Liberty-Happiness/dp/1414317085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203958557&sr=8-1
delusion disbelief

Book Description
The last few years have seen a great assault upon faith in the publishing world, with an influx of books denouncing religious belief. While attacks on faith are not new, what is notable about these books--several of which have hit the bestseller charts--is their contention that belief in God is not only deluded, but dangerous to society.

In The Delusion of Disbelief, former Time senior correspondent and bestselling author David Aikman offers an articulate, reasoned response to four writers at the forefront of todays anti-faith movement: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.

Aikman shines a light on the arguments of these "evangelists of atheism," skillfully exposing their errors and inconsistencies. He explains what appears to motivate atheists and their followers; encourages Christians to look closely at what they believe; arms readers with powerful arguments in response to critics of faith; and exposes the social problems that atheism has caused throughout the world.

Aikman also takes on one of the most controversial questions of our time: Can American liberties survive in the absence of widespread belief in God on the part of the nations people? The answer to that question, says Aikman, is critically important to your future. The Delusion of Disbelief is a thoughtful, intelligent resource for anyone concerned about the increasingly strident and aggressive new attacks on religious belief. It is the book that every person of faith should read--and give away.

---------------------------------------

PAST FLEAS:

http://www.lulu.com/content/605271
"The Confutation of Dawkins' The God Delusion" by Malcolm McLean
flea

Richard Dawkins' book is systematically refuted. Dawkins' arguments are analysed, and invariably found wanting. However the confutation is charitable in tone, and sometimes allows that Dawkins may have a constructive point. A must read for anyone who has read "The God Delusion".

http://www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/BookDetails.asp?BookID=35163&Origine=1718
rd delusion

201 pages, with extensive bibliography on theism and atheism. This book is an important and convincing response to the conclusions of Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. The author believes that the concept of a transcendent entity as the source of morality and ultimate justice, is an essential foundation of rational human life and functioning. Without a transcendent authority or standard, the numerous pursuits and values of humans are merely peculiar delusions characteristic of the human species. Keeran points out that although Dawkins does not believe in the existence of God because of the supposed lack of scientific or factual evidence, he and like-minded others inconsistently assert the existence of numerous other non-scientific realities elaborated by the author.

http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=654057
God and the new atheism

Read an interview with the latest flea author John Haught at Salon.com here (thanks to Richard Prins)

PZ Myers has done a nice breakdown of the above interview here

Suggit

"Challenging Richard Dawkins: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About God"
Kathleen Jones Flea

God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins

UPDATE: This looks like it is actually the SAME book as you see in Richard's flea-orbit below titled "A Catholic Replies to Professor Dawkins (UK)" (they have the same blurb). This must be a case of them trying to hype it up for the US market.

Sam's Fleas

And some general fleas:

The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith
by Becky Garrison

The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity

"The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason & The War on Religion"
by Tina Beattie

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, February 25, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 428 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #132875 by Paula Kirby on February 25, 2008 at 10:59 am

In The Delusion of Disbelief, former Time senior correspondent and bestselling author David Aikman offers an articulate, reasoned response to four writers at the forefront of todays anti-faith movement: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.

Well, there's a first time for everything ...

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

2. Comment #132879 by Ian Bamlett on February 25, 2008 at 11:02 am

Inspired by Paula's efforts, I am going to read this one.

It will be my first time. Wish me luck!

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

3. Comment #132880 by Szymanowski on February 25, 2008 at 11:04 am

"Disbelief" is an interesting take - is it merely for alliteration, or has it been chosen as different to "non-belief"?

It is the book that every person of faith should read--and give away.

At first I thought that said "throw away". I must be horribly biased!

Let's not judge a book by its cover...

Other Comments by Szymanowski

4. Comment #132883 by Mitchell Gilks on February 25, 2008 at 11:10 am

So many strawmen, blatant attacks and lies in a single discription... but then, if they weren't there, how am I to know it is a theist writing it?

This book seems overtly dangerous... saying atheists threaten believers freedoms and liberties? Is he trying to incite violence?

Also, the title is just funny. He should look words up before he uses them, delusions require beliefs, you can't have a delusional disbelief, that makes no sense. Obviously he only cares about slinging mug, and baseless insults and assertions, not actually forming arguments or making accurate observations.

This is surely just another cookie cutter book about how athiests are stupid, evil and immoral. Likely 75% of the book will be explaining how atheist=Nazi.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

5. Comment #132884 by Noodly on February 25, 2008 at 11:11 am

Let's play their game where the strength of your argument depends on the number of ways of promulgating it.

So I bagsy we rename the Universe as the Dawkinsverse - gotcha, pwned!

Other Comments by Noodly

6. Comment #132885 by JemyM on February 25, 2008 at 11:14 am

There's a one word debunker here... "Sweden".

Other Comments by JemyM

7. Comment #132886 by kaiserkriss on February 25, 2008 at 11:14 am

While I don't want to detract anything from Paula's fine working in exposing the fallacies of some of the other fleas, I'm not going to waste my time and put money into the coffers of anther neo Luddite.

These people just don't get it, that THEY are the ones whose values need questioning. They live in their own little self important world trying to save similar minded individuals from themselves. To make matters worse, in many cases they are illiterate, and often cannot even understand the irony when their own tactics are reversed on to them by claiming ad hominem and ignorance.

Robertson are you paying attention???jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

8. Comment #132888 by Verylee on February 25, 2008 at 11:16 am

intelligent resource for anyone concerned about the increasingly strident and aggressive new attacks on religious belief

All I can deduce from this (and by the flea title) is $trike whil$t the iron i$ hot. Don't forget to buy more than one copy $o that you can read and give away.

Other Comments by Verylee

9. Comment #132889 by Mitchell Gilks on February 25, 2008 at 11:16 am

Szymanowshi, I think it is fair to judge these books by their covers. I mean, if the cleverest thing almsot every single one of these authors could come up with was "I know you are, but what am I?" for a title, (even when it is incoherent to do so) then I think it is fair to assume their arguments have not progressed past the pre-school level.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

10. Comment #132893 by robhu on February 25, 2008 at 11:27 am

Mitchell Gilks: Is your icon from a particular manga or anime?

Other Comments by robhu

11. Comment #132895 by hoops mccann on February 25, 2008 at 11:34 am

Another bozo on the bus.

Other Comments by hoops mccann

12. Comment #132896 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 11:38 am

Yes, all 98 lbs (44 kg) of this little atheist is a threat to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all those theists out there. [/sarcasm]

WTF?

Other Comments by annabanana

13. Comment #132899 by articulett on February 25, 2008 at 11:42 am

Interesting how it's disbelief in their own particular brand of religion that they find delusional. I don't see them telling Scientologists or Muslims to "keep the faith". Everyone is so sure that their woo is true.

I also find it amusing that they repeat this notion that atheists are militant and aggressive as though saying it over and over makes it true. Of course, when have been indoctrinated to believe that faith is a source of "higher truth", evidence becomes less important than what you can make yourself believe through repetition.

My assessment? --Another author trying to prove to themselves why their beliefs make more sense than all those other beliefs they find silly.

Other Comments by articulett

14. Comment #132900 by scoobie on February 25, 2008 at 11:43 am

Table of Contents: Chapter 4: The Evidence for God.

heh, as if...
;)

Other Comments by scoobie

15. Comment #132901 by z8000783 on February 25, 2008 at 11:44 am

So yet another book that will tell us that -
- Dawkins is shrill
- Dennett is high brow
- Harris is simplistic
- Hitchens is bombastic
- Belief is good for you and
- Not a single line taking on the challenge that the God of their beliefs is actually real

After McGrath's load of shit I am not wasting my dosh on these anymore but I would be interested to know how far off the truth I might be.

John

Other Comments by z8000783

16. Comment #132902 by DamnDirtyApe on February 25, 2008 at 11:44 am

I recommend the title 'The madness of reason' for the next flea if they are present here.

I concur: Sweden. Like Canada, it sounds like a mighty fine place to live.

Buuut the UK's not all bad :p . And even my brother manages to work on proteins at the University of Utah, regardless of how crazy those folks are (banning BEER? NOOOOOOOO!!!!!)

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

17. Comment #132903 by jimbob on February 25, 2008 at 11:45 am

Chapther 5 of this "new" flrea:

The problem of wicked atheists:
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot

Not much new I guess!

Other Comments by jimbob

18. Comment #132905 by mr-zero on February 25, 2008 at 11:47 am

From the Amazon - Search Inside feature...
Chapter 5 - The problem of wicked atheists. Stalin, Hilter, Mao and Pol Pot.
Hmmm. No new arguments here then.

Z

Other Comments by mr-zero

19. Comment #132906 by jimbob on February 25, 2008 at 11:50 am

Yes, all 98 lbs (44 kg) of this little atheist is a threat to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all those theists out there.

Wanna do dinner annabanana? Somebody has to fatten you up!

;-)

Other Comments by jimbob

20. Comment #132907 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 11:51 am

Chapter 5 - The problem of wicked atheists. Stalin, Hilter, Mao and Pol Pot.

I think I know why they keep repeating these well-refuted arguments: they are sure that if they keep repeating it, one of us will get pissed off to the point that we DO act like Stalin, et al towards all of the theists and then they'll have proved their point. No? Okay, that's all I've got.

Other Comments by annabanana

21. Comment #132910 by kaiserkriss on February 25, 2008 at 11:53 am

Response to Chapter 5
Those wicked theists: Lets rattle of all the Roman Emperors, Kings of Europe, Leaders of the Ottoman Empire, Current politicians including Bush, Blair, Mugabe. The list is endless.

To only have the usual 4 suspects named as atheists is not bad at all. Looks like try as they might, they can't come up with any more. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

22. Comment #132911 by Verylee on February 25, 2008 at 11:54 am

I think it is very generous of RD net to provide links to the online bookstores for the fleas...do the theist websites reciprocate in the "spirit" of mutual (mis)understanding I wonder?

Other Comments by Verylee

23. Comment #132912 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 11:54 am

You're right, jimbob, I've got no chance of being a threat to someone when I'm this small...I better start eating...

Other Comments by annabanana

24. Comment #132914 by emmet on February 25, 2008 at 11:55 am

Sweden sounds like a mighty fine place to live.

It is indeed, IMO.

Other Comments by emmet

25. Comment #132915 by adonais on February 25, 2008 at 11:56 am

One begins to despair for the human race, but I might give this one a go; at least, he appears to be able to write soberly and without the ad homs (at least in the introduction). That's a huge step up from, e.g., "The Irrational Atheist," if the trend lasts. Of course the table of contents gives away what we'll encounter, including the Brutally Bad Atheists, but we already have standard rebuttals for most of that. It could potentially be interesting to see if this guy comes up with anything that is new..

Other Comments by adonais

26. Comment #132917 by notsobad on February 25, 2008 at 12:01 pm

The subtitle is hilarious. It just shows how desperate they got.

Other Comments by notsobad

27. Comment #132918 by Goldy on February 25, 2008 at 12:02 pm

From Mitchell Gilks

saying atheists threaten believers freedoms and liberties? Is he trying to incite violence?

and Annabanana

(44kg? Damn girl - you need to go on the special Goldthorpe Diet. Pies, curry and beer for a week with a break on Sunday to catch your breath!)
Interesting comments - I just received this from a friend..http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/feb08/extremecreationists.htm
I think you'll like this

I have in front of me a book by Harun Yahya called The Dark Clan, which explains that evolutionary science is inspired by "a dark clan behind all kids of corruption and perversion, that controls drug trafficking, prostitution rings". Evolution is the "greatest deception in the history of science".

So you see - they do fear you!

Other Comments by Goldy

28. Comment #132919 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 12:02 pm

standard rebuttals

I think this is part of the problem. The theists have a standard set of arguments which they all know and use and most atheists have a standard set of rebuttals that go along with each of the arguments and so it seems to the theists that they can continue to use the same arguments because we tend to use the same rebuttals. They think their arguments must have equal merit as our rebuttals.

Other Comments by annabanana

29. Comment #132920 by Podaar on February 25, 2008 at 12:04 pm

...University of Utah, regardless of how crazy those folks are (banning BEER? NOOOOOOOO!!!!!)

What?! I live in Salt Lake City where I purchased beer yesterday. I better check the legislature's website… Nope, another lie about Utah.

Other Comments by Podaar

30. Comment #132921 by alan baylis on February 25, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Well,they multiply like real fleas.

Out of interest does anyone know, how many copies of the fleas that Paula eradicated - I mean reviewed - have been sold to date?

Other Comments by alan baylis

31. Comment #132922 by toddaa on February 25, 2008 at 12:07 pm

I've come to the conclusion that the only proper response to this line of argument is to use PZ Myers patented response, "YOU ARE A DEMENTED FUCKWIT." No matter how many times we debunk it, they come back for more. At some point you have to conclude that they so fucking stupid that they require written instructions on how to keep food from dribbling down the front of themselves when they eat.

Other Comments by toddaa

32. Comment #132923 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 12:08 pm

44kg? Unless you're no taller than 1,4 metres - that's a bit worrying.... You really need to start eating if you want to be taken seriously as a threat to life, the universe and everything... or was that something different? Oh well - sorry if that was inconsiderate, but since you mentioned it.

Other Comments by MPhil

33. Comment #132924 by wyattroberts on February 25, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Many of the posters here sound like they are judging these books *without* examining whatever evidence (if any) they claim to present.

Isn't that exactly the opposite of what atheists are supposed to be about -- examining the evidence?

Other Comments by wyattroberts

34. Comment #132925 by adonais on February 25, 2008 at 12:09 pm

They think their arguments must have equal merit as our rebuttals.

Well, my view on that is, the parts that are concerned only with historicity are not going to change, so when at one point we think we have arrived at the proper conclusions (which I think we have, with the Hitler et al. argument), our rebuttal won't need to change either. Like someone said (I guess it was Dawkins), it is quite possible for one side to simply be wrong. And they are :)

Other Comments by adonais

35. Comment #132926 by Diacanu on February 25, 2008 at 12:10 pm

here's another one, Josh.

http://www.amazon.com/Chance-Purpose-Creation-Evolution-Rational/dp/1586172123

It doesn't have a flea title, but the author was prattling about it last night on C-Span, and it was very clear its sole reason for existing was because of the "new atheism".

Standard arguments.

Argument from transcendent beauty, trying to shoehorn in vitalism with no logic but warm and tingly feelings, making the leap from deism to dogma with no connecting dots.

Oh, but this one was new, they made the argument for "non-inteventionist divine action".

Wow!

The bullshit is right up front in the phrase!

Godly actions that aren't intervention!

Actions that aren't actions at all!

A God that does nothing!

God is so great, he doesn't even have to exist!

Neat trick there, David Blain can't do that shit!

Other Comments by Diacanu

36. Comment #132929 by al-rawandi on February 25, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Goldy,

Harun Yahya (nom de plume)

His name is Adnan Okhtar. He runs an anti-evolution publishing group in Turkey. He was initially in trouble for publishing a book entitled Soykirim Yalani (Holocaust Lie) which was a denial of the Holocaust, which stated a limited number of Jews died from a Typhus plague.

He has published anti-science time and time again. He also publishes and makes videos about the "scientific miracles of the Qur'an". All of these are ridiculous and focus on some antinomian Sufistic numerical valuation of the letters of the Arabic alphabet. He also stretches verses beyond reason to support some scientific tenet.

I would call him an old earth creationist of the anti-semitic Muslim variety. Although he has lightened up on Jews because he realizes they may be allies against the "immoral, racist, Darwinists".

He is a fucktard and an ass clown.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

37. Comment #132931 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 12:14 pm

adonais, I totally agree. I wasn't saying that their arguments are anywhere near being correct, but that it seems like there must be some theist school somewhere that says "ok, these are the standard arguments against atheism. They also have standard rebuttals, but their arguments don't change, so we don't need to change ours, either."

MPhil, I'm 59 inches (4'11 or 1.49m). So no worries, I'm not wasting away.

Other Comments by annabanana

38. Comment #132932 by hemin_1980 on February 25, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I think the deluge of books against Professor Dawkins work and fellow "Brights" and the apparent sense of danger felt from the titles are witnesses to the great impact these works have had on the religious (i.e ignorant) minds of the day. The angry reaction we get now is one we would expect in the natural history of grief after the loss of a dear person or posession. For a long time have religious people been successful in subjugating free-thinking minds that they are now naive to this kind of reason and discourse. Keeping the flow of works like professor Dawkins' would ensure the delivery of dogmatic believers out of the cycle of grief over the loss of their dear religious superstitions into the world of reality.

Other Comments by hemin_1980

39. Comment #132935 by toddaa on February 25, 2008 at 12:23 pm

wyattroberts tut tuts:

Many of the posters here sound like they are judging these books *without* examining whatever evidence (if any) they claim to present.

Isn't that exactly the opposite of what atheists are supposed to be about -- examining the evidence?

Paula Kirby wrote a nice review of four of them.

But fair is fair. Having read some of the online responses to Dawkins' book, I can only surmise that his critics haven't read his book either.

Other Comments by toddaa

40. Comment #132937 by Paula Kirby on February 25, 2008 at 12:24 pm

WyattRoberts: Many of the posters here sound like they are judging these books *without* examining whatever evidence (if any) they claim to present. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what atheists are supposed to be about -- examining the evidence?

I know what you mean, Wyatt. But how many times do you need to be electrocuted before you have enough evidence that unplugging the kettle with wet hands is not a good idea?

It's not as if any of the ever-increasing number of fleas has ever taken us by surprise, other than by the degree of venom and falsehood they are prepared to deploy.

Are we to go on and on and on and on reading Christian apologetics in the (almost certainly vain) hope that ONE of them will eventually come up with an argument we haven't heard before and that really does constitute an argument for belief? Or are we to accept that life is short and that these silly books just aren't worth wasting too much of it on? I write as someone who knows!

Just think: the 2 days it takes you to read this flea book are 2 days that you can't spend enjoying the company of people you love, or learning about things that really matter. They are two days which will never come again. Do you really want to spend them reading yet another tedious claim that atheism must lead to totalitarianism? Do you really have nothing better to do with that precious time?

You'll know just as soon as a Christian writer comes up with something strange or startling, because all the other Christians will start denouncing him very loudly indeed. That will be your clue. Until then, really, you'd be better off spending the time fixing that lopsided shelf you've been meaning to do for ages.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

41. Comment #132938 by al-rawandi on February 25, 2008 at 12:25 pm

MPhil,

She is technically a "smurf". That is 4'5" to 5'1"... according to the DSM.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

42. Comment #132939 by Goldy on February 25, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Al, having read this

His name is Adnan Okhtar. He runs an anti-evolution publishing group in Turkey

I do believe he cropped up in this site once, what, a year ago? Giving free copies of his cretinist book. Apparently very slick and nice - the recipients were rather surprised at how much it cost to produce. Think it was a story in the NY Times.
You should read the comments section - if ever people start laying into Americans for being somewhat deluded, this will provide enough ammo to show it is a trans Atlantic phenomenon. That and the Wee Flea. And Mark Taunton...who seems to have dropped out of sight.

Other Comments by Goldy

43. Comment #132940 by Duff on February 25, 2008 at 12:28 pm

My woo is twoo, your woo is untwoo. My woo is twooer than yer woo. Skoo poopie doo. Annabanana, my woo weighs more than you doo. And twooer too.

Other Comments by Duff

44. Comment #132942 by AdrianT on February 25, 2008 at 12:29 pm

The fact that the religious business needs about 30 books to tell their customers that dawkins et al are wrong, is a weakness, not a strength.

Other Comments by AdrianT

45. Comment #132943 by annabanana on February 25, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Whaaa....?

Other Comments by annabanana

46. Comment #132944 by Goldy on February 25, 2008 at 12:34 pm

She is technically a "smurf"

Hmmm, either good make up or she's been neglecting her colloidal silver...
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2672811.html?menu=news.quirkies

Other Comments by Goldy

47. Comment #132945 by MPhil on February 25, 2008 at 12:35 pm

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual uses the term 'smurf'?... now which edition would that be?

Other Comments by MPhil

48. Comment #132947 by Double Bass Atheist on February 25, 2008 at 12:37 pm

A God that does nothing!

God is so great, he doesn't even have to exist!

Neat trick there, David Blain can't do that shit!

Diacanu - now that's seriously funny!
I wonder just how desperate the theists are getting? I mean, atheism is obviously no longer a closeted minority, and the pious just can't seem to say enough about it!
Keep 'em comin' theists... keep 'em comin'!

Remember, the more these fools write, the better we look.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

49. Comment #132948 by jbblack on February 25, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Well, from the brief excerpt of the book, it sounds almost as if the author is begging the question--does the fact that atheists are becoming more vocal really lead to the loss of civil liberties?

I actually intend on reading this one, should it come to my library. The reason is that the concepts of both "civil liberties" and "rights" are complex ones, and as an American citizen, I cherish the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd like to see how he defines these concepts, and then see if he makes a clear case demonstrating that these things are prevented by someone deciding his/her beliefs are not true, or by exercising their rights to not espouse those beliefs.

I admit my prejudice here; I don't think such a case can be honestly made without redefining the concepts of "civil liberties" and "rights". At first glance, the author almost seems to presuppose that one is entitled to whatever he thinks will make him happy, rather than entitled to pursue his happiness. There is a big difference between the two; the right to pursue happiness does not guarantee its achievement.

Other Comments by jbblack

50. Comment #132949 by al-rawandi on February 25, 2008 at 12:41 pm

MPhil,

IV

Other Comments by al-rawandi

Reload Comments | Back to Top