1. Comment #163434 by movingshadow on April 18, 2008 at 10:56 am

Who is William R. Dawkins?

Other Comments by movingshadow

2. Comment #163454 by Diacanu on April 18, 2008 at 11:20 am

Will Richard Dawkins' atheism grip millions â€" fade â€" or stir lingering doubts?

Will it fade??

Well, only if all of us suddenly turned into christians somehow.
That's not gonna fucking happen.

OR, if we all "got bored with the fad", and shut the fuck up.
Well, that's not going to fucking happen either.
Atheism ain't like a trendy diet, or a style of dress.
You either think there's a God, or you don't.
And once you know there isn't, and you find yourself surrounded by those who not only do, but want to fuck up your society over the proposition, well, it becomes rather impossible to shut the fuck up about it.
So, keep dreaming about that one, religites.

Option three, is if we all fucking DIED.
Well, go ahead and try, assholes.
I'm sure another genocide will look good on religion's resume.
Religion would be committing mass suicide as everyone got fed up once and for all.
Go ahead and try that one, fuckers.

Other Comments by Diacanu

3. Comment #163461 by Frankus1122 on April 18, 2008 at 11:32 am

well, it becomes rather impossible to
shut the fuck up
about it.

Where have I heard that before?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

4. Comment #163463 by thewhitepearl on April 18, 2008 at 11:36 am

I'm a bit annoyed with the constant use of this line "take a fresh new look at the gospel of christ".

Outside of the recyling and juggling back and forth between interpretations, it's always the same. It's not going to improve and eventually it will stop satisfying.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

5. Comment #163464 by Lil_Xunzian on April 18, 2008 at 11:37 am

I'm not surprised. I see a threefold development:

EPISODE IV: GOD WARS: A NEW ATHEISM
EPISODE V: THE THEISTS STRIKE BACK

and later to come,

EPISODE VI: RETURN OF THE THE REASONING

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

6. Comment #163468 by Animavore on April 18, 2008 at 11:44 am

And, as usual, no other religions are rational options but Christ.

Other Comments by Animavore

7. Comment #163470 by SomeDanGuy on April 18, 2008 at 11:46 am

Richard, you seem to have created a whole, thriving industry here. As evil as atheism is, at least you've put food on the tables of dozens of christian writers.

Other Comments by SomeDanGuy

8. Comment #163475 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 11:49 am

Comment #163470 by SomeDanGuy

As evil as atheism is, at least you've put food on the tables of dozens of christian writers.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I wonder how many of these books are vanity published.

One thing I would hazard a guess at though, if there are any left over they won't be remaindered. They will be pulped.

Other Comments by epeeist

9. Comment #163479 by Jack Rawlinson on April 18, 2008 at 11:53 am

"The dilemma of atheism and probability"

Oh, I wonder what line THAT one is going to take. I do wish these people would bother to read the rebuttals to their tired, dogmatic pet "arguments".

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

10. Comment #163488 by Frankus1122 on April 18, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Comment #163479 by Jack Rawlinson

I do wish these people would bother to read the rebuttals to their tired, dogmatic pet "arguments".

But that would be too much like science. Why you want to try to disprove your pet theory in order to make it stronger?

No, no, no. All you need to do is look in the Bible and ALL the answers to life's questions will be answered. Any 'rebuttal' MUST be wrong because it is anti-Biblical. Jeesh!


Back to normal:


It really does seem to be that the atheist position has the advantage of at least having the knowledge of possible rebuttals to its arguments. Although not always true, we are not ignorant of the objections raised by theists to the atheist position.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

11. Comment #163490 by freethnkr on April 18, 2008 at 12:17 pm

"SETI - the search for meaning"

Are they serious? The search for "meaning"? How is the search for extra-terrestrial life a search for meaning (at least in the christian sense)? The search for knowledge yes, but if SETI is searching for meaning, then I guess I've severely misunderstood their goal

Other Comments by freethnkr

12. Comment #163496 by Geoff on April 18, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Paula, you busy...?

Other Comments by Geoff

13. Comment #163497 by Diacanu on April 18, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Oh, I forgot the fourth option.

That these flea books will convert atheists into christians in droves.

*Roars with laughter*

Puh-lease!

Their only hope there, is fence sitters who were won over by the God Delusion, but are still weak minded enough to be won back.
But, anyone with any sort of brain who's read TGD wouldn't be won back by their shitty arguments, because clearly either none of these authors have read the book, or they read it with blinders on, and ignored vast swaths of it.

So, who is/are the market for these books?
Clearly, people who haven't read TGD in the first place.
Much like the authors.

Probably white haired old grannies buying them for a grandchild to try to nip rebellion in the bud.
"Saving their souls", y'know.

Course, as any kid will tell you, books are a sucky present.
Kids want fucking TOYS, man!
An X-Box game, or a new kind of super-soaker!

Shit, they'll probably hose their flea book with the super-soaker!

And good for them!

A shame that all those nickels will trickle into the pockets of flea authors though.

Other Comments by Diacanu

14. Comment #163503 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I think what we need is a(nother) book written by God to settle this once and for all! I'm surprised that one of these fleas simply hasn't been able to whisper into His ear to get him to do that and make this whole silly argument go away.

Other Comments by SRWB

15. Comment #163504 by Diacanu on April 18, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Oh, and my last post reminds me.

Has anyone read the rebuttals to "The Age Of Reason"?

I can't seem to find them at my local bookstore.

Oh, that's right, they were Thomas Paine fleas, and died forgotten, as history's losers.

Other Comments by Diacanu

16. Comment #163506 by Diacanu on April 18, 2008 at 12:39 pm

SRWB-

God is fraidy scared to come to Earth to write a book, and do a book tour.

Some crazy fundamentalist atheist might kill him with a Babelfish.

Other Comments by Diacanu

17. Comment #163508 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Comment #163488 by Frankus1122

No, no, no. All you need to do is look in the Bible and ALL the answers to life's questions will be answered.

Ah yes the bible, because all the works of science are outweighed by the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who believed that all the world's species lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

And

Comment #163490 by freethnkr

I guess I've severely misunderstood their goal

Are you sure you don't mean "goat"?

Other Comments by epeeist

18. Comment #163511 by Diacanu on April 18, 2008 at 12:46 pm

And that makes me think of a little theological puzzle for some christian apologist to tackle.

If a cross can kill Dracula, and a Babel Fish can kill God, can a Babelfish kill Dracula?

If not, why not?

And if not, can Dracula bite a Babelfish, and turn it into a vampire Babelfish?

And what happens if it bites a human?

And what would've happened if the resultant creature had bitten Jesus?

Other Comments by Diacanu

19. Comment #163515 by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 12:50 pm

all the works of science are outweighed by the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who believed that all the world's species lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

What's your point? I mean, these "cattle-sacrificing primitives", as you called them, were there when all these world-changing events were happening, weren't they? Are you telling us that none of what is written is true?! Surely we should trust their completely objective motives in all this. And isn't it possible that all the world's species could have lived within walking distance of Noah's house. After all, he only needed two of each, not all of them.

Other Comments by SRWB

20. Comment #163519 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Comment #163511 by Diacanu

And what would've happened if the resultant creature had bitten Jesus?

You get a cosmic Jewish vampire?

Other Comments by epeeist

21. Comment #163526 by Geoff on April 18, 2008 at 1:10 pm

A multilingual cosmic Jewish vampire, presumably.

Other Comments by Geoff

22. Comment #163527 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Geoff: Paula, you busy...?

YES. VERY. ;-)

Seriously - I've read 4 of these flea books in some detail and have never in my life been so heartily glad to come to the end of a book. Or 4 books, in this case.

It was in all sincerity a deeply depressing experience. And no (before our resident Christians start chipping in here), NOT because, as an atheist, I'm not prepared to listen to the counter-arguments: I wouldn't have picked up the books in the first place if that were the case. No, they were depressing because they were all so terribly badly argued. 2 of them (Cornwell's and McGrath's) weren't argued at all, in fact, and the other 2 just came out with the same old same-old - incredibly trite, mind-numbing stuff.

I was depressed by their incredibly negative, warped view of humanity. By their resolute rejection of anything resembling objective enquiry. By their willingness to let their feelings determine their understanding of reality. To let wishful thinking determine their conclusions. By their smugness. By their arrogance (it doesn't seem to cross the minds of any of them that, even if there WERE a god, the chances of it being theirs would be ridiculously slim). By their shameless passing-off of feelings and opinions and hearsay as fact. By their reliance on biblical texts which, let's face it, are just as unreliable as any other written document. You only need to take a look at the newspapers on sale today, right now, to see how very inconsistent are their portrayals and interpretations of events. You wouldn't wager your next month's salary - let alone your whole life - on any one of them being definitely accurate, would you? Yet these Fleas are all content to base their whole lives on the accuracy of texts that are not only thousands of years old (and therefore AT BEST can only represent the best of human understanding at that time), but are full of stuff that is so patently nonsensical that anyone with even a modicum of common sense and/or learning should really be able to dismiss it in an instant. If you're determined to base your life on an ancient book, might I recommend Aesop's Fables instead? They contain a lot more wisdom, a lot less gratuitous violence and a hell of a lot less nonsense than anything the Bible can offer. Though why anyone should favour "ancient wisdom" over modern knowledge, is beyond me.

The other thing that was depressing about them was their pervading mean-spiritedness. Their small-mindedness. Their inability or unwillingness to recognise us for what we are: an animal like every other, with no special place in the universe (other than that conferred upon us by evolution, namely our - so far as we know - unique capacity to reason. And how ironic it is that the ONE thing that really MIGHT make us special in the universe is the ONE thing that the religious want to guard against and subdue with every fibre in their bodies.) Yet, despite our humble position in the universe, able to love and care and empathise and take joy in our existence.

Reading those four books was like having a huge weight pressing down on me. Really - I'm not exaggerating. I had to come up for air between them, and read (or re-read, in some cases) Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens - and the difference in atmosphere in these books was absolutely staggering: the sheer relief of finding a genuine spirit of truth-seeking, of realism, of humanity, of generosity combined with realism, of sheer, downright intelligence and reason. The contrast was actually quite shocking.

If I'd only read one of the flea books, I might have been persuaded that I'd just struck unlucky and that others might be better. But I read four, and they were all dismally bad. There wasn't a new argument in any one of them. Nothing that didn't amount to a re-statement of everything most of us have heard Christians come out with time and time again. The biggest difference between them was the amount of vitriol and venom they spewed along the way - and boy, do these followers of the Prince of Peace do a good line in vitriol and and venom. Richard has been accused of aggression in TGD - but his aggression, such as it is, is at least open and honest, not snide and picky and malicious.

So no, Geoff (and yes, I know your question wasn't intended seriously) - NOTHING would induce me to waste another moment of my life on these apologies for apologists. How many stinging nettles are you going to pick with your bare hands before you just accept the fact that they ALL sting? How many casserole dishes are you going to take out of the hot oven without using oven gloves before you conclude that it's NEVER a good idea? Life is simply too short to go on and on and on reading bad arguments for a bad idea. There are far, FAR more interesting, relevant, constructive and MEANINGFUL things to do with our time.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

23. Comment #163531 by moderndaythomas on April 18, 2008 at 1:19 pm

This isn't a scientology pamphlet is it. If memory serves, was not Carl Sagan an atheist?
If only he were here!
Secondly, on atheism and probability; will we be hearing yet again about all the zero's after the ten in regards to the probability of life on earth.
I wonder how many zero's after the ten one would find when calculating the probability of the magnitude and diversity of life occuring in six days, and a paltry 8000 years ago?

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

24. Comment #163533 by Diacanu on April 18, 2008 at 1:30 pm

epeeist/Geoff-

Ah, but Jesus supposedly ascended bodily to Heaven, and now currently sits at God's right hand.

That would put the cosmic multilingual vampire Jesus in the perfect position to bite God!!

The Babelfish blood would weaken God enough for the vampire blood to take effect, the vampire blood would weaken/taint God enough for Satan to possess him, and since, as creationists argue, God is "outside of time", he could then go back in time, and this would perfectly explain the insanity of the Old Testament God!

Of course, this time around the time loop, Jesus would be throwing off the shackles of the wickedness of Babalfish/Vampire/Satan-possessed-God with his vicarious blood sacrifice.

A paradox you say??

God is outside of time!! Paradoxes bounce off him like bullets offa Superman!!

But not Babelfish bullets, those kill him.

As would a Babelfish condom.
So don't look to that as how he didn't kill Mary when fucking her.

Maybe he used Jor-El's red sun chamber.

So, how are y'all digging my "sophisticated theology"?

Persuaded yet?

Other Comments by Diacanu

25. Comment #163545 by Sargeist on April 18, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Diacanu,

Amazing! I was just looking at this:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13739-babelfish-to-translate-alien-tongues-could-be-built.html

Other Comments by Sargeist

26. Comment #163546 by Aquaria on April 18, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Course, as any kid will tell you, books are a sucky present.
Kids want fucking TOYS, man!
An X-Box game, or a new kind of super-soaker!

Oh man... No wonder everyone thought I was weird as a kid. I always wanted books! The first time I ever went to a bookstore (a rare treat in hickistan) was the only time I felt anything close to a religious experience as a child.

Other Comments by Aquaria

27. Comment #163548 by Diacanu on April 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Paula Kirby-

*Head pat, hug*

Your valiant and heroic sacrifice inspires us all.

I think we need to chip in, and send her to Hawaii for a week or so to properly heal from that ordeal.

What say?

Other Comments by Diacanu

28. Comment #163551 by Fiziker on April 18, 2008 at 1:52 pm

The titles are getting worse and worse. I guess all of the good parodies were already taken.

Other Comments by Fiziker

29. Comment #163552 by Diacanu on April 18, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Aquaria-

Me too, really, but using my mutant childhood as a baseline would've ruined the comic riff I had going.

Other Comments by Diacanu

30. Comment #163562 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Diacanu: I think we need to chip in, and send her to Hawaii for a week or so to properly heal from that ordeal.

Know what, Diacanu? You always talk a lot of sense. ;-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

31. Comment #163568 by BigJohn on April 18, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Diacanu --

"I think we need to chip in, and send her to Hawaii for a week or so to properly heal from that ordeal.

What say?"

If we were to chip in to send this woman anywhere, I think we need to send her to TAM6 so I can meet her and shake her hand and sympathize with her in person for the dirty, filthy, job she has assumed. Mike Rowe wouldn't do a job this dirty.

Other Comments by BigJohn

32. Comment #163574 by Shane McKee on April 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Hang on folks, we're missing a trick here. We should be coming up with a list of all possible "Flea Titles" (like the "Names of God"), and then suing their sorry butts when they trespass on our prior art. Or maybe most of them are taken already.

Who wants to kick off?

[I'm reading Lennox's "God's Undertaker" at the moment. I'm seriously torn between giving it 5 stars on Amazon, or only 1. Mainly because it's probably the "best" Christian response, but because the "best" is so completely shit, it's virtually unfathomable how a supposedly intelligent person could write such nonsense. What a dilemma!]

Other Comments by Shane McKee

33. Comment #163580 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Big John: If we were to chip in to send this woman anywhere, I think we need to send her to TAM6 so I can meet her and shake her hand and sympathize with her in person for the dirty, filthy, job she has assumed.

Well, that's very sweet of you, Big John, but I quite liked the sound of Hawaii. Couldn't you shake my hand there instead? ;-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

34. Comment #163582 by Podaar on April 18, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Paula,

I'll be here http://www.maunalani.com/ next month for a golf tournament. If you want to meet me and the Mrs. there, I'll buy you a 'beach comber' and shake your hand.

-- Gregg

Other Comments by Podaar

35. Comment #163583 by room101 on April 18, 2008 at 3:04 pm

If we were to chip in to send this woman anywhere, I think we need to send her to TAM6...

I like this idea - the lineup for this event is pretty spectacular as it is - so who better than Paula to give the keynote address?

...AND we could fly in Pat Condell for the entertainment portion...

Other Comments by room101

36. Comment #163584 by clodhopper on April 18, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Well what's Hawaii got that Scunthorpe hasn't?

Other Comments by clodhopper

37. Comment #163590 by BigJohn on April 18, 2008 at 3:17 pm

I've never had any desire to go to Hawaii, but, if you were going to be there Paula...

Other Comments by BigJohn

38. Comment #163592 by Podaar on April 18, 2008 at 3:19 pm

BigJohn;

I've known people who don't desire to visit Hawaii too. Funny, they're always the ones who've never been. :)

Other Comments by Podaar

39. Comment #163599 by Adam Morrison on April 18, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Paula,

Don't worry, we all think you're a trooper for reading even one of these books in whole. For the quartet, you've become the Juggernaut of flea endurance. I know I can usually only stomach a chapter.

Maybe some people will take up the cause for you for a while. Not me though, I can't handle this stupidity in print (I have all sorts of stupidity to handle for my thesis. Quota's met)

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

40. Comment #163602 by Styrer- on April 18, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Paula: I had to come up for air between them, and read (or re-read, in some cases) Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens - and the difference in atmosphere in these books was absolutely staggering: the sheer relief of finding a genuine spirit of truth-seeking, of realism, of humanity, of generosity combined with realism, of sheer, downright intelligence and reason.

Diacanu: Go ahead and try that one, fuckers.

Not sure about the rest of you, but I would simply love to see a collaborative flea-biting effort by both of these worthy members.

Perhaps Hawaii would prove conducive for both of them to formulate a plan of attack...

What a joy the resultant book would be to read.:)

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

41. Comment #163610 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Adam Morrison: Maybe some people will take up the cause for you for a while.

Oh dear, I think maybe my original post may have come over as more self-pitying than I intended!

My main point, really, was that, on the basis of what I've seen so far, I suspect that NONE of these books is going to be worth reading, whether by me or anyone else. Obviously, if anyone is particularly interested to read them, that's a different matter altogether. But I suspect some of us feel obliged to read at least some of them, simply in the interests of open-minded investigation and just in case one of them actually does contain something new; and my conclusion is that this is giving them too much benefit of the doubt, and we ALL probably have better things to do with our time.

We often make the analogy here of astronomy vs astrology. How many of us feel obliged to read every new book on astrology that hits the book shops, just on the off-chance that it contains something that's going to change our mind?

As I said, I wouldn't dream of discouraging anyone who genuinely wants to read these books. I just don't think it's worth reading them out of any sense of duty or obligation. My impression is that most of us know the arguments Christians use pretty well already. The day they come up with a new, more convincing one, we'll hear about it, I'm quite sure.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

42. Comment #163631 by Zaphod on April 18, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Boring.

Other Comments by Zaphod

43. Comment #163637 by phil rimmer on April 18, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Paula

And how ironic it is that the ONE thing that really MIGHT make us special in the universe is the ONE thing that the religious want to guard against and subdue with every fibre in their bodies.

Loved this.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

44. Comment #163659 by babrock on April 18, 2008 at 6:11 pm

I am getting my mom to read " Letters to a Christian Nation". And I in return am to read "The Dawkins Letters". And yes, Paula is right. It is pointedly wrong on most everything on almost every page. I do not know which 4 she has read but if there is 10x t correctness in any of those books that there is in this one, then there is still not enuf to bother w/ putting pages between t covers of any of them.

I honestly find it unfathomable how someone could be so wrong so often, let alone how anyone would bother to make a book out of it.

Other Comments by babrock

45. Comment #163697 by aquilacane on April 18, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Paula wrote:

"And how ironic it is that the ONE thing that really MIGHT make us special in the universe is the ONE thing that the religious want to guard against and subdue with every fibre in their bodies."

Funny you should say this Paula. I was thinking the other night how it was a bit drole how the ones among us who can't accept that we are just animals are the ones who behave the most like them.

Other Comments by aquilacane

46. Comment #163706 by dragonfirematrix on April 18, 2008 at 8:25 pm

There is no dilemma in Atheism.

If I were to use just single words to describe Atheism (words on the left) compare to religion (words on the right), I would use words like:

Learning..........Retarding
Growing...........Stunting
Proving...........Assuming
Empirical.........Imagine
Facts.............Fantasy
Analysis..........Conjecture
Inclusive.........Exclusive
Collaborating.....Dominating
Progressive.......Stagnate
Logical...........Neurosis
Inquiring.........Preaching

You guys can add more and better comparisons. I hope the words line up correctly on the website.

It is not Atheism in a dilemma. It is religion. Religion is fighting to maintain its indoctrinating control over the minds of many to prevent the masses from learning the truth and the facts of existence.

Science extends its hand of knowledge to those who accept it. The religious do not believe.

I guess the armies of religion will continue trying to suppress the truth, and we will war with them forever.

I wonder how many fantastic achievements could have already been accomplished if Earth was spending its religious war money instead on education, science, medicine, technology, health care, etc. I bet humanity would be thousands of years ahead of where we are right now. Oh well, so much for my wishes.

Pat Condell could do a wonderful essay on this topic.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

47. Comment #163708 by Mr. Grape on April 18, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Excellent post Paula, another good reason to not pick these books up. I imagine the child-like naivety and negativity in the books would bring you down in a similar fashion as listening to mr. bush give a speech. After about 5 minutes you feel like you've caught some kind of "dumb" virus.

I see some positives for all of these fleas.
1. Dawkin, Harris, Dennet and Hitchens must really grind their gears. Hit a soft spot. They got butt-hurt.
2. More evidence of their petty ideals and
3. The market for these book are spread very thin. The profit spread across 25 books must suck.

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

48. Comment #163716 by Quine on April 18, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Paula, vent away - as much as you want, whenever you want - we all owe you.

Other Comments by Quine

49. Comment #163719 by ilchymis on April 18, 2008 at 9:32 pm

So here's where I get to demonstrate my ignorance: I keep seeing the term "flea", and I know what it means in context, but what's the etymology of all this? Who decided to start referring to Christian apologists as fleas?

Other Comments by ilchymis

50. Comment #163735 by black wolf on April 18, 2008 at 11:50 pm

ilchymis,
Richard Dawkins was asked in an interview what his response to these reactionary books was. He responded by citing the quote from Yeats: "Was there ever a dog that praised his fleas?". It fits especially those authors who write mostly rather short books that supposedly sell better when they use Dawkins' name in the title or imitate the TGD, End of Faith or 'god is not great' cover layout.

Other Comments by black wolf