51. Comment #85028 by MGBOY on November 4, 2007 at 3:09 pm

I must look for these books next time I got to my local library (I wouldn't waste my money buying a copy) Of course, I will be looking in the Science Fiction/Fantasy section.

Other Comments by MGBOY

52. Comment #85030 by JFHalsey on November 4, 2007 at 3:16 pm

"The illustrator misheard 'Dawkins has a chip on his shoulder.' "

LOL! Absolutely classic.

Other Comments by JFHalsey

53. Comment #85036 by Diacanu on November 4, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Re: My post #50.

Doy! We got Matthew Chapman, Andy Thompson, Eddie Tabash, and Eugenie Scott.
And Hitch became a U.S. citizen.

But you know what I meant.

Other Comments by Diacanu

54. Comment #85038 by Ashley1319 on November 4, 2007 at 3:59 pm

you know, I could excuse Beattie as ignorant, if she'd never read the old testament. But since she's a theologian, she's definitely guilty of denial. The OT is so full of anti-feminism it's not funny! how does she rationalize that!? how does she rationalize her religion's leader supporting abortion bans in countries that won't even allow it for the life of the mother?! how could she rationalize them calling contraception evil, or anything else like that!?She's no feminist, she's a fraud who uses it to catch women's attention and approval. Shame on her

Other Comments by Ashley1319

55. Comment #85039 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Diacanu

You do know that Matthew Chapman is only on loan??

Other Comments by phil rimmer

56. Comment #85041 by Matt7895 on November 4, 2007 at 4:22 pm

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

I love how they linked reason and religion there. Because of course you are a reasonable thinker if you are religious.

Its really quite sad how these scam-artists are making money off the backs of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.

Its also a shame that the woman who wrote this latest book claims to be a feminist. Well, as the great-grandson of Charles Darwin, Matthew Chapman himself says, "For a feminist to still believe in god is like a freed slave still living on the plantation."

Other Comments by Matt7895

57. Comment #85043 by Diacanu on November 4, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Matt7895-

Heh, beat you to that quote.
;)

Other Comments by Diacanu

58. Comment #85051 by Ohnhai on November 4, 2007 at 5:30 pm

"The Twilight of Reason"...

Only a religious person could honestly think this (if true) would be a good thing...

The fact that ANYONE can get a warm and fuzzy feeling when contemplating the end of reason horrifies me more than I truly care to mention.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

59. Comment #85052 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 4, 2007 at 5:39 pm

When bad music comes on the radio, I lunge at the dial so I won't be infected when I am composing later. My friend is a painter and does the same with art in restaurants; we all know to seat him facing the window.

And I try, I try to read the fleas so I will know their arguments (I will not buy their books), but I have the same old feeling creeping over me: that researching these apologist websites with an open mind is contaminating anything good about me (whatever that may be). That Becky Garrison, for instance; what a vacuous postulator she is. Why even breathe, if you're just going to do THAT with it? And "The Wittenberg Door" site? Please.

I'm getting tired of these quacks; it's crushing sometimes, this ignorance thing. But coming to this site and hearing all your well-thought views, and sudden insights, and humor, is keeping me going. Thank you all; nice work.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

60. Comment #85053 by Gallstones on November 4, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Why are they called "Flea" books?

Other Comments by Gallstones

61. Comment #85058 by BaronOchs on November 4, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Gallstones, W.B.Yeats wrote a poem about people writing books of his back which included the line:

But was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

From which the usage here derives.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

62. Comment #85061 by MIDVALCRE on November 4, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Twilight also occurs in the morning. Let us hope this is indeed the morning twilight of reason and the begining of a bright sunlight enlightening day!

Other Comments by MIDVALCRE

63. Comment #85062 by Dr Benway on November 4, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Hi monkey!

Other Comments by Dr Benway

64. Comment #85063 by BAEOZ on November 4, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Dr. B lives! Kill the fattened christian. It's party time. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

65. Comment #85065 by Goldy on November 4, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Doc B! Good to see you're back!

Other Comments by Goldy

66. Comment #85070 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 4, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Hi Doctor!

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

67. Comment #85073 by windweaver on November 4, 2007 at 10:00 pm

So Tina Beattie describes herself as a feminist theologian. I'd love to see her response to this article:

http://ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php

Other Comments by windweaver

68. Comment #85080 by epeeist on November 4, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Comment #85062 by Dr Benway

Hi monkey!

Welcome back my old cock.

Speak it quietly - but there has been no word of Dianelos since you have been gone.

Other Comments by epeeist

69. Comment #85087 by socratzsche on November 4, 2007 at 11:53 pm

At least real fleas make one itch.

Other Comments by socratzsche

70. Comment #85088 by sent2null on November 5, 2007 at 12:01 am

Has anyone taken up the task of actually, just for one of these books, lambasting the usual tired counter arguments and misunderstandings of the author?? If I had the time I would do it myself, assuming I could stomach the incredible ill-logic that attends conclusions of people that adhere to the mistaken belief that there is value in faith over reason.

Other Comments by sent2null

71. Comment #85089 by Philip1978 on November 5, 2007 at 12:05 am

Doctor B!
Maaarvelous, I see you survived the hospital food!

Bravo, great to have you back!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

72. Comment #85090 by Doug Indeap on November 5, 2007 at 12:07 am

Tedious as it would be to compile, a numbered list or catalogue of the common arguments presented by theists would be useful. Then (as in the joke about numbered jokes) we could just observe that she tried her hand at say #3 and #18 and laugh.

Other Comments by Doug Indeap

73. Comment #85091 by sent2null on November 5, 2007 at 12:19 am

Then (as in the joke about numbered jokes) we could just observe that she tried her hand at say #3 and #18 and laugh.

Actually that is a great idea, and if we can get access to a wiki-site devoted to this we can use the wisdom of the reasoned masses to quickly compile the sound rebuttals. Maybe an enterprising web developer/blogger among our number will take on the challenge as a night time diversion. ;)

Regards,

Other Comments by sent2null

74. Comment #85097 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 1:15 am

I'm reading that 'Twilight of Reason' phrase as a snide little reference to Nietzsche,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_of_the_idols

Because as all sophisticated, subtle, snide and snarky theologians know... atheists are (at heart) nasty, nihilistic, Nietzschean and no-good.

McGrath pulls this trick too, he has written a book called 'The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World '.

It's a sotto voce aside and a sly wink to the Christian 'intelligentsia' readership.

Condescending, insulting, patronizing little prat! Sure no-one else wants to read his 'delusion' book?? Lovely chrimbo prezzie.

Dr Benway! Welcome back :)

Other Comments by Corylus

75. Comment #85101 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 1:31 am

Welcome back Doctor!

Other Comments by steve99

76. Comment #85108 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 2:12 am

Great news. The Doc is back!

Welcome back, Dr B. We've missed that mischievous smile.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

77. Comment #85109 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 2:24 am

Is it known why Doc B was absent for the last week or too? Missed him dearly and am looking forward to reading his wise and funny comments.

Other Comments by Logicel

78. Comment #85110 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 2:32 am

Comment #85109 by Logicel

Is it known why Doc B was absent for the last week or too?

A hysterectomy

Other Comments by epeeist

79. Comment #85111 by Quetzalcoatl on November 5, 2007 at 2:33 am

Logicel-

Doc B has been in hospital recently, for a hysterectomy! Turns out he's a she. She said she never bothered to correct everyone's misunderstanding. I wonder what could have confused us, apart from the photo of a man she uses as her avatar?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

80. Comment #85112 by Lycosid on November 5, 2007 at 2:42 am

To ricey: There is merit in allowing criticism, but these books are the intellectual equivalent of a filibuster for Jesus. There is no shame in dousing these fleas in soap suds.

Other Comments by Lycosid

81. Comment #85114 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 2:49 am

Comment #85111 by Quetzalcoatl

Doc B has been in hospital recently, for a hysterectomy! Turns out he's a she.

Of course we could be the subject of a wind up...

Other Comments by epeeist

82. Comment #85115 by Quetzalcoatl on November 5, 2007 at 2:52 am

Of course we could be the subject of a wind up...

That's true. AARGH. I don't know what to believe any more!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

83. Comment #85116 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 2:53 am

Thanks guys, for the info, I had no idea, just noted her absence.

Other Comments by Logicel

84. Comment #85117 by eoinc on November 5, 2007 at 2:57 am

Why is it that only Richard and Sam have all those fleas? I have yet to see any books challenging Dennett ("The Unbreakable Spell") or Hitchens ("Oh yes He is!") directly. Are those gentlemen just unanswerable?

Other Comments by eoinc

85. Comment #85118 by StewE17 on November 5, 2007 at 3:00 am

Looking at the listings on her books on Amazon, it seems that no-one has bothered to review her books. Poor woman, no-one will take her seriously.

Other Comments by StewE17

86. Comment #85122 by pholt on November 5, 2007 at 3:33 am

Actually that is a great idea, and if we can get access to a wiki-site devoted to this we can use the wisdom of the reasoned masses to quickly compile the sound rebuttals. Maybe an enterprising web developer/blogger among our number will take on the challenge as a night time diversion. ;)

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

No sooner said than done :) Actually, it's been around for a while.

Other Comments by pholt

87. Comment #85123 by BaronOchs on November 5, 2007 at 3:37 am

Corylus you might be right but are you sure?

Nietszhe was in reasonable fashion unless things have changed without me noticing. My impression is a liberal academic like Tina Beattie will at some point have had to do the work to show she "gets" Nietszche and her work can include or one-up on his ideas.

After all the good work by Walter Kaufmann and others to rehabilitate Nietszche's reputation I just don't think such a thin reference could be used as an insult like that.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

88. Comment #85125 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 3:49 am

Of course we could be the subject of a wind up...

I agree. My personal theory is that the near super-human mix of wit and wisdom points to us being the subject of the ultimate Turing test. (Hence his smiling visage.)

I suspect the CIA of funding the Benway Computer Program (designed to "fuck with the minds" of their adversaries).

But why do they test it on this site you ask? Well, its obvious. If they can fool a bunch of Atheists, they can fool anyone!

You have been warned.

[EDIT Sadly their "Dianelos Reloaded" Program seems to be stuck in a loop at present...]

Other Comments by phil rimmer

89. Comment #85128 by Logicel on November 5, 2007 at 4:18 am

pholt, thanks for the link to the wiki for rational folks. In addition, we can access the debate points on the upper left corner of this site, and this site, which has a stable of contributors, many who are from the Dawkins site like Russell Blackford, etc. (asktheatheists has a searching function to zero in on the desired topic):

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

Other Comments by Logicel

90. Comment #85129 by bluebird on November 5, 2007 at 4:25 am

"Where the blue of the night, meets the gold of the day..."
MINDVALCRE, Agreed :)

Doc B., Good to have ya back; was thinking about you yesterday while listening to my songbird C.D.

Other Comments by bluebird

91. Comment #85130 by Quetzalcoatl on November 5, 2007 at 4:26 am

Epeeist-

Speak it quietly - but there has been no word of Dianelos since you have been gone

You spoke his name, and lo! He has reappeared.

Perhaps Dr Benway and Dianelos are really the same person.....spooky.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

92. Comment #85131 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 5, 2007 at 4:27 am

Phil Rimmer (post 88, or #85125):

Sadly [CIA's] "Dianelos Reloaded" Program seems to be stuck in a loop at present...

LOL. On the other hand I must say I have learned a lot in this site, and keep learning new stuff. For example I hadn't thought that atheism too can be construed as wishful thinking as Lennox argued in his debate with Dawkins. And I found very interesting the phrasing of the question put by somebody of the audience to Hitchens in his debate with D'Souza, a question he completely avoided discussing by the way, namely that if our ethical beliefs have merely evolved anthropologically and one can therefore transcend their current state then on what standard can one appeal to when transcending them. I wonder how an atheist not stuck in a loop might answer this question.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

93. Comment #85132 by Philip1978 on November 5, 2007 at 4:34 am

"Of course we could be the subject of a wind up.."

Hmm, I am in two minds as to whether Dr B is male or female, I distinctly remember the time on the Westboro Baptists thread where he/she made suggestive comments about Wee Flea's mum and the aforementioned "Perfect Cock"...

I obviously congratulate Dr B for provoking such discussion, this shows the workings of a brilliant mind! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

94. Comment #85133 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 4:35 am

Comment #85131 by Dianelos Georgoudis

...a question he completely avoided discussing by the way, namely that if our ethical beliefs have merely evolved anthropologically and one can therefore transcend their current state on what standard can one appeal to when transcending them.

On the other hand, assume that there is such a thing as "objective morality" and, for example, "murder is immoral" was one of its tenets.

The statement "murder is immoral" would be true if and only murder was immoral and how would we know that this indeed was objective?

Other Comments by epeeist

95. Comment #85135 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 4:48 am

if our ethical beliefs have merely evolved anthropologically and one can therefore transcend their current state then on what standard can one appeal to when transcending them. I wonder how an atheist not stuck in a loop might answer this question.

That is a good question. I don't have an answer. But I am pretty sure that appealing to religion is not the right way, as it allows people to claim Godly authority for their views, rather than enter into negotiation with others.

Other Comments by steve99

96. Comment #85143 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 5:32 am

if our ethical beliefs have merely evolved anthropologically and one can therefore transcend their current state then on what standard can one appeal to when transcending them. I wonder how an atheist not stuck in a loop might answer this question.

Appealing to standards IS loopy behaviour(sic).

I can't answer simply, and I suspect I can't answer completely. I know that the progress I hope I have made in my personal ethical standards, as I continue to grow up, is related to my improving ability to discern harm to others, and perhaps a growing carelessness for myself. (I've had a hell of a lot of fun, but vicarious pleasures are coming to dominate now.)

Society grows up too, it seems. The franchise of sentient, harmable beings grows apace. (Goodness, first peasants and now women and other higher primates. Even foreigners!) As our list of friends grows, so do our responsibilities. We naturally treasure wealth after all.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

97. Comment #85149 by hakija on November 5, 2007 at 5:55 am

This Blitzkrieg of glitzy (and predictable) apologies is the shape of things to come for creationists. They're getting themselves a real makeover (just check out the new polished "Answers in Genesis" site, someone discovered photo shop).

"Blitzkrieg" is not the right metaphor. This is actually a theological "Potemkin Village". Reminds me of the recent creationist book fairs - tables full of glossy covered paperbacks by people with the right credentials for arguing for ignorance and superstition.

Anyway, I thought this was a joke. Is it? No? Oh boy! We're going to have to suffer this for goodness knows how long. Some questions come to mind:

Why are they so offended if we are attacking the true religion, why accusations of destroying their faith? Worshipers of an actual god would be more certain than this. I always say, don't attack them, they derive much of their identity from what they call "persecution". Just be nice and reasonable and their game plan will implode.

BTW, do any of these authors in the flea circus get govt grants to study subjects that lead to a deeper understanding of humanity and tech. applications to improve the quality of life? Sounds like a little poodle nipping at our pant cuff "yapp, yapp, yapp". We're winning converts.

Other Comments by hakija

98. Comment #85154 by Timnea on November 5, 2007 at 6:33 am

Dianelos

"if our ethical beliefs have merely evolved anthropologically and one can therefore transcend their current state then on what standard can one appeal to when transcending them. I wonder how an atheist not stuck in a loop might answer this question."

Sounds like a complicated way of asking "How can one be good without god?"

By "on what standard can one appeal" I assume you mean "on what guage does on measure" the extent to which one can transcended those evolved ethical values. (hope I got that right.)

On this basis, transcending evolved ethical values would merely be bettering societies prevailing moral zeitgeist of which religious people are part.

There no need for god here.

Other Comments by Timnea

99. Comment #85155 by Bonzai on November 5, 2007 at 6:36 am

Quetzalcoatl

I wonder what could have confused us, apart from the photo of a man she uses as her avatar?

And her gigantic big cock that she boasted about.

Welcome back Dr. B. Even though I don't really "know you" like the rest but your posts are always witty and entertaining.

Other Comments by Bonzai

100. Comment #85165 by ChristOnaBike on November 5, 2007 at 7:52 am

It's great to see that we can be light-hearted at the cartoon on the front of the book (as opposed to marching up and down streets with banners saying "Kill the believers").

Tina Beattie publishes a cartoon of the Athiests in the confidence that there would be no serious harm done (and I don't think much offence taken). How different that is to cartoons being published of certain religious faiths.

Other Comments by ChristOnaBike