101. Comment #85167 by Calvin on November 5, 2007 at 8:06 am

Is this Groundhog Day? Does Josh keep publishing the same joke ot see if he can get a more intelligent reaction? Has the flea concept not been done to death?

Perhaps I can make the following points in response:

1) Why does this thread not include the whoe swath of books that have been published on the back of Dawkins that are atheist? You do realise that there is a phenomenon called the New Atheist Publishing/
2) Do you really think that people like yours truely are in this for the money?
3) Ricey - are you really so naive as to think that this thread indicates the open mindedness of this website. It is an attempt at mockery and an accusation that those who respond to Dawkins are only in it for the money. Unless this is the atheist definition of open-mindedness?! And by the way I would recommend to my congregation that they are acquaint with the better atheist works (Sam Harris, Bertrand Russel and Flew before he 'converted' - I have yet to see ANYONE on this site recommend that any of the 'flea' books should be read - after all why should you? Without reading them you know what they will contain and you know that they are wrong!).
4) "you'd think that if the apologetics had a valid response, one book would suffice". Bizarre and stupid. You would think that if the anti-theists had a valid response to Christianity then only one book would suffice.

The rest of the thread provides the lie to the boast that this is a 'clear thinking oasis'.

After I had written this I found that once again I was banned. Ricey - this site is not about debate etc as you think. Those of us who question the Gospel according to Dawkins soon find that we get banned if we get to close to the bone. Can anyone tell me why the post above should be banned? What precisely in it is there that you cannot handle? Do the believers on this website really need to be protected by Uncle Josh so much (and yes I realise calling you believers is a deliberately provocative response - just as the 'faithhead' remarks and much else on here is provocative the other way. If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen - and if you can't cope with a little good natured ribbing then get a life!) Whatever else please stop pretending that you are open-minded when you continue to ban people for daring to disagree with you - or even provoking you.

Other Comments by Calvin

102. Comment #85168 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:09 am

Bonzai:

And her gigantic big cock that she boasted about

I'm still working on the theory that Dr. B is an hermaphrodite with a giant cock.
Prove me wrong!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

103. Comment #85169 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:14 am

Calvin:

Whatever else please stop pretending that you are open-minded when you continue to ban people for daring to disagree with you - or even provoking you.

Oh dear, someone didn't take their happy pills again. Your persecution complex is playing up. Lighten up, this thread is just a bit of fun. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

104. Comment #85170 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:16 am

Has Quetz and WeeFlea been flagged as troll?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

105. Comment #85171 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 8:18 am

Comment #85167 by Calvin

3) Ricey - are you really so naive as to think that this thread indicates the open mindedness of this website. It is an attempt at mockery and an accusation that those who respond to Dawkins are only in it for the money. Unless this is the atheist definition of open-mindedness?!

Is this one of the atheist "tenets" that you keep mentioning but never detailing?

I have yet to see ANYONE on this site recommend that any of the 'flea' books should be read - after all why should you? Without reading them you know what they will contain and you know that they are wrong!).

If you look back you will find a number of people who have read at least some of these books, including a compatriot of yours Northern Bright

Other Comments by epeeist

106. Comment #85172 by Quetzalcoatl on November 5, 2007 at 8:23 am

Fear not BAEOZ- no troll am I. I merely posted there to highlight the irony of him asking "is it Groundhog Day?" then making the same post twice. Three times counting under his new name.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

107. Comment #85173 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:26 am

Phew. I had clicked on a post in your name and it was gone. And on WeeFlea's name which was absent too. Who is Calvin? WeeFlea in the emperor's latest garb?

Think I'll have another cup of tea.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

108. Comment #85175 by irate_atheist on November 5, 2007 at 8:31 am

107. Comment #85173 by BAEOZ -

Looks like he's been resurrected with a different name, lol!

More shit than a sewage farm...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

109. Comment #85176 by Quetzalcoatl on November 5, 2007 at 8:32 am

Probably a reference to John Calvin as in the Calvinists. I think Wee Flea (because that's his name, really isn't it?) and his Church are based on that. I think that's right- correct me if I'm wrong, Calvin.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

110. Comment #85177 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:33 am

Comment #85175 by irate_atheist

More shit than a sewage farm...

Bloody recycling! Some things should be dumped, not recycled!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

111. Comment #85179 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:38 am

Good quote from Le bon sens:

There is a science that has for its object only things incomprehensible. Contrary to all other sciences, it treats only of what cannot fall under our senses. Hobbes calls it the kingdom of darkness. It is a country, where every thing is governed by laws, contrary to those which mankind are permitted to know in the world they inhabit. In this marvellous region, light is only darkness; evidence is doubtful or false; impossibilities are credible: reason is a deceitful guide; and good sense becomes madness. This science is called theology, and this theology is a continual insult to the reason of man.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

112. Comment #85180 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 8:41 am

101. Comment #85167 by Calvin

What flummoxes me, Flea, is that the theist material above seems so poor. I've read a few of these books and despaired. I always make a point of reading reviews or blog commentaries of these things in the religious press or on religious websites, (Commonweal.com is my favourite.) and despaired again.

Tell me, Flea, which one is the good one? I promise I'll read it and get back to you here.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

113. Comment #85181 by BaronOchs on November 5, 2007 at 8:41 am

Calvin Flea you obviously don't get put on the other comment thread because your arguments are too effective, It's because you're needlessly pugnacious, you just jumped in there insulting the site admin and the people who post here. Just so we know gods loves us eh?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

114. Comment #85182 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:43 am

Calvin Flea you obviously don't get put on the other comment thread because your arguments are too effective,

I've heard of this other thread. J was put there once by accident I believe. How does one view it?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

115. Comment #85183 by Quetzalcoatl on November 5, 2007 at 8:46 am

BAEOZ-

Between where the article ends and the comments begin, click on "View Alternate Comment Thread".

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

116. Comment #85184 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:49 am

Thanks O benevolent and wise Quetz. It was like stepping into an alternate reality! I've trancended something! Maybe my brain broke with that double dose of our beloved Flea.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

117. Comment #85186 by Seti on November 5, 2007 at 8:53 am

Well according to Beattie, what is needed is more women! Apparently the views of the men who have written are invalid because in their "mock battle" (mock?!) they are perpetuating the oppression of women who are "seldom represented by their scholarly elites." Well, if she's making a point about the way in which women are not represented by their religious leaders she is right - that is a major problem, at least among the evil triumvirate of xianity, islam and judaism, which relegate women to second-class citizenship.

However, to suggest that women need a special kind of attention in the debate against religion merely perpetuates that perception of second-class-ness. The poor dears are more reliant on the myth to sustain their hopes and meaning? It doesn't matter what's true, the illusion is comforting? Just so long as it keeps them churning out a new sprog every year to add to the Vatican's power-base, eh Tina?

Other Comments by Seti

118. Comment #85188 by steveroot on November 5, 2007 at 8:56 am

102. Comment #85168 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:09 am

I'm still working on the theory that Dr. B is an hermaphrodite with a giant cock.
Prove me wrong!

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Where's the beef? :-)
Steve

(Welcome back, Dr. B!)

Other Comments by steveroot

119. Comment #85189 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 8:58 am

I have yet to see ANYONE on this site recommend that any of the 'flea' books should be read - after all why should you? Without reading them you know what they will contain and you know that they are wrong!).

Don't be silly. There have been plenty of posts from people who have read one or more of these books, or extracts. I am one of those. I read the on-line version of 'The Dawkins Letters', and it was painful.

4) "you'd think that if the apologetics had a valid response, one book would suffice". Bizarre and stupid. You would think that if the anti-theists had a valid response to Christianity then only one book would suffice.

The problem is that the theists metaphorically just stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'I am not listening' when they are argued against. I mean how many more times do we need to hear tired old arguments like 'Beauty needs God', or 'That is not my religion Dawkins is criticising', and so on.

Other Comments by steve99

120. Comment #85190 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:59 am

Comment #85188 by steveroot

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Where's the beef? :-)

Dr. B has revealed that he/she was a gigantic cock. Isn't that enough? Don't tell me members of this site don't accept revelation!

[EDIT] That was meant to be he/she has a big willy. But the mistake doth make me giggle. Apologies.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

121. Comment #85193 by Quetzalcoatl on November 5, 2007 at 9:11 am

BAEOZ-

thanks to the new "Other Comments by..." feature, you can now read all of Wee Flea's comments! It will be useful if you ever get the urge to count the number of times he's used the phrases "atheist faith" and "atheist believers". If you're so inclined...

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

122. Comment #85194 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 9:18 am

Comment #85186 by Seti

Well according to Beattie, what is needed is more women! Apparently the views of the men who have written are invalid because in their "mock battle" (mock?!) they are perpetuating the oppression of women who are "seldom represented by their scholarly elites."

Starting with Hypatia presumably. I wonder whatever happened to her...

Other Comments by epeeist

123. Comment #85195 by Fedler on November 5, 2007 at 9:19 am

Calvin/David,

I can agree with you about one thing. I do find the flea concept done to death and to be quite boring now.

The rest of your post can be dismissed as the same old stuff.

How is it in Scotland? It's turning cold here in the Midwest of the U.S.

Scott

Other Comments by Fedler

124. Comment #85197 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 9:21 am

Comment #85193 by Quetzalcoatl

It will be useful if you ever get the urge to count the number of times he's used the phrases "atheist faith" and "atheist believers". If you're so inclined...

Many threads and posts back I offered him a small hypothesis to show one particular basis for atheism. He responded to the effect that this wasn't all there was and there must be other "tenets". Despite many invitations he has always failed to enumerate these tenets.

Other Comments by epeeist

125. Comment #85201 by Calvin on November 5, 2007 at 9:29 am

If you look back you will find a number of people who have read at least some of these books, including a compatriot of yours Northern Bright

I did not say that no one had read them. I did say that no one would recommend that anyone else would read them – in response to an accusation that those of us in churches would not encourage people to read the New Atheist publishing. Please try and answer what is being said.

Probably a reference to John Calvin as in the Calvinists. I think Wee Flea (because that's his name, really isn't it?) and his Church are based on that. I think that's right- correct me if I'm wrong, Calvin.

Smart thinking batman! A big clue was in the name! My church would claim to be based on the Bible, of which Calvin was an excellent expositor.

What flummoxes me, Flea, is that the theist material above seems so poor. I've read a few of these books and despaired. I always make a point of reading reviews or blog commentaries of these things in the religious press or on religious websites, (Commonweal.com is my favourite.) and despaired again.

Tell me, Flea, which one is the good one? I promise I'll read it and get back to you here.

A great question. I have not read them all either. And I guess that some might be just out to make a name or some money out of the whole thing (as may some of the many atheist 'fleas'). I agree with Northern Bright's review of Cornwells. Personally I like McGrath's – although it is too short (his Dawkins God is much better). The best I have read so far is John Lennox's 'God's Undertaker, has science buried religion?'.

Calvin Flea you obviously don't get put on the other comment thread because your arguments are too effective, It's because you're needlessly pugnacious, you just jumped in there insulting the site admin and the people who post here.

Oh dear – the 'if you were really a Christian you would nice to us approach'! Yawn…. Needlessly pugnacious. Let me guess – stating that Josh doing the 'flea' joke for the fourth time is 'needlessly pugnacious'. You are a sensitive lot….Does this mean that criticizing the Dawkins website is now the unforgiveable sin? Would not any critique of the methodology and style of the website be 'needlessly pugnacious'? If you removed all the needlessly pugnacious material from the website there would be a mighty hole!

The problem is that the theists metaphorically just stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'I am not listening' when they are argued against

Not all theists do that. And I'm afraid refusing to read any of our books suggests that that is exactly what you are doing. As is banning(trolling) those who upset you….

Other Comments by Calvin

126. Comment #85205 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 9:36 am

Does this mean that criticizing the Dawkins website is now the unforgiveable sin?

Yes, you go straight to atheist hell. In other words, you're condemned to spend your life surrounded by christians. Harsh isn't it?
How goes it Mr. Flea?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

127. Comment #85214 by BaronOchs on November 5, 2007 at 9:49 am

critique of the methodology and style of the website

Lol is that what it's called

Other Comments by BaronOchs

128. Comment #85222 by Calvin on November 5, 2007 at 10:10 am

I'm afraid that I will have to take a vow of silence here! The trouble is that anything I say will be deemed as unneccessarily pugnacious and some poor wee atheist will run in tears to the website master and then I will get banned again. Anyway I don't want to run the risk of being accused of not being Christian enough (apparently being a Christian means that as well as being stupid, we have to say nice things to atheists). And most of all I don't have the time - I have debates and discussions in Chelmsford, Birmingham and Belfast this month alone. So I will leave you to your wee enclosed fundamentalist world, where you can slate all theists to your hearts content, reaffirm one another in your atheist faith and wonder why no-one bothers to respond. Have fun....

Other Comments by Calvin

129. Comment #85223 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 10:12 am

So I will leave you to your wee enclosed fundamentalist world, where you can slate all theists to your hearts content, reaffirm one another in your atheist faith and wonder why no-one bothers to respond. Have fun....

You really don't follow this site much, do you?

Other Comments by steve99

130. Comment #85226 by BaronOchs on November 5, 2007 at 10:18 am

Who are you debating in Birmingham, Belfast, and Chelmsford? or will you just argue with your reflection in the mirror?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

131. Comment #85228 by BaronOchs on November 5, 2007 at 10:19 am

woops I was unnecessarily pugnacious, well I'm going to hell.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

132. Comment #85232 by admin on November 5, 2007 at 10:29 am

David Robertson (Wee Flea, Calvin),
I banned you months ago for being a troll, and you must not be smart enough to realize that you are no longer welcome on this website. I've banned your new account as well. If I see you again, you'll simply be banned again.

Josh

Other Comments by admin

133. Comment #85237 by cowalker on November 5, 2007 at 10:47 am

Danielos: "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."

Whoa. Let's remember that evolution doesn't have a goal. Change/evolution doesn't equal better, ie transcendence. Change/evolution can give an advantage to an organism, or put it at a disadvantage IN A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT. What is an advantage in one place can be a disadvantage in another place. What worked to promote human survival when humans lived in caves in small clans were things like--if you get the chance to steal food from another clan go ahead but don't steal from each other and start a fight, keep the clan strong by caring for the injured, do what the strongest person says, be suspicious of other clans because they'll take your food if they can. Instinct probably took care of things like--have sex, preferably with people other than close relatives, and feed your children. However it's hard to separate instinct from learned behavior. For example wolves live in packs with a leader and feed each other's pups. It's hard for me to believe that this is cultural behavior passed from one wolf to another. If it isn't learned behavior, it's instinctive altruism and loyalty.

Anyway, lots of humans following practices that improved their survival rates changed the environment they lived in. They lived long enough to pass on complex skills. Their clans grew in size because greater size provided more security, and allowed specialization. There was space for the enjoyment of exploration, art, music, storytelling. The behaviors that helped the clans survive as hunters in caves weren't enough to give a survival advantage in the new environment.

Random theft from another clan could start a devastating conflict. Arranging marriages with another clan's members instead of just stealing women worked to create blood bonds that gave both clans a survival advantage. The strongest person didn't necessarily have the best ideas for clan survival, because there was more to getting along than brute strength at this point.

At some point in the development of language and the human brain, what was good for the clan became an abstract concept of "good." Once we had that concept, I'd say that pure "evolution" of ethical beliefs through natural selection was over. People were able to reason about abstract values. You now had people advocating certain behaviors because they were objectively "good." They would insist on following these behaviors even if they result in a survival disadvantage for the clan. They would insist on following them even if the environment changed and the behaviors were no longer appropriate.

To the rescue came people who saw through the bogus concept of absolute good and evil and manipulated belief systems for their own advantage. In addition, the instinct for self-preservation and the desire for various gratifications led to convoluted thought processes that allowed people to change their absolute belief systems without admitting to themselves that they were doing so. It was revelation, or new interpretation of the old, absolute rules.

What we have now is an unacknowledged kluge of instinct, naturally selected behaviors, traditions that enrich and empower the upper class, and rules derived through reason that can be demonstrated to improve the condition of the majority of humans. They overlap a lot. Most people are frightened to look behind the counter where the sausage is made.

Obviously I'm in favor of examining ethical beliefs on a pragmatic basis. That does NOT mean that if it's convenient, it's OK to do anything. It means applying reason to make rules for beings who experience pleasure and pain, love, curiosity, and fear. It means balancing their interests as fairly as possible. It will always be a work in progress, as the environment and humans themselves change. It will never be quick and easy. I think that this approach will result in the best world for me and my children.

Of course I could be wrong, but I don't think the current approach of viewing our own nuclear-armed nation as "our clan right or wrong" or the tradition that private property is sacred above all rights of others to clean air and clean water will even allow us to survive, much less move us toward a better world.

Other Comments by cowalker

134. Comment #85250 by konquererz on November 5, 2007 at 11:03 am

Wonder how many of these flea's actually read these books before writing a book in response to them? I have read a couple of these books and notice that, at least the ones I have read, do not write as though they have actually read the books they are responding to. Its an idiots venture.

Other Comments by konquererz

135. Comment #85253 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 11:15 am

Josh,

The banning is too bad. You cannot do this. I have stuff I want to say to the man.

Please reconsider. Fleas are ultimately harmless.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

136. Comment #85259 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 11:31 am

Baron Ochs Comment 87.

I see your point – it depends on what type of academic she is, and precisely who her book is aimed at. I just reckon that mention of the word 'twilight' in this context is too weird to be a co-incidence. I will let you know when I read her book: it's on order. (I will wait for the postie every morning - I have ordered along with a recipe book with nice cakes in it. A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down... la la :)

Wee Flea/Calvin/David Robertson. Comment 125.

I did not say that no one had read them. I did say that no one would recommend that anyone else would read them.

What is offering to post free if not a recommendation to read?? (My comments and 14 and 74.) You have a particular habit of scanning over and ignoring my posts – tis enough to give a poor dormouse a complex :(

Steve99. Comment 129.

You really don't follow this site much, do you?

I very rarely disagree with you Steve, but I think he follows it a great deal – obsessively even.

Evidence? The almost instantaneous response to certain triggers (flea books etc.) – never misses. I had a bet with myself before I went to work today that he would turn up on this thread and "low and behold". Further evidence? He even sent RD a birthday message (snide little git).

http://richarddawkins.net/bdayTextD,page7#664

Not the action of someone who only occasionally looks in.

Other Comments by Corylus

137. Comment #85266 by steveroot on November 5, 2007 at 11:40 am

135. Comment #85253 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 11:15 am

"Please reconsider. Fleas are ultimately harmless."

Try telling that to a victim of Yersinia pestis! ;-)

I see no reason to ban the WF from the site, FWIW.I doubt he carries anything anyone here is likely to catch.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

138. Comment #85267 by epeeist on November 5, 2007 at 11:41 am

Comment #85253 by phil rimmer

The banning is too bad. You cannot do this. I have stuff I want to say to the man.

I agree with your first and second sentences. You might want to say things, however whether he listens is another matter.

Please reconsider. Fleas are ultimately harmless.

Now this I will probably have to disagree with.

I think he can play it both ways. If he is banned he is going to report it in the worst possible light anywhere that will publish it. If he isn't banned then he will carry on attempting to provoke a backlash, which again he can report in the same way.

I have to agree with comment #85259 by Corylus, I think he lurks here waiting his opportunity to stir up trouble. This is all he really does, he rarely actually answers questions.

Now if Josh had banned him for a rather obvious lack of a sense of humour...

Other Comments by epeeist

139. Comment #85270 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 11:43 am

Flea,

So, John Lennox's 'God's Undertaker, it is. I hope you haven't sold me a pup. The McGrath met a sticky end.... (see post 27 in this thread.)

Other Comments by phil rimmer

140. Comment #85275 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 11:53 am

epeeist

I have to agree with your (and Corylus's) analysis.

But the harm is??

As for the humour bypass, its his flock I feel sorry for....

Other Comments by phil rimmer

141. Comment #85278 by admin on November 5, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I don't want to ruin anyone's fun...! Honestly, he's been around the site for so long, and all he does is stir up arguments. I'm sure he'll be back again in a new puppet account, crying about being banned. His intrusion into a thread like this doesn't bother me, but when there is a useful discussion taking place and he butts in with his trolling, then I don't want him around. The fact is that he's been banned for trolling on other threads, and just because he creates a new account doesn't mean he's welcome back. He's abused his commenting privileges enough in the past.

Josh

Other Comments by admin

142. Comment #85280 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 12:02 pm

I very rarely disagree with you Steve, but I think he follows it a great deal – obsessively even.

Sorry - I should have indicated irony!

He claimed that we don't debate with theists here - that the religious don't respond to what we post. Given the sheer volume of debates with theists on this site, there are two options: either he does not follow the site, or he is blatantly lying in order to be provocative.

However, being a man of the cloth, we should surely not claim he is lying - that would be such a bad example, so obviously he must not be following the site.... so it must be incompetence rather than malice.

Other Comments by steve99

143. Comment #85281 by andorusan on November 5, 2007 at 12:02 pm

The theists doth protest too much, methinks.

Other Comments by andorusan

144. Comment #85291 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Steve

Sorry - I should have indicated irony!

Doh! :-)

Personally I am sitting here amusing myself wondering what handle he is going to use next.

It will have a Scottish slant, I'm sure. Not nice Scottish though like 'Heather Honey', or 'Single Malt' .

More in the line of 'Glasgow Kiss' mebbe...

Other Comments by Corylus

145. Comment #85293 by Dr Benway on November 5, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Good man, Josh. You run this site with a light hand generally and are well within your rights to set some limits now and again.

Dawkins couldn't function at the high level we enjoy if he didn't have several people keeping an eye out for trouble. I hope he's smart enough to recognize genuine loyalty and good sense among his staff.

Too bad A. Flew didn't attract a circle of people capable of sniffing out the users and takers crossing his path.

I like the way PZ Myers handles trolls at his site. Worth stealing for this place, perhaps.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

146. Comment #85294 by SRWB on November 5, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Don't ban anyone. While Flea's comments are not as ubiquitous and monotonously repetitive as DG's, it's a lot easier to debate his style of theism as opposed to the wishy-washy epistemological and ontological machinations of DG and his ilk.

Other Comments by SRWB

147. Comment #85305 by Lauregon on November 5, 2007 at 1:12 pm

And I'm afraid refusing to read any of our books suggests that that is exactly what you are doing. - Wee Flea

Most of us have already read more than enough theist books that we don't need to read any more, regardless of whatever burr has crept into theist britches lately. Theists are simply going to have to accept that their millennias of dominion over human minds is losing its potency and that non-belief has become highly visible and audible.

As for Dianelos, no point in further engaging his sciency argumentation. His true concern beneath all that muddle-befuddle (as is all creationist/ID argumentation) is what he sees as the social necessity of maintaining obedience to and worship of the Sky God. He likes to sound science-minded, but that's really just obfuscation for his true concern.

Other Comments by Lauregon

148. Comment #85310 by STLstrike3 on November 5, 2007 at 1:16 pm

I really think we should take these books as a sign that the knife of rationalism has struck quite deep. At least, for the minority of these authors who have actually read the work of Dawkins et al.

A lot of these works probably represent a hurried attempt to patch up the holes that reason punched in the oh-so-flimsy fabric of their faith.

Are any of these particularly entertaining? I was thinking about picking up Letter From a Christian Citizen... seems like it might be an easier one to point-counterpoint.

Other Comments by STLstrike3

149. Comment #85314 by Lauregon on November 5, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Good to see you back, Dr Benway! Wishing you some yummy cookies and fragrant tea. (Or a finger or two of some fine scotch).

Other Comments by Lauregon

150. Comment #85322 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Dawkins couldn't function at the high level we enjoy if he didn't have several people keeping an eye out for trouble.

But, Dammit, Dr B, how are we newbies ever going to learn to hunt if the prey don't come near us? We're big boys...and girls, and we've got our mates round us....

Maybe he's just done awful things I haven't seen. I'll shut up.

Other Comments by phil rimmer