Print
The Flea Delusion
by Tao De Haas
See:
http://thedelusiondelusion.com/
A strange new flea book?
PAST FLEAS:
http://www.xulonpress.com/book_detail.php?id=5390
Dawkins' Dilemmas thought-provoking and intriguing Will Richard Dawkins' atheism grip millions fade or stir lingering doubts? Baffled or intrigued by his passionate arguments? With this book, you will be able to: Find out how biblical Christianity uncovers Dawkins' dilemmas. Discover why atheism does not rest on rational foundations. Use a fascinating approach that helps you to weigh up Dawkins' beliefs As you explore Dawkins' dilemmas The dilemma of a flawed world The dilemma of humanity The dilemma of atheism and probability An intriguing chapter on: SETI the search for meaning The dilemma of the ultimate paradox And take a fresh look at the gospel of Christ.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-There-Almost-Certainly-God/dp/0745953301
and
http://shop.ekklesia.co.uk/christian-bookshop/why_there_almost_certainly_is_a_god_1212372.html
Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins by Keith Ward
Synopsis
Richard Dawkins recently claimed that 'no theologian has ever produced a satisfactory response to his arguments'. Well-known broadcaster and author Keith Ward is one of Britain's foremost philosopher-theologians. This is his response. Ward welcomes all comers into philosophy's world of clear definitions, sharp arguments, and diverse conclusions. But when Dawkins enters this world, his passion tends to get the better of him, and he descends into stereotyping, pastiche, and mockery. In this stimulating and thought-provoking philosophical challenge, Ward demonstrates not only how Dawkins' arguments are flawed, but that a perfectly rational case can be made that there, almost certainly, is a God.
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
http://www.amazon.com/GOD-QUESTION-Response-God-Delusion/dp/B0013VHC0G/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1205351261&sr=1-5
[No Image Available]
'The God Question: A Response to The God Delusion' by Rev. John Edgell
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
http://www.lulu.com/content/605271
"The Confutation of Dawkins' The God Delusion" by Malcolm McLean
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
http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=654057
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
"Challenging Richard Dawkins: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About God"
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.
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
http://thedelusiondelusion.com/
A strange new flea book?
PAST FLEAS:
http://www.xulonpress.com/book_detail.php?id=5390
Dawkins' Dilemmas thought-provoking and intriguing Will Richard Dawkins' atheism grip millions fade or stir lingering doubts? Baffled or intrigued by his passionate arguments? With this book, you will be able to: Find out how biblical Christianity uncovers Dawkins' dilemmas. Discover why atheism does not rest on rational foundations. Use a fascinating approach that helps you to weigh up Dawkins' beliefs As you explore Dawkins' dilemmas The dilemma of a flawed world The dilemma of humanity The dilemma of atheism and probability An intriguing chapter on: SETI the search for meaning The dilemma of the ultimate paradox And take a fresh look at the gospel of Christ.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-There-Almost-Certainly-God/dp/0745953301
and
http://shop.ekklesia.co.uk/christian-bookshop/why_there_almost_certainly_is_a_god_1212372.html
Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins by Keith Ward
Synopsis
Richard Dawkins recently claimed that 'no theologian has ever produced a satisfactory response to his arguments'. Well-known broadcaster and author Keith Ward is one of Britain's foremost philosopher-theologians. This is his response. Ward welcomes all comers into philosophy's world of clear definitions, sharp arguments, and diverse conclusions. But when Dawkins enters this world, his passion tends to get the better of him, and he descends into stereotyping, pastiche, and mockery. In this stimulating and thought-provoking philosophical challenge, Ward demonstrates not only how Dawkins' arguments are flawed, but that a perfectly rational case can be made that there, almost certainly, is a God.
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
http://www.amazon.com/GOD-QUESTION-Response-God-Delusion/dp/B0013VHC0G/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1205351261&sr=1-5
[No Image Available]
'The God Question: A Response to The God Delusion' by Rev. John Edgell
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
http://www.lulu.com/content/605271
"The Confutation of Dawkins' The God Delusion" by Malcolm McLean
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
http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=654057
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
"Challenging Richard Dawkins: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About God"
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.
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: Sunday, June 22, 2008 | PermalinkComments 51 - 100 of 195 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #197695 by inkling on June 22, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Lol, uh... guys?Say the name out loud:
"Tao De Has"
"Doubt He Has"
It's a parody. My best guess is that it may be the
product of poster Richard Morgan, who posted (back in sep 8 2007):
"I suppose I must be the ultimate, mother of all Fleas. I am preparing a book :"The Delusion Delusion""
Or someone who was inspired by his post.
Either way, clever and funny. Thank you.
[inkling]
Other Comments by inkling
53. Comment #197697 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Comment #197691 by TeraBratI would be interested to read it. I have studied many old and new philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and it is fascinating to see how people's mind work to rationalise such things.
(I have recently encountered Alvin Plantinga's ontological "proof". I believe it may be possible to adapt it to demonstrate the existence of pasta of ultimate greatness in all possible worlds..)
Other Comments by Steve Zara
54. Comment #197698 by mordacious1 on June 22, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I hate it when I sound stupid, but:I don't get the "Dick to the Dawk to the Phd." quote. And no, please don't explain it to me. I think I'm better off being ignorant on this one.
Other Comments by mordacious1
55. Comment #197699 by esuther on June 22, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I wonder how many copies of Richard's book have been sold worldwide, that is, in all its translations. I ask because I have given two copies of it in French to friends (just doing my part here) and I know it is available in other European languages too. I don't recall seeing any French fleas -- although I will have to look closer next time.I'm willing to bet that most of those flea books are all small run short-lived publications and certainly not translated.
I don't suppose it is possible to get any numbers regarding flea sales, but there can't be very many. People looking for rationalizations of their wobbling faith have already bought the first ones.
Other Comments by esuther
56. Comment #197701 by mordacious1 on June 22, 2008 at 2:08 pm
The one good thing about "flea books" is that a week after they're published, you can find them in thrift stores for a quarter. Still a waste of money though. I went to the local catholic thrift and bought a stack for a dollar, and couldn't get past the first chapter in any of them. Oh well, at least I kept them out of the hands of young people.Other Comments by mordacious1
57. Comment #197706 by Spinoza on June 22, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Many people on this site think "Dick to the Dawk to the PhD" is the very acme of wit.
Heh. I was wondered if you'd ever weigh in on that travesty of a line, and the strangely mixed response it got here.
Other Comments by Spinoza
58. Comment #197711 by esuther on June 22, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Actually, why don't I just ask.Josh, how many languages has TGD been translated into? The blurb that says "over a million and a half copies" is already old -- does that refer to sales in all languages? If so, it dates before I bought those two copies in French.
Other Comments by esuther
59. Comment #197715 by Border Collie on June 22, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Is this "Haas" the people skills corporate coach/emotional enema experience guy?Other Comments by Border Collie
60. Comment #197720 by rod-the-farmer on June 22, 2008 at 2:31 pm
One is tempted to do some investigation into just how many copies of these fleas have been sold, world-wide. Not sure if an informal inquiry to their various publishers would produce an accurate answer. I am also not sure it would be wise, as I fear that info about really poor sales by one or more flea authors would somehow cause some random fundie preacher to exhort his sheeple to run out and buy a copy. Or even for the well-endowed to buy boxes of them for handing out to whoever.Suggestions ? Is there a web site where we could do random checks ?
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
61. Comment #197722 by Spinoza on June 22, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Border Collie,Yes. http://taodehaas.com/index.php?incl=Profile
Other Comments by Spinoza
62. Comment #197730 by inkling on June 22, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Ok, so he is a "published author", has been interviewed by all major Sydney radio stations,hosted his own radio show, appeared on TV, but oddly enough has NO GOOGLE HITS outside of
his own website?
Seriously, I would expect better critical thinking from people on this forum.
It's. A. Hoax.
:)
[inkling]
Other Comments by inkling
63. Comment #197733 by Roy_H on June 22, 2008 at 3:00 pm
More fleas or just simply a pain in De Haas? Other Comments by Roy_H
64. Comment #197747 by Teratornis on June 22, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Comment #197639 by Richard Dawkins:
It is not religious, but is rightly classified as a flea in that it is obviously an attempt to cash in. It is trying to be funny. I don't think it is funny, but what do I know? Many people on this site think "Dick to the Dawk to the PhD" is the very acme of wit.
Perhaps this kind of humor requires the proper frame of mind. As in: heavily impaired.
Other Comments by Teratornis
65. Comment #197748 by Diacanu on June 22, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Richard Dawkins-
The jokes in The Delusion Delusion are all variants on "This page is left intentionally blank." "There is no page 5 in this book, so I added one because we have to make up the page count somehow" "This page is not a delusion. This is just to help me get past page 58." "Remember that the real purpose is to fill up the pages so we can call this a book." "Congratulations! You have read beyond page 18 and you are still awake. And I have managed to fill 57 pages of a real book." In other words it is an unabashed pot-boiler and the only joke it contains is "This book is an unabashed pot-boiler."
Tch, I'm funnier than that!
I wrote stuff that corny back in 5th grade!
Shit, I could pound out a funnier God Delusion parody in a couple months!
...ehhh...but I won't, I don't wanna be a parasite.
(As Conan)
I will have my OWN kingdom!
Other Comments by Diacanu
66. Comment #197754 by mordacious1 on June 22, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I think inkling has it right (hoax). The damn thing isn't for sale anywhere. Unless it's one of those things they give out to homeless people in order for them to get a free meal.Other Comments by mordacious1
67. Comment #197755 by Antipotheosis on June 22, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Here's another Flea not yet on this list:God, Actually
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46782
Other Comments by Antipotheosis
68. Comment #197756 by Steve Zara on June 22, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Perhaps it should have been titled:I CAN HAAS DELUSHUN
Other Comments by Steve Zara
69. Comment #197757 by Teratornis on June 22, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Comment #197558 by TeraBrat:
The fact that so many books were written to refute that book shows how worried they are about it.
The general dearth of books refuting the Flat Earth hypothesis would seem consistent with your claim.
I'm not sure theists are smart enough to worry they might lose this argument. They probably think God's existence is so self-evident that all they have to do is re-examine the long-settled question to give their flock a refresher.
However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given. Thinking about why they believe what they believe can have one of two outcomes:
1. The continue to believe whatever they already believed.
2. They realize that their unexamined assumptions don't stack up.
So, from our point of view, when a theist reads these books, either nothing happens, or they become less of a theist.
I don't see much chance of these books reaching across the aisle and convincing many people who are at least selectively rational already to become less rational. But as Richard says, what do I know?
Regarding your user name, it seems to put you at a trillion on the Brat scale. That's a lot of Brat-ness.
If you wanted to be a monster Brat, you'd add another 't': TeratBrat.
Other Comments by Teratornis
70. Comment #197763 by Diacanu on June 22, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Teratornis-
....and then peak oil is going to kill 99% of the human population.
Women will eat their babies.
People will starve to death at superspeed from the sheer poverty energy in the air.
The bones will push through the flesh before your eyes. The flesh. The flesh. The flesh.
A human skull. On the ground. Human skull. On the ground. Turn around.
There you go, I added that for you.
:)
Other Comments by Diacanu
71. Comment #197768 by Diacanu on June 22, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Diacanu-
Teratornis-
....and then peak oil is going to kill 99% of the human population.
Women will eat their babies.
People will starve to death at superspeed from the sheer poverty energy in the air.
The bones will push through the flesh before your eyes. The flesh. The flesh. The flesh.
A human skull. On the ground. Human skull. On the ground. Turn around.
There you go, I added that for you.
:)
....ah hell..
*Dances in tophat and tails*
Turn around!! Turn around!! There's a thing there that can be fooouund!!
Turn around! Turn around!
There's a human skull on the ground!!
Human skull!!
On the ground!!
Tuuurn aroooouund!!!
*Gets on knees and outstetches arms as if expecting wave of applause*
*Gets pelted with tomatoes*
*Embraces it like a baptism*
Yes!! Yes!! Yeee-heh-heh-heeesss!!!!
*Tears of joy*
Other Comments by Diacanu
72. Comment #197772 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Richard Dawkins wrote:There are no testimonials from Oprah and Deepak. The testimonials are from Woprah Onfray, Chopak Deeprah, Onchel Milfray, Frolic Crancis and Archbishop Osmond Tupu.
Sorry about that chief.
The image on my screen is not all that clear. I had to zoom in and it became even fuzzier.
The book is a joke. And as I said a true flea.
Cartomancer's proposed book looks far funnier. Then again he is a man of true intelligence and great wit.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
73. Comment #197773 by Frankus1122 on June 22, 2008 at 4:38 pm
And perhaps we could have the broadway show of Cartomancer's book done up by Diacanu. Other Comments by Frankus1122
74. Comment #197777 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Regarding your user name, it seems to put you at a trillion on the Brat scale. That's a lot of Brat-ness.
If you wanted to be a monster Brat, you'd add another 't': TeratBrat.
I'm working on it :D.
I started out as MegaBrat three years ago. I like Tera because a lot of people confuse it with Terra. The fact that I'm a tree hugging Environmental Scientist has absolutely NOTHING to do with that ;-).
Other Comments by TeraBrat
75. Comment #197791 by IJM on June 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Every journalist has a novel in him, which is an excellent place for it.- Russel Lynes.
http://www.quoteopia.com/quotations.php?type=q&query=journalist
It does sound like Hitchens, although I must admit I actually thought it was Oscar Wilde.....well we can all be wrong occasionally, I know I frequently am.
Ian
Other Comments by IJM
76. Comment #197842 by Perplexy on June 22, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I literally gasped when I saw David Berlinski's name. I absolutely loved The Advent of the Algorithm and A Tour of the Calculus -- Two of my favorite math books. I could just cry over this. Depressing! Other Comments by Perplexy
77. Comment #197907 by SimUser on June 22, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Another Flea:Atheism Remix - R. Albert Mohler Jr.
http://www.atheismremix.com/
Other Comments by SimUser
78. Comment #197939 by clearthinker on June 23, 2008 at 1:12 am
The fact that so many books were written to refute that book shows how worried they are about it.
Tetra...I agree with your comments on this one. To borrow your language. Regarding the number of books written by the New Atheists, such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and all their spin offs, to refute the Bible, the general dearth of books refuting the Flat Earth hypothesis would seem consistent with your claim.
I'm not sure atheists are smart enough to worry they might lose this argument. They probably think God's non-existence is so self-evident that all they have to do is re-examine the long-settled question to give their fans a refresher.
However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given. Thinking about why they don't believe can have one of two outcomes:
1. The continue to believe whatever they already believed.
2. They realize that their unexamined assumptions don't stack up.
So, from our point of view, when an atheist reads these books, either nothing happens, or they become an agnostic.
I don't see much chance of these books reaching across the aisle and convincing many people who are at least selectively rational already to become less rational. But as Richard says, what do I know?
Other Comments by clearthinker
79. Comment #197945 by The Reverend Dark on June 23, 2008 at 1:42 am
Clearthinker states without a hint of irony
I'm not sure atheists are smart enough to worry they might lose this argument. They probably think God's non-existence is so self-evident that all they have to do is re-examine the long-settled question to give their fans a refresher.
Just as I am sure you never have to ask yourself about the non-existence of any of the legion of other gods worshipped today, or in the past. Re-examining your belief in your own imaginary friend. Actually I am sure you ask yourself the question, then look at where your bread is buttered and go with the lie you have been pedalling. Your imaginary friend is your business.
Tetra...I agree with your comments on this one. To borrow your language. Regarding the number of books written by the New Atheists, such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and all their spin offs, to refute the Bible, the general dearth of books refuting the Flat Earth hypothesis would seem consistent with your claim.
Sorry David, you lose the gold star for this one, the authors you cite are not refuting the bible, they are refuting the idea of belief without evidence as characterized by religion - not just your festive variation of it. I know, you think your imaginary friend has some sort of imaginary friend primacy, but that is just one more belief that is not backed up by a shred of real evidence.
However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given. Thinking about why they don't believe can have one of two outcomes:
1. The continue to believe whatever they already believed.
2. They realize that their unexamined assumptions don't stack up.
Thinking about why they don't believe? Evidence my dear David. Evidence. There is no evidence for your god - or any other god. Just the assertions of increasingly desperate people.
So, from our point of view, when an atheist reads these books, either nothing happens, or they become an agnostic.
I don't see much chance of these books reaching across the aisle and convincing many people who are at least selectively rational already to become less rational. But as Richard says, what do I know?
Oh come now David, you are selling yourself short. Richard Dawkins is just one of many people who say 'What do you know?' Your laughable ignorance, outright lies, misrepresentations, and small and petty beliefs have been deservedly belittled worldwide.
Speaking of which, I recently re-read your twattage about the Tsunami on the Freechurch site. I just wanted to share my contempt for you.
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm
In this they reflect our besieged atheistic friends who are becoming increasingly frustrated because their old fashioned modernistic arguments are more and more being exposed for the intellectual limitations they are. Richard Dawkins was quick off the mark '" suggesting that the Asian Tsunami was once again an illustration of the fact that there is no God. In this he was using Darwinâs old argument ââThere seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the parasitic wasp with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with miceâ. Now we before we answer this let us consider its implications. If there is no God and no creator then what we are saying is that this is just the way things are. âMother Natureâ is cruel and vicious. There is no answer '" only despair, death and destruction. But what about Darwinâs argument? He makes one big mistake '" he assumes that the world as it is now is the world as God created it. But that is not the case. When you read Genesis One notice the repeated refrain, âAnd God say that it was goodâ. God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death. Something came into the world which has upset the natural order of things and polluted the whole environment. That is why, as Paul tells us in Romans 8, the whole creation âgroans as in the pangs of childbirthâ. We are faced with two choices '" either the world is as it is because that is the way things are, or things are the way things are because sin came in and corrupted a good and perfect creation.
Cutting out your verbal twattage and paring it down the essentials, your gracious take of this can be summed up as "You fuckers brought sin into the world, suffer." Perhaps slightly more belicose, but you are blaming the victims for something they had no part in (the myth of the fall) and stating, without any evidence whatsover, that such things did not exist in your imaginary friend's perfect world.
Contemptuous. Patronizing. Imaginary.
The David Robertson Experience.
Git.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
80. Comment #197959 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 1:58 am
clearthinker-I'm not sure atheists are smart enough to worry they might lose this argument.
Have you yet come up with a form of words that expresses your support for evolution, and your agreement that there were natural disasters, disease and death before humans?
I believe this is the fifth time of asking.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
81. Comment #197970 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 2:38 am
#197699 by esuther: I'm willing to bet that most of those flea books are all small run short-lived publications and certainly not translated. I don't suppose it is possible to get any numbers regarding flea sales, but there can't be very many. People looking for rationalizations of their wobbling faith have already bought the first ones.If I were a memetics engineer, wanting to enourage the propogation of memes such as "God is a Delusion" and "Richard Dawkins offers a novel challenge against God", I would be pretty pleased with all of these fleas.
#197701 by mordacious1: The one good thing about "flea books" is that a week after they're published, you can find them in thrift stores for a quarter.... Oh well, at least I kept them out of the hands of young people.
#197720 by rod-the-farmer: One is tempted to do some investigation into just how many copies of these fleas have been sold, world-wide.
#197757 by Teratornis: I'm not sure theists are smart enough to worry they might lose this argument. They probably think God's existence is so self-evident that all they have to do is re-examine the long-settled question to give their flock a refresher. However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given. Thinking about why they believe what they believe can have one of two outcomes....
If "teach the controversy [about evolution]" and "teach strengths and weaknesses [of evolution]" are good tactics by the ID movement, (which they probably are), then similarly these memes are good ones to have in the meme-pool accessible to the next generation. For children brought up exposed only to the "strengths" about God, with no hint about the controversy, these memes will be hard to overlook or ignore.
(I wish these memes had been around in the 1960s! They would have saved me 20 years of copping-out by calling myself an agnostic).
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
82. Comment #197973 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 2:44 am
#197939 by clearthinker: I'm not sure atheists are smart enough to worry they might lose this argument. They probably think God's non-existence is so self-evident that all they have to do is re-examine the long-settled question to give their fans a refresher.clearthinker: You may be able to help me with some pages I am developing. Please have a look.
However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given. Thinking about why they don't believe can have one of two outcomes....
So, from our point of view, when an atheist reads these books, either nothing happens, or they become an agnostic.
I see lots of material from religious people that appears to be trying to convert atheists. I feel that most such conversion material insults my intelligence. Authors typically don't try to understand how individual atheists think and so use irrelevant arguments, they often use fallacious logic, and they rarely provide suitable evidence.
I am trying to help such authors avoid insulting the intelligence of atheists in future. It isn't complete - I don't know everything needed for conversion, otherwise I wouldn't still be an atheist. But this should enable people to demonstrate that they have done their homework, and combined with other material it may provide the basis for making a convincing case.
Here is the current state of the method "How to convert an atheist":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert.htm
I would be interested to get a perspective from a religious person who regularly communicates with atheists. Thank you.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
83. Comment #197976 by 8teist on June 23, 2008 at 2:50 am
Clearthinker, Why is your god such a twat?
Why do you have to grovel endlessly? is not once enough or perhaps you think he`s not listening .
Why every time you pick your nose you have to thank Him for his bounty?
Grow up ,live your own life ,you don`t need to to waste your days bleating to a sky fairy which does not exist. You would be better off praying to santa, at least he comes once a year,I`m assuming you are too old for the tooth fairy.
Other Comments by 8teist
84. Comment #197983 by clodhopper on June 23, 2008 at 3:02 am
Clearthinker: what do I know?
I wouldn't ask that here if I were you.
Why are you still posting nonsense here: you said you were going to leave it alone? You are only continuing to demonstrate what an extremely warped, sick and ignorant individual you are. It would be better if you do that on the FCOS site because everyone here already knows it.
Other Comments by clodhopper
85. Comment #197985 by Brian English on June 23, 2008 at 3:07 am
the general dearth of books refuting the Flat Earth hypothesis would seem consistent with your claim.
How many books have you seen published supporting the Flat Earth hypothesis? If there are none, why would there be books refuting the hypothesis? Terrible analogy there sir.
The books that are being flea bitten aren't refuting the Bible, that is self-refuting. They are refuting the idea that belief in a self-refuting concept (Christian God) and book (Bible) is somehow praiseworthy.
Other Comments by Brian English
86. Comment #198029 by mixmastergaz on June 23, 2008 at 4:34 am
Dear mummy and daddy in the sky,
Since I 've been such a good boy this year I'd like lots of presents please...oops wrong letter.
I heard from that nasty man saying you aren't really there again. Please could you send some comforting words from as many of your loyal elves as possible? I doesn't matter to me if they all say the same things. I just need the comfort of knowing that some clever people have written some books that prove that that nasty man is telling fibs about you. I'm not going to read them, or even think about this for myself as you've told me that thinking for myself is naughty.
Oh there he is again on youtube.
I think I'l put my fingers in my ears.
La la la la, I can't hear you.
Yours etc. etc.
Terry Eagleton
Other Comments by mixmastergaz
87. Comment #198032 by huxley_leopard on June 23, 2008 at 4:36 am
To paraphrase Rowan Atkinson:We must not have delusion,
We must be delusionless,
We must exhibit delusionlessness,
We must not be delusionlessnessless...
Because we don't want to end up, do we, like the blind man in the dark room, looking for the black cat⊠that isn't there.
Other Comments by huxley_leopard
88. Comment #198034 by Sturmia on June 23, 2008 at 4:45 am
Almost ashamed this guy' s originally from the Netherlands but then again, there's a lot of crackpots anywhere. Don't reckon I get bitten by this flea.
Sturm
Other Comments by Sturmia
89. Comment #198040 by Tyler Durden on June 23, 2008 at 5:17 am
Comment #197939 by clearthinker:
But as Richard says, what do I know?David, when you're already in a hole, do stop digging old boy!
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
90. Comment #198041 by serendipity1 on June 23, 2008 at 5:19 am
As a grammatical aside, and incidental to the titles of the fleas, what is the correct use of the apostrophe when spelling Richard's surname in the possessive? eg, is it Richard Dawkins's book, or Richard Dawkins' book? Or are both grammatically valid? Richard, feel free to advise your preference in the event that both are valid.......Other Comments by serendipity1
91. Comment #198049 by Quetzalcoatl on June 23, 2008 at 5:35 am
Clearthinker-
Regarding the number of books written by the New Atheists, such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and all their spin offs, to refute the Bible, the general dearth of books refuting the Flat Earth hypothesis would seem consistent with your claim.
I've never heard of a book denying the existence of Ometeotl. Wait a second.....
However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given.
Presumably you must be talking about religious believers thinking, since we all know that atheism is not a faith, so therefore cannot make faith claims.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
92. Comment #198078 by SimUser on June 23, 2008 at 6:54 am
Why do you guys even try debating Clearthinker?No matter what you say he will try to flip the argument.
You say that air itself isn't actually blue, he will say that you only say that because of your firmly held belief system about the way that light works.
Other Comments by SimUser
93. Comment #198101 by Border Collie on June 23, 2008 at 7:58 am
Spinoza ... thanks ... I thought it was the same guy. Those corporate coach guys are generally nothing but corporate evangelists anyway ... 95% screaming, 5% usable information. He's just looking to maybe make a little money and promote himself ... book with give him some bragging bytes while he's administering emotional enemas to corporate sheeple (love that word - thanks Rod).Other Comments by Border Collie
94. Comment #198109 by Cartomancer on June 23, 2008 at 8:19 am
Serendipity1 -Both forms are grammatically valid in modern English usage so it doesn't really matter which to choose on that score, as long as you are consistent. Essentially the possessive apostrophe replaces the "e" of the "es" genitive suffix from old and middle English, where the correct form would have been Dawkinses. The choice between Dawkins' and Dawkins's is thus the difference between using the apostrophe to replace just the "e" or the whole "es".
I generally prefer the -s' form in most cases, but Richard himself uses Dawkins's so I have adopted that for his particular case.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
95. Comment #198110 by Border Collie on June 23, 2008 at 8:21 am
I appreciate the flea books being identified. The book stores here in Cowtown will put the fleas in the science section and, otherwise, I have to sort through them to ascertain which are science and which are baloney. Sometimes it's not so obvious, by title, which ones are the fleas.Other Comments by Border Collie
96. Comment #198140 by Barry Pearson on June 23, 2008 at 9:18 am
#197907 by SimUser: Another Flea: Atheism Remix - R. Albert Mohler Jr.I can't help being impressed by the apparent incisiveness of this book, compared with the apparent padding and waffle of the books it criticises!
http://www.atheismremix.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Remix-Christian-Confronts-Atheists/dp/1433504979/
"What for years was a little-regarded belief system - atheism - has now gained a large, and increasing, national hearing through the writings of "new atheists" such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens.
"Wanting to both inform and equip serious-minded Christians regarding this cultural shift, R. Albert Mohler Jr. explores the environment that has bred the "new atheism" while also introducing readers to the movement's four leading thinkers and the contours of their arguments. Mohler - deemed "the reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the US" by Time magazine - then uses this foundation to pinpoint eight major distinctives that make the new atheism new, and to discuss the future of Christianity in relationship to it."
Hardcover: 112 pages.
Compare that with:
Paperback, Dawkins "The God Delusion": about 460 pages.
Paperback, Dennett "Breaking The Spell": about 440 pages.
Paperback, Harris "The End Of Faith": about 330 pages.
Hardcover, Hitchens "God Is Not Great": about 300 pages.
Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens - learn to get to the point! Just make your assertions, and stop padding out with logic, step-by-step argument, evidence, and references.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
97. Comment #198146 by irate_atheist on June 23, 2008 at 9:25 am
84. Comment #197983 by clodhopper -Clearthinker:The answer to the question: 'What do I(David Roberston) know?' is: 'Fuck all of any use to anyone, anywhere at anytime.'What do I knowI wouldn't ask that here if I were you.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
98. Comment #198217 by Layla Nasreddin on June 23, 2008 at 11:40 am
esuther wrote:
I wonder how many copies of Richard's book have been sold worldwide, that is, in all its translations. I ask because I have given two copies of it in French to friends (just doing my part here) and I know it is available in other European languages too.
Hey, I bought one in French, too, just to see how it's been translated. Anyway, the figure usually cited is "a million and a half in English alone," and it's been translated into 31 languages, though I don't know what the total figure for all languages is.
Incidentally, I have to say that the famous bit at the beginning of Chapter 2 just does not read nearly as well in the French translation as in the English original (though it might be nice to hear Dawkins reading it, anyway).
For purposes of comparison:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
On peut dire que, de toutes les oeuvres de fiction, le Dieu de la Bible est le personnage le plus dĂ©plaisant: jaloux, et fier de l'ĂȘtre, il est impitoyable, injuste et tracassier dans son obsession de tout rĂ©genter; adepte du nettoyage ethnique, c'est un revanchard assoiffĂ© de sang; tyran lunatique et malveillant, ce misogyne homophobe, raciste, pestilentiel, mĂ©galomane et sadomasochiste pratique l'infanticide, le gĂ©nocide et le «filicide».
See, it just totally breaks up the whole flow of that sentence...
Also, that quote a bit further down the page, "God, isn't God a shit!" becomes "Bon Dieu, ce Dieu, quelle merde!" And the translated hate mail at the beginning of Chapter 6 is a hoot!
(Yes, I am a pathetic loser with no life, why do you ask?)
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
99. Comment #198246 by Urim on June 23, 2008 at 12:38 pm
ClearthinkerYou tried this juvenile trick of parroting someone else's opinion with key words inverted with your comments about Expelled, as I recall.
It was tiresome then, it is tiresome now. Do you really think it's a mature way to make your point?
Other Comments by Urim
100. Comment #198306 by jbone on June 23, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Hi Cartomancer,I'm not sure what tri-flavour ice cream has to do with it, but the whole "flea" concept is a crack-up. (Sir) Richard probably needs one of those lice combs just to get a few zeds at night.
Any other Aussie Dawkins fans on board with me?
As a born again Atheist, I've got to say, I'm getting a very good feeling about the reason movement. So call me an optimist, I'm loving this stuff!!
Religion - for entertainment purposes only.
Other Comments by jbone
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
51. Comment #197694 by Hypoluxa on June 22, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Thanks for the link. Lots to look over!
Other Comments by Hypoluxa