1. Comment #32906 by Graham on April 18, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Any of you Brits remember the Flea Circus in Michael Bentine's Potty time!

Thanks for the nostalgia moment :)

Other Comments by Graham

2. Comment #32908 by maton100 on April 18, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Jeez. And the same covers too.

Jenius saves!

Other Comments by maton100

3. Comment #32910 by goldmineguttd on April 18, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Isn't this good? They're all really advertisements for the originals. It's clear people are taking note :-)

Other Comments by goldmineguttd

4. Comment #32914 by Jack Rawlinson on April 18, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Graham: the flea circus in Bentine's show was one of the highlights of my youth! And as well as I can recall, his fleas had far more wit and agility than the sorry crop of watery religious apologists struggling desperately to deal with Dennett, Dawkins and Harris.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

5. Comment #32920 by Barnacle on April 18, 2007 at 5:47 pm

What's up with that apostrophe?

Other Comments by Barnacle

6. Comment #32925 by Zaphod on April 18, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Obligate parasites the lot of them.

Other Comments by Zaphod

7. Comment #32927 by steveroot on April 18, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Comment #32920 by Barnacle on April 18, 2007 at 5:47 pm
What's up with that apostrophe?

Someone obviously needs to read Lynne Truss's book, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves"!
(q.v.: http://www.eatsshootsandleaves.com/)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

8. Comment #32931 by Jack Rawlinson on April 18, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Barnacle: yes, I'd noticed that too. You have to wonder about the quality of the publisher responsible for dropping "The Dawkins' Letters" on the public. Well, you don't have to wonder too much.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

9. Comment #32940 by Kell on April 18, 2007 at 7:16 pm

This highlights what is a defining feature of my experience of christianity - shameless appropriation.
At least since absorbing many of the pagan festivals of europe ( oestre, hallowe'en etc. ), christianity has always responded to any prominent threat by emulating it. Or imitating it. Or just stealing it.

Even book jackets are not safe.

And of course there's Mithras... http://youtube.com/watch?v=MSm7YPMQOSo

Other Comments by Kell

10. Comment #32948 by Russell Blackford on April 18, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Maybe I should experience a sudden conversion and cash in before it's too late. Or I could at least "claim" some titles quickly.

Letter of a Christian Denomination
The Godsend of Faith
Breaking with Hell
Darwins' Dangerous Devils
Dennett's Delusional Idea
Hitchens is Not Great
Hitchens is an Ingrate
Hitchens Can Grate
The Dawkins Confusion
The Dawkins Illusion
The Dawkins Desperation
The Dawkins Despoilation
The Dawkins Damnation
The Dawkins Delirium
The Dawkins Dorkitude
Dawkins' Error
Dawkins' End
Dawkins' Faith
The End of Dawkins' Faith
Letters About Dawkins' Desperation
Some Dawkins Derogation
Dawkins' Apostasy
The Dawkins' Apostrophe


and on "our" side

Letter to a Christian Nutcase
The God Defenestration
The Dawkins Delousing
The End of Fleas

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

11. Comment #32950 by privateeye on April 18, 2007 at 7:45 pm

Give these books a chance. I think they are marvellous. Having seen some of them in Waterstones, I am going to buy a couple as they are thin enough to prop up the wonky leg on my dining table!

Other Comments by privateeye

12. Comment #32964 by Lord_Satorious on April 18, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Can anyone think of any examples of atheists responding to religious themed books (other than their respective bibles)? I'm curious if this 'response to a book that also happens to be of book-length' is exclusively a theist phenomenon.

By the way, if anyone has any interest in buying one of these toilet paper-suitable tomes, please do so off eBay. That way, no royalty reaches the actual author or publisher.

Russell Blackford, after looking up its definition, 'defenestration' is now my favorite word.

Other Comments by Lord_Satorious

13. Comment #32965 by Daedalus on April 18, 2007 at 9:27 pm

I had no idea this trash even existed. They must not have sold too well.

Other Comments by Daedalus

14. Comment #32972 by chauvinj on April 18, 2007 at 10:22 pm

I would hate to be Dawkins or Harris and actually have to read this malarkey. My empathy is with you both.

Other Comments by chauvinj

15. Comment #32976 by Freelance Scientist on April 18, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Anyone fancy a wager that none of those books above will be troubling the "best sellers" list ?

I reckon it's safe money.

Other Comments by Freelance Scientist

16. Comment #32987 by CDG on April 18, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Could you imagine being one of these authors? What a pathetic way to go through life. They are liars, charltans and despots.

We have to fight back everytime. I loved it when Richard stood up and plainly told them that believing in religion was like sucking on a dummy. Thank you so much for that.

I love the word dummy as the description but in America it is a Nook or pacifier. I would appreciate it if Richard would say the phrase with one of those words so we quote him here too. Sorry to say the word Dummy would only be understood by most Americans if they were looking in a mirror.

Richard, thanks for hitting hard and often.

Other Comments by CDG

17. Comment #32990 by Thornz on April 19, 2007 at 12:22 am

Have any of you actually read any of these books? When one of them is available at my local library I intent to get it out and read it (thus not passing on royalties, as I suspect it will be a load of old cobblers, nonetheless an interesting load of old cobblers, but then I am biased). But I do want to hear a rebuttle and see how easily I can dismiss the rebuttle as a 'load of old cobblers'.

Also, I particularly enjoyed the comment made above by Lord_Sartorious 'Can anyone think of any examples of atheists responding to religious themed books (other than their respective bibles)?' It goes to show the knee-jerk reaction a book like The God Delusion makes amongst the faithful, it obviously has them worried :)

Other Comments by Thornz

18. Comment #32992 by jonecc on April 19, 2007 at 1:02 am

I read the McGrath. It was short, and had no other obvious virtues.

As I read the apostrophe on The Dawkins' Letters, I hope the publisher has made a mistake, because otherwise they're publishing Richard's private correspondence with his family.

Other Comments by jonecc

19. Comment #32993 by nogod42 on April 19, 2007 at 1:08 am

These attempts at spoofing worthwhile texts are laughable. It makes sense that the pious and their similarly deluded authors feel compelled to mimic actual good literature. They are very accustomed to it...its more than likely how the Bible was crafted to seem the word of god. Well, that and a lot of embellishment (this is, of course, giving religion a huge benefit of the doubt regarding whether or not any of religious history actually happened). They've spent their lives reading and studying the one of the most disjointed texts in human history the authors of which cannot be verified.

We should all see this as proof that the message is finally being heard. We all need to keep applying the intellectual pressure. However, we do NOT need to answer these spoofs with similar tactics. Let them react to our efforts...not the other way around.

Let's keep on the offense.

Other Comments by nogod42

20. Comment #32994 by MartinSGill on April 19, 2007 at 1:10 am

What we need is flea powder.

Most of the flea books have stupid titles. None of them are on any best seller list or have authors nominated for writing awards and I have yet to actually see any of them in my local book shops.

None of their authors have any qualifications worth the paper they are written on either. Making them an authority on... uh... nothing.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

21. Comment #32997 by Corylus on April 19, 2007 at 1:15 am

Poor Dan Dennett - he must be feeling so left out :(

Come on theologians: take on the atheist Dumbledore if you dare!

Russell - loved your titles.

Other Comments by Corylus

22. Comment #32998 by Paul Nettleship on April 19, 2007 at 1:16 am

My favourite sub-title of these is "Challenging Atheist Myth".

Err...what myth would that be?

That is richer than a Saudi prince eating a rich tea biscuit.

Other Comments by Paul Nettleship

23. Comment #33001 by FreeFromDelusion on April 19, 2007 at 1:36 am

Dare I say it, I think there are more professional, effective and mature ways of taking issue with these books than calling their authors names. It comes across as playground tactics.

Other Comments by FreeFromDelusion

24. Comment #33002 by ridelo on April 19, 2007 at 1:37 am

What a lot of paper while Sam or Richard most of the time have enough with one page to persuade me!

Other Comments by ridelo

25. Comment #33003 by Karl Christensen on April 19, 2007 at 1:44 am

I would only read anything in this genre by Ned Flanders. That would be deliberately humorous.

Other Comments by Karl Christensen

26. Comment #33008 by FleaCircusDirector on April 19, 2007 at 2:20 am

Is Richard Dawkins a flea trainer? I don't understand why everyone thinks flea circuses have anything to do with religion.

Other Comments by FleaCircusDirector

27. Comment #33010 by NJS on April 19, 2007 at 2:31 am

Okay Mr Robertson explain to me how science and religion are not opposed.

Religion was invented to explain things - its been superseded and is now redundant.

Also I would presume McGraths degree was obtained by telling the examiners what they wanted to read without believing it. I see no correlation between evolution and Theism no matter how much you protest.

On tolerance I would like to know when was the last time an Atheist slit an infidel's throat.

Other Comments by NJS

28. Comment #33012 by Underworld on April 19, 2007 at 2:33 am

David Robertson:

'You are commenting on something that does not exist.'

LOL!!

Other Comments by Underworld

29. Comment #33017 by Thornz on April 19, 2007 at 2:52 am

"And ignorant because most of you comment without having read any of the books concerned." - Well, there is truth to this remark. I do intend to read at least one of the above titles. A re-read of the above posts will show that a few already have.

"You announce that your prophet and your philosophy(religion) is right because well, they are just right. You know it. You feel it. " - Actually we believe it because there is overwhelming evidence to support it. Evolution (for example) can be shown through the progress of fossils. To pick a more specific example, did monkeys suddenly become humans? Of course not, there are many fossil records showing a progression of evolution from monkey to human. This is hard evidence (and please don't try to tell me that the devil put them there).

"atheists are more tolerant (this will be clearly demonstrated when I am banned once again)." - I do actually believe this to be true, though I do hope you do not get banned, you have generated interesting discussion. Without you this would be a not-so-interesting one-sided discussion. The reason I beleieve atheists to be more tolerant? Countless millions (probably billions) of people have died over the centuries through wars that would not have happened if the divisions caused by religion were not present. I am concerned over the amount of religous-fueled violence that humanity has seen, and is continuing to see.

Other Comments by Thornz

30. Comment #33019 by LookToWindward on April 19, 2007 at 2:54 am

FleaCircusDirector, and anyone else who is confused: Dawkins' comment on the books coming out in rebuttal to The God Delusion: "Did ever a dog praise its fleas?", a quote from Yeats.

Other Comments by LookToWindward

31. Comment #33020 by Thornz on April 19, 2007 at 3:02 am

David, I assume you are referring to the incident in Virginia, the unfortunate shooting of 32 (or 33, depends on which news bulletin you read) students. This was indeed carried out by what you refer to as a 'religious nutter'. Would an atheist shout "Thanks to you I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenceless people," ?

I don't think so.

Other Comments by Thornz

32. Comment #33021 by Logicel on April 19, 2007 at 3:05 am

Russell Blackford, My fave is: The Dawkins Dorkitude and am pleased that you thought up some for "our" side also! Though I certainly hope the atheists don't stoop to the level of the theists.

Other Comments by Logicel

33. Comment #33022 by Duff on April 19, 2007 at 3:11 am

Robinson/weefree, I'm not sure why you are banned, but just maybe its because you are a whiner? There is definitely a bit of poor me in your discourse.
Buck up, bucko. I'm sure they love you on the christian sites.

Other Comments by Duff

34. Comment #33024 by Logicel on April 19, 2007 at 3:13 am

weefree, in his earlier and frequent id incarnations, has been flagged for being a troll, not for being a theist with whom we disagree. I flagged an atheist as a troll recently because he was clogging up the thread with the repetition of his same points over and over again via hugely long comments charged with great emotion and could not accept that others disagreed with him who gave their reasons for doing so.

Unlike weefree, that poster stopped clogging the thread and did not get demoted to troll status. It is astonishing how weefree cannot grasp this little bit of thread etiquette. At this point, weefree is not showing any sign of trolling, but with his history, he could morph into one.

Other Comments by Logicel

35. Comment #33025 by Paul Nettleship on April 19, 2007 at 3:14 am

David

Thanks for clearing up the "myth" query. I had taken its primary meaning rather than "a widely held belief" (I'm not sure how widely held a) is in any case).

I have borrowed a copy of "The Dawkins Delusion" but have not yet had a chance to read it, but I shall. If I can borrow a copy of your book from someone I shall read that too.

I haven't seen any of your other posts but agree with you that it is wrong to censor your opinions.

Other Comments by Paul Nettleship

36. Comment #33026 by Liveliest Crib on April 19, 2007 at 3:16 am

26. Comment #33006 by weefree on April 19, 2007 at 2:05 am

[I]f you want numerous atheist myths then read my book. I'll give you three to start with - a) atheists are de facto more intelligent than theists (the empirical proof of this is this site and the posts that will follow this one!) and b) science and religion are necessarily opposed and c) atheists are more tolerant (this will be clearly demonstrated when I am banned once again).

David Robertson

a) I don't understand your use of the term "de facto" in this context. I think the Latin term you seek is "per se." In any case, in my experience, we atheists do not necessarily consider ourselves more intelligent than theists, just more rational. Plenty of theists are brilliant. Plenty of non-theists are less than brilliant. It would be a myth to say that we do not recognize that.

b) Dawkins rather extensively argues with his fellow scientists and atheists about whether science and religion are diametrically opposed and conflicting means of thinking or simply non-overlapping, and compatible magisteria. Dawkins clearly believes the former, and explains why. Some atheists advance other conceptual frameworks. Again, I hardly think that such a statement qualifies as an "atheist myth."

c) I imagine you're being a bit facetious in arguing that your (repeated?) banishment from this site alone disproves the "myth" that atheists are more "tolerant" (than their theist counterparts?). Nevertheless, atheism itself denotes a lack of belief in one particular thing. The term implies nothing else about particular atheists' normative or moral codes. We're a diverse lot -- some good, some bad, some tolerant, some not. We just happen not to believe in god(s). Sam Harris actually argues for less tolerance (of religious beliefs) and would hardly claim that atheists by their very nature and definition are more tolerant than theists. To the extent that many atheists regard themselves as tolerant, perhaps it has something to do with experiencing societal marginalization first-hand, and refusing to treat others likewise.

I know nothing about your book -- its cover or its contents -- and I do not presume to judge it without reading it. If, however, you are in fact the author of one of the above works, I do hope it is written better than your post to this thread. Your vocabulary is strained, and your tone is that of someone lashing out after feeling personally slighted by atheists, not someone clearly responding to their arguments.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

37. Comment #33029 by NJS on April 19, 2007 at 3:20 am

WeeFree: One man with mental health issues acting alone is different to 4 men acting together or a gang acting together as in the Oslo Woman's case.

Believing your God prompted or guided evolution to me is a more ridiculous notion than outright rejection of evolution - thats why they're incompatibleand why any co-existence in a so-called scientists mind is "lying" to me.

I have all the understanding of religion I need - the myriad of independent, worldwide versions conclusively suggest a man-made phenomenon - unless you can do what no Theist has ever done - explain why your God is the "right" God.

Other Comments by NJS

38. Comment #33035 by WilliamP on April 19, 2007 at 3:30 am

weefree,
assuming you are David Robertson, author of the book baring that name above, I'd like to thank you for posting here. This is actually a real opportunity for you. You might actually get your book on the best sellers list and more importantly, convince us that we're wrong.

Not all atheists are as ignorant and prejudiced as you have made us out to be. Some people here just seem to want to blow off anti-religious steam, but I for one would like to hear what you have to say. What sort of arguments do you make in your book? I see pro-god arguments as falling into two categories. First there are apologists who address the reasons for believing in god's existence philisophically (like Hume's Cleanthes). The second group seem to be excuse-makers who just talk about how good religion is and why we should have it, ignoring the fact that there is good cause to think that it is false.

What kind of arguments do you make? Are you an apologist or an excuse-maker? If you're an apologist, I'd really like to hear what you have to say. If you're an excuse-maker, I typically treat that sort of argument as I would a poisoness mushroom in the woods and avoid it to save myself some trouble. But if you think you have something new to offer, I would like to hear it.

Other Comments by WilliamP

39. Comment #33042 by bouwe on April 19, 2007 at 3:55 am

"Give me that kind of promotion and I assure you I could get a book to the top of the best seller list." -- sour grapes and arrogance in the same sentence, Weefree. Sam Harris is a best-selling author because he is, quite clearly, an exceptional writer. Even his cast-off blog pieces are incredibly lucid and eloquently to-the-point, unlike your meandering diatribe.

In your upside-down world, you seem to think that not having a belief in a bunch of stuff, and giving reasons as to why one doesn't, can be called a type of "religion". Thanks, Humpty Dumpty...and not collecting stamps is a kind of hobby.

Other Comments by bouwe

40. Comment #33044 by Rtambree on April 19, 2007 at 4:03 am

I'm sure there's a book about books about Dawkins and Harris.

Other Comments by Rtambree

41. Comment #33050 by NJS on April 19, 2007 at 4:23 am

Mr Robertson:

No answer to why your God is the right one.

Let me expand, just suppose as someone who "believes" in science I accept the "moved goalpost" of a God who exists outside of Space/Time who created the universe 14bn years ago. Why did he allow all the other religions to spring up on earth? Why only reveal himself to a tiny tribe in one area? Did he intervene in history to ensure the Roman adoption of him which caused his spread worldwide? Why send his son to that one tribe? Is this the only planet out of billions he bothered with?

Simple questions never answered.

Other Comments by NJS

42. Comment #33060 by FleaCircusDirector on April 19, 2007 at 4:43 am

Ah yes, I see the link now:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,634,My-critics-are-wrong-to-call-me-dogmatic,Richard-Dawkins

I chuckled when I saw the Dawkins Delusion in the Christian bookstore.

But perhaps the relationship is less like a host and paracite and more symbiotic. Surely people who were planning on buying the God Delusion don't buy these new books instead so the new books existance can only help sales of the origional book.

Also would Richard Dawkins be quite so famous if every one had responded, "oh yes, you are quite right" instead of disagreeing quite so strongly. So perhaps Dawkins would not exist if people did not disagree with him?

I can see the only solution here is to trade mark the name "Dawkins" but I don't seem to be able to find "religion" under the list of approved services.

"Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite them, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum" Swift, 1733

Other Comments by FleaCircusDirector

43. Comment #33066 by marklennox on April 19, 2007 at 4:52 am

weefree sez: "I had thought that rationality and intelligence were bound up together and I would use the terms synonymously. "

hmm.

Rationality deals with point of view, subjectivity etc.

Intelligence deals with potential to learn, make connections etc.

For instance, people with high intelligence generally find it easier to learn a new language, do crossword puzzles. Even theists can speak several languages and some of them are even scientists!

A rational person uses the scientific method as a basis for accepting the truth of statements - using past experience, creativity and thought a rationalist can create a theory seemingly out of whole cloth - however the process doesn't stop there, the theory is not accepted until the logic that supports it can be verified.

Again, many theists can also be rationalists as there are quite a few scientists that are religious (I'm lumping them all as theists for the sake of argument here..) who would hopefully throw away a life's work at a scientific theory proven to be false. Yet, the same scien-theist (sorry for the punny neologism, couldn't resist!) would reject any argument against his belief and faith no matter how much contradiction to the real world this would introduce.

So no, the terms intelligence and rationality are not synonymous.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligence

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational

It would be nice if you didnt submit us to your outrage every time you misunderstand when someone describes a statement from a theist as irrational or even supports an atheist's remark by describing it as rational.

Can you please let us know any other 'trigger' words or phrases - it would be useful for us all to sync up our vocabularies to avoid each offending the other with what they believe to be innocuous phrases

Thanks.

Other Comments by marklennox

44. Comment #33073 by exasperated on April 19, 2007 at 5:08 am

just to be fair, I've taken weefree's advice and had a look as his "Today's Issues" on the freechurch site, in particular, the reason why he, and presumably I, should believe.

Hmmm, what can I say? Woolly tripe and nothing which, in my humble opinion, would constitute evidence to a rational person.

This leads me to the conclusion that weefree is either not rational, or not intelligent.

Other Comments by exasperated

45. Comment #33082 by Coel on April 19, 2007 at 5:44 am

Dear weefree,
You say "Two days ago in Virginia. The student concerned yelled out his hatred of rich people and religion as he killed. Which is not to say that all atheists are responsible . . .".

Can you point me to a reputable news source that says he was an atheist or that he "yelled out his hatred of . . . religion"?

The reports I've seen of his videos say they "show Cho talking to the camera and discussing religion and his hatred of the wealthy", which is not quite the same thing.

Other Comments by Coel

46. Comment #33087 by mr gollo on April 19, 2007 at 6:09 am

Coming Soon;

Merging, Pathologizing, Resisting: (Author)ity in Richard Dawkins and the Queer Fuzziness of (Author)ity in The God Delusion

Subtext as Self: Destabilizing Fictive Capital in Sam Harris's Letter To A Christian Nation

Historicizing, Troubling, Fragmenting: Patriarchy in Daniel Dennett and the Blind Negation of Tolerance in Breaking The Spell

Other Comments by mr gollo

47. Comment #33089 by lpetrich on April 19, 2007 at 6:26 am

There have been a few atheist examination of some specific religious leaders and their writings, like:

Earl Doherty's "Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ"

Robert M. Price's "The Reason Driven Life"

And as to David Robertson, his comments seem like self-pitying whining to me. "Look how they are persecuting me! Waaaaaah!"

Why doesn't he try following the teachings of his "lord and savior" by loving his enemies (us) and turning the other cheek toward us?

Other Comments by lpetrich

48. Comment #33090 by WilliamP on April 19, 2007 at 6:27 am

Mr. Robertson,
I just looked at "Final Letter to the Reader - Why Believe?" at:
"http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/febb07.htm

I hope your book appeals more to atheists because this doesn't. You give 10 reasons for belief, but I don't think any atheist would be swayed. Reasons 1-5, 7, and 8 are just things that you seem to think that only god's existence can explain. Dawkins, Dennet, (and presumably Harris, whom I have not read) have given lots of answers that do away with the need for god. Reasons 6, 9, and 10 all seem to be just appeals to personal belief that offer no real argument. We've heard it all before.

My advice is that if you want to sway atheists, you have to show us that belief in a completely undetectable creator that only speaks through independently unverifiable revelation, actually explains something that can't be otherwise explained. Particularly if you want to reply to Dawkins, address his critiques of arguments for god. How does the existence of a complex god explain order and complexity? And while I'm asking questions, why does Sam Harris' $200k advertising campaign bother you if you have an omnipotent being on your side?

Other Comments by WilliamP

49. Comment #33102 by John Turner on April 19, 2007 at 7:42 am

Weefree

'The point about science and religion being opposed still stands. It is perfectly possible to be a rational consistent good scientist and believe in God. It is a myth, without any empirical evidence, to suggest otherwise.'

It may be so as you say that theists can be good scientists, like someone who believes the world is flat could be a good scientist, as long as they put this belief to the back of their minds while they are working. But the fact is that many of the 'Truths' of the Abrahamic religions are directly opposed to the facts of science, whether theistic scientists can put this to the back of their minds when carrying out science is irrelevant.

Other Comments by John Turner

50. Comment #33103 by Russell Blackford on April 19, 2007 at 7:43 am

Good one, mr gollo. Yeah, I forgot those titles.

There's also this one, which I really must claim before someone else does:

Fleas and Fools, Lunatics, Lovers, and Poets: McGrath anent Dawkins - the Discursive Symb(i)ology of Late Capitalist Eros

Other Comments by Russell Blackford