1. For the glory of God

Comment #88995 by Daksian on November 19, 2007 at 12:45 pm

gr_man, kaiserkriss, and OneNationUnderThor, I'm sorry if my statement offended you, but frankly, I call it like I see it. I too have lived across Canada. I grew up in Alberta, and spent a lot of time throughout the prairies and BC.

I made my comments from my experiences, which isn't isolated to a single geographic region. I did not look up statistics. Suffice it to say, I am far more comfortable proclaiming I'm an atheist here than I was when I lived in Alberta. Here my views are merely questioned with a simple shrug of the shoulders. There, my views met with being ostracized.

While there are certainly believers and fundamentalists throughout Canada, in my experience there is a strength to them, a strength that feeds intolerance, in Western Canada.

2. For the glory of God

Comment #88417 by Daksian on November 16, 2007 at 2:20 pm

I find myself privileged to live in Ottawa and get the Citizen every day, where I can enjoy articles like this one from Dan Gardner. He is an excellent counterpoint to the blind rhetoric of David Warren.

I love how Gardner presents his arguments...clear and logical and not even particularly provacative--it is almost casual in delivery, as if he is simply pointing out self-evident truth (which, in fact, he is).

I am distressed by the figures for Canada; I suspect that the more ignorant mindsets are more prevalent in the West (where I have had the misfortune to live from time to time), where there is widespread bible-thumping. These concentrations make the rest of Canada look bad.

3. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61266 by Daksian on August 4, 2007 at 12:05 pm

David,

I wonder if there is a corollary between the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden and the urge to respond to your comments...but seriously, I do feel the need to respond.

My second post is as reasonable as my first. I've outlined my perception of your tactics in my first, and reiterated them in a condensed form to Billy. As I mentioned, you seem to use language that is designed to provoke atheists, language that attacks their sense of being rational beings (faith, fundamentalism, belief, etc). You have indicated that you try to provoke people, and as I indicated from my second point, you provoke people from all walks of life and abilities. Invariably this results in insulting posts, which again, you use to justify your assertions that atheists are not reasonable people. However, when you start with provocative statements, it is inevitable that a dialogue will degenerate into ill-tempered reactions.

You are an intelligent man. I sincerely doubt you are naive enough to think that you can refer to members of this community as 'fundamentalist' or 'religious' without getting these kinds of responses. This is why I've indicated that your words are deliberately incendiary and aimed towards self-justification. I DID say as much in my original post, and this is based on observation of these threads for the past few weeks. I will admit that is not your only purpose, but my response was to Billy's comments, which did not really address your other purposes, but your behaviour on these forums.

In the simplest terms, David, you are something of a troll, although you are far more subtle than most trolls. You are not JUST a troll, and I do believe you have something to say and contribute, but that trait seems to be the one that dominates. Whatever your intentions in any given thread, you can't seem to resist the temptation to use hot-button words and then pounce on those who take the bait.

4. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60990 by Daksian on August 3, 2007 at 9:04 am

Billy: I'm not truly looking to engage David in a debate, especially not about atheism vs. faith. What I am seeking to do is expose his tactics for what they are: deliberately incendiary and aimed towards self-justification. Though my response was directed to him, my opinions about him and his tactics are for everyone. David will not go away because of crudity--he quite obviously thrives on it. I'm happy to have him here, because his presence keeps the dialogue fresh and interesting, as dissenting opinions are supposed to do. I simply don't care for how he goes about it, and I'd prefer for others to understand his methods, and in understanding it, not be affected by it.

5. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60966 by Daksian on August 3, 2007 at 7:49 am

I'm a newcomer to these threads, having only recently read the God Delusion. I've been an atheist for nearly twenty years; I've never hid that fact, but I've never advertised either.

Like many others on this thread, I'm compelled to respond to David (aka Wee Flea).

I've been observing these threads for the past few weeks. It seems apparent to me that you revel in stirring the pot, and to be honest, I think this is a good thing, because we should not be complacent in our assertions. Challenging views is what always propels humanity forward, as I'm sure Darwin and Dawkins would agree.

Though I suspect you already realize this but don't care and prefer to feign ignorance, the less-than-eloquent rebuttals you receive are a result of a number of things.

First, the language you choose to use. There are hot-button terms that are bound to get an atheist's hackles raised when referring to them: fundamentalism, belief, and the like because it refers to a lack of rationalism, which is something atheists pride themselves on. I have no doubt you use these terms deliberately and as often as possible to provoke angry responses, further justifying your position since it makes it seem as if you are the reasonable one. In truth, it is a psychological trick, which leads me to my second point.

My second point is that like any other group of people, atheists come from all walks of life, which includes their level of education and articulation, and emotional control. Whether they are strong in these qualities or not is irrelevant in terms of them being worthy people; I will firmly assert that every human being is a worthy person with different strengths. Nevertheless, your psychological gamemanship invariably draws out people who are not as strong in one of these traits, whom you gleefully pounce upon as evidence that confirms your beliefs about atheism. This leads to my third point.

You chastise this forum for it's lack of reasoned debate, but I think it's safe to say that few of us who could indeed debate effectively (and that's certainly not a strength that everyone has, though everyone can voice an opinion, which is fairly evident here) feel compelled to do so with you. Debates on internet forums rarely--if ever--changes the view of one of the debaters. I could debate you on atheism vs. belief, but what would be the point? At the end of the debate, neither one of us would be convinced. And this is not a matter of being close-minded; we have all seen the arguments either way and would simply undoubtedly regurgitate the same ones, which has already convinced us one way or another. After all, you have written and published a book to reflect your beliefs about atheism; could I possibly hope to change your viewpoint so much that you would follow up with a retraction of the words you have written? If I couldn't do it in an internet forum, how could I do it for a published work?

As for your work, I may read it, I may not. This thread isn't about a book review. I'm certain you have some very interesting things to say, and I admit you've intrigued me enough with your personality here that I may be tempted. I don't think I'd be convinced, but perhaps that's not the point.

No, this thread is about fleas, and while I'll grant that your work is less of one than the others, nevertheless there is something to be said about those who ride the coattails of others to success. I can acknowledge that Hitchens can be interpreted in such a way, but so do many of those who refute Dawkins' work. The use of similarities in covers and titles attest to this. Using Dawkins' name does not, though, if the book is written as a true rebuttal. Dawkins' own work is not either: if it was, it'd be titled along the lines of "The Unholy Non-bible" or something equally unlikely.

I don't deny that there is much to discuss, but one would expect that such 'divine' works as the Bible, Koran and others can stand on their own to Dawkins' book, and not need literary rebuttal. This is of course not true, and so authors such as yourself have come forward. To me, this proves the point that much of those religious works must be taken with a grain of salt.

I look forward to being dissected by you