251. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74048 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 5:58 am

Brother John

I have nothing substantial to add to the responses already made by other atheists here to your post, which I thought was excellent. In terms of views on living a good life, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The only difference seems to be where we lie on the spectra of 'propensity to believe in god' and 'desire to have things explained rationally, or not at all'. Tomayto, tomahto.

revcort

That was very gracious of you. I certainly appreciate your readiness to reflect on your actions and to apologise for anything there that you find wanting. That's an admirable trait.

If this isn't too cheeky (and I apologise in advance in case it is), do take care not to just hit the 'Reset' button and wash away everything we've been chewing over with an overdose of humility. In terms of the actual discussion (you know, 'Is there a god?' and all that) we still stand in the same place, irrespective of how loveable or rude we've all been. Like the other atheists here, I think that the god who speaks to you is really nothing more than your mind communicating with itself (and don't imagine for a minute that that to believe so is to diminish the experience, by the way!). Now, in our new, all-good-friends-being-nice-to-each-other manner: do you have anything to suggest otherwise?

Don't worry if not, by the way. You're not going to be pounced on and attacked for taking a more moderate 'I accept that there's no evidence but I can't help believing it' line. That's interesting in itself, and something worth us all trying to understand a little better.

I'm aware that I'm essentially inviting you to climb up onto the lab table and expose your guts for scrutiny, so feel free to say 'No, thanks'. But I think that may be where we have to go, if we're going to go anywhere.

252. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73990 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 3:15 am

MattInOz

...some pointed ideas that plant a seed...

Amazing, isn't it, how many biblical parables are actually genuinely useful kernels of practical wisdom that now apply perfectly in countering religion. 'The wise man builds his house upon the rock' is another good example, for instance.

Even parts of the bible that are apparently clear exhortations to 'just have faith' can often be read critically to reveal quite the opposite message. Take the 'doubting Thomas' episode. If even one of Jesus' own disciples wouldn't believe in the resurrection without first-hand evidence, and if Jesus found this disbelief worthy of a personal appearance, how much more legitimate is our doubt, having never met Jesus, or anyone from the Bible, living in a completely different society, possessing a far further developed understanding of the world which contradicts biblical claims left right and centre, with nothing more than translations of editions of contradictory co-authored-after-the-event (and largely ghost-written) ancient documents telling us: 'Not to worry! Someone else was given proof for you!'?

Paul, bless his misguided cotton sandals, does an excellent job of showing just how lousy the case for faith really is.

253. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73985 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 2:53 am

Still there is always Borders in Brimingham.....

Take care, David! It would be unfortunate for you to fire your theistic big guns, only to find your hull holed below the waterline by a small child who actually understands the point.

When you consider that only those who are atheists can be rational?

Felicitous timing, that your post should have been followed by one from CHeard, currently this website's visiting rational theist par excellence. What's the difference? (Please correct me here if I'm wrong, CHeard.) He doesn't make grandiose and unsubstantiated claims that his faith rests on anything more than his own personal feelings and choice. He engages openly and responsively in reasoned discussion, and is more alert to the absurdities put forward by others in the defence of religion than many of us atheists are. Aware that his choice of beliefs is exactly that, he doesn't act as though compelled to convert the rest of the world to it (nor does he continually try to prick their consciences for not agreeing with him).

What's frustrating in this on-and-off discussion with you is that you never seem to learn nuthin'. Every time we reach a real point of contention, you either hand-wave your way past it or vanish for a while, only to return and run into the same issue all over again.

Either you believe on personal faith alone, or on some kind of evidence. You say evidence, so we've talked about evidence to try to define what kind exists, and what kinds of evidence are legitimate grounds for what kinds of conclusions. This is the point we're at. It's just like Tommy recently observed on the 'The Dawkins Letters' thread on your site:

If someone has just said they can't accept allegedly supernaturally-derived knowledge as a valid source of data, why employ it as a suitable rejoinder? It's like the stereotype of a British tourist in a foreign land thinking that they can be understood simply by saying it again and again in English, each time slightly louder.

Step up to the challenge of showing how the kinds of evidence you claim actually legitimately lead to the conclusions you draw from them, or accept, along with CHeard, that actually your faith is no more than your personal choice based on your personal feelings - and thus cannot be treated as more than that in the public sphere.

254. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73932 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 4:05 pm

BillySands:

J
dont listen to him, you dont have a choice

Cheers for the quotes, Billy. I'm aware that free will vs predetermination is a long-standing doctrinal battlefield. I'd earlier got the impression that revcort was some kind of neo-Calvinist predeterminationist, when he said:

The truth is that God alone saves and it is purely by an act of His will, not ours.

His quote from Bunyan seemed to confirm this.

But now he's chipped in to the contrary, and I think it probably best to let him define what his own beliefs are. I could have misunderstood him earlier. It sounds like his brand of Christianity is a bit closer to what mine used to be: we're all sinful, but we all have the opportunity to accept god, and that's the only way he's going to take us back. Fair enough, I can understand that. I suppose the 'God alone saves' point is a just superfluous bit of 'But don't think you'll be controlling God just by coming over all devout! He could leave you damned if He wanted to, sinnerrrrr!' Christian aggressive hyper-humilty.

revcort's position is therefore more familiar to me than the Calvinistic 'doesn't matter what you do; god's already made his mind up' version. However, I'm sorry, revcort, I still am not going to accept that any of it is actually true purely on the basis of repeated statements that the bible says it is. Lies have been around as long as liars, and they've been with us from the start. Moreover, it's generally true of the advance of knowledge that we learn more as we go on (hence 'advance'), and our earlier attempts at Grand Unifying Theories weren't quite as well-informed as our more recent thoughts. I'll believe your god theory when someone – anyone – gives me a good reason to (and Pascal's Wager certainly isn't one of those). But thanks for trying.

Now, in return, why don't you give some of the rational counter argument's you've been offered a go? Just in a spirit of experimentation. After all, if God does exist, He's surely going to hold your faith in higher regard if you've really forged it in the fire of doubt and not just hung it on some finger-crossing hell-fear. (And remember how much he liked the Prodigal Son? If you go astray and come back, you'll have God partying all night.) But, on the other hand, if it turns out that god didn't exist at all, then you've lost nothing, learned a lot about yourself, gained a new respect for humanity and, furthermore, can't possibly have upset the non-existent big guy at all, ever.

Go on. Take the offered friendly hand of atheism and join us for a little walk, even if at the end we shake on it and go our separate ways. You know it makes sense.

255. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73904 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 2:22 pm

revcort

let me post a paragraph that explains the unpardonable sin...

[...] I found that those there intended were forever shut up of God in blindness, hardness, and impenitency.

I thought I would post that so that some here might be able to examine themselves to see if you have indeed committed that sin. Perhaps some have not.

'those there intended'. Once again, we're back to this. If we reject god, it's because god has decided that we're the ones that he wants to reject us. We are then unpardonable, because god won't forgive us for being guilty of the sin that he made us commit. If 'some have not' committed it, then, it's through no virtue of our own.

Well, like Northern Bright, I've committed it, and I continue to do so. Can't help it, it seems, since I'm just another will-less pawn in god's masturbatory fantasy of reality.

256. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73883 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I think I've hit saturation point.

I look at this endless proliferation of apparently pointless words and all I can think is:

'Why?'

257. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73879 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Don't worry walk, I'm certain that eventually someone like yourself will prosecute me. I'm pretty much expecting that in the next 20-30 years in Europe, followed closely by the same thing here in the U.S. - revcort, 717

Interesting. I have a religious friend who said to me that she fears that it will become illegal to be religious in the near future. I suppose it's understandable. In part, it's the same knee-jerk pessimism that sometimes leads us atheists into flamboyant lamentations about how the crazy god botherers are bringing about The Dawn Of A New Dark Age. But it may also be shored up by the persecution-complex that seems to be written into all of the Abrahamic faiths. (Refer to Marcus Brigstocke on this one.) They all seem to be fixated on the idea that Bad Other People will torment you for your faith (they will - by pointing out how silly it is), that they'll try to take it away from you (they will - by pointing out how silly it is), that things will get worse and worse and worse (as more people realise how silly it is) and then the world will end and - hooray! - you'll be glad you hung onto your (silly) beliefs in spite of all that (fairly reasonable) opposition.

(Sigh.) So, not content with just peddling dogma, you've also got to make a sad face and pretend you're the one that's really inconvenienced by it all. At least the Jehovah's Witnesses have worked out that a decent sales pitch involves looking reasonably cheerful about your product.

258. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73864 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 11:49 am

Northern Bright said, in 64:

To make the analogy more apt, though [etc...]

Aww, I thought we might leave all of the goalpost-shifting until David starts with the 'proofs':

'It won't fit'
- It's tiny.
'You can't touch it'
- It moves around a lot.
'You can't hear it'
- It's very quiet.
'It'd die of cold'
- It's a special, cold-proof elephant with mammoth genes.

And so on.

Presumably, David is sharp enough a tool to to recognise that the elephant in Northern Bright's fridge is exactly the same as the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage and the tiger outside RV Jones' friend's door, two more examples of Occam's Razor that have been explained at length on his website.

But then, if he realised that, he'd also realise that his claim that he 'CAN' prove there's no elephant in his fridge is a question-avoiding waste of everyone's time. And I wouldn't expect David to waste everyone's time any more than I'd expect him to make hypocritical accusations or to score points from subjectively-based ad hominems.

259. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73840 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 10:14 am

Go on then, do it.

Prediction:

'Look! No footprints in the butter!'

Very selective interpretation of the arguments put to you, in your Comment 52, David. However, perhaps your forthcoming 'invisible elephant' rebuttal will awe us all.

260. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73811 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 8:48 am

Northern Bright, BAEOZ and epeeist

Already has

Sure has. I've lost count of the thousands of words I've spent making exactly these points on David's own site. Probably my longwindedness was counterproductive, but I took the two months the last comments spent being moderated as a sign that they had been read.

I don't think that David will be showing any sign of accepting - or countering - these arguments about evidence and faith in the forseeable future. [EDIT - But perhaps he'll prove me wrong.]

Good post, though, Northern Bright.

261. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73801 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 8:16 am

Quetz

Perhaps the Son of God was bow-legged.

'He's got the whoooole wooooorld, between His thighs...'


PS - Galactor

I've just gone through the whole thread...

Well done, and thanks for that.

262. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73786 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 7:33 am

clunkclickeverytrip, 54

That sounds like a very sensible attitude. I like the analogy, too. I find myself imagining it in three dimensions, with the god/religion circle lying a couple of stories lower down than the science/reason one. To jump down does indeed take some faith (though it's quite easy to fall accidentally), but it's hard to climb back up with a broken ankle.

Cartomancer, 52

Interesting post. I'm not on the autistic spectrum, as far as I know. However, I've been mildly criticised often throughout my life for 'thinking (or worrying) too much'. I am terribly indecisive about my own life choices, forever weighing up options and looking at my gut instincts like just some extra data, up to the point where I really don't even know what my own instincts are anymore. (This is something that I struggled with in a screen acting nightclass that I used to go to – I just find it very hard to 'go with my instincts'.) And I suppose this all corresponds very neatly with how I now feel about religion. Though at times, depending on my mood, I sometimes feel the attraction of those old beliefs, I don't trust that attraction.

Whether you see this as smothering something amazing with words, or as using reason to release yourself from a delusion, probably depends on where you're standing. (And how much you care about what's actually true.)

* * *

This entire website is taking on extra entertainment value as an exercise in watching Dr Benway continue his amazing tightrope walk of fantastic posts. Will Dr Benway ever say something that I don't wholeheartedly agree with? Is Dr Benway capable of stooping to trite, boring or pointless observations? What is Dr Benway's halo made of? How many Dr Benways can you fit on a pinhead? Why does Dr Benway allow earthquakes to happen? How does Dr Benway deliver all those presents?

263. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73757 by _J_ on September 26, 2007 at 4:47 am

Sorry, long post.

On the cartoon

There's a weird feeling whenever I read one of these cartoons. Satire relies on the author establishing the sense of a shared joke with the reader (unless the reader is the object of the satire, that is), so you have the feeling that you and the author both get the joke and are having a pointed laugh at the expense of whoever's at the sharp end.

With these cartoons, I just keep falling for it, starting off by thinking 'Ah, I see where this guy's going!' – and then feeling that sense of connection drift away as the thing that looked like being the butt of the joke actually turns out to be his argument. It's like going to hear a speech from the politician you voted for and hearing him slowly transform into a neo-Nazi. Makes you feel…very wrong.

Upon reaching the (figuratively as well as literally) black and white ending, it makes me wonder: if this is the sort of argument that Christians find persuasive, is this the tone we should adopt?:


Mankind has rebelled against reality in his arrogance. It's YOUR choice whether you live in the real world, or walk about in your own personal fantasy land of superstition, homophobia and sectarian violence. Either you're a reality-denying twat or you're not. Which is it...?


On which subject:

For MattinOz's 'How do I talk sense into someone I thought was sensible?' discussion, here's my tuppence-worth.

First, on the dangers and pitfalls of such arguments, following Liveliest Crib, 38:

I feared that if I had tried to engage these people in conversation, I would become so frustrated by both their words and the need to prevent myself from laughing hysterically that my head might actually explode.

Adrenaline's a killer. I find that, in face-to-face discussion, I too easily become Angry Atheist Man. I'm not usually actually angry, but I find that I'm so eager to jump in and stamp on bad arguments, and so wound up about hearing them advanced seriously, and so surprisingly tense about finding someone I like and care about doing so, that it becomes very difficult to discuss things calmly.

One thing that I find very frustrating is that people often use unbelievably childish tactics when arguing for their religion. Realising this can give a similar feeling to realising that Chick is not actually a satirist, because the content of the argument is so at odds with the tone. My religious friends tend to be very good at talking with great calmness and conviction, giving a sense of peace and maturity, as though they have grasped the true meaning of things and these little arguments are not important in the grand scheme of things. And yet the actual arguments and debating tactics I'm given by them are:

- 'the bible says it, so it's true' or 'I believe it, so it's true' or 'it feels amazing, so it's true' or 'just accept that it's true, and you'll accept that it's true'.

- The Christian Policy On Doubt (whereby every problematic argument is filed away under 'Doubts That Make Me Feel Virtuously Humble', with the assumption that God has an answer, even if He hasn't revealed it yet).

- Babyish dirty tricks, like 'You sound cross, so I'm allowed to ignore you', or 'The bible predicted that fools would harden their hearts to god [dot dot dot, pause for effect], so I can ignore you', or 'I feel so sorry for you that you can't just accept that I'M RIGHT, I JUST AM, and you're damned, so I'll pray for you, and in the meantime ignore you', or 'This is the last thing I'm saying, and then the argument's over so you're not allowed to say anything else, and if you do I'll roll my eyes and say "You've just got to have the last word, haven't you?" – and ignore you'. All of which are variations on the theme of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and humming loudly (but somehow also managing to pointedly raise a middle finger at the same time).

By and large, I agree with Robert Maynard's suggestions. It's a good idea to try to pin down where the leap from reasoning into religion takes place. Whether even this deliberately methodical approach will actually prevail against the 'evangelical amnesia' (excellent phrase), I don't know. It's like trying to sweep water – clear a patch and it washes immediately in behind you. (Special water, that spouts constant biblically-founded arguments from authority and ad hominems.) And when, finally, your discussion partner gets tired of re-occupying ravaged positions (perhaps because it is now 3am) I find that the last resort is 'Okay, I can't beat you in rational argument, but it's not about rational argument, it's about believing and knowing and feeling God's love [and so on]'. And, as friendships do not generally survive violent strangulation attemps, this is where I usually have to give up in astonishment.

My personal suggestion is this. I, too, find it fascinating how someone can be very intelligent and scientifically literate, but somehow hold religion in a separate bit of their brain where all the doors are locked to argumentation. A good tactic is the Trojan Horse strategy of relying heavily on analogies.

An argument that always works for me personally, when I start to wonder whether it's actually me who's mad after all, is to ask myself this: if God existed, and He really wanted us to know about it (as the God of the bible clearly does) what kind of evidence could he give us? On the other hand, if there were no god, and just a lot of people who mistakenly believed in one, what kind of evidence might they be able to produce? Whenever I reflect on this, I find that all of our evidence is of the 'made-up god', variety, and absolutely none of it is of the 'omnipotent God who really wants you to believe in Him' type. This re-persuades me every time.

I think most intelligent, rational people are capable of seeing this. But the doors slam closed around the God part of their mind and they refuse to apply the logic to Him. Hence the Trojan Horse approach.

For me, this amounts to the Argument from The Demon-Haunted World. Carl Sagan mentions religion a few times (in a very friendly, atheistic way), but is chiefly fighting a one-man war against pseudoscience. In particular, he spends a series of chapters eviscerating the case for alien abductions. Happily, his arguments (which include the good evidence, bad evidence one I've just outlined) reapply perfectly to theism. In many places the parallel is spookily close.

So try and sneak a copy of The Demon-Haunted World to your friend. Or, on an occasion when you are not talking about religion, have a discussion about alien abductions. Try to get your friend to accept the arguments against that. And then, when that's settled, point out how exact a match that is for religion.

Finally, here are two other useful things that I have read contributors to this site (and possibly another one) say. One pertains to the start of a discussion with a theist, and one to the end:

- Try to establish whether your friend accepts that there's even a tiny chance they could be wrong. Make it clear that you do. If they won't accept this…well, it doesn't bode too well for the discussion.

- Don't worry too much about it. People have their minds changed by reason, but not necessarily right now, by your reason. It might take years of hearing arguments like yours, from different sources, in different contexts, before the penny finally drops. Try not to feel like you've failed in anyway if your friend seems not to budge. You've done your best, and may have played an essential part in a longer journey of un-doctrination.

Good luck. (And remember - maybe we are the mad ones... ;) )

264. A problem for Israel's farmers: The seven-year hitch

Comment #73296 by _J_ on September 24, 2007 at 4:39 pm

EnsilZah

For people who believe in an all knowing all powerful god, they sure take him for an idiot.

Well put.

The Eruvs have reached Britain - there's been a thread on it, a few weeks ago. Here's looking forward to all the other fun and games!

265. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73284 by _J_ on September 24, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Shifty Frog

Gotta wonder though - when talking Jeebus's batteries die, does he rise again from the toy box 3 days later?

Better value to get the Duracell Easter Bunny.

266. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73283 by _J_ on September 24, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Wasn't there an article on these things here a while ago? Or did someone just provide a link to somewhere that mentioned them?

Anyway, I still think they're a project doomed to backfire. Kids can spot patterns. What do Transformers, He-Man, Spiderman and Batman, Bratz (or whatever they have these days instead of My Little Pony), My Little Pony for that matter, and all the rest of the myriad plastic friends children can petition their parents for have in common?

They ain't real.

I also think it's a step in the right direction to have a Saviour that you can actually make do what you want, for a change. Though, once again, I suspect that giving kids the authority to bend The Messiah to their own sadistic juvenile will won't entirely play into the church's hands.

By the way, Clappers - I can only assume you mean that Jesus is poised to bid someone 'Rise'.

267. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73213 by _J_ on September 24, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Reminds me of a line in my favourite (post-Shakespearean) play, Arcadia:

Brice As her tutor you have a duty to keep her in ignorance.

Sounds like this lot didn't catch the riposte, though:

Lady Croom Do not dabble in paradox, Edward, it puts you in danger of fortuitous wit.

268. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73210 by _J_ on September 24, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Friend Giskard
Werewolves are always violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Can't control 'emselves. It's just in their nature, pesky little hooches. You're lucky if you can stop them there, before they cock a leg to General Relativity and chase Schrodinger's cat out of the room.

Northern Bright
Ah yes, high school science. I remember how chemistry lessons worked. Put the stuff in the glass thing, whack it on the bunsen burner and then give up, write down the results you know you're supposed to have got and get it all cleared up in time to copy down the stuff on the blackboard before the bell goes, as that's the bit that'll actually get you through the exam. Aside from occasional digressive horror stories about how our teacher had had near-death experiences with every substance in the lab store room, the routine was practically invariable. Happy days.

And by the way, what's this I keep hearing about heaven and earth being cancelled? Both of them? I was considering putting a stop to Christmas this year myself, but that just seems like overkill. I think the BBC might be getting a bit big for its boots...

269. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73171 by _J_ on September 24, 2007 at 10:42 am

skyhook0, 4,

Also - Dawkins came down hard on the X-files - boo.

I've not watched these videos yet, so please forgive me if Dawkins actually covers all this. But, I guess this is Dawkins taking his cue from Carl Sagan. My copy of The Demon-Haunted World bears a quote from Dawkins on the cover, saying 'I wish I had written The Demon-Haunted World'. In TDHW, Sagan also criticised The X-Files, seeing it as part of America's widespread credulity for things like alien abductions, government conspiracies and rubbery men who can squeeze through U-bends. He suggested that it might be nice to have another series in which similar outlandish claims were investigated and turned out to be rubbish, a la Scooby Doo. (Personally, I enjoyed The X-Files, but I see Sagan's point, just as I enjoy Heroes, but doubt that its mystification of evolution does much to help popular understanding of the theory.)

TDHW came out in 1996. Dawkins' speech here is from '96, and I gather that he became the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science around the same time. He then re-expressed his desire to have written TDHW very elegantly by writing Unweaving the Rainbow (also subtitled 'Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder', by the way), published in '98, which is very similar to Sagan's book in its attempt to displace pseudoscience with an enthusiasm for real science. And well done to him, as it's excellent.

270. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73089 by _J_ on September 24, 2007 at 4:50 am

What, you mean comic books like the bible? Luke 11:23 "He who is not with Me is against Me"

God, you're good, BillySands.

(Oh, and JemyM too, I see.)

271. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72931 by _J_ on September 23, 2007 at 2:57 pm

chabry, that's either Salman Rushie, or a very convincing replica. Who's the guy on the other side who, of the three, seemed to be the one who was least overjoyed with what Maher was saying?

Only just got round to watching this. Well put, I thought. Maher gets a little round of applause from me.

272. Out of Thin Air

Comment #72929 by _J_ on September 23, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Wow! The devil may have the best tunes, but god's doing alright for web designers. (Though I wouldn't trade Josh for a million fancy-pants fundie code mercenaries.)

Was it Anne Druyan that I remember saying that we could do with having the case for science and rationality put forward with the best media presentation we can muster? I think (just personal opinion) that a lot of people associate high-quality presentation with high-quality content. To be honest, I'm a bit of a sucker for this myself. If it's impressive-looking, tastefully presented, well designed, neither OTT nor amateurish, I just instinctively put a bit more trust in it. I know I shouldn't, I know I'm being Homer Simpson, and I can generally tell myself off while I'm doing it, but the inclination is there, nevertheless. And for anyone unsceptical enough to be a creationist, I kind of think the impulse to think twice about such assumptions won't be too strong.

One of the old wing chun kung fu masters said: 'Your enemy will show you how to hit him'. Cheers, creationists! We need more Flash and sequins.

(BTW, for British users: not such a flashy design, if they're stealing their backgrounds from Blockbusters.)

EDIT: Afterthought: perfectly chosen name, Out of Thin Air. In my experience, that's exactly where creationist arguments tend to come from.

273. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72826 by _J_ on September 23, 2007 at 4:28 am

This is worrying and I might join in the letter writing (perhaps with a copy of the standard Government bit of evasion d4m14n helpfully gave in post 20, with red biro to show just why it is wholly inadequate).

Quickly, meanwhile: d4m14n

I'd question how collective worship, or any type of religious teaching can be given to very young children without implying that what is being taught is fact?

Good point. But, thinking back, when I was very young there was a part of the school day in which we used to sit on the floor whilst the teacher read us a story. Our awareness that this was the same person who'd been filling us with facts all day long didn't prevent us from recognising stories as stories. I'm confident that if Teacher says 'Sit on the floor, children - I'm going to tell you about some stories from religion', the kids will be safe enough from 'collateral indoctrination'.

274. The Science Of Collective Decision-making

Comment #72821 by _J_ on September 23, 2007 at 3:54 am

Methods of assessing the candidate aside, I've still got problems with this. Maybe I'm being stupid here, but:

...a seven-judge committee must decide whether to promote a candidate to a position requiring a young, trilingual person. [...] How should the committee proceed? They can all vote on the profile, [AS PER THEIR INSTRUCTIONS] and reject the candidate, or they can vote separately on each criterion [THEREBY IGNORING WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TOLD TO DO] and promote the candidate.

If the post requires someone who is young AND trilingual, there's no point appointing someone who's only one or the other just because of a shortage of candidates who are both. They won't be suitable for the job. This is simple.

It's all very well saying:

...judges showed some tendency to adopt whichever of the voting procedures that yielded the most lenient decision

...but that only works where the selection criteria are pretty flexible. I mean, if you were looking to appoint a new medical doctor under the criteria 'medically trained' and 'physically able to fulfil the role', you wouldn't be doing well to appoint someone who lacked either of these qualities, no matter how hard it was to find someone with both.

Probably it's because this article is a very brief summary of a longer one, but it reads here as though it falls bang into the broad expanse of psychological research that falls between 'bloody obvious' and 'bollocks'.

EDIT

Perhaps that's not a fair thing for me to say about the research, and I'm actually just annoyed about these judges. But, I think what's bugging me is, this article doesn't give any indication that the research draws a distinction between situations in which it would be very clear to the judges that they had to appoint someone with both qualities, and those in which they were well aware that they could get way with just one, at a push. The example seems to describe a situation in which the judges have been told to do the former, but behave as though they believe that the latter is actually the case. This strikes me as important.

275. Monkeys show sense of justice

Comment #72752 by _J_ on September 22, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Developing Richard Morgan's point, it's important to note what kind of monkeys these are: capuchin monkeys. Google 'capuchin'. It's absolutely obvious that these monkeys got their sense of justice from God. Just like the rest of us.

276. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72751 by _J_ on September 22, 2007 at 4:37 pm

mis_spelled

If it helps as an example, I once talked to someone on the internet who sincerely believed that the reason her loaf of bread (or possibly a cake) rose in the oven was that she prayed to God to bake it.

Mind, she also sincerely believed that she had previously been able to prevent the loaf/cake from rising in the same oven by praying to God. And that she was the reincarnation of Mary, mother of Jesus. (I am not making this up.)

Might be best just to leave your mum (who I'm sure is a lot more sane than the lady I was talking to) to believe whatever she believes. Or, if she raises the subject herself, to use the line that another poster here recommended as an opener to door-to-door evangelists: 'Are you prepared to accept, as I am, that there is a chance - no matter how small - that you are wrong?'. Make it clear that you'll only discuss it if that's accepted - otherwise you're just heading for a futile and potentially family-upsetting falling-out. The big myth in the sky just isn't worth it, but I'd guess that your relationship with your mum is! (After all, it's not like anyone's going to hell or anything.)

I'm sure that doesn't help at all! Sorry.

277. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72517 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Hi, Dianelos! Been a while; nice to speak to you again. How're you doing?

Right. Compare Skinner:

Perhaps more significant, then, is the response Dawkins has drawn from non-Christian – or non-religious – quarters

and

"…not only theologians but even atheists have demonstrated where Dawkins has gone wrong…"

…with you, Dianelos:

But TGD is useful on another level too that has escaped Richard Skinner: TGD is so mediocre that several knowledgeable naturalists were stimulated to write negative reviews about it.

Not an auspicious start to your objections.

Thanks for your links to those reviews, by the way. I would like to read a decent criticism of TGD, and I don't think I've read those (although it's possible that I've forgotten).

I'll just object to this:

For example Nagel makes it pretty clear I think that contrary to what TGD tries to convince its readers the argument from design is alive and well, because natural evolution requires the existence of the first replicator and nobody has really any idea how something as complex as the first replicator has appeared on Earth…

…etc. Still beating the god of the gaps drum? Yes, Dianelos, we don't know for sure how life started. Could there therefore be a creator? It's possible, though until we learn more, it's hard to say either way. This leaves a possible door open for deism, but says nothing of the probability of this hypothesis. And deism, of course, has absolutely no bearing on our beliefs and behaviour in the here and now. That sort of god has been and gone.

Theism, on the other hand, involves not only a creator but one who hangs around, meddles a bit and gives a fig about what we do with ourselves. This is the sort of claim we can talk about with a little more confidence, because we can reasonably expect such a being to give some faint clue of his existence above and beyond that which can be fabricated or imagined by dishonest or wishful human beings.

I'll read the reviews. Perhaps they contains stronger objections, or at least some that work at all. Though, if so, I wonder why you didn't choose one as an example…?

278. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72489 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 9:11 am

Dr B

In my experience, the fish that swim near the surface are simply a little more likely to get caught.

279. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72487 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 9:09 am

revcort

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Yay, me!

Still leaves the issue of why anything in the bible should be regarded as more than just further made-up stuff, though. Arguably, the Catholic church simply continued doing what the various authors of the bible started: making unsubstantiated claims of divine authority.

Those prophecies you mentioned in your quote from 2 Peter 1 might make good evidence, if any could be shown to be impressive and sound. I believe we have a thread that has gone over this ground at some length: http://richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg

280. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72468 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 7:31 am

Dr B, 2400

Oh, the 'Smackwater Jack' rule, as popularised by Carole King: 'You can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand'.

(Where 'shotgun in his hand' can be substituted for 'bomb strapped to his chest', 'finger on the nuke button', or 'doctrine of damnation for dissenters'.)

281. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72466 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 7:23 am

Flagellant

Hi CHeard, I agree with _J_ (525), except that I don't keep posts, not even my own. What's more, I haven't got a play to write. (Now where did I read that?)

Damn. There's nowhere to hide, is there?

not bacterial but religiously masochist.

Bet it'd make a fair propeller though, looking at the picture.

282. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72459 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 7:01 am

dr in the house, 527

None of the authors/editors of any biblical book claim that their book, in toto and as it stands, is the word of God.

Bollocks again. For a 'bible scholar' you are sooo wrong. Go to any catholic mass and listen to the priest incant "THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD" after each and every gospel reading.

That doesn't contradict CHeard's point at all: Catholicisim is full of stuff that is nowhere to be found in the bible. As far as I'm aware (and I may get some of these wrong) the bible makes no mention of praying to intermediary saints, of limbo, of salvation through good works, of doing penance, of confessions, of fancy hats, stained glass windows, rosary beads, popes or popemobiles. The Catholic church clearly felt that the bible didn't contain enough fabulous invention to satisfy its imagination, and duly set about making up more stuff. (Through which - though surely this can't have been its intention - it was making a healthy profit until the pedantic protestants spoiled it all by actually reading the bible.)

I'm afraid the Catholics are among the least qualified to make bold claims about the word of God. They've been interposing additional fabrication between their congregations and their scripture for centuries.

283. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72440 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 5:36 am

Ooh, just to add:

CHeard

I've just read your post 511, and it's gone immediately into my 'Some good posts' file (the existence of which is another indication of far too much time spent here).

I think you might be the first Christian of your type that I've encountered here, or anywhere. By 'your type', I mean that you're fully engaged in the sort of reasoning that led me out of religion (and not just hiding from good arguments behind transparently rubbish ones) but you're managing to stay Christian, too. I'm interested...

Anyway, great post, cheers for sharing it.

284. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72436 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 5:18 am

Russell Blackford and everyone

I find Haidt's work very interesting and am looking forward to finding some time to read his book.

It is a good book. Since reading it a few months ago, I've been almost constantly considering reading it again.

This article does a fair job of sweeping through a few of the book's points, but it is of course in the nature of such a summary that most of the reasoning and supporting argument is missing. Whilst I can understand some of the misgivings in the comments on this thread so far, and whilst there were certainly parts of the book that I took in the vein of 'well, that's interesting and possible, but...', I have to say that I found the book as a whole much more enlightening and persuasive than the impression this article gives of it.

It's also worth remembering that Haidt is what he himself calls a 'positive psychologist', and that the book is The Happiness Hypothesis, not Why Are We Moral? or Did God Make Us Give A Shit?. His discussions of morality and religion fall within a broader exploration of happiness, comparing philosophical and traditional ideas of how it is to be attained with modern psychological investigations.

I've been recommending it to everyone, and recently bought a copy for a religious friend (whom I think might balk at TGD). I won't say it's perfect, but I do think it's excellent.

I'd say that Haidt's work is, among other things, an extremely valuable contribution towards a better mutual understanding between religious and non-religious people. And, in spite of the recently advertised differences of opinion between Haidt and the 'New Atheists', by my reckoning Haidt's book does much to advance atheism as an attractive, tolerant, reasonable view of the world that is fully capable not only of equalling the consolations of religion, but of understanding them.

I'd give him tea and biscuits if he were round my way.

285. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72425 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 3:16 am

revcort (and Goldy)

I was pretty sharp with you back early on in this thread, revcort, but having just noticed how long it's grown, and having caught up with your recent posts, I'd like to apologise and say: keep going. I was too quick tempered early on, and I think Goldy's got it right. I completely disagree with you about God, but I completely agree with your coming here, talking, listening, and not trying to pretend you beliefs are anything other than what they are.

A nice thing about atheism is that it is heavily argument-dependent. By which I mean, there's plenty available for you to read and to clarify through discussions (like the one here) that can fill out the picture for you. You don't need to show up every week to a session where other non-believers will deliver lectures to you, or tell you that your life depends on atheism, or get you to sing emotionally-charged songs and partake in symbolic rituals with them. It's just stacks of reason that you can read through and think about in your own time, as you wish, and make your own decisions about without having to be pressurised one way or another. So I'm very heartened by your reading TGD and having this discussion here, because it shows your readiness to engage with the questions. So: well done, sir!

One little addition: you mentioned in 490 about the way Christianity has changed your life and had a positive effect on your feelings and behaviour, as Goldy mentioned above. I'd like to chip in and say that that is indeed, in my experience, one of the great powers of good churches, and that I too was much impressed and inspired by this when I was a Christian. The message of Christianity (at least, the kind that I was part of) was inspiring and uplifting, and powerful in encouraging me to be thoughtful, generous and humble. I have to admit, it's more of a challenge to achieve these sorts of virtues now that I don't believe in god, and have to rely on myself to keep my worse instincts (like being rather unpleasant on discussion threads, for example!) in check.

What I mean by all this is this: many religions, including your own, may well involve powerful, life-changing tools, but this actually says nothing about their claims on truth. Just like it's apparently true that a person delivering a presentation can calm their nerves by imagining the audience to be naked, but that this strategy doesn't actually make the audience naked (a new plotline for Heroes there, perhaps). I think I learned quite a lot by being a Christian, and since my later decision, through further reading and thinking, that I'd been wrong and that there wasn't a god after all, I've learned more through the recognition that whatever benefits I had got out of faith were actually benefits that I had given myself, or that other perfectly ordinary human beings had given me. This realisation introduces you to a realisation that human beings are a lot more surprising and wonderful than perhaps you'd thought, and that everything that strikes you as awesome and beautiful about religion is in truth a part of the greater awe and beauty of people.

So, I'm not arguing that being a Christian hasn't been good for you. It may have been very, very good for you, and exactly the right step for you at the time you took it. But it may also be that the next step is beyond that, and that by seeing outside the church (so to speak) but carrying with you what you learnt from being there, you'll once again find that the truth is more than you bargained for.

Anyway, once again, whatever you decide, do stick at it. And congratulations again for sticking your head above the parapet.

286. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #72412 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 2:35 am

Well, I saw the show subtitle:

A journalist investigates scientific evidence that points towards God

...and assumed that the programme would be slightly shorter than its own intro sequence. So spotting the video length in the bottom corner was a nasty surprise. Sounds from the other comments like there's no need to watch it, though.

Quine - I agree, that's a very weak argument. 'How come we're so good at playing the piano if there's no evolutionary benefit? At skiing? At making excruciating insurance adverts?' Doesn't take too much imagination to see how this can work.

287. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72406 by _J_ on September 21, 2007 at 2:19 am

What Dawkins demolishes in this book may well be a misrepresentation of God, but it is a misrepresentation, an idol, that we Christians all too have often set up and espoused as the real thing.

The familiar sound of a retreat into obscurity.

Telling, that Jesus has to wait until the last line to get a mention. Pinning a face on the Faith rather pulls against Skinner's have-your-cake-and-eat-it, 'God is indefinable waffle (but Christianity is obviously still the right religion)'-ism.

288. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72048 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 8:06 am

Dr Benway, 61

Try discovering a few scientific facts that people might find cheerful and uplifting. You'll get more dinner invitations, I'm sure.

I've spent too long reading theist apologetics; I read that as 'inner divinations'.

289. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72016 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 6:30 am

epeeist

Yes, I remember reading you saying that somewhere, but it certainly bears repetition. Anyway, what I was really doing was exploring career options that match my skills and experience, and your summary confirms it: philosophy is the life for me.

290. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72008 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 5:50 am

Shifty Frog

Can I join scooternyc in saying welcome? A nice little conversion story, there - fills my cold, baby-eating atheist heart with joy. Have you added it to Converts' Corner?

Mudskipper

Oh, surely not? Is it so easy to become a philosopher that any doctorate-less idiot can do it so long as they are both (a) not a doctor, and (b) demonstrably an idiot? [Wails and gnashes teeth, ironically]

291. Taking exception to Jake

Comment #71976 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 3:50 am

Zamboro, 14,

When a million human beings agree that the sky is blue, it is not a sign that they are sheep. It's a sign that they've all independently come to the same, correct conclusion.

Gosh. While I agree with you there, Zamboro, I'd like to emphasise, for the benefit of any of those equivocating 'theistic hecklers' that you mention, that you have correctly been careful to say 'a sign' - ie, an indication that the shared conclusion is more likely to be correct. Which is implicitly to admit the qualification that, if person 1,000,001 notices that everyone else is wearing blue-tinted sunglasses, he oughtn't to be bullied into keeping this to himself. (There are, after all, several billion people who agree that way beyond the blue lies the sky daddy.)

292. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71971 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 3:23 am

Ah. A further demonstration that even the Village Atheist has to suffer the Village Idiot.

293. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #71970 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 3:11 am

Haymoon,

Is the term "atheist beliefs" an oxymoron ?

Arguably so, arguably not. Following the recent discussions here about how the word 'atheist' is understood by the population as a whole, and what chance we stand of adjusting that understanding, I suspect we'd be better off without articles using 'atheist beliefs' in this way.

'The complaint [...] alleges that Hall's First Amendment rights were violated beginning last Thanksgiving when, because of his lack of religious beliefs,' or 'because of his non-religious nature', or 'because he is not religious' or 'because he is religiously neutral' or '...religiously uncommitted' or something might be nicer.

Was it Dr Benway who suggested that avoiding the word 'atheism' altogether might be wise? I think that, if we want to stop people (deliberately or otherwise) (mis)using the word in prejudicial ways, he may be right.

'Godless heathenism' is a more neutral term.

294. The Bili Apes Are in Trouble!

Comment #71969 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 2:59 am

USA_Limey

Let me know when the top screws off the meteorite and a death ray comes out the top will ya. I'll start digging me tunnel then.

Just so long as someone is keeping an eye on the locals, too...:
http://www.dct.org/Performances/NightLivingDead/tabid/203/Default.aspx

295. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #71010 by _J_ on September 17, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Way behind-hand here, but: I just read your review, NorthernBright and it's excellent. Extremely well written and very funny. Far too good for an Amazon review. Someone should be paying you for that.

296. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71007 by _J_ on September 17, 2007 at 12:58 pm

revcort,

Thanks for the response.

However:

The reason I quote Scripture is because the Scripture is the truth and it is based on the ultimate authority.

Further bare assertion. If this is how this discussion is going to proceed, it is pointless. There's only so long it's worth trying to reason with someone who does nothing but scream 'I'M RIGHT, I'M RIGHT, I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!'

But wait:

The truth is that God alone saves and it is purely by an act of His will, not ours.

It seems that God, according to your conception of him, agrees with me. This discussion is pointless. We can do nothing to come to him, and you can do nothing to facilitate our doing so. Either god saves us or he doesn't and there's not a sausage we can do about it. (Rather a Calvinistic sort, aren't you?) Which begs the question: what are you trying to achieve on this thread, exactly? Your efforts are apparently, by your own argument, futile.

And, by the way - ignoring for a time the enormous question (that you seem disinclined to answer) of what basis you have for supposing god to exist at all - what basis do you have for asserting that your conception of salvation (that god does as god will, and stuff anyone who thinks otherwise) is correct, whilst the 'you must ask Jesus into your heart' brigade are deceiving us? Is there any aspect of your argument that isn't sheer, uncorroborated decree?

To paraphrase a well-known quote (that I've forgotten): what can be claimed on bare assertion can be rejected on bare assertion. You say you're right. I say you're wrong. When you're willing to raise your game and lay some supporting facts on the table, come back and play some more.

Or perhaps God is moving you in that direction, even through the bitterness you obviously feel even now.

Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. I'm not sure about this 'obvious' bitterness, though. I get a little cross when people reward my serious attempts to reach reasonable answers to important questions by completely disregarding my efforts, illogically accusing me of willful ignorance and backing their accusations up with breathtakingly hypocritical feats of willful ignorance of their own. Call it a failing, sure, but that sort of behaviour winds me up.

There's a social stereotype of 'the angry atheist'. And, sure enough, a lot of atheists can be rather angry. But they are virtually never angry at god. It makes no sense for an atheist to be angry at god, any more than it make sense to pick a fight with Father Christmas. Atheists are angry at being misled by other humans, at being patronised by people who are not willing to be intellectually honest about the argument, and at the appalling behaviour they see condoned and motivated by religions.

Atheists have rather a lot to be angry about, in fact. It's rather amazing that we're as placid and lovable as we are.

297. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70981 by _J_ on September 17, 2007 at 11:55 am

revcort

It is not blatantly obvious that you people are absolutely certain? If you aren't, then you put up a good front.

Get over yourself - this is utter rot. How is repeatedly stating that we are uncertain and requiring some evidence as a basis for reasonable, provisional belief 'putting up a good front' for absolute certainty?

By the way, Scripture says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

Yes, I know this very well. Most regulars here do. It is a very useful quote for demonstrating the sheer arrogance and bare-faced-assertion-instead-of-argument that both the bible and its most blinkered believers rely on. 'Scripture says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."' is an argument for scriptural authority in the same way that my saying 'If you don't believe me, you're a dick' is an argument for my own authority. I wouldn't expect you to be persuaded by such an argument, and I am similarly unpersuaded by yours.

Denying God's existence won't change the fact that all will stand before Him and give an account.

Bare assertion. See what I mean? Have you anything, anything at all, to back this up, other than the equally unsupported assertions of other believers? If you do, for all our sakes share it. We've been waiting for two millennia now.

I hope God will speak to you sooner rather than later.

If he doesn't, it won't be through lack of trying on my part. I ask him to reveal himself and take over my life, very politely and sincerely, several times a week. I even spent some time as a fully believing, church going, bible studying Christian. I can't bend over much further backwards because my heels obstruct my head. If God exists, he has a damned funny way of showing it. Since, I gather, he moves in mysterious ways, and 'mysterious' could (just about) mean 'very, very slow', I won't give up. He will be welcome to enter my life at any time for as long as I live. But until he does, or until I see something stronger than offensively smug believers presenting arrogant baseless assumptions in face of arguments that they never bother to properly engage with, my working hypothesis is that there's no god. If this is synonymous with 'absolute certainty' to you, you are working with a different edition of the English language from me.

Sorry for the ranting. I suppose being victimised by crassly generalised, fatuous, patronising hypocrisy just brings out the best in me.

For your entertainment and edification, why not spend five minutes watching the lovely Anne Druyan addressing the 'You scientists and atheists are all so arrogant and certain' chestnut, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MVqtZvf8U

She's a lot nicer than I am.

298. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70862 by _J_ on September 17, 2007 at 5:24 am

For NorthernBright's generator, (loosely in the manner of http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm :

ARGUMENT FROM BAFFLEMENT 1 (aka Ken Ham's Argument 1): I have said something confusing, therefore God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BAFFLEMENT 2 (aka Ken Ham's Argument 2): You have said something confusing, therefore God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM WINNING A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT (aka Ken Ham's Argument 3): I observe that you have made a mistake about something unrelated to the question of God's existence, therefore God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BULLYING CHILDREN (aka Ken Ham's Argument 4): GOD EXISTS, KIDS, therefore God exists.

There are plenty more of these in the works of the great Ham. Maybe later.

299. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70690 by _J_ on September 16, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Paul Creber

I'd love to just agree, but I sincerely doubt that David - or his congregation - regard him as swatted (or a flea, for that matter). I'm glad that someone thinks I wasn't just pointlessly waving a rolled-up newspaper like a madman.

Incidentally, congratulations on your continuing discussion with Richard, Doc and essentially all comers at the Free Church. I don't know how you manage to keep responding sensibly to bare assertions of sheer religious certainty. Oh, and congratulations also on this:

Just thought I'd keep you up to scratch.

Was there ever a thread so rich in puns?

300. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70661 by _J_ on September 16, 2007 at 1:49 pm

steve99

I think it is specifically the timing, naming and/or cover art that does make them parasites

I'd say your argument is more with the publishers than the authors, who are in charge of these sorts of matters. Whatever the author's intentions, the publishers' are simple: print what sells, and sell lots of it. I guess parasitism pays.

Whilst I sympathise, I feel it's a bit pointless to criticise authors for this. A really parasitic author is one who fails utterly to bring anything new or helpful to the argument, in my opinion, but just coasts on someone else's considerably greater efforts. Now, I'm not in a position to speak confidently about the books pictured on this thread, as I haven't read them. But I do find that the vast majority of counter arguments to TGD that I have found in articles, excerpts and discussions rely heavily on misrepresenting Dawkins, on repeating arguments that TGD has actually already dealt with, on what I tend to call (after something an old kung fu teacher used to say) 'fighting the hands' (ie dealing with side issues instead of the actual argument), and other such non-arguments. It fairly reasonable to assume (though not, of course, to state as a cold fact) that these books are largely full of such material, since no reviews of or excerpts from them have managed to contradict that impression.

Are such authors parasites? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps there's an element of freeloading, but I suspect that this crime is largely that of the publishers, who are just doing their job. I get the impression that, not surprisingly, these authors are simply - like most of the theists we argue with - rather devout, genuine in their disagreement, and extremely eager to state their case against Dawkins. The lack of strong argument that screams 'Flea!' to us is merely a symptom of the fact that they actually just don't have strong, rational bases for what they believe, just as their non-book-writing, forum-haunting equivalents don't. They're not cynically trotting out tired and irrelevant arguments to make a quick buck. They actually don't recognise that the arguments are tired and irrelevant. They really believe themselves.

Anyway, all this is just speculation about authors' motivations, which largely we can't know. What matters is whether any of them will ever manage anything resembling a coherent counter argument. Or will Joel McDurmon's smugly rude caricature of atheists as 'dogmatic and close-minded [sic]' for regarding supernaturalism as effectively discredited simply look even sillier and sillier as the years roll by.