1. Comment #60195 by Yorker on August 1, 2007 at 9:39 am

Holy shit! All these fleas are making me itchy!

Other Comments by Yorker

2. Comment #60199 by Slainte on August 1, 2007 at 9:56 am

I get the feeling that most of these fleas are written by WASPs. It's no wonder they make me antsy. They may seem bugged by all the atheistic books out there, but I'm guessing they really just want to ride the coattails and make a bit of scratch.

Other Comments by Slainte

3. Comment #60204 by aitchkay on August 1, 2007 at 10:05 am

A few ideas for any fleas out there in search of a host:

"Dennett's Dangerous Delusion"

"Hitchens is Not Great: how Atheism Poisons Everything"

"God is NOT a Delusion, Mr Dawkins. So There."

Other Comments by aitchkay

4. Comment #60207 by dgr8test97 on August 1, 2007 at 10:09 am

Does any here know if any of these guys have anything intelligent to say? Also, why are all these guys WASPs?

Why does this God conflict always between the Rationalist and the Christians? I mean once in a while we get a Jew and a Muslim in there, but where are the Buddhists, Taoist, Shintoists, and Hindus? Keep in Mind these other religion make up over 1 Billion follows, many of whom read and write English.

Hell I take a Scientologist and Devil Worshipper just to see if they have anything new to say.

I doubt it, but as a rationalist, I like to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed.

Other Comments by dgr8test97

5. Comment #60217 by Enlightenme.. on August 1, 2007 at 10:32 am

Mcgrath thinks atheism's on the wane, so I look forward to him writing 'The end of non-faith'.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

6. Comment #60219 by stackoturtles on August 1, 2007 at 10:34 am

Wasn't the fleas showing up looking to feed off new dogs inevitable?

Amerika! I luv dis kuntry.

Other Comments by stackoturtles

7. Comment #60221 by maton100 on August 1, 2007 at 10:40 am

Creative and original. I guess that's why they call it Intelligent Design. Where's my flea spray?

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

8. Comment #60227 by drive1 on August 1, 2007 at 10:50 am

I'm in favour of anything that gets people visiting book stores. In my local store, the religion section is towards the back of the shop, and consists of 3 shelves of books. To get to it you have to pass the 'popular science' section .. a dozen shelves of books. The science books tend to have really snappy titles too .. with sexy words like chaos, time, cosmos, bang and penguin. The devil, it seems, has all the good books. Yay! Or should that be Muwahahaha?

Other Comments by drive1

9. Comment #60229 by aitchkay on August 1, 2007 at 10:55 am

Enlightenment:

"Mcgrath thinks atheism's on the wane..."

Really? I wonder if he backs up this belief with any evidence. (Probably not, since when have faith-heads required any?) The enormous popularity of TGD etc does not support the notion that atheism is in decline. I wonder how many books the fleas are selling - anyone know?

'The end of non-faith' - ha ha.

Other Comments by aitchkay

10. Comment #60231 by Ole on August 1, 2007 at 10:59 am

So far, no one have gone after Michel Onfray and his Atheist Manifesto

Ole

P.S.
Since Onfray is from France, perhaps he should be included in the group of "Atheist Musketeers"?

Other Comments by Ole

11. Comment #60232 by The Wee Flea on August 1, 2007 at 11:02 am

Okay, here is my prediction.

Everyone who writes in answer to Dawkins is going to be written off as a flea. Whereas everyone who writes in support of Dawkins is going to be brilliant.

Everyone who writes in answer to Dawkins is just out to make money. Whereas everyone who writes in support of Dawkins is a hero who is fighting the good fight without any thought of monetary advantage. The fact that the atheist books will outsell the flea books by 10 to one is only an indication of the brilliance of the atheist books and the stupidity of the flea books.

Almost everyone who comments on this website will manage to disparage all of the flea books without having read a single one of them.

Yet despite all this there will be a bout of self-congratulation, mockery and self-righteousness. You will all go away feeling justified and immensely thankful that you are part of the new enlightenment and that you have nothing to do with fleas.

Such is the rationality and open-mindedness of the New Atheism.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

12. Comment #60234 by socratzsche on August 1, 2007 at 11:03 am

For a people with unsurpassed assurance of their beliefs, this says nothing more than insecurity--fear!

Other Comments by socratzsche

13. Comment #60237 by The Wee Flea on August 1, 2007 at 11:08 am

And of course I should have pointed out that any flea book is indication of how insecure and fearful the Christians are, whereas any one of the numerous new atheist books is not because atheists are afraid, but rather because they are bold!

Aitchkay you asked "I wonder how many books the fleas are selling - anyone know?"

I cannot speak for the others, but in Britain my own book sold out within four weeks of going on sale. It is a drop in the ocean compared with the God delusion but nonetheless given that there is no advertising budget, that very few secular book shops take Christian books and there is no possibility of any secular media reviews, then it is quite surprising that it has done so well. The major difficulty is that the Christian books tend to sell only to Christians and unless you are a well-known Christian in the United States, that means it is a very limited market. I'm not too bothered about that because my main aim was actually to write for atheists and agnostics.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

14. Comment #60238 by Planeswalker on August 1, 2007 at 11:09 am

Hey, the website finally got the right cover for "The Dawkins Letters"! Now David Robertson must be happy :)

Other Comments by Planeswalker

15. Comment #60242 by Slainte on August 1, 2007 at 11:25 am

Comment #60232 by The Wee Flea: "Almost everyone who comments on this website will manage to disparage all of the flea books without having read a single one of them."

I disparage them not based on their content but on their misleading and deceptive attempts to parrot the cover designs of the original books. I am, therefore, judging a book by its cover.

"Such is the rationality and open-mindedness of the New Atheism."

You presume, by your sarcastic comment on "open-mindedness," that we are completely ignorant of the content of the fleas. If they can't display originality in something as simple as cover design, why should we extend them the courtesy of assuming originality of content?

Other Comments by Slainte

16. Comment #60244 by aitchkay on August 1, 2007 at 11:25 am

The Wee Flea:

I, for one, haven't read any of these books. Nevertheless I feel quite happy to dismiss them all. Is this reasonable? Yes. Afterall, what are the chances that they contain any new arguments, let alone a single strand of evidence, for the existence of God? Feel free to correct me if you know of any such arguments or evidence.

Other Comments by aitchkay

17. Comment #60247 by anotherclinton on August 1, 2007 at 11:29 am

I much prefer McGrath's "The Twilight of Atheism". The title itself suggests that Atheism must have a Midnight, a Dawn and a Bright Shining Day.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

18. Comment #60249 by NAIANF87 on August 1, 2007 at 11:36 am

I wonder if there exists a pill for these...

Other Comments by NAIANF87

19. Comment #60250 by aitchkay on August 1, 2007 at 11:43 am

The wee flea - what book did you write?

Other Comments by aitchkay

20. Comment #60251 by Happy Hominid on August 1, 2007 at 11:44 am

Comment #60227 by drive1 has hit it right on the head. The more books the better. Religion and any defense of the supernatural can't win the battle of ideas. For centuries these things weren't allowed to be debated. Finally they are fair game. Fleas will always exist, but it's still better to be a dog!

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

21. Comment #60252 by scottishgeologist on August 1, 2007 at 11:44 am

Wee Flea: "Everyone who writes in answer to Dawkins is going to be written off as a flea"

Not necessarily - only if they write books that are parasitic on the back of Dawkins own book.

The titles alone are patently parasitic and totally devoid of originality.

Wee Flea: "Everyone who writes in answer to Dawkins is just out to make money."

Or more likely, writing to try to redress the balance since "faith" and its poisonous effects is now being questioned seriously. They are running about like rabbits caught in the headlights.


Wee Flea: "Almost everyone who comments on this website will manage to disparage all of the flea books without having read a single one of them.

Yet despite all this there will be a bout of self-congratulation, mockery and self-righteousness. You will all go away feeling justified and immensely thankful that you are part of the new enlightenment and that you have nothing to do with fleas"

Yet more patronising sarcasm. And you wonder why people launch vitriolic attacks.

Finally, regarding book sales, I would argue that any book that is a "Dawkins Response" and contains Dawkins name in the title, will probably sell OK among the faithful. They will be able to comfort and kid themselves that they have a David of delusion standing up to Goliath of reason.

Now if one of the flea writers had used a title like "Faith in the 21st Century - God for today" (just a pretty poor example, but you get my drift) I wonder how well it would sell?

And finally, Wee Flea, if you think that all this stuff is an "opportunity" to "reach out" to the agnostics, lets do a simple test:-

What is your average congregation numbers?
What is the population of the area you serve?

In one years time after your book and other apologetic works have done their stuff, re-do those figures. If there was say 0% increase in population but say a 30% increase in your congregation, I might think you had a point. In fact I would concede that in terms of evangelism, you were successful.

One condition: wealthy middle class "fish on the SUV" evangies moving into the area and starting to attend your church dont count. The figures need to relate to "agnostics" and unchurched.

Up for it?

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

22. Comment #60254 by Spartan88 on August 1, 2007 at 11:49 am

The Wee Flea

..my own book sold out within four weeks of going on sale.

You should have stretched the print run to Two Copies!

Other Comments by Spartan88

23. Comment #60257 by Riley on August 1, 2007 at 11:57 am

The Wee Flea (aka David Robertson author of "The Dawkins Letters"),

I've read many of the 'letters' you pre-released for your book and was openminded about what you might have to say. After spending a considerable amount of time I found your critique of Dawkins' book to be almost entirely lacking in relevant counter-arguments. Worse, your counter-arguments unforgivably misrepresent the arguments you claim to be writing in answer to. Unforgivable I say because I had on more than one occasion identified a "straw man" in your critique and made you aware of it (for example, Dawkins' argument for why labeling children might be considered child abuse). Even after being made explicitly aware of your mistake, you choose to go right-on repeating it. How can you claim to be writing in response to Dawkins' arguments if you knowingly misrepresent them in your book?

More often than not in your 'letters' you avoid the issues all together choosing instead to kill page after page with attacks against atheists as a group, conspiratorial allusions and endless whining about secular culture (which you erroneously think to be synnonymous with atheism), veiled derision of Dawkins' character, and open derision of Dawkins' fan base. While I consider a fair amount of personal derision now and then to be healthy, it's completely irrelevant to an argument.

.
.

That's what makes you a flea in my book.

.
.

Other Comments by Riley

24. Comment #60260 by Johnny O on August 1, 2007 at 12:07 pm

very few secular book shops take Christian books

I have to say Wee Flea that that is total bollocks. Waterstones, Ottakers, John Menzies, WH Smith.... ALL stock Religious books. Not just Christian as you seem to wish though.

I have however popped into The Salvation Army shop as well as a Religious bookshop, (which should be called a Christian bookshop), where I live and neither of these stock The End of Faith, The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell or God is Not Great. In fact there was no counter arguement or even books of any other faith.

I did spot The Dawkin's Delusion, which I bought and read and have to say that it seemed to be aimed at people who had not read TGD. I was surprised at how small it was having heard McGrath talk endlessly without actually saying anything. I was disappointed that he never tried to address the issues raised in TGD, instead questioned Dawkin's ability to actually raise them.

This has put me off buying any of the others. If you think there are better ones out there, (your own perhaps??) then please tell me. I would really like to hear a good arguement for the existence of a God...

Other Comments by Johnny O

25. Comment #60263 by robotaholic on August 1, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Obviously the much esteemed Professor Dawkins is making a splash with TGD. (which I must say is awesome) I hope the sales stay up - WAY UP.

Thx RD!

Other Comments by robotaholic

26. Comment #60264 by Fedler on August 1, 2007 at 12:20 pm

aitchkay:

Afterall, what are the chances that they contain any new arguments, let alone a single strand of evidence, for the existence of God?

This is very much the crux of the issue. David, and other believers, have a different definition of 'evidence' than scientifically-minded people. Combine that with the fact that their evidence - as they define it - is not positive confirmation (supplying evidence themselves), but rather negative confirmation (criticizing someone else's evidence, therefore God exists by default).

When that fails, they throw up their hands and claim atheists "just don't get it" or are "not open to the type of evidence needed to quantify the spiritual" or something to that effect. I believe David has to know by now that every thread he enters will soon deteriorate (because he offers very little positive evidence - as defined by us), then he can stand back and say to his friends "See, what an ignorant and mean lot they are!" I truly wish there was a way around it.

Other Comments by Fedler

27. Comment #60277 by jimbob on August 1, 2007 at 12:57 pm

An apt analogy since fleas have been vectors for some of the worst plagues in human history.

Other Comments by jimbob

28. Comment #60278 by quork on August 1, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Does the David Robertson book make a case for the existence of pink unicorns?

Or is it wrong to judge a book by its cover?

Other Comments by quork

29. Comment #60280 by scoobie on August 1, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I cannot speak for the others, but in Britain my own book sold out within four weeks of going on sale.

Congratulations!
Numbers?

Other Comments by scoobie

30. Comment #60281 by happyatheist on August 1, 2007 at 1:10 pm

"Almost everyone who comments on this website will manage to disparage all of the flea books without having read a single one of them.

Yet despite all this there will be a bout of self-congratulation, mockery and self-righteousness. You will all go away feeling justified and immensely thankful that you are part of the new enlightenment and that you have nothing to do with fleas.

Such is the rationality and open-mindedness of the New Atheism."

LOL! Is this supposed to be "reverse psychology" so that atheists will run out and buy these books? LOL! Nice try. MAYBE I'll see if any are at the local library...but I won't waste a penny of my hard-earned cash buying one of 'em. That would be akin to donating money to the church. Why would an open-minded, rational atheist wanna do that? LOL!

Other Comments by happyatheist

31. Comment #60290 by Lauregon on August 1, 2007 at 1:38 pm

I'm not too bothered about that because my main aim was actually to write for atheists and agnostics. - Wee Flea

Whatever for? Your argumentation may be convincing to believers who can't fathom non-theism, but they're little more than impotent tirades against Richard Dawkins.

As for there being few Christian books in "secular book stores," it sure isn't like that in the US. In the first place, I've never seen a "secular book store," nor have I ever seen an atheist bookstore, but I have seen dozens of Christian bookstores, and countless mainstream bookstores. One of the two major chain bookstores in my city has several long aisles of Christian books, and ONE SHELF of atheist books. The other chain store also has several long aisles of Christian books, and NO atheist section at all, and scatters its few atheist books here and there in the philosophy section.

One forum contributor here on RD whose name I forget at the moment, quite aptly likens believer argumentation against non-theism as akin to a fish on land. As for this array of anti-atheist believer pamphleteering, it looks to me like the manic hysteria of people trying to bail water with fish nets.

Other Comments by Lauregon

32. Comment #60291 by js5535 on August 1, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Apparently "Vox Day" is some sort of video game designer and Southern Baptist. I doubt his book has much substance.

Other Comments by js5535

33. Comment #60292 by maton100 on August 1, 2007 at 1:41 pm

I feel a pee needs to be taken on the Wee Flea. What kind of pee you may ask? A Christian pee of course. A pee with lots of glee on the Wee Flea's rotten head. Not an Islamic pee or a Buddhist pee, but a pee in connection with the holy trinity...you see.

Other Comments by maton100

34. Comment #60295 by Yorker on August 1, 2007 at 1:47 pm

The thought just occurred to me that perhaps we try too hard to be fair and avoid confrontation. Since atheists are beginning to unite for political reasons it's inevitable that some of us will be less than perfect. If, in the long term things get heated and a few of get jailed or some end up with damaged reputations, so what? Personally, I'll be happy if we complete the task that Hume started all those years ago, I don't want to hurt religites physically, I just want to see them powerless and politically castrated. Let the ever-dwindling faithful mumble their mumbo-jumbo in ever-increasing isolation as they slowly wither and die.

Other Comments by Yorker

35. Comment #60298 by Katherine on August 1, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Mr Wee Flea.....

If Christianity is so great, so wonderful, so perfect, why did I ditch it and become an entirely guilt-free atheist?

If the Almighty has a purpose for us that is pre-determined, why in the hell bother praying in the first place?

Other Comments by Katherine

36. Comment #60299 by scottishgeologist on August 1, 2007 at 1:58 pm

js5535,

YEs I wondered about that name - "Vox Day" sounds like a celebration of classic British 60s amplification (AC30 and all that)

Instead its some real nutter. Checkout his weblog on Worldnet Daily, esp his comments about women. He claims he is in agreement with Ann Coulter !:-

"I have been one of the very few retrogradists openly calling for the elimination of women's suffrage in the interest of human liberty; besides Ann Coulter,"

Here it is:

http://www.wnd.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=175

So going back to the original matter, I very much doubt if there is anything of particular interest in the book. Could be good for a laugh though.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

37. Comment #60300 by Klaatu barada nikto on August 1, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Perhaps the next atheist book release could be an edited version of the King James Bible. We could hire someone in government intelligence to create a declassified version with all the objectionable parts blacked out. That should make for a short read.

Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto

38. Comment #60304 by aitchkay on August 1, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Klaatu barada nikto:

An edited bible, with all the nasty stuff edited out, might not be such a bad idea. But it couldn't be the work of atheists - it would have to be a collaboration between the highest ranking members of the various Christian churches. Hardly likely, I know, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. Same goes for Islamic and Jewish scriptures.

Other Comments by aitchkay

39. Comment #60305 by quork on August 1, 2007 at 2:26 pm

But wait, there's more:

http://www.pr.com/press-release/47260
(Sorry, couldn't figure out how to put in a link properly)

Letter to an Atheist Nation
by Micheal Allen Robinson

An Atheist Nation? How flattering.

Other Comments by quork

40. Comment #60306 by D'Arcy on August 1, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Readers might be interested to know, that on one of the bbc Christian message boards today, atheists were accused of being "ants on an elephants back". Whether this simile is inspired by Yeats or Dawkins' use of Yeats doesn't matter, it's just not very original, much like the book titles of the flea circus.

I agree with the poster above who said that up till recently religion had to be accepted and not questioned, and that it was not used to fighting the battle of ideas. The Christian priest class certainly has lost influence in the west and they don't like it. Wee Flea may be pleased to learn that I intend to buy myself a new Bible. Any ideas about which edition it should be?

Other Comments by D'Arcy

41. Comment #60308 by Katherine on August 1, 2007 at 2:35 pm

[b]Any ideas about which edition it should be?[/b]

The World According to Jeremy Clarkson, perhaps?

Other Comments by Katherine

42. Comment #60309 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Wee Flea-

I support Dawkins, mostly.

Whereas everyone who writes in support of Dawkins is going to be brilliant.

Well, shucks, Mr Flea, you're just too kind :)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

43. Comment #60311 by quork on August 1, 2007 at 2:49 pm

"An edited bible, with all the nasty stuff edited out, might not be such a bad idea."


Several people have done that already. Thomas Jefferson had his own version; a copy of the gospels with all the ludicrous miracle stories removed, leaving only the philosophy and moral teachings.

Civil rights activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton worked on something called "The Woman's Bible" with her own revisions and commentary.

I'm amazed at how many Christians claim they get their morality straight form the Bible, but if you ask them questions such as "do you believe slavery is immoral", it becomes clear that they don't.

Other Comments by quork

44. Comment #60314 by robert s on August 1, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Is Vox Day supposed to be a pun on vox Dei?

Other Comments by robert s

45. Comment #60318 by CJ22 on August 1, 2007 at 3:05 pm

You know what, I'm really bored with Christians. Can't we have somebody coming in to bat for one of the other teams for a bit? It seems like they're all keeping their heads down and letting the big boys play. Where are the mormons, the scientologists, the muslims, the wiccans? We need some original arguments to shred!

Other Comments by CJ22

46. Comment #60320 by philosowizer on August 1, 2007 at 3:14 pm

I think that highly potent Flea Collars should be prescribed for Dawkins, Harris etc because with all these fleas around there's a potential epidemic.

Other Comments by philosowizer

47. Comment #60322 by captain underpants on August 1, 2007 at 3:20 pm

aitchkay:

are you by any chance the same aitchkay that I know, that is, my little brother?

Other Comments by captain underpants

48. Comment #60323 by Luthien on August 1, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Tom Cruse's minders won't let them on this site, CJ22 :-P

Really pisses me off that WH Smith keeps putting McGrath's book in the popular science section beside stuff like The Selfish Gene (I keep returning them to the fiction section when no one is watching).

Other Comments by Luthien

49. Comment #60325 by pewkatchoo on August 1, 2007 at 3:22 pm

mr robertson, at least two of the people on this site have read your book and were so scathing that I for one would not bother. I think most of us have read the most important book on religion out there anyway, namely the bible. And that was crap, so what is the point of reading your nonsense. We all know what you are going to say anyway and you are lousy writers too. At least professor Dawkins has some interesting scientific points to make, you just talk shite.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

50. Comment #60328 by captain underpants on August 1, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Comment 14 by The Wee Flea:
"my main aim was actually to write for atheists and agnostics."

Does the Reverend Weewee seriously entertain the notion that he can convince atheists of the veracity of a 2000 year-old fairy story?

Other Comments by captain underpants