1. Comment #62411 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 4:30 pm

First they ignore you, then they mock you.....then you win?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

2. Comment #62413 by DrShell on August 9, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Is that supposed to be Sam Harris in front? That's...offensive.

Other Comments by DrShell

3. Comment #62417 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 4:40 pm

We gotta keep up the struggle me thinks. Last night, catching the bus to the station, I saw a sign on a church saying: "Another inconvenient truth, those who don't accept Jesus will suffer eternal damnation". Then on the TV last night, both the PM and the opposition leader pandered to a christian audience and had this webcasted for the benefit of other believers.
This sucks! First churches are allowed to be dishonest and claim their irrational beliefs as truth. That should be illegal. If an insurance company offers something it can't substantiate, it's gets run out of dodge. Then political leaders suck up to christians and give them favors over others to sure up a few votes. Not happy John!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

4. Comment #62419 by Goldy on August 9, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Another inconvenient truth, those who don't accept Jesus will suffer eternal damnation

Isn't that hate speech? I'm sure someone could sue for distress caused ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

5. Comment #62423 by jaydon64 on August 9, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Not happy John indeed, but let us not forget that Rudd is a born again who reguarly attends bible study. I guess its a no-win situation

Other Comments by jaydon64

6. Comment #62424 by mlb1984 on August 9, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Is that Darwin at the top? I thought he was agnostic, not a "village atheist".

Other Comments by mlb1984

7. Comment #62425 by steveroot on August 9, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Gee, for a moment there I thought the title was a parody of "The Village Idiot". Nice.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

8. Comment #62426 by thebigredmachine on August 9, 2007 at 5:00 pm

If I'm Sam (which, unfortunately, I am not), I'm loving that cover, and not just for an "any publicity is good publicity" reason.

The cover does so much more discredit to the author than to Sam, because A) equating him by association with the others on the cover is inevitably going to make unfamiliar readers curious to find out who this Sam Harris character is, and B) Sam's style and mannerisms are so unassuming a likable that any reasonable person would probably deem the author a moron for equating him with Stalin.

Then again, I suppose I'm assuming reasonableness...

Other Comments by thebigredmachine

9. Comment #62429 by toddaa on August 9, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Who's the guy between Darwin and Marx?

Other Comments by toddaa

10. Comment #62430 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Jaydon64:

Not happy John indeed, but let us not forget that Rudd is a born again who reguarly attends bible study. I guess its a no-win situation

Totally man. I'm off Rudd too. But the phrase "Not happy John and Kevin" doesn't have the cachet of the original.....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

11. Comment #62431 by phasmagigas on August 9, 2007 at 5:33 pm

im suprised the cover didnt actually have sam harris eating a baby or snapping a cross or something.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

12. Comment #62432 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 5:34 pm

They left out Hitler.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

13. Comment #62433 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Dr. Benway, has your David Bowie avatar eaten Tuffy the tit-avian?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

14. Comment #62434 by _J_ on August 9, 2007 at 5:44 pm

BAEOZ, 3,

Last night, catching the bus to the station, I saw a sign on a church saying: "Another inconvenient truth, those who don't accept Jesus will suffer eternal damnation".

You know what, it's disgusting, isn't it? When you think about it, that's just brainless, untargeted emotional blackmail. If it's not outright malicious, then it's unacceptably irresponsible. Something should be done.

What you need is a few pre-prepared signs in your car that you can swiftly stick onto hateful lies like this, so as to provide clear factual reassurance for passersby. Simple, inarguable stuff like 'BEWARE OF THE GOD' and 'GOOD HAS TWO "O"S'

When faced with repeat offenders, you are allowed to be a little more opinionated. Obvious developments of the theme are 'GOD IS FOR LIFE, NOT JUST FOR CHRISTMAS - WHY RUIN EITHER?', and 'GOD: MAN'S BEST FIEND'. (It's easy enough to make something church-appropriate out of the term 'GODHOUSE', too.)

I daresay you can come up with much wittier, punchier and more effectively antitoxic legends than these.

Preparing cheap signs should be easy enough, but I'm as yet undecided about the best means of fixing them up. It's a fine line between 'uselessly fragile' and 'vandalism'. Use your discretion, I suppose.

Have fun fighting the go(o)d fight and combating hatespeech!

Other Comments by _J_

15. Comment #62448 by MrEmpirical on August 9, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Someone needs to point out to all the fleas how weak their faith must be if they get all insecure about the publication of a handful of atheistic books in a sea of religious literature.

I reckon at least half of the fleas' books are less attempts to convince others than they are attempts by the authors to convince themselves. It's sad, really.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

16. Comment #62449 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 6:56 pm

_J_ I was thinking along those lines. Perhaps reading your posts has improved my IQ a little. :P
I was thinking of a piece of card, with something along those lines. Still haven't quite got a punchy slogan that shows their slogan is dishonest and silly. My trouble is I waffle on and never really say anything concise that grabs you. (You may have noticed this in my posts).

Other Comments by BAEOZ

17. Comment #62452 by Ewan D on August 9, 2007 at 7:18 pm

I for one think the Christian message is so beautiful, it deserves to be advertised on every church:

"Christ Died Temporarily For Our Sins"

Now that has a real ring to it.

Other Comments by Ewan D

18. Comment #62453 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Ewan D:

"Christ Died Temporarily For Our Sins"

That's brilliant :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

19. Comment #62454 by Ewan D on August 9, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Thanks BAFOZ! Popped into my mind when I saw a neon sign missing the all important modifier!

toddaa, looks like Thomas Huxley.

Other Comments by Ewan D

20. Comment #62457 by monkey2 on August 9, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Great bit of advertising for the village atheist http://www.thevillageatheist.co.uk/ who has been over-run with work and personal matters but has now returned.

Other Comments by monkey2

21. Comment #62460 by artemisa on August 9, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Another inconvenient truth. Those who accept superstition for truth will suffer eternal delusion.

Other Comments by artemisa

22. Comment #62461 by Chayanov on August 9, 2007 at 7:56 pm

"Isn't that hate speech? I'm sure someone could sue for distress caused ;-)"

It should be considered a hate crime, given that motive is all-important for hate crimes. The motive in this case is to intimidate non-Christians through fear (never mind that the result is we laugh at them -- it's the motive that matters). Look at how some people went on about motive and intimidation with the flushing of the Koran.

Other Comments by Chayanov

23. Comment #62464 by ignored_ethos2 on August 9, 2007 at 8:17 pm

There is one customer comment now on the Amazon site. Not exactly a best seller. I'm sure you can guess what the "customer" rated it.

Also, I found this comment interesting:

My copy of this book came shrink wrapped, and I was surprised that the cover is bound upside-down, which must be a joke about the village idiot/atheist mindset.

Yeah, either that or it is just a crappy publisher.

Other Comments by ignored_ethos2

24. Comment #62465 by Cartomancer on August 9, 2007 at 8:24 pm

Sounds like a film sequel doesn't it? You can just imagine the original schlock horror b-movie:

"Dare you enter...the Village of the Atheists!"

Cringe with fear as they make brain-melting rational arguments! Gasp with fright as they revise their moral code to achieve a fairer and more ethical society! Shiver with spine-tingling terror as they act in an unremarkably sane and sensible manner, not once making reference to thousand year old texts!

Coming soon to a cinema near you! (We hope...)

Other Comments by Cartomancer

25. Comment #62466 by RonnieG on August 9, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Some recent messages I've seen on a Lutheran church's sign here in the states (same one for all 3):

"Jesus built us a bridge with two boards and three nails."

"Want to avoid burning? Use Son block."

"Stop drop and roll does not work in hell."

I get mixed feelings whenever I see them. I'm simultaneously offended and yet tickled to laugh out loud at the absurdity of them.

Other Comments by RonnieG

26. Comment #62467 by roach on August 9, 2007 at 8:43 pm

The second one sucks. But the other two are funny. Haha.

Other Comments by roach

27. Comment #62472 by Russell Blackford on August 9, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Something should be done.

This raises a very interesting issue. I don't think anything can be done ... at least not by the state (but I'm not sure that that is what J had in mind, since he's talking about direct responses from opponents of this horrible nonsense from hellfire religionists).

I actually think that a certain amount of morally bad behaviour from theists has to be officially tolerated on separation-of-church-and-state grounds. I'd like to see atheists be principled about this, as Richard has been (if I understand his position correctly, e.g. on emphasising consciousness raising, rather than legislation). But it's a complex issue. I'm going to try to develop some of the argument when I talk to the local Rationalist Society in Melbourne on Wednesday night, but I need to think it through a lot more. Yes, this is a shameless plug to any Melburnians who are reading. :)

Generally, though, it doesn't surprise me if we atheists are like other people who have to accept (at the level of the role of the state) a certain amount of behaviour that (at a personal level) they consider immoral. That seems like an inevitable outcome if you are both an atheist and something like a Millian liberal.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

28. Comment #62474 by Corylus on August 9, 2007 at 10:22 pm

See your point Russell. In terms of doing something that might be up to Sam. Sooner or later one of these Flea books are going to cross the border into libel country. (If they haven't already - I admit I haven't read all of them).

If the publisher is so amateur that they print the book with the cover the wrong way around then I doubt that they have the text read by a lawyer or sent to a fact checker.

Other Comments by Corylus

29. Comment #62476 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 10:54 pm

I wasn't suggesting any governmental action. If you outlaw something, you'll only create martyrs. The battle should be about ideas, not laws. I just think it's wrong that they can post unverifiable crap and if I post a homemade poster over the top of their nonsense decrying it. I'll probably get done for vandalism.....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

30. Comment #62477 by Flagellant on August 9, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Hi toddaa, re comment 9, #62429: unless he has a twin brother, the bloke between Darwin and Marx is Brian Sewell, the very droll British art critic. I understand that he's a Roman Catholic though, poor chap. Look at his adulation website and see what I mean about close resemblance: http://www.brian-sewell.co.uk/brian-sewell-home.html

Have the Return of the Village Atheist publishers scored an own goal?




Religion - an activity between consenting adults in private.
[Edited for minor point of accuracy.]

Other Comments by Flagellant

31. Comment #62484 by Tumara Baap on August 10, 2007 at 12:45 am

Just what the flea intended: a cheap, disgusting insult... the sort of stuff that would score points with a daft, intoxicated saloon loud mouth. And if this is what they can come up with to counter non-believers, it's only reason for atheists to rejoice. Frankly, I cringe at the thought of being in the Believer camp.

Even the cover could not withstand 5 seconds of superficial scrutiny.

The number of atheists who have commited grave crimes in the name of atheism: zero.

The number of atheists who have comitted grave crimes for whatever reason, but not in atheism's furtherance per se: two

Contrast those numbers with:

The number of believers who have commited grave crimes in the name of their religion: too numerous to count

The number of believers who have commited grave crimes, though not in the name of their religion per se: just about every screwed up asshole that has ever lived.

Whether matching up theists and non theists with humanity's pond scum on the one hand, or the most distinguished of thinkers on the other hand, it's a game any believer would be well advised to keep a good distance from.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

32. Comment #62486 by Shuggy on August 10, 2007 at 1:02 am

Church signs: you can make your own at
http://www.churchsigngenerator.com/

I expect some very funny avatars using these.

Other Comments by Shuggy

33. Comment #62500 by Paul Creber on August 10, 2007 at 1:54 am

Who's the guy between Darwin and Marx?

I can see the resemblance to Brian Sewell, but actually I think it's meant to be Bertrand Russell.

Other Comments by Paul Creber

34. Comment #62505 by doodinthemood on August 10, 2007 at 2:08 am

An explanation of the cover:
Darwin - Nonconformist Christian to Agnostic. Understandable as he made atheism a much more logically supported position than it was before.
Sewell - What the heck? Sewell is a catholic who has written about how he considers the secularisation of British education to be a bad thing. The artist may have been aiming for Bertrand Russel and got it a bit wrong.
Marx - Finally an atheist. The fact that he didn't really further the cause of atheism at all, but concerned himself much more with politics, can be ignored. After 3 people, they finally get an atheist.
Stalin - Atheist, but even less important than Marx. Marx wrote about some philosophy, which could be considered an atheist stance. Stalin did absolutely nothing.
Mao - See Stalin
Harris - Actually does write about atheism and positively acts for atheism. The only guy on the cover who's really relevant, unless you accept the idea that Brian Sewell was actually Bertrand Russel drawn poorly, in which case there are two.

Other Comments by doodinthemood

35. Comment #62506 by Flagellant on August 10, 2007 at 2:11 am

Perhaps it is meant to be Russell but the bloke between Darwin and Marx still looks far more like Brian Sewell than anyone else I can think of; I've looked at several more pictures of Sewell and the resemblance is quite striking. Getting pictures wrong isn't unknown in publicity/marketing departments...



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

36. Comment #62507 by epeeist on August 10, 2007 at 2:14 am

Second figure could be Thomas Huxley - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html

Other Comments by epeeist

37. Comment #62511 by BAEOZ on August 10, 2007 at 2:30 am

IF that's a picture of Russell, then cosmetic surgery was far more advanced in his era than I've been led to believe (His life spanned 1872-1970), which I believe puts him after Marx, and a contemporary of Stalin.....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

38. Comment #62512 by Flagellant on August 10, 2007 at 2:34 am

I don't think it's much like Huxley, either. I'd looked at that picture before posting.




Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

39. Comment #62513 by BAEOZ on August 10, 2007 at 2:42 am

Reading the quote above, Russell is singled out as not a village atheist. So it would make no sense to have him on the cover....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

40. Comment #62517 by _J_ on August 10, 2007 at 2:59 am

BAEOZ, 16

My trouble is I waffle on and never really say anything concise that grabs you.

Rubbish! You've been snapping out theistic Achilles heels with your big marsupial jaws all over the place! It's first-rate entertainment! (This is progress. In the old days, Christians had an arena of lions to worry about. We're only threatening an internet of Tasmanian Devils. I think we score points for non-violence and imagination.)

Ewan D, 17
I love it! That's worth a wardrobe of tee shirts.

Cartomancer, 24
And that's hilarious. Could be the most boring film of all time, but the marketing campaign would be worth its weight in holy relics.

Russell Blackford, 27

I don't think anything can be done ... at least not by the state

Yes, I agree - we can't go all anti-free-speech about it. Dawkins has got this one right: what needs to be challenged is the tacit restraint on free speech constituted by the automatic respect of religion - the sort of social self censorship that makes people think 'My, that Church sign is offensively manipulative predatory mindless tosh, masquerading illegitimately as fact and wilfully exploiting the young and the emotionally vulnerable - but I'd better not say anything, else they'll be upset'.

EDIT - Agreement with tieInterceptor, below: thank you, Shuggy for your gift of church signs, which just keeps on giving.

Other Comments by _J_

41. Comment #62520 by tieInterceptor on August 10, 2007 at 3:10 am

that church sign generator is comedy gold

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

42. Comment #62521 by _J_ on August 10, 2007 at 3:11 am

It really is a remarkable book cover. How mixed-up does your argument have to be for you to coat your book with such a glaring clash of registers as a picture of Stalin next to the phrase 'Village Atheist'? You could call Stalin a lot of things, but 'village atheist'? I don't remember the USA stockpiling nuclear weapons in a world-threatening ideological struggle against 'The Evil Village'.

As for the mystery surrounding the identity of the face next to Darwin and where it ought to fit into the chronology of atheism: problem solved - it's The Third Doctor, on a self-allocated mission to rescue humanity from ludicrous superstitions and criminally stupid publishing decisions.

Other Comments by _J_

43. Comment #62534 by USA_Limey on August 10, 2007 at 3:58 am

Comment #62424 by mlb1984 wrote:

"Is that Darwin at the top? I thought he was agnostic, not a "village atheist". "

... It's not Darwin it's Dan Dennett



:-)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

44. Comment #62561 by CJ22 on August 10, 2007 at 5:58 am

It's Huxley, a mirror copy of this pic:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/b/b7/180px-Thomas_Henry_Huxley_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_16935.jpg

Other Comments by CJ22

45. Comment #62564 by phasmagigas on August 10, 2007 at 6:09 am

the only think missing from the cover is the ape before darwin, maybe believers think that atheists actually come from apes, now that wouldnt hurt their sensibilities would it!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

46. Comment #62591 by faouloki on August 10, 2007 at 8:13 am

someone got Photoshop for christmas

Other Comments by faouloki

47. Comment #62602 by Geoff on August 10, 2007 at 9:29 am

I was particularly tickled by the "First Assembly of God" sign.

Who assembled him? Was the second assembly any better? How long did it take, 6 days? Were there any screws left over? Were batteries included?

Other Comments by Geoff

48. Comment #62634 by Oliver Leif on August 10, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Why does every religious argument against atheism include Hitler and Stalin as 'look what atheists did when in power!'...?

Seriously, Both Dawkins and Hitchens has develled on the issue of Stalin and Hitler and their 'atheism'.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

49. Comment #62638 by Katherine on August 10, 2007 at 1:57 pm

what's the betting this work will bring nothing new or fresh to the table?

Other Comments by Katherine

50. Comment #62646 by Wadsworth on August 10, 2007 at 2:45 pm

"Comment #62429 by toddaa on August 9, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Who's the guy between Darwin and Marx? "

Thomas Huxley. "Darwin's Bull-dog"

Other Comments by Wadsworth