1. Comment #67414 by quork on September 3, 2007 at 11:12 am

"Note — to use this learning program, you must have all of the following:

• A copy of The God Delusion, and
• An iPod (or other MP3 player), and
• A broadband connection (to download the MP3 files)."

----------

Excellent, they are encouraging sales of Dawkins' book.

Other Comments by quork

2. Comment #67415 by quork on September 3, 2007 at 11:14 am

Authored by "The Intelligent Community" - a bit presumptious there.

Other Comments by quork

3. Comment #67420 by BicycleRepairMan on September 3, 2007 at 11:35 am

Tags customers associate with this product (What's this?)
Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
Check the boxes next to these popular tags or enter your own tags in the field below
boring (2)
crap (2)
trash (2)

wrong (2)
god delusion (1)
ipod (1)

richard dawkins (1)
waste of time (1)
› See all 11 tags...

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

4. Comment #67422 by windfall on September 3, 2007 at 11:44 am

Followed the first link to Amazon and found this:

Customers viewing this page may be interested in these Sponsored Links (What's this?)

Live Psychic Readings
Psychics.kasamba.com 24/7 Personal Psychic Readings. No charge till you hit Hire.

Big surprise there.

Other Comments by windfall

5. Comment #67423 by quork on September 3, 2007 at 11:44 am

www.whois.net says:

WHOIS information for: theintelligentcommunity.com:

registrant-firstname: Barry
registrant-lastname: Krusch
...
registrant-state: NC
registrant-city: Asheville
registrant-ccode: US
...
admin-c-firstname: Barry
admin-c-lastname: Krusch
...
admin-c-state: NC
admin-c-city: Asheville
admin-c-ccode: US
...

Here's his resume:
http://www.krusch.com/resume.html

I guess he figured the product wouldn't sell well under his real name.

Other Comments by quork

6. Comment #67429 by Yorker on September 3, 2007 at 12:05 pm

If his audio tutor is anything like his lightweight resume, you won't miss much if you don't buy it.

Other Comments by Yorker

7. Comment #67435 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Blimy. This smacks of desperation, and a really low budget, (i.e. no printing or distribution costs).

I have read a couple of the flea books above in the interests of intellectual honesty and fairness, but I really don't think I can face listening to them.

I got my ipod mixed up with my older sister's the other day. There I was innocently sitting on the train... and The Carpenters came on. Damn near had a stroke (and my fellow travellers learnt some new words).

Sorry not plugging this into my brain. Bridge too far. Uh-uh.

Other Comments by Corylus

8. Comment #67436 by robotaholic on September 3, 2007 at 12:24 pm

the whole system of having the ipod and the mp3's downloaded and also TGD book together seems to making having the ipod irrelevant in the first place - and it surely isn't covenient.

Other Comments by robotaholic

9. Comment #67438 by epeeist on September 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Comment #67423 by quork

Here's his resume:
http://www.krusch.com/resume.html

Haven't seen a web site like that for years!

He claims expertise in a number of web technologies, but it looks like expert could be defined as ex (has been) and spurt (drip under pressure).

None of the links point to anywhere useful.

I wouldn't give him a credit card number...

Other Comments by epeeist

10. Comment #67439 by quork on September 3, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Someone's got to step up and "take one for the team," i.e. buy the product and listen to it so we can find out just how good the argument is. I don't own an iPod, so someone else will have to suffer.

Other Comments by quork

11. Comment #67447 by doodinthemood on September 3, 2007 at 1:22 pm

6. Comment #67425 by jonboy
What no Hitchens or Dennett flees?


How's about "God is not Gay: How Hitchens sooo is"

Other Comments by doodinthemood

12. Comment #67448 by phil rimmer on September 3, 2007 at 1:22 pm

No need for an iPod, Quork. Your PC will play the files perfectly well.

Thanks for volunteering :)

Other Comments by phil rimmer

13. Comment #67464 by quork on September 3, 2007 at 2:06 pm

But the product description says one needs an iPod. I might void the warranty. I'd hate to leave them a loophole like that.

Other Comments by quork

14. Comment #67467 by jaytee_555 on September 3, 2007 at 2:13 pm

This IS desperation, pure and simple. Dawkins is one of the most lucid writers around, so why should TGD need an accompanying 'explanation'?

This guy is terrified that honest rationality will win the day, and so he's anxious to muddy the waters at any cost. He insults potential readers by implying they are too stupid to be allowed to read the book without his 'parental guidance'.

By all means, buy this product if you don't trust your own intelligence enough to follow plain reasoning written in plain English.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

15. Comment #67488 by ricey on September 3, 2007 at 3:18 pm

It speaks volumes for the controllers of this site, that they are brave and sure enough to publicise views that differ from the site's declared ethos. I guess that is the proper method for a science-based organisation.

Perhaps faith-based sites will reciprocate, and offer Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens as alternative options to their subscribers?

Perhaps not. Perhaps they lack the courage of their convictions.

Other Comments by ricey

16. Comment #67490 by stereoroid on September 3, 2007 at 3:24 pm

See http://www.krusch.com/real2.html: this page confirms that Krusch is the author of this new iPod series, and points to another e-book of his, Would the Real First Amendment Please Stand up?

In the section "Why I Wrote This book, Krusch says:

Would the Real First Amendment Please Stand up? attempts to blast into smithereens the following syllogism:

1) Every amendment to the Constitution not itself formally amended has legal force and effect.
2) The 1791 First Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution which has not been formally amended, therefore
3) The 1791 First Amendment has legal force and effect.

(Emphasis from the original.) The First Amendment is, of course, the US Constitution's foundation for the separation of Church and State. If I was an American, I'd start thinking of epithets such as "un-American"...

Other Comments by stereoroid

17. Comment #67491 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Think I'll wait for Salley Vickers' review.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

18. Comment #67492 by Beachbum on September 3, 2007 at 3:30 pm

$10.00 bucks, but I have not noticed any of these fleas on the tapes. I have found the brain drain in full force on the MP3 list though. They (who ever "they" are) have put some thought into their own tactics:

...back in the days before the iPod you could pick up a book like The God Delusion (you mean the bible? right? which book are we talking about again?)and be on your own... if there were any logical errors or factual mistakes... they would enter your mind as sound information...

It's ok to read the book as long as we can keep you plugged into our washing machine. No need to do your own research, thinking, rationalizing or anything... "We got you covered". Trust me!

Is this not the most blatant display of programing protection on the web?


Ladies and gentlemen, I will take the hit for the home team, I could not live with myself if I ignored this responsibility. Besides, this crap hasn't a chance to get past the saltwater in my ears.

Other Comments by Beachbum

19. Comment #67506 by Russell's Teapot on September 3, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Honestly...I could perhaps see needing a rebuttal for an in-depth science, history, literary work, but for TGD? If it were really all that chock-full of logical fallacies and inaccuracies, anyone with a high school education should be able to tear it apart for themselves.

This reeks of shepherds guiding their flock quietly past the break in the fence.

Other Comments by Russell's Teapot

20. Comment #67507 by Martha on September 3, 2007 at 3:59 pm

16. Comment #67488 by ricey on September 3, 2007 at 3:18 pm

It speaks volumes for the controllers of this site, that they are brave and sure enough to publicise views that differ from the site's declared ethos.

--------------------------------

The same can't be said of Richard Dawkins forum.

Other Comments by Martha

21. Comment #67514 by Michael P. on September 3, 2007 at 4:27 pm

6. Comment #67425 by jonboy
What no Hitchens or Dennett flees?

Hold on - Dinish D'Souza has a book coming out in October entitled WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY.

Other Comments by Michael P.

22. Comment #67518 by Beachbum on September 3, 2007 at 4:55 pm

I want to get to the website, the excerpts (mainly the introduction to the instructions) I have read on Amazon tell the reader to "flag" the points that are to be covered by the MP3's, then read the sections up to the flags then play the recordings, iPod style to teach the reader the concept of Counter facts. This could backfire on them and actually help our aim to get people to think critically, but they use all the same words as rationalists which only adds to the devotees confusion. Also, as anyone who has argued this subject knows, the layman's one dimensional understanding of a term, used as counterpoint, is a difficult barrier to surmount in friendly conversation, my example: this book tells the reader that this is a method of critical thinking... get the fallacy. They are telling the reader that they are thinking critically, by telling the reader what to think...Ouch.

Sorry, got all "light" headed.

Other Comments by Beachbum

23. Comment #67529 by HappyPrimate on September 3, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Simply the idea that one cannot read a book and decide for themselves what to make of the content without assistance from someone else is delusional in and of itself. If anyone buys this product, they should be committed to a padded room.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

24. Comment #67540 by EvolvedDNA on September 3, 2007 at 6:42 pm

I had heard a saying somewhere, that obviously came from pilots in the second world war, that stated you "get the most flak when you are over the target".. I think we are hitting the targets quite regularly now. The Ipod idea is really akin to "Bible studies" where a victim is told what interpetations are, so that they cannot form their own opinion.

Rea-SON the only son we need to worship..

Other Comments by EvolvedDNA

25. Comment #67548 by Shuggy on September 3, 2007 at 7:13 pm

HappyPrimate:

Simply the idea that one cannot read a book and decide for themselves what to make of the content without assistance from someone else is delusional in and of itself.

No, quite often an argument presented without rebuttal is superficially convincing. Remember Russell (throwing his tobacco tin in the air) exclaiming "Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound!" There's no better way to look critically at an argument than to read what its enemies have to say. If they can't find the holes in it, who can?

EvolveDNA:

The Ipod idea is really akin to "Bible studies" where a victim is told what interpetations are

The worst examples being the Q&A at the end of any article the "Awake!" or "The Watchtower"

So I wait with bated breath for one of the other penguins* to download the MP3s and tell us how bad they are.

*In a book of my childhood, I learnt that penguins jostle on the edge of an icefloe till one falls in, to see if there are any seals about. I still don't know if it's true.

Other Comments by Shuggy

26. Comment #67573 by Beachbum on September 3, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Ok, this Penguin jumped, but I have to wait for the Book to show up here before I can get to the web site and download the MP3's.

My understanding of "disinformation" and the power it wields is why I think we should all know the enemies propaganda, pitch, literary revisions or what ever they wish to through up (regurgitate) in defence of their dogma.

I wish I had other options as to avoid giving this "snake oil salesman" a 10 spot, but rest assured that this not the worst investment I have made.
Two days shipping... that's what I'm waiting for.

It is just that all this crap I'm reading from the religious right, neo-con, immoral minority espousing that they are "under attack" and atheists are taking their religion from them, not to mention the Neo Nazi attitude they show toward gays and the general intolerance they push.

Their dumbing down of America, attack on Science, disrespect they show our founding fathers with lies (revisionist history)...

They've done pissed off the wrong red-neck!

Do you really want to know why religion has lasted 2000 (ah hell pick a number). Because it is hard to corner a liar when another liar backs them up.

Ok, ok, the sheep really believe this stuff, that is why they call them sheep, it is the "wolves in shepherds clothing" I'm hostile with, they cannot possibly believe in anything but money and power.

I have struggled with posting this rant, and if any of my contemporaries are offended, I am truly ...

I have been on sites like: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
and
http://www.godtube.com/
or
http://www.creationwiki.org/Main_Page
I think it is obvious that they don't want anyone confounding their "truth" with inconvenient facts. The list goes on and on. These people have no understanding of the truth, evidence or even the slightest comprehension of tolerance. Some of them are as bad as a Christian Taliban.

If, the moderator wishes to edit, cut, pull this, I do understand.

P.S. You all know that when I go to this website to get the MP3's, I will get spammed to death, right. Good to have an email address for just such an occasion.

Other Comments by Beachbum

27. Comment #67582 by logical on September 3, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses - they are not clever enough to know what was known in the Roman Imperium!

Other Comments by logical

28. Comment #67584 by BicycleRepairMan on September 3, 2007 at 11:48 pm

www.theintelligentcommunity.com

I listened to the excerpt the community he's put on his site, and man, its not what it claims to be at all, this is not an "Argument against the God Delusion", its more like a collection of "nitpicking sentences out of context"

For instance, there's a sentence in TGD that mentions a few religious crimes throughout the centuries.

First, Barry takes this sentence and analyses it independently, looking for inconsistencies and omitted facts etc, and concludes that since the one sentence doesnt contain the whole argument for and against, the mentions of all the non-religious crimes, the mention of all the good that religion supposedly has done, it can be deemed fallicious, even if Dawkins touches on all the other sides of the debate on the same or following page..

But, it gets worse. After that, you see, he uses that very stuff Dawkins does mention on the same page like "Religion isnt the root of ALL evil.." and accuses Dawkins of another fallacy, this time he is being inconsistent..

Basically, this is no rebuttal or counter argument at all, its inconsistent, fallacious nitpicking of individual sentence structures. Amazing what will pass as a publication these days..

I call for taking him to court and using the Chewbacca Defence on him. That'll teach him not to mess with TGD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU-tZy3NIS4

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

29. Comment #67590 by D'Arcy on September 4, 2007 at 12:42 am

Yawn. So Jesus has gone hi-tech and is now available on your i-pod. You wonder why the most powerful God ever invented by the human immagination now has to rely on some rich American Christians to try to refute what Dawkins has written. Why can't He of the Great Spirit deal with the flea Dawkins Himself instead of sending some money making ignoramuses into the battle field. Three guesses:

1) He doesn't exist.
2) He never did exist.
3) There's money to be made, forget saving souls.

"Yes" to all three gets full marks!

I bet this critique deals with the God Delusion in an intellectually honest and genuinely inquiring frame of mind ...... NOT!

Other Comments by D'Arcy

30. Comment #67599 by Sigmund on September 4, 2007 at 1:27 am

This one is a little weird compared to the previous flea attacks.
Heres a link to some excerpts from this ipod book.
http://theintelligentcommunity.com/
Click ipod tutor and then audio samples.
I listened to it and got the impression that it wasn't a typical religious apologetic style attack on 'The God Delusion'. Rather it was cynically designed to make money from those religious people desperate for counter arguments to dismiss Dawkins arguments.
The audio sample seems to indicate their tactic against The God Delusion is to split it into hundreds of small excepts and then argue that each one of them, by itself, is a logical fallacy. This allows the authors of this piece to ignore parts of Richards argument, evidence provided etc, for each individual segment. Any detailed theory can be deconstructed and argued against in this manner but it is not exactly intellectually honest.

Other Comments by Sigmund

31. Comment #67605 by doodinthemood on September 4, 2007 at 2:00 am

I listened to the audio sample.
The flag point from page 1 went completely over me, and I assume that was intentional. It seems to have been included just so people get the tutor to find out what on earth any of those terms meant.
The flag points from page 5 were just weird. "Dawkins says he needs to justify his use of the word delusion, but then doesn't, he just gives the dictionary definition." - Pretty much the whole of the book is the justification. That's like saying the bible is supposed to give us guidance, but it doesn't, it just says the world was created in 7 days...

Other Comments by doodinthemood

32. Comment #67610 by pewkatchoo on September 4, 2007 at 2:26 am

Well I am not going to waste my time or money on this. Nor do I want to pollute my totally perfect ipod collection with rubbish like this. I have, however, placed a review of the product on amazon entitled 'A review from ignorance', in the hope that I can put people off donating money to this nonsense.

Sorry folks but I have neither bought nor listened to this product. My review is based quite simply on the following pretexts.

Why has this person seen fit to produce this? This is an insult to the intelligence of the ordinary people who have bought and enjoyed The god Delusion. For someone to feel that they are qualified to provide a commentary on what is in any case a very lucid book is arrogance par extrordinaire. And what are the commentators' qualifications, er, none by all accounts. Barry Krusch is actually a rather ordinary individual.

Why has the author attempted to hide his identity behind a very lame organisational name? Is it because he is ashamed of his product?

Enough. There are so many books attempting to refute Dawkins/Hitchins/Harris et al. All of them are lacking in any new ideas or anything resembling actual thought. Even the best of them is simply a mess of irrational witterings. We have had half-a-dozen books on atheistic lines and the god squad are pooping their pants. Why? If they are truly right and believe totally in their faith they would ignore them as being irrelevant. There are thousands of faith based books published every year. Just six such anti-faith books and there is a total storm. Is faith so fragile that it cannot take any sort of criticism?

Or are the authors just cashing in on the success of other peoples intellectual endeavours? Ask yourself what could be their motivation. I think you will find that they are not operating from some higher principle. Cue the almost identical titles to the originals.

I don't think anything more need be added.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

33. Comment #67612 by Blueboy5 on September 4, 2007 at 2:34 am

I would say that all of this is a case of, rather than the rats deserting the sinking ship, the rats manning the pumps and carrying bucks to keep the waterlogged hulk afloat.

Other Comments by Blueboy5

34. Comment #67626 by FreeThink25 on September 4, 2007 at 4:00 am

"exposes its numerous logical fallacies and factual errors, ultimately demonstrating that Dawkins' primary argument is itself a faith-based construction."

I love how it comes out and admits that a faith-based construction is built on logical fallacies and errors. Even if this were true, and we know it's not, this would only put atheism and christianity on an even playing field, neither getting an advantage. And we know that's not true either.

Other Comments by FreeThink25

35. Comment #67648 by Ole on September 4, 2007 at 5:36 am

I have just read the Preliminaries. Here is a quote from that text:

That takes us to the quality of our own thinking. We must learn to be good critical thinkers, and one of the key features separating good thinkers from poor thinkers is that good thinkers are counterfactual: that is to say, they are constantly looking for information which would tend to disprove the point of view which they already hold, as opposed to what people typically do, which is seek out information that tends to confirm a previously held view. If you are a theist, then "congratulations", because in buying Dawkins' book, you took the counterfactual road. And if on the other hand you are an atheist, also "congratulations", because by acquiring this learning program, you will see the problems in Dawkins' thinking from Dawkins' own rationalist perspective. Hopefully, after concluding this learning program, your thinking about atheism and theism will be more sophisticated, and you will have improved your ability to think critically, which is the real goal.

Not bad. A lesson in critical thinking!

Veronica "down under" - maybe this is what you asked for the other day? ;-)

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

36. Comment #67653 by Mysturji on September 4, 2007 at 6:51 am

"This audio tutor (designed for owners of the iPod and similar MP3 players) ..."

Well, religion was originally designed to be consumed by the illiterate masses, so I guess they're just pandering to their core demographic.
I mean, why bother learning to read when the wonders of modern technology can let someone tell you what to think?

Other Comments by Mysturji

37. Comment #67678 by blaine on September 4, 2007 at 10:26 am

Re: Comment #67492 by Beachbum

I was suffering from the dilemma of whether to "support" the pro-ignorance cause by paying $10 and hours of boredom for educational and political purposes. I am greatly indebted to you for bearing this burden. Please do report back!

Other Comments by blaine

38. Comment #67680 by blaine on September 4, 2007 at 10:36 am

Grumble.

I disagree with most of my peers here who are throwing up about 10 variants of ad Hominem. There are situations where an ad Hominem is appropriate, but nobody here is saying anything to indicate they're appropriate in this context. Like everybody else here, I am nearly certain that this Guide has nothing intelligent to say, and is probably misleading and retrograde; but those findings should be based on the work (including the free samples provided), not upon whether the author is accredited, has spent enough money on distribution, or has a complete (or even attractive!) resume. All of these arguments can be used at least as effectively against excellent anti-theism arguments out on the Internet in various forms, and all of them are fallacious. Can we make an attempt to argue with good faith and logic, at least among ourselves?

BTW, I guess I seem like a troll or something, since I only raise my voice here when I disagree. But the fact is that my name is rarely seen because I usually agree with what is being said and have nothing useful to add.

Other Comments by blaine

39. Comment #67685 by blaine on September 4, 2007 at 10:57 am

Re: Comment #67610 by pewkatchoo

Why has this person seen fit to produce this? This is an insult to the intelligence of the ordinary people who have bought and enjoyed The god Delusion. For someone to feel that they are qualified to provide a commentary on what is in any case a very lucid book is arrogance par extrordinaire. And what are the commentators' qualifications, er, none by all accounts. Barry Krusch is actually a rather ordinary individual.

About the worse example of poisoning the well I've ever seen from an Atheist. A commentator does not need qualifications to criticise. The stated point is to criticise somebody who they see as an authority or spokesperson for the opposition (us). If you think that the unaccredited should shut the hell up, then get back under the yoke of monarchy, the pope, etc., because until "unauthorized" free thinkers had the courage to challenge the acknowledged authorities, nobody of your religious persuasion could be heard.

Consider that there are many people of both religious and non-religious persuasion like me, who have self-educated themselves rigorously well beyond their college degrees, but can't get accreditations due to financial, familial, geographic, or other restrictions.

This, of course does not imply that the Guide under discussion is good-- only that your specific argument here undermines the real weapon against theism-- good logic. When you argue like this, you represent your fellow Atheist poorly. We are qualified to argue the real points of contention head on.

Other Comments by blaine

40. Comment #67701 by pewkatchoo on September 4, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Mr Blaine
You are quite at liberty to disagree with me, but I would prefer it if you did not cloak your disagreement in pomposity.

I don't represent anyone except myself and my own views. I do not represent atheism any more than does Professor Dawkins. To put it not too finely, you are talking shite.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

41. Comment #67706 by blaine on September 4, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Re: Comment #67701 by pewkatchoo

I don't apologize for making an effort to influence the debate toward fairness and honesty. I'm also glad to see that several other people on this thread are interested in genuinely discussing the content of the podcast, instead of deficits of its author.

Other Comments by blaine

42. Comment #67744 by pewkatchoo on September 4, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Blaine
Get over yourself.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

43. Comment #67749 by BicycleRepairMan on September 4, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Pewkatchoo: I'd have to side with blaine here, you attacked a person, and not the contents of his arguments or his actions (well, to be fair, you did that too, in the second paragraph, but the point still stands, the persons prior assumed lack of "qualifications" are no reason in itself to dismiss the book)

I dont care if the guy is a plummer or a professor, your point about this publication being "an insult to the intelligence of the ordinary people who have bought and enjoyed The god Delusion." may still be true, no matter who or who or what he is.

Based on the audio experts, the whole affair seems like a pointless nitpicking attempt to discredit the book and misleading, rather than "guiding" the reader with useless, redundant and mistaken babble about "logical fallacies", complete with fancy names like "Enthymeme" itself a blatantly fallacious technique to fool a gullible reader by trying to appear smart using "smart words" to make dumb points.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

44. Comment #67763 by Damien White on September 4, 2007 at 4:38 pm

I haven't been able to download this just yet, but can anyone who has please tell me if the author has managed to prove god's existence? This would seem to be the primary focus of a rebuttal of TGD.
It's not good enough to say that Richard Dawkins is ignorant, to be taken seriously they must enlighten us to how. I haven't seen any of the fleas do that.

Other Comments by Damien White

45. Comment #67766 by petal on September 4, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Pewcatchoo

Are you always this nasty, or only when your ignorance is laid bare?

Other Comments by petal

46. Comment #67768 by lordfenriz on September 4, 2007 at 5:12 pm

blaine said:

Like everybody else here, I am nearly certain that this Guide has nothing intelligent to say, and is probably misleading and retrograde; but those findings should be based on the work (including the free samples provided), not upon whether the author is accredited, has spent enough money on distribution, or has a complete (or even attractive!) resume.

I agree.

pewkatchoo said:

And what are the commentators' qualifications, er, none by all accounts. Barry Krusch is actually a rather ordinary individual.

Be careful with this criticism. It sounds awfully familiar. Consider H. Allen Orr's review of The God Delusion:

One of the most interesting questions about Dawkins's book is why it was written. Why does Dawkins feel he has anything significant to say about religion and what gives him the sense of authority presumably needed to say it at book length?

In his response to Orr's review, Jason Rosenhouse observes:

Let us begin with the obvious: The reason Orr was asked to review this book is that he is an evolutionary biologist. If biologists have no particular qualifications for discussing this topic, one wonders why he didn't tell the editor of the NYRB to find a theologian instead.

Dan Dennett also replied to Orr and noted that by Orr's own reasoning he (Orr) wasn't "qualified" to make the review:

I'd really like to know which published critique of the 747 argument you endorse, so I can explain to you, a non-philosopher, what its shortcomings are.

Be very careful...the logical consequences of your arguments apply to you as well. Orr learned the hard way.

Other Comments by lordfenriz

47. Comment #67813 by Sigmund on September 4, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Sorry pewkatchoo but I have to agree with the previous criticism of your approach.
You used the argument from authority and completely dismissed any chance that the author of this work might have something significant to say, all without making the slightest effort to hear anything of his arguments. It took me about thirty seconds to find the audiosamples from the book - at which point I realized it was indeed a load of nitpicking nonsense.
However I know that because I checked the evidence myself. Being a rationalist doesn't mean taking sides against ever critic of another rationalist - remember, even the best of us can make mistakes. No doubt there is a possibility that some valid criticism of The God Delusion could have been made but you should at least listen to the argument before you dismiss it out of hand.

Other Comments by Sigmund

48. Comment #67816 by pewkatchoo on September 4, 2007 at 11:59 pm

To all my detractors. I really think that you all have missed the main point. I am not speaking for you, I am speaking for myself. Well, maybe I am also speaking for a few like minded souls who are fed up of the rip-off merchants crawling out of the woodwork and making a buck on the back of someone elses hard work. Especially when it is clear that they have nothing else to add to the debate. My attack (if you can call it that) on the guys' qualifications is perhaps your only valid point. If that is all that you have to say then that is OK.

To answer Orr, Dawkins is qualified to produce such a book because every one who has a brain and is able to think clearly about such matters is qualified. Why he feels the need to produce it is also clear, he is tasked with increasing awareness of science. A difficult task when everybody around you seems to believe in woo woo. Book sales seems to suggest rather a lot of people agree with Professor Dawkins or are at least interested enough in the subject to buy it thereby invalidating Orr anyway.

Petal, my psuedonym is Pewkatchoo. Get it right petal (irony alert) and I might actually pay some attention to you (though probably not).

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

49. Comment #67821 by doodinthemood on September 5, 2007 at 12:17 am

I think your likening of pewkatchoo's statements to criticisms of Dawkins are misplaced. Look at them:
"Dawkins knows nothing about theology, so cannot comment on God." - This is because God need not be a theological question. Whether or not there is a god can be answered through logic and reasoning. As a successful scientist, Dawkins shows that he is not just capable of logic and reasoning, but very intelligent logic and reasoning, and so it's worthwhile to hear his views.
"The iPod tutor knows nothing about anything past website design, so cannot comment on Dawkins." - Differing from the last statement that it gets likened to, a criticism of Dawkins would need knowledge of something past website design. A theologian could give a criticism. A theist scientist could give a criticism. An atheist could give a criticism of style. All these criticisms would be worth looking at, because they come from specialists of a greater understanding than myself of the respective stances. Had the iPod tutor done something on website design, it may be worth looking at, but this probably isn't.

Other Comments by doodinthemood

50. Comment #67833 by Beachbum on September 5, 2007 at 1:18 am

I have managed to get on the site and found a book review on Google books.
For most, this should suffice in an understanding of the plot, that is, hide what "The Intelligent Community" doesn't want anyone to read. Then confuse the iPod instructed with the audio at the flagged points via, interpretations (has anyone else picked up on how often "interpretations" are used in religion).

My goal is to do a very good job of reporting on this, so NO ONE else feels the need to give this joke a Dime, pence, rubble ok, maybe a finger - but just one.

Another goal is to surmise any other info I can glean from this... this cough instructional set and take the fight to them. Maybe I can upload some pictures of Bishops saluting Hitler or a "crock-o-duck" and a Republican in a compromising position... Oh, I know "just enlighten them with empirical evidence".

Other Comments by Beachbum