1. Comment #68626 by heathen2 on September 8, 2007 at 12:39 am

I will not buy a single flea book. Maybe peruse them if available at the library, but that's all. The same old worthless counter arguments are just boring and I don't have that kind of time to waste anymore.

Other Comments by heathen2

2. Comment #68627 by ic0n0clast on September 8, 2007 at 12:48 am

Wow, I had no idea there were so many.

Other Comments by ic0n0clast

3. Comment #68628 by dvespertilio on September 8, 2007 at 12:49 am

Ay, Richard, ye've spawned a theist industry, ye have! But seriously, this is really funny. Just goes to show you what ideology, envy and not a wee bit of greed will do for you. Every Tom, Dick and Hairy Harry wants to cash in on the back of poor Professor Dawkins. Keep up the good work, Richard, and give 'em hell!

Other Comments by dvespertilio

4. Comment #68629 by steve99 on September 8, 2007 at 12:49 am

I agree, heathen; these books (and most reviews of TGD) are tedious because they are so unoriginal. The recent 'Atheist Books' have each brought a new perspective; Dawkins mostly covers quite different ground from Hitchens and Harris and Dennet and so on. However, reading the responses is getting to be a chore, as the repetition is tedious. This suggests that they not only have not read (or misread) the God Delusion and other works of Dawkins et al, but apparently don't even read other responses. The authors seem to sit in splendid isolation, each thinking they are coming up with the same original arguments.

I think this illustrates the cultural divide described by C P Snow - the separation between arts and sciences: The clear thinking, calmness and rationality of the 'atheist side' is perhaps illustrative of the scientific background of most of the writers on that side. The responses are always from the scientifically illiterate, and the degree of woolly and unoriginal thinking, combined with a lack of understanding of what evidence-based argyment means is quite stunning.

Other Comments by steve99

5. Comment #68630 by eirik on September 8, 2007 at 12:56 am

i can't help but to be somewhat amused by thinking about how some of the most prominent authors mentioned above have been so utterly crushed in debate by one or more of the people they are arguing against. the sad thing is that their books will probably sell pretty well and make them each a considerable amount of money...which will in turn encourage them (and make them financially able) to spread their mental viruses to even more gullible religious prospects.

Other Comments by eirik

6. Comment #68631 by dvespertilio on September 8, 2007 at 12:58 am

RE:Comment #68629 by steve99

Yes, sadly scientific illiteracy is rampant in Western culture today. And it appears that there may be a natural bias against rational thinking built into the human nervous system, so overcoming this anti rational tendency may be very difficult, indeed. I am repeatedly amazed by encounters w/ people who not only don't understand the scientific way of perceiving and understanding reality, but don't even wish to TRY to do so. Sometimes, in my darker moments, I think that this will be our ultimate undoing. (Or maybe that's just religious apocalypticism creeping insidiously into my mind.)

Other Comments by dvespertilio

7. Comment #68632 by Jack Rawlinson on September 8, 2007 at 1:01 am

I feel a weary duty to read these books - or at least to start them - out of a sense of fair play. We complain that many of RD's critics clearly haven't read TGD, or have read it inattentively, so it seems only fair that we should read these before criticising them. Even though, I hasten to add, the evidence shows that they are almost certainly likely to be tedious retreads of the same tired old "arguments" we have become so used to debunking.

Still, I hate the idea of putting money into the hands of these people, so to date I've sneakily read chunks of them in bookstores, to at least get a feel for the standard of counter-attack. So far it has been almost shockingly weak and, as we all know, highly reliant on distortion, misrepresentation, misunderstanding or plain old lying, as in the case of that shamefully dishonest Cornwell character.

I'll have a look at these next time I'm in Barnes and Noble... :-)

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

8. Comment #68633 by detox on September 8, 2007 at 1:02 am

A review from Amazon:

"Thomas Crean's reply is a Masterpiece, combining Theology, Philosophy, Historical accuracy and wisdom which comprehensively dismantles the materialist position in a detailed rational argument against the inadequacies and, at times, glaring inadequacies and misrepresentations of Prof Dawkins.I would strongly urge anyone who has been persuaded by the Dawkins/Darwinist camp to read this in an honest attempt to answer the perennial questions that arise in the human mind in the pursuit of Truth.
This is highly illuminating and replete with such profound logic it makes you wonder where Dawkins goes from here."

With apologies to Monty Python: RUN AWAY!

Other Comments by detox

9. Comment #68634 by Jack Rawlinson on September 8, 2007 at 1:09 am

detox: did you notice that that reviewer has only one review on Amazon - this very promptly added rave about Crean's book? Interesting. I'm sure it must be absolutely genuine. :-)

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

10. Comment #68635 by dvespertilio on September 8, 2007 at 1:09 am

RE: Comment #68630 by eirik

Oh, indeed, it is CLEARLY about making a fast buck! And there are dozens of christian and/or reactionary publishers out there willing to publish for these blokes. But we can only hope that the public at large will get tired of reading such tripe. And as of yet, it doesn't appear to be redounding with any consequences on Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett or Harris. Of course, THEY are making a pretty penny on this, too. But isn't it about time that the rational opposition should do so? I won't begrudge Richard and company their "dime". Having sold myself short on my own ideas and the sweat of my labour for much of my life, I will not begrudge or envy others for capitalizing on theirs.

Other Comments by dvespertilio

11. Comment #68636 by toomanytribbles on September 8, 2007 at 1:11 am

i'm feeling very itchy.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

12. Comment #68637 by JemyM on September 8, 2007 at 1:15 am

The comparision between atheism and communism is profound ignorance. Whenever I see it I can only shake my head over the lack of formal education of theese people. Really, already as a young adult you should know exactly what communism is and there's good excuse not to.

To even understand socialism one must understand European and Asian history where people were divided by class. Unlike the US where you are born equal, if you were born poor in Europe/Asia you belonged to the bottom class for the rest of your life. One must also remember that among the upper class, priests was included and even controlled the countries next to kings for 1500 years. Beyond that, church was used to keep the poor from rebelling against authority. In most places socialism suceeded peacefully, abolished the class system and eventually turned into capitalism. In some places, socialism was blended with absolutism and as always when it comes to absolutism, things get ugly.

An atheist deny god while a socialist fight the class system and everything that represent a "class". That's a huge difference. You can be communist and christian at the same time, in fact many in the old days were.

The connection between Atheism and the Soviet Union/China is as profund as calling any christian a muslim because they believe in god, or automaticly assume that thoose who speak against dictatorship are anarchs.

Other Comments by JemyM

13. Comment #68638 by Tumara Baap on September 8, 2007 at 1:15 am

How exquisitely flattering for Professor Dawkins. I wonder if there is is a morsel of reason in any of these flea books, other than succumb more deeply to the mindfuck that propagates the grandest superstition, or my God is not **quite** the god you parody... my nebulous theology is of a higher order, or that the Professor's "rant" somehow imperils the tolerance and pluralism of a modern society, or that God by definition is too sublime for everyday reason and transcends time and description. (Going by Cornwell's musings, I expect ripostes much more crass.) Thinking persons have some basic prerequisites: That a hypotheses be testable, that confounding factors and biases be accounted for, that there be a beauty of economy in explanation... you can't have an infinite number of preconditions for an explanation nor a remedy that inflates a conundrum. Most people posting on this forum reflexively think this way. The Professor is a fountainhead who epitomizes reason and rules the waves in separating the wheat from the chaff. But for the pious fleas... they instinctively and viscerally smell a threat, and mull endlessly about quashing it. There never was a space in their intellect to wedge the very question whether it's really all a cruel delusion. I'm sure their flea ripostes are a desperate clarion call to surrender to imagined non-anthropomorphic (not the Higgs Particle mind you, but something more Super Santa Claus) forces and conveniently bereft of an iota of reason.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

14. Comment #68639 by Russell Blackford on September 8, 2007 at 1:17 am

Apologies to John Donne

Mark but these fleas, and mark in this,
What muddled thought within their books there is;
They suck'd JC and suck RD,
And in these fleas confused beliefs run free.
Thou know'st that this is truly said
A shame (though not a loss of maidenhead!);
These wily fleas are full of woo,
And proudly swell with newfound income, too.
And this, alas! is more than fleas should do.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

15. Comment #68641 by pewkatchoo on September 8, 2007 at 1:51 am

And every single one of them simply not worth the death of a single tree. I suppose that Mr Blane will be along in a moment to tell me that I cannot say that unless I have read them all. Pffffttt.

Ordinarilly, I suppose, Professor Dawkins might feel flattered. But, given the quality of the rebuttals, I suspect not.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

16. Comment #68644 by Zamboro on September 8, 2007 at 2:01 am

For all the desperate insistence I have heard that atheists buy The God Delusion out of some need for reassurance in their 'beliefs', I never hear it acknowledged that books like these actually *do* fill that role for the theist.

In many ways The God Delusion is similar to its theist 'rebuttals'; both contain arguments that have been bandied about for literally centuries. The difference is that the reason we're already familiar with the counter-apologetics contained within The God Delusion is that the arguments they rebut have been dismantled to the satisfaction of any objective standard since before most of us were born. Theists don't seem at all deflated by the fact that their most popular arguments for God have been shown to be logically (and in some cases factually) untenable for multiple centuries. They don't use them because they're logically sound (because they aren't) instead they use them because, to a potential convert who has yet to read the rebuttal, these old theist chestnuts remain awfully compelling. In this sense they knowingly reuse discredited lines of argument because they are especially effective in convincing the ignorant.

I suppose they have no choice but to attempt a rebuttal. Their silence would be damning, after all. Better to pretend at a rebuttal (in large numbers!) in order to create the appearance that there are valid complaints with the reasoning laid out in The God Delusion. Believers distraught by the mere existence (and popularity!) of books like The God Delusion, The End of Faith, and Why God is Not Great can reassure themselves that Dawkins did not have the last word by purchasing one of the feebly constructed 'Christian Responses'. In fact the majority will never even purchase these works; If they were in the habit of critically examining religious apologism rather than taking it at face value, they wouldn't be theists in the first place. As The God Delusion and similar books demonstrate, you don't have to prod theistic arguments very hard at all before they completely fall apart.

For all of these reasons I think that rather than referring to these books as "Fleas", we should rightly refer to them as "damage control". Because that's more or less what they are, an effort to contain, through misdirection and impotent contrarianism, the damage done to the field of theistic apologism by The God Delusion, Why God is Not Great, and the various other books in that vain.

Other Comments by Zamboro

17. Comment #68650 by Vaal on September 8, 2007 at 2:29 am

I wonder why they bother? It all comes down to the same irrational inane mumbo jumbo, personal attacks, straw man arguments, and trying to argue the indefensible. I consider these books to be the last dying breath of irrationality, and demonstrates that the people who write them are on the run, deservedly so.

If you are going to have a debate, then provide some evidence, instead of the usual hackneyed gobbledygook.

Other Comments by Vaal

18. Comment #68655 by blueollie on September 8, 2007 at 2:43 am

I think that it is something like this: deep down, many theists know that their "faith" is irrational. The success that the atheist books have had scares them; these "counter books" are more about reassuring the "faithful" that it is still "ok" to be irrational than anything else.

Ok, it is to make a buck too. :-)

Other Comments by blueollie

19. Comment #68656 by aitchkay on September 8, 2007 at 2:46 am

From a theist's viewpoint:

Athiest books currently on sale: 6
Theist books currently on sale: 9

We're winning!

Other Comments by aitchkay

20. Comment #68657 by Robert Maynard on September 8, 2007 at 2:48 am

Good grief!
I knew Vox Day was involved with writing, but I'd only heard about him when Pharyngula linked to critical eviscerations of the arguments in his blog posts; I had no idea he could actually get books published.

That's kind of.. dangerous. :|

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

21. Comment #68659 by NMcC on September 8, 2007 at 3:02 am

JemyM

This is the first post I've seen you make on this website.

I HOPE IT'S THE LAST!

Your contribution is utter crap from beginning to end and you should go away and learn something about the subject before you condescend to tell the rest of us all about it.

A detailed reply would take fifty times the space you have taken and it would be a complete waste of time anyway.

Suffice to say, anyone who thinks that a child of Bill Gates (for example) and a child born to one of the 10s of millions living below the poverty line in the US is 'born equal' has their head so far up their backside that a JCB couldn't pull it out.

Your attempts at teaching the rest of us history are too pathetic even to respond to. You obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Other Comments by NMcC

22. Comment #68660 by pewkatchoo on September 8, 2007 at 3:03 am

I wonder if this is the author:

http://torch.op.org/preaching/preacher/43

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

23. Comment #68664 by Theocrapcy on September 8, 2007 at 3:25 am

IS this one of those gimmick books sold at the front counter that has all empty pages except one, and it says in bold lettering : "Burn In Hell Dawkins!"?

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

24. Comment #68665 by Enlightenme.. on September 8, 2007 at 3:26 am

This should be the last for a while, as my cat has started sleeping on the floor in the living room.
I'll give you a shout when he starts jumping onto the kitchen cupboards again.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

25. Comment #68667 by Jack Rawlinson on September 8, 2007 at 3:32 am

Jesus, NMcC... where did that splenetic rant against JemyM come from? The post was broadly reasonable and made a couple of good points. Yes, the "born equal in the USA" line was rather naive to say the least, but aside from that the thrust of JemyM's post was certainly not "crap from beginning to end". If this is some sort of personal grudge thing could I suggest you take it elsewhere?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

26. Comment #68668 by JemyM on September 8, 2007 at 3:52 am

NMcC, in old Europe/Asia your rights was determined by your bloodline/family, not what you could pay for. If your mother/father belonged to the lower class you had literally less legal rights than if your mother/father belonged to the upper class. Insulting an upper class could lead to death penalty while murdering a lower class could lead to a small fine. While the system softened up bit by bit throughout 1600-1900, Swedish citiziens did not get equal legal rights and free democracy until 1921, prior to that workers (majority at the time) had no rights to vote. Most European countries have gone through the same revolution.

The US might have problems with poverty and unfavorable laws depending what you and your family can pay for, but they have never had a class system where citiziens are branded with no rights for their whole life just because they were born by the wrong parents.

As for the rest of your reply, switch to decaf. I have been active on richarddawkins.net since the site went up.

Other Comments by JemyM

27. Comment #68674 by Blueboy5 on September 8, 2007 at 4:35 am

I wonder how many trees they killed to print all these hysterical replies. There had to have been many alternative uses - the first two that come to my mind are toilet paper or, better yet, not cutting them down at all.

Other Comments by Blueboy5

28. Comment #68675 by Seti on September 8, 2007 at 4:35 am

One of my best friends is a vicar, and she told me that one of the major chains of Xian bookshops in the country has been taken over by an evenagelical Orthodox group. One of their key objectives is to stamp out Islam. They used to stock books on a range of faiths, but now no longer do. The are treating their staff very badly - many have been sacked. The profits are going towards building new churches.

Other Comments by Seti

29. Comment #68676 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 5:23 am

26. Comment #68668 by JemyM on September 8, 2007 at 3:52 am

Were there many African Americans rising to the upper echelons of American society in the 19th century?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

30. Comment #68677 by scooternyc on September 8, 2007 at 5:33 am

My most recent and solid debates with the religious has resulted in these statements to them:

"Either you are a good person or you are not

Either you would be generous of spirit or not

No god, religion or bible can substitute that for which is not inherent within you by nature, hard as you may try."

Of course, no person is jolly to the idea that his/her life is deterministic, this infuriates the religious who want to believe they have "free will" (another religious ideology load of crap), which oddly, becomes their counterpoint, weak as it is, for saying that they "choose to be good people".

No, I'm afraid to tell you, it's not a choice.

Other Comments by scooternyc

31. Comment #68678 by phasmagigas on September 8, 2007 at 5:38 am

the book by thomas crean. If he had been born in iran, i wonder if his book would have been called 'A muslim replies'?

Other Comments by phasmagigas

32. Comment #68680 by JemyM on September 8, 2007 at 5:50 am

29. Comment #68676 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 5:23 am

What you speak about is racism which is an entirely different issue based on a completely different history, controversy and cultural landscape.

Other Comments by JemyM

33. Comment #68681 by Frostbit on September 8, 2007 at 5:52 am

No ones going to read this crap. Even the fundies won't pull themselves from perusing the KJV.

Other Comments by Frostbit

34. Comment #68682 by waxwings on September 8, 2007 at 6:01 am

I read Dawkins book after reading many essays and articles he'd written. I liked his style and I found his arguments compelling, and it's always enjoyable to read a compelling argument.

These apologists have yet to hook me with a good argument, so they're certainly not going to rope me into reading a whole book of trash. Just as a compelling argument is fun to read, a bad argument that's been refuted for at least two centuries is not.

Other Comments by waxwings

35. Comment #68683 by NMcC on September 8, 2007 at 6:02 am

Jack Rawlinson

No, there's no personal grudge involved. I've no idea who JemyM is, nor, I strongly suspect, do I want to know. Far from my post being a 'splenetic rant', it's a perfectly reasonable response to a lot of ignorant drivel.

I see that JemyM has come back so this is for both of you:

"The comparision (sic) between atheism and communism is profound ignorance".

Yes, JemyM, yours! I think what you mean to convey in this sentence is that it's profoundly ignorant to equate atheism with communism.

Is it indeed? Profoundly ignorant? Well, the ideas of people like Karl Marx, whose writings are generally considered to form the bedrock of socialist/communist theory, are predicated on the philosophy of historical materialism. This philosophy, among other things, states that it's from the real, natural, material world that we derive our views, ideas, opinions etc. In short, that it is the material world that we have to deal with as there is no evidence for any such thing as a supernatural world. Marx himself put it well enough when he characterized the part played by religion in the material world as 'the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the soul of soulless conditions'. It's simply not consistent to be an advocate of the socialist philosophy of historical materialism, whilst at the same time maintain a belief in the supernatural.

So, the theoretical genius of JemyM notwithstanding, it's anything but 'profoundly ignorant' to equate socialist/communist ideas with atheism. If JemyM had simply stated that you don't have to be a socialist/communist to be an atheist, then that would have been perfectly true.

The rest of JemyM's first paragraph is simply an embarrassment. Anyone who can lament the lack of formal education on the part of unknown others whilst being the author of this atrociously worded, ignorant rubbish (the last sentence even says the exact opposite of what JemyM means to say!!) needs to go away and enroll in a few night classes at their local school.. (I'm assuming that JemyM is not a school kid as it is, of course).

"To even understand socialism one must understand European and Asian history…"

Actually, to 'understand socialism' you only have to read a few works by socialist writers. For a no-nothing like JemyM, a good start would be Frederick Engels' pamphlet 'Socialism, Utopian and Scientific' for the historical and philosophical ideas, or Marx's Value, Price and Profit or Wage Labour and Capital for the economics of the subject. There is any number of other books, of course.

….where people were divided by class."
As a matter of fact, 'class' as far as socialist/communist theory is concerned is defined by a person's relationship to the means of producing and distributing material needs, wants and wealth. As such, every society, (and not just in 'old Europe'- by which, I assume, is meant feudal Europe- as JemyM puts it) since the dissolution of primitive communistic societies, is a 'class society', including the USA.

"Unlike the US, where you are born equal, if you were born poor in Europe/Asia you belonged to the bottom class for the rest of your life……"

I've already commented on the idiocy of the first part of this sentence in my previous post. As to the second part, represented by the dots, I simply can't make head nor tail of it. Nor can I be bothered to try. So, I challenge JemyM to word this in some kind of understandable English and I'll be pleased to deal with it.

All I will say about the above mentioned paragraph is that the person who states 'In most places socialism succeeded peacefully, abolished the class system and eventually turned into capitalism' knows nothing about the meaning of the terms 'socialism', 'succeeded', 'peacefully', 'abolished', 'class', 'system' and 'capitalism'.

"An atheist deny (sic) god…."

This should obviously say that atheists deny there is any evidence for the existence of a God or Gods.

"....while socialist (sic) fight the class system and everything that represent (sic) a 'class'"

Funnily enough, Socialists, or at least, the ones I know, generally see no contradiction between arguing (fighting) against the myriad detrimental effects of a class riven society like capitalism and not believing in fairy stories of the sort told by the religious.

"You can be communist and Christian at the same time."

See above. And, in general, only in the sense that JemyM can both be the author of this rubbish and, at the same time, be considered by Jack Rawlinson to be 'reasonable'.

"The connection between atheism and the Soviet Union/China is as profund as calling any christian a muslim because they believe in god, or automaticly assume that thoose who speak against dictatorship are anarchs."

Er…at this point I've lost the will to live!

Other Comments by NMcC

36. Comment #68685 by pewkatchoo on September 8, 2007 at 6:19 am

NMcC
Do you not think you are being a bit over the top in your criticism of JennyM. She caused me to raise my eyebrows a little at her rather naive assertions, but calling her ignorant is pushing it more than a bit. Your 2 little rants are way out of order.

I think that you should save your ire for someone a wee bit more deserving. Or as Jenny herslf said, perhaps stop with the caffeine.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

37. Comment #68686 by phasmagigas on September 8, 2007 at 6:20 am

after reading some of the comments on this thread it highlights one of the qualities of a good teacher like RD (amongst many). That quality is noticing mistakes/gaps in knowledge/misconceptions whatever you want to call them and explaining to the 'student' the reason why they have it wrong with an informed explanation (i dont want to go into the mataphysics of true/false as thats going on at incredibly painful length in the alistair mcgrath thread and im interested bread and butter reality for now). ive seen dawkings asked the most ridiculous questions but he never belittles the asker.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

38. Comment #68688 by coretemprising on September 8, 2007 at 6:54 am

sometimes I just have to shake my head. And then others, I make the mistake of posting! Anyway, NMcC, good grief! JemyM can answer you and probably will, but s/he appears to not be a native English speaker, which I deduced from reading part of the Christ Conspiracy thread on this site. Swedish, I believe. This isn't pointed out for any reason other than to counter your condescending "(sic)" stuff.

Other Comments by coretemprising

39. Comment #68689 by ChrisMcL on September 8, 2007 at 6:58 am

Who is buying these response books?

I read Dr.'s Harris (congrats, BTW) and Dawkins books in a search for self-discovery. I assume that a large portion of their books are purchased by other atheists for similar reasons. I find it difficult to believe that the religious would buy their books, knowing that the books challenge their deeply held beliefs.

Furthermore, why would the religious reader of Harris and Dawkins want to read a response to a book they have never read? I think that Dawkins is correct in his assertion that these books are parasites. I would guess that the authors and publishers of the respose books simply assume that they will sell their books to a small percentage of Harris and Dawkins readers. I think that they will be disappointed. This is not the kind of subject, like politics, that engenders that kind of exploration in the readership.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

40. Comment #68690 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

Has anyone on here read 'The Dawkins Delusion'? It makes a lot of sense and was written by someone who must be taken seriously by anyone wanting to truly engage with this subject. It'd be handy to hear from those who have as the rest is just ignorance.

The 'flea' thing is also nonsense. The term flea seems to indicate a responder. Seeing as all athiesm is a response, surely RD et al are the real fleas.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

41. Comment #68691 by NMcC on September 8, 2007 at 7:03 am

pewkatchoo

Perhaps my post is 'a bit over the top', but is it false? As a socialist, the kind of rubbish expounded by 'JemyM' has the same effect on me as the rubbish that the Wee Flea comes out with has on you.

Anyway, did you not say yesterday in another thread that you're the rip up your carpet and crap in your slippers type of chap?

phasmagigas

I'm of the opinion that there is quite a bit of 'explaining' in my previous post. Laced with a certain amount of annoyance, granted.

Mind you, I quite enjoyed Darwin's rotweiler telling Cornwell that he was talking nonsense (and more than once) the other day.

Also, at least I didn't tell JemyM to 'go away and read a book' as the good Prof. did to a caller on one of the radio shows he was on.

Perhaps Dawkins is more polite and patient than me. I'd have told the idiot to 'fuck off and read a book.'

Oh dear, I'm doing it again. Better calm down and go and watch the mighty Northern Ireland beat Latvia. On second thoughts, watching Northern Ireland play football may not be the best way to calm down.

Regards.

Other Comments by NMcC

42. Comment #68693 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 7:06 am

Try watching the cricket instead!

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

43. Comment #68694 by plastictowel on September 8, 2007 at 7:09 am

Dr.Dawkins how much of the flea circus have you read? I'm sure no one expects you to read every critique as cumbersome as that would be. At the same time though it's always good to hear opposing positions to your own, mostly to augment or vindicate your position! Are there any Dr.Dawkins that you actually enjoyed, or bothered to read beyond McGrath's? (I was going to get his book, but after watching Atkins, Dennett, and yourself humiliate him in debates, I'll pass)

Other Comments by plastictowel

44. Comment #68695 by JemyM on September 8, 2007 at 7:14 am

I gave up on NMcC. Yes, I am a Swede.
I am not a socialist. I have an interest in world philosophy, culture and history and I try to take an unbiased standpoint when I can. The "born equal in the USA" line refered to USA not having separate laws based on social class, maybe I should have pointed this out. If this is untrue, tell me so.

Other Comments by JemyM

45. Comment #68696 by seals on September 8, 2007 at 7:24 am

All those books - surely they protest too much?

Anyone who doesn't feel that life is too short and manages to plow through that lot, please report back here on anything of substance. I won't be holding my breath though...

Other Comments by seals

46. Comment #68698 by Richard Morgan on September 8, 2007 at 7:29 am

I suppose I must be the ultimate, mother of all Fleas. I am preparing a book :"The Delusion Delusion"
I hereby invite Cornwell, Alhibai-Brown, Humphrys, Linklater, Vickers and their croneys to publish their reviews/replies BEFORE my book is published. I say this because for many of these people it is clear that reading the book they review is optional and not prerequisite to expressing an opinion. That way we can all save time in this debate and get directly to the heart of the matter - who is telling the biggest whoppers.
Because this is the Biggest Whoppers Competition Forum....innit?
It isn't?
I wish somebody had told me earlier...

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

47. Comment #68699 by Freelance Scientist on September 8, 2007 at 7:36 am

I'd never stoop so low as to buy a parasitic publication but I'd certainly lurk around a book store and read bits and pieces simply to see just how much damage control they would dish out.

However, not one book store that I've been through today has a single copy. of any one of them (I'll make a guess that they haven't all sold out and assume that they simply exist as third rate sellers in specialist stores gathering dust.)

Other Comments by Freelance Scientist

48. Comment #68700 by aitchkay on September 8, 2007 at 7:37 am

fides_et_ratio wrote:

Has anyone on here read 'The Dawkins Delusion'? It makes a lot of sense and was written by someone who must be taken seriously by anyone wanting to truly engage with this subject.

Why must we take him seriously? Because you say so? Whether or not something 'makes a lot of sense' is a poor guide to whether or not it is true (quantum theory is a prime example). How about, instead, you provide a single piece of *evidence*? Is there any evidence at all?

Actually, yes. Prayer studies. And they consistently fail to show any correlation between prayers and the prayed for event. So although god's non-existence cannot be proved, this is compelling evidence that there is no prayer-anwsering deity.

Other Comments by aitchkay

49. Comment #68701 by bluebird on September 8, 2007 at 7:47 am

My personal cures for 'Cat Scratch Fever'~~~~
Purchase and donate a just published science/astronomy book for our high school library. Hopefully it will inspire........

Also, a stiff dose of 'Libiamo ne'lieti calici'; grazie L.P.

Other Comments by bluebird

50. Comment #68704 by robotaholic on September 8, 2007 at 7:58 am

Why would someone peruse those books? The arguments are identical and have already been overcome.

I'm glad the atheist doesn't flea-out.

Other Comments by robotaholic