1. Comment #84935 by John Done on November 4, 2007 at 9:46 am

My lack of God, how many strawmen do you think populate these books?

Other Comments by John Done

2. Comment #84936 by cry4turtles on November 4, 2007 at 9:52 am

I thought plagerism was illegal.

Other Comments by cry4turtles

3. Comment #84937 by Rtambree on November 4, 2007 at 9:52 am

Yep, not only strawmen, but meaningless empty statements, vague pronouncements, non sequiturs, a myriad of logical fallacies, references to obscure theologians, and repeating age-old points already pre-empted and addressed in the books of Dawkins et al.

It's simple. Show me the evidence!?!

Other Comments by Rtambree

4. Comment #84939 by mr-zero on November 4, 2007 at 9:56 am

The twilight of reason?! Huh?!
Z

Other Comments by mr-zero

5. Comment #84940 by Zamboro on November 4, 2007 at 10:04 am

Look at the lengths to which they will go and the degree to which they'll contort themselves in order to circumvent our simple request for evidence.

To any objective observer, that behavior would seem mighty suspicious.

Other Comments by Zamboro

6. Comment #84941 by MarcCountry on November 4, 2007 at 10:05 am

Yeah, take THAT, Reason... And now, back to our regularly scheduled blind aherence to nonsense, ignorance, and dishonesty....

Other Comments by MarcCountry

7. Comment #84942 by notsobad on November 4, 2007 at 10:08 am

You can tell she is clueless by the use of the phrase "war on".

Other Comments by notsobad

8. Comment #84944 by Shaker on November 4, 2007 at 10:11 am

Won't somebody think of the poor trees?

The best thing about this sorry excuse for a book so far appears to be the rather nice cartoon on the cover.

Other Comments by Shaker

9. Comment #84946 by Michael on November 4, 2007 at 10:14 am

Well, at least the publishers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Sad that so many of our species cling to irrational belief and appear to need to in the face of no good evidence.

Other Comments by Michael

10. Comment #84949 by Pete_C on November 4, 2007 at 10:19 am

From Amazon's Book Description: "Theologians such as Alister McGrath and Keith Ward have defended the rationality of Christian beliefs about God, but both sides neglect wider questions about faith, science, power and justice in a postmodern world, which impinge deeply on all our lives."

Maybe it's a satire?

Seriously, here's my prediction: the book will not defend the thesis that a deity exists. Rather it will accuse the "New Atheists" of bad form.

Other Comments by Pete_C

11. Comment #84950 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 10:20 am

Would this be the same 'reason' that many major historical figures (like Martin Luther) said was so dangerous for religion?

Sometimes I think we militant (well, somewhat militant in my case) know more about religion that these Fleas.

Other Comments by steve99

12. Comment #84951 by Barbara on November 4, 2007 at 10:21 am

The scent of desperation gets stronger every day.

Other Comments by Barbara

13. Comment #84952 by bayareadude on November 4, 2007 at 10:25 am

Some of these make me question my current stance on book burnings. : )

By the way, you all just HAVE to listen to the new theme song from Julia Sweeney's film version of "Letting Go of God." To hear it,
CLICK HERE.

That amazing voice is Jill Sobule!

Other Comments by bayareadude

14. Comment #84954 by Corylus on November 4, 2007 at 10:35 am

I haven't read all of the flea books, but out of intellectual honesty I have read some. I think I will read this one and post a review.

Just, looked this book up on Amazon: the blurb reads

... In this lively and provocative contribution to the debate the leading British feminist theologian, Tina Beattie, argues that the threat of religious fanaticism is mirrored by a no less virulent and ignorant secular fanaticism which has taken hold of the intellectual classes in Britain and America. Its High Priest is Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, but its disciples and acolytes include well-known public figures such as philosophers Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and A C Grayling, journalists Christopher Hitchens and Polly Toynbee, and novelists Martin Amis and Ian McEwan. Theologians such as Alister McGrath and Keith Ward have defended the rationality of Christian beliefs about God, but both sides neglect wider questions about faith, science, power and justice in a postmodern world, which impinge deeply on all our lives. The New Atheists calls for a more wide-ranging and creative dialogue across religious and cultural boundaries. It will intrigue every open-minded reader, believer or non-believer.

It does appear to be the same old thing (i.e. atheists are fundamentalists too), an utter inability to move outside of a theist frame of reference ("disciples and acolytes" FFS!) with an added dose of postmodern drivel. The unique selling point looks to be the 'feminist' theologian line.

Sigh, I expect I will get cross, but someone's got to do it.

BTW – Does anyone want to read the McGrath book "The Dawkins Delusion", but not want to buy it? I will post free to UK or Europe (it's lightweight!) on the understanding that the recipient does to same when they are done. Send me a PM if you are interested.

Other Comments by Corylus

15. Comment #84956 by Quine on November 4, 2007 at 10:40 am

A Godsend to publishing. (Psst: Follow the Money)

Other Comments by Quine

16. Comment #84957 by bayareadude on November 4, 2007 at 10:40 am

Corylus: What a great idea! Sharing books so these morons don't make money off of us, but we can still read what they're up to (although it appears to be the same old crap, repeated and placed in a different cover).

Other Comments by bayareadude

17. Comment #84960 by bluebird on November 4, 2007 at 10:52 am

Yes, save a tree... recycled B.S. should be printed on recycled paper.

We take umbrage (again) being referred to as "virulent and ignorant secular fanatics".

Other Comments by bluebird

18. Comment #84963 by Sinful Messiah on November 4, 2007 at 11:05 am

I'll read these books in Borders/Barnes & Nobles and then leave them under the couch.

Other Comments by Sinful Messiah

19. Comment #84964 by Zamboro on November 4, 2007 at 11:12 am

I'd hazard a guess that by employing what I like to call "I know you are but what am I" apologism she hoped to turn atheists against atheist, fracturing us by turning our criticism inwards towards one another.

What she doesn't understand is that this is futile, atheist are already notoriously critical of one another. We're not a unified homogeneous whole, most arguments atheists participate in are probably with other atheists. She's basically trying to destroy a pile of sand with an ice pick; we are no more invested in one another than in any given human being, all we share is a bizarrely unpopular willingness to think rationally.

She thinks we are bound together in the same fashion as any religious belief structure because that is all her mind can conceive of. However those bindings, the ones she hopes to shatter, never existed in the first place. All she is doing is hacking at the ocean with a longsword in an attempt to part it, while we water molecules look on in amusement.

I hope this has made sense.

Other Comments by Zamboro

20. Comment #84967 by hoops mccann on November 4, 2007 at 11:28 am

Is anyone actually buying these things? Are they vanity books? Are religious teachers assigning them for study? Are priests making people read them for penance? (Assigning books to read has apparently replaced the "Hail Mary" as a penance item, if what I've heard is true). I can't imagine anyone investing the money and the time to read one of these, otherwise. Maybe the whole thing will backfire, as the derivative books may inspire people to read the originals. I was inspired to read Lord of the Rings by first reading the Harvard Lampoon parody Bored of the Rings.

Other Comments by hoops mccann

21. Comment #84968 by Diacanu on November 4, 2007 at 11:29 am

Who are the chick, and the dude on the right after Dan Dennett?

Other Comments by Diacanu

22. Comment #84969 by rufustfirefly on November 4, 2007 at 11:30 am

"We stand at the end of the Age of Reason. A new era of the magical explanation of the world is rising". Adolph Hitler

I came across the quote in Has Science Found God by Victor Stenger

Other Comments by rufustfirefly

23. Comment #84970 by alexmzk on November 4, 2007 at 11:35 am

you'd think that if the apologetics had a valid response, one book would suffice. the Bible made a pretty awful case in the first place.

Other Comments by alexmzk

24. Comment #84971 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 11:39 am

Diacanu

Polly Toynbee and Martin Amis.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

25. Comment #84972 by Diacanu on November 4, 2007 at 11:40 am

It takes a looot of bullshit to cover up bullshit.

Which in turn takes more bullshit.

It never ends.

Other Comments by Diacanu

26. Comment #84973 by Diacanu on November 4, 2007 at 11:40 am

Phil Rimmer-

Ah, thanks.

Other Comments by Diacanu

27. Comment #84974 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 11:43 am

I keep my Flea books in the loo. They don't last very long.

I used to prefer to move with the Times, (I hate Rupert Murdoch), but this new material comes in a much handier size.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

28. Comment #84975 by Diacanu on November 4, 2007 at 11:48 am

From the Amazon description..

"...feminist theologian, Tina Beattie,...".

ROTFL!! Feminist theologian!

That immediately conjured up the Matthew Chapman line "a feminist religionist is like a freed slave still living on the plantation".

Other Comments by Diacanu

29. Comment #84977 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 11:53 am

A Beattie quote about her book-

The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion - from the Introduction: In its war on religion, scientific rationalism constitutes the latest phase in the West's long history of domination by which it has sought to defeat every form of difference, including religious difference. The vast majority of the world's religious believers belong among non-Western cultures, and they include many millions of women whose views are seldom represented by their scholarly elites. This means that we need to cultivate a much greater awareness of both the limits and the oppressive effects of a debate dominated by the opinions of a small clique of white English-speaking men staging a mock battle about rationality and God, which fails to address the most significant humanitarian questions of our time. This includes the many different roles played by religion in sustaining and generating hope, meaning and creativity, without which we would be less than the humans we are.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

30. Comment #84979 by Katherine on November 4, 2007 at 11:55 am

virulent and ignorant secular fanatics

Having experienced both sides of this debate (I used to be a Christian) I am in a fairly good position to assert that I do not fit that description. Would I ever go back to religion? Not on your life or anyone else's!

Tina, I think you'll have to prolong your waiting for this twilight of reason for a very long time.

Other Comments by Katherine

31. Comment #84981 by Lauregon on November 4, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Female scholars of religion toting water for the male god are called "theologians." Feminist scholars of religion not toting water for the male god have referred to themselves as "thealogians." What a difference an "a" makes.

Other Comments by Lauregon

32. Comment #84982 by stereoroid on November 4, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Oh, smashing! Another blurb that uses religious terminology to describe the non-religious: "acolytes", "high priests", evangelism. Each hack thinks they're the first to do this, and "oh! look how smart I am! With my careful choice of words, I've turned their arguments back on them! That'll sort them..."

Other Comments by stereoroid

33. Comment #84984 by maton100 on November 4, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Yeah, there's nothing worse than a "twilight of reason." I'm ready for the sunset of ignorance.

Other Comments by maton100

34. Comment #84986 by Malky on November 4, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Why doesn't god write another book, to settle the matter once and for all. :)

Other Comments by Malky

35. Comment #84989 by RickM on November 4, 2007 at 12:37 pm

I would buy one of these books if it addressed the serious questions about god; if we are created in the image of god, where does he poop? I have a beard, does god have a beard? If he does, why? Why does god have toe nails?

Other Comments by RickM

36. Comment #84990 by Diacanu on November 4, 2007 at 12:39 pm

If we're created in God's image, why does he put us through so much shit?

Seems like a case of self loathing he has there.

Other Comments by Diacanu

37. Comment #84997 by Crazymalc on November 4, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Who is that on the extreme right (as it were...) on the cover of "The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason & The War on Religion"

I can place all the others

Other Comments by Crazymalc

38. Comment #84998 by jjk on November 4, 2007 at 1:12 pm

An unfortunate and frightening group of exceptions to the maxim that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Other Comments by jjk

39. Comment #84999 by jeremynel on November 4, 2007 at 1:15 pm

you'd think that if the apologetics had a valid response, one book would suffice

Reminds me of the time when Nazi Germany sponsored a book entitled "100 scientists against Einstein".

Einstein's response: "If I'd been wrong, 1 would have sufficed."

Other Comments by jeremynel

40. Comment #85000 by tap1966 on November 4, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Maybe it's just me (probably) but I think the existence of books like these are overall a good thing. You're never going to win over the fundamentalists who don't care about logic and reason but the real 'target' audience are people who are religious by default and never really thought it or questioned it. However you raise the profile of the debate, more people will realize that there actually is a debate, and if you're reasonably open-minded then "our side" will generally win. I can't believe many people will actually read TGD (for example) and whatever this book is and not go with TGD as the more compelling.

Other Comments by tap1966

41. Comment #85001 by GBile on November 4, 2007 at 1:17 pm

The Beattie-cover shows us some familiar faces, but also, intriguingly, between Dawkins and Dennett, our 'ancestor'.

Maybe the explanation for its appearance can be found in the book, but it reminds me of the 'conviction' I sometimes perceive in 'believers' that our ancestors could be apes, but that their ancestry certainly is 'higher'. They are created in the image of their God.

Poor monkeys.

Other Comments by GBile

42. Comment #85002 by BaronOchs on November 4, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Crazymalc The guy on the right of the cover is Martin Amis.


Tina Beattie is a catholic feminist, I'm already out of my depth here how does she make that work?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

43. Comment #85004 by Zakie Chan on November 4, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Its interesting... Christians write TONS of books on God and his existence, and no one seems to care. However, when an atheist writes a book, the Christians go crazy, writing book after book after book to attempt to refute the atheist book.

In lines with Comment #84999, Methinks the theists doth protest too much.

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

44. Comment #85007 by Crazymalc on November 4, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Comment #85002 by BaronOchs

Crazymalc The guy on the right of the cover is Martin Amis.

Thanks! Why is he there though? I read his entry on Wiki and noted that he is a good friend of Christopher Hitchens, but I can see nothing in his writings that would clasify him into the "New Atheists" in the way that Dennett et. all are.

Can anyone shed any light?

Other Comments by Crazymalc

45. Comment #85008 by mandrellian on November 4, 2007 at 1:38 pm

"Theologians such as Alister McGrath and Keith Ward have defended the rationality of Christian beliefs..."

First, no they haven't.
Second, there isn't any.

Other Comments by mandrellian

46. Comment #85014 by ricey on November 4, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Flea books add an essential, balanced criticism to the debate and also confirm the superiority of the scientific discourse. It is a credit to this site, and to the proper scientific method that dissenting voices be aired and discussed.

Can anyone think of a similar stance being taken on a fundie Christian/Islam site? Can anyone imagine a Minister, Priest or Imam (sic?) address a congregation "Please, this week stop reading the Bible/Koran; read The God Delusion; God is Not Great: Demon Haunted World; End of Faith; Breaking the Spell: open your mind to the possibility that what you consider to be probable may all along have been nonsense"?

I can't see it. Why is that, if religion is a quest after truth? Why is scepticism so dangerous to the faithful? Why do these organisations suppress and stiffle views that contradict their perceived wisdom rather than air and discuss them?

As rationalists, we should applaud this site's attempt to open the debate by advertising conflicting views.

Other Comments by ricey

47. Comment #85017 by AdrianB on November 4, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Tina Beattie is a catholic feminist, I'm already out of my depth here how does she make that work?

No problem. Once The Catholic Church has regained control over her reproductive system, and she is wearing more "modest" clothing, she will simply say to herself that it is "her choice".

Other Comments by AdrianB

48. Comment #85023 by Aquambulus hirsutus on November 4, 2007 at 2:30 pm

The Beattie-cover shows us some familiar faces, but also, intriguingly, between Dawkins and Dennett, our 'ancestor'.

The illustrator misheard 'Dawkins has a chip on his shoulder.'

Other Comments by Aquambulus hirsutus

49. Comment #85026 by huxley_leopard on November 4, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Comment #85007 by Crazymalc on November 4, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Comment #85002 by BaronOchs


Crazymalc The guy on the right of the cover is Martin Amis.



Thanks! Why is he there though? I read his entry on Wiki and noted that he is a good friend of Christopher Hitchens, but I can see nothing in his writings that would clasify him into the "New Atheists" in the way that Dennett et. all are.

Can anyone shed any light?



Martin Amis is fairly well-known in the UK for being an atheist. He has written a lot of articles in The Guardian and The Observer newspapers about radical islam in particular.

http://www.martinamisweb.com/commentary.shtml

Other Comments by huxley_leopard

50. Comment #85027 by Diacanu on November 4, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Hmm, just realized, Sam and Dan are the only Americans.
We need more guys.

Other Comments by Diacanu