1. Comment #91798 by Ole on November 29, 2007 at 10:53 am

Synopsis
The writings of Richard Dawkins challenge Christians (and people of other faiths) to think more deeply about their beliefs and shake them out of any complacency. Christians need to hear some of the uncomfortable things he says and to know how to answer his alluring claims. Here is a robust and informed challenge to Dawkins' gospel of atheism.

.. a FLEA for sure ...

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

2. Comment #91801 by steve99 on November 29, 2007 at 10:59 am

Well, I think Richard should be proud for several reasons. First, he that has spawned a whole new category of publication - "no, honestly, don't be scared of these new atheists", secondly, that authors feel they can at least attempt to get book sales by mentioning his name on the front cover.

Other Comments by steve99

3. Comment #91802 by Chrono_Tata on November 29, 2007 at 10:59 am

Has anyone else noticed that, in the Amazon page, the book title is listed as "Challenging Richard Dawkins: Is Richard Dawkins Right About God?", while the title on the actual book says "Challenging Richard Dawkins: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong about God."?

A mistake?

Other Comments by Chrono_Tata

4. Comment #91810 by DarwinsPitbull on November 29, 2007 at 11:12 am

Richard is going to have to start walking around with a flea collar.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

5. Comment #91822 by Mr DArcy on November 29, 2007 at 11:44 am

I sit here shaking in my boots that Kathleen Jones may have actually written something new and educational about the subject of why Dawkins is wrong about God.

The actual content of her book, is of course completely unknown to me, so perhaps she's going to argue that Dawkins is far too kind in his description of the Christian God as a homicidal dictator of the universe, or words to that effect. Somehow, a little birdie tells me that she will not take that line.

We shall all have to wait and see.

In the meantime a British teacher in Sudan has been convicted of insulting religion and sentenced to 15 days in jail followed by deportation. Her crime? Allowing 8 year olds to name a teddy bear "Mohammed". Probably only pressure from the British government prevented the sentence from being far worse.

These purveyors of religious ignorance of the real world, contrast rather badly with the human beings out there who are actually trying to explain how the universe works.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

6. Comment #91824 by eXcommunicate on November 29, 2007 at 11:46 am

Hmm, too bad the synopsis is so brief. I doubt Ms Jones has much knew to say, but you never know - we have to keep on our toes.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

7. Comment #91825 by steveroot on November 29, 2007 at 11:54 am

4. Comment #91810 by DarwinsPitbull on November 29, 2007 at 11:12 am
Richard is going to have to start walking around with a flea collar.

I think the *fleas* are, in fact, mostly the ones wearing collars! :-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

8. Comment #91826 by Kell on November 29, 2007 at 11:55 am

I find the choice of a hubble deep field image for this book's front cover to be particularly disgusting. Another example of the religious shamelessly stealing a great achievement of rationalism for their own parochial, insidious and rather selfish ends.

Other Comments by Kell

9. Comment #91827 by Luthien on November 29, 2007 at 11:58 am

4. Comment #91810 by DarwinsPitbull on November 29, 2007 at 11:12 am
Richard is going to have to start walking around with a flea collar.

It would have to be a cat collar, as it certainly couldn't be a dog collar (teeheehee).

Other Comments by Luthien

10. Comment #91829 by steveroot on November 29, 2007 at 12:04 pm

9. Comment #91827 by Luthien on November 29, 2007 at 11:58 am

It would have to be a cat collar, as it certainly couldn't be a dog collar (teeheehee).

"We'd like to see the dog collars, please..."
("...and did those feet in ancient times...")

Oh, shoot... it was "dog KENNELS", not "dog collars".
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

11. Comment #91830 by JimmyGiro on November 29, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Who said that there was no such thing as bad publicity?

If it doesn't flatter Professor Dawkins' ego, then it will flatter his book sales.

Other Comments by JimmyGiro

12. Comment #91834 by stereoroid on November 29, 2007 at 12:25 pm

"gospel of atheism" ... again, describing the non-religious in religious vernacular. "Oooh, look how edgy I am!" Sure, it might be robust and "informed"... doesn't say what it's "informed" with, but I can guess.

Other Comments by stereoroid

13. Comment #91844 by bluebird on November 29, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Kell, Yep, agreed.

Other Comments by bluebird

14. Comment #91889 by black wolf on November 29, 2007 at 2:08 pm

I am quite confident that few believers will afford buying the whole flea circus. With each new book being published to suck on Richard's profitable name, each one's share is getting smaller.
The cover image of this gem might even encourage people to read some Sagan, although they'd probably prefer Collins to match the personal limit of intellectual capability.

Other Comments by black wolf

15. Comment #91896 by Lauregon on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Some of these fleas concede that there are areas of religious belief in which the criticism of atheists is warranted. I wonder how many of them have taken the time before now to write their own books criticizing those beliefs.

Other Comments by Lauregon

16. Comment #91909 by robhu on November 29, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Is it really reasonable to refer to these people as 'fleas'?

Professor Dawkins has captured the public imagination with his books, so it seems perfectly reasonable for people to write books disagreeing with what he has said in his books.

Referring to them as fleas just makes us atheists look pompous.

Please, when talking to / about the religious let's stick to reasoned discussion, not name calling.

Other Comments by robhu

17. Comment #91924 by HoyaSaxa87 on November 29, 2007 at 2:55 pm

I reallly really love the caricature on the cover of the Tina Beattie book. I wish I could get a poster version and put it on the wall in my dorm...it's freakin awesome

Other Comments by HoyaSaxa87

18. Comment #91933 by Katherine on November 29, 2007 at 3:14 pm

This really has to stop - we ought to at least create a website to voice our responses to these fleas......

Other Comments by Katherine

19. Comment #91937 by maton100 on November 29, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Challenging Kathleen Jones:
Why Kathleen Jones is a dumb bitch

Other Comments by maton100

20. Comment #91974 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Is it really reasonable to refer to these people as 'fleas'?

Yes.


Its like the plethora of Da Vinci Code books that came out. Any sales potential depends on the fact of the existence of the "original".

My experience of the three that I have read so far, and the reviews of the others. is that these are slap-dash and ill-considered ripostes that have been rushed into print. They appear to be surprisingly inattentive to the specifics of RD's arguments. I suspect a number of the atheist and religious people who post to this site could do a better job.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

21. Comment #91983 by sent2null on November 29, 2007 at 4:43 pm

I find the choice of a hubble deep field image for this book's front cover to be particularly disgusting. Another example of the religious shamelessly stealing a great achievement of rationalism for their own parochial, insidious and rather selfish ends.

Yes that was annoying upon first glance at the book cover for me as well.

Other Comments by sent2null

22. Comment #92010 by Calilasseia on November 29, 2007 at 5:22 pm

FLEA is an acronym for the authors of such books:

Floridly Ludicrous Exegetical Apologists.

Other Comments by Calilasseia

23. Comment #92017 by Diacanu on November 29, 2007 at 5:39 pm

The Hubble deep field on the cover made me think the same thing as when I heard the lyric "God of wonders, beyond our galaxy", on the Songs 4 Worship ad.
Oh! You acknowledge galaxies now?!!? Yeah, the death of geo-centrism was a bitch, wasn't it? Keep going, you'll catch up eventually.

Other Comments by Diacanu

24. Comment #92029 by Lauregon on November 29, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Is it really reasonable to refer to these people as 'fleas'?

Professor Dawkins has captured the public imagination with his books, so it seems perfectly reasonable for people to write books disagreeing with what he has said in his books.
-robhu

It seems perfectly reasonable for Professor Richard Dawkins to write books disagreeing with the books, teachings, and theology of theists who, as a general rule in accordance with their theological assumptions and articles of faith, consider non-believers to be utterly incapable of morality and followers of "Satan." By comparison, "fleas" seems rather mild.

Other Comments by Lauregon

25. Comment #92055 by Cartomancer on November 29, 2007 at 7:29 pm

What I would like to see is a satirical take on the flea books in Sellars and Yeatman style. Or, in fact, just a lot more satire on religion in general. Terry Pratchett is always good for your money there of course...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

26. Comment #92068 by Satanburiedfossils on November 29, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Some notable quotations:

I can cheerfully believe anything I see; but how can I believe in [God's] kindness and wisdom when I see so much cruelty and folly in the management of the world? The fact that everything exists in a state of sublime order, even if it were true, and due to the activity of a watchful Engineer, seems to me no more reason for kneeling in reverence than there is for bowing down and worshiping Mr. Henry Ford every time I see one of his interesting contraptions clatter by.

--Rupert Hughes, "Why I Quit Going To Church" (1924)

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/rupert_hughes/why_i_quit_going_to_church.html


God is everywhere but not detectable anywhere.
-- Dave E. Matson

How silly it is to call an idea a "great truth" if it has no weight outside of one's religion! Can a great truth divide educated, rational minds? Does it have geographic boundaries, being true in one country and false in a neighboring country? Does the truth of a mathematical proposition hang on which part of the world one comes from? Or, is truth just truth? Make the details of religious belief a "sacred dogma" if you must, something to be accepted mainly on faith, but don't persecute on account of that dogma. History is littered with dogmatic beliefs that turned out to be wrong despite the fact that they were held to be great truths with the strongest, inner feelings of certainty.

-- Dave E. Matson

http://dave-matson.blogspot.com/


A surgeon once called upon a poor cripple and kindly offered to render him any assistance in his power. The surgeon began to discourse very learnedly upon the nature and origin of disease; of the curative properties of certain medicines; of the advantages of exercise, air and light, and of the various ways in which health and strength could be restored. These remarks were so full of good sense, and discovered so much profound thought and accurate knowledge, that the cripple, becoming thoroughly alarmed, cried out, "Do not, I pray you, take away my crutches. They are my only support, and without them I should be miserable indeed!" "I am not going," said the surgeon, "to take away your crutches. I am going to cure you, and then you will throw the crutches away yourself."

--Robert G. Ingersoll, "The Gods" (1872)

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/gods.html

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

27. Comment #92126 by ridelo on November 29, 2007 at 10:57 pm

I wonder how many people have read some of the fleas without bothering to read TGD.

Other Comments by ridelo

28. Comment #92239 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 5:54 am

It is entirely reasonable to call these authors 'fleas', for reasons pointed out by phil. It easy to detect the fleas - check for similarities of cover style and title, or a reference to a New Atheist in the title or subtitle.

ridelo: My experience is that they tend not to have even read each other, let alone TGD. It is embarassing to read the same arguments put again and again by different authors, each presumably thinking they are putting forward original contributions.

Other Comments by steve99

29. Comment #92267 by Lu Castro on November 30, 2007 at 6:55 am

Kathleen is currently 161,896 on the Amazon UK list, so I'm not sure we have to worry about the 13 folks who thought she might have something viable say. Her bitching has fallen on deaf ears.

If any of them stepped up and confronted the tenets of their faith based manure, they'd be regarded with a bit more respect. All they do is whine about how wrong our boys are without offering proper rebuttal.

Other Comments by Lu Castro

30. Comment #92374 by _J_ on November 30, 2007 at 11:18 am

steve99, 2

...authors feel they can at least attempt to get book sales by mentioning his name on the front cover.

At last, my opportunity to break into the glamorous world of authorship! My debut book, Why I Think RICHARD DAWKINS is Really Lovely will (surely) be out early in the new year.

Other Comments by _J_

31. Comment #92385 by alexmzk on November 30, 2007 at 11:54 am

it has a really nice cover actually. much better than most of the rest so far.

Other Comments by alexmzk

32. Comment #92622 by Mercer on December 1, 2007 at 1:33 am

The idea it's OK to call someone a flea because they wouldn't have published the book if it wasn't for someone else is ridiculous. Are all the people who write books discussing or criticising the works of any scientist, philsopher, social theorist, novellist etc. a 'flea'?

The sight of people trying to insult opponents for simply daring to respond critically is hardly one that encourages an image of intellectual honesty.

On the cover issue: is there any evidence that Hubble, or those who made his telescope were atheists? And if so, would this be theft: because then as atheists, we'd have to deprive ourselves from a lot produced by Christians.

Other Comments by Mercer

33. Comment #93302 by notsobad on December 2, 2007 at 4:01 pm

The idea it's OK to call someone a flea because they wouldn't have published the book if it wasn't for someone else is ridiculous. Are all the people who write books discussing or criticising the works of any scientist, philsopher, social theorist, novellist etc. a 'flea'?

You are the one calling flea an insult.

Other Comments by notsobad

34. Comment #93304 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Are all the people who write books discussing or criticising the works of any scientist, philsopher, social theorist, novellist etc. a 'flea'?

Of course not. The parasitic nature comes from attempting to make use of the success of the original.

Non-parasitic: "Why Christianity is a jolly good thing"
Parasitic: "Why I think best-selling author RICHARD DAWKINS is wrong about Christianity"

Other Comments by steve99

35. Comment #93391 by Mat on December 3, 2007 at 4:01 am

I have a tendency to agree with _J_; I will begin work on my book "A Completely Uncritical and Frankly Sycophantic Paen of Praise in Favour of the Mighty Prof Dawkins (May No Radiant Angelic Light Ever Shine Upon Him) and All His Eloquent Utterances" immediately.

Mind you, after just writing the title I'm exhausted. Better have a bit more of a browse among His Most Perfect Words... :)

Other Comments by Mat

36. Comment #94187 by Mercer on December 5, 2007 at 1:37 am

@notsobad: Don't pretend that 'flea' isn't intended and understood as an insult. Playing naive doesn't count as an argument.

@steve99Of course not. The parasitic nature comes from attempting to make use of the success of the original.

Non-parasitic: "Why Christianity is a jolly good thing"
Parasitic: "Why I think best-selling author RICHARD DAWKINS is wrong about Christianity"

I explicitly referred to books 'discussing or criticising' other authors. So 'why Christianity is a jolly good thing' doesn't really work. If you have an author who seems to be expressing a certain part of the Zeitgeist, if as a religious thinker, everyone asks you 'have you read Richard Dawkins', as if they think that he's caused some sort of intellectual revolution, then it's entirely reasonable to address books at him.

Other Comments by Mercer

37. Comment #95276 by Louise on December 7, 2007 at 8:44 pm

The only one of these books I have read is 'The Dawkins Letters', but I thought it was pretty good. I thought David Robertson had some very good points. About whether god exists or not I have no firm opinion, but I certainly, like David Robertson, have doubts about whether an absence of religion makes people better, it certainly does not seem to have worked out that way in countries that abolish religion. And atheism does not noticeably make people kinder, more tolerant, or less prone to violence.

I thought Robertson was particularly good discussing that idiotic song 'Imagine' that Dawkins is so fond of. "Imagine no possesions!" as he rightly points out, those words, written by a multi-millionair who had, as far as we know, no intention whatsoever of getting rid of any of HIS possessions, are somewhat hypocritical. Moreover, there are millions of people in the world who don't have to imagine no possesions, because they haven't got any anyway, and it's must unlikely that they dream of a world without them. Nor is it at all likely, based on the experiences of the 20th century, that banishing religion would get rid of hate, prejudice, the tendency to go to war, as Lennon suggests in his song.

I thought he was very good also commenting on Dawkins's hatred for that school where they teach creatonism. As he points out, the school is an exceptionally good one, one of the few comprehensive schools to be judged 'outstanding' by ofsted, and to parents who can't afford a posh private education for their children, a good school like that is to be welcomed. Creationism is not taught to the exclusion of science subjects, only alongside them. pupils can make up their own minds about what to believe, and I see nothing wrong with that. Why not let them decide for themselves what to believe?

I also thought he was sound on Dawkins's insistence that parents should not be allowed to pass on their beliefs to their children, something else I totally disagree with. As he says, is that really much better than what the 19th century Catholics did who took that little jewish boy away from his parents because he had been secretly baptised by a Catholic maid? They took him away because they didn't want him brought up Jewish, with much the same intentions that Dawkins would prevent today's parents teaching their children what they want. In a country like the UK, where we are increasingly controlled by the state in almost everything we do, I think curtailing yet another freedom,, the freedom of parents to pass on their beliefs to their children, is not something to be welcomed.

Other Comments by Louise

38. Comment #95278 by Diacanu on December 7, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Loise-

I certainly, like David Robertson, have doubts about whether an absence of religion makes people better,

Let's suppose for the sake of argument it were 100% true that religion made people better.

It would do nothing whatever to prove it were TRUE.

A pragmatically beneficial lie does not become the truth, I don't give a damn what Leo Strauss and the neo-cons say.

Other Comments by Diacanu

39. Comment #95281 by Diacanu on December 7, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Loise-

Creationism is not taught to the exclusion of science subjects, only alongside them. pupils can make up their own minds about what to believe, and I see nothing wrong with that. Why not let them decide for themselves what to believe?

Why not teach astrology alongside astronomy?
Why not teach alchemy alongside chemistry?
Why not teach flat earth alongside geography?

Yes, let's waste children's time with all sorts of discredited nonsense to be "fair and balanced".

Sorry, truth isn't democratic.

The sky is blue for everybody.

Other Comments by Diacanu

40. Comment #95283 by Goldy on December 7, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Strewth, Louise, it has already been explained above that this is wrong

I also thought he was sound on Dawkins's insistence that parents should not be allowed to pass on their beliefs to their children, something else I totally disagree with. As he says, is that really much better than what the 19th century Catholics did who took that little jewish boy away from his parents because he had been secretly baptised by a Catholic maid? They took him away because they didn't want him brought up Jewish, with much the same intentions that Dawkins would prevent today's parents teaching their children what they want. In a country like the UK, where we are increasingly controlled by the state in almost everything we do, I think curtailing yet another freedom,, the freedom of parents to pass on their beliefs to their children, is not something to be welcomed.

Parents can teach their children whatever they want - they cannot impose the crap they teach. Blimey, just read the book before making stupid assertions on it!
As it is, it is patently clear you have your knives out for Dawkins. He could say anything about anything and you'll immediately disagree and come out with vapid and poisonous comments - comments that are based on distortions and mistranslations.

Other Comments by Goldy

41. Comment #95359 by Graham on December 8, 2007 at 6:14 am

Louise, are you familiar with the expression 'strawman argument'? You seem to know a few.

1) The lyrics of 'Imagine' are hardly the issue here.

2) If you take out what the Vardy schools teach badly, such as critical thinking, and leave in what they teach well, then I understand they probably will be good schools.

3) I doubt there are many atheists (certainly nor Dawkins) who think parents should be banned from teaching their kids religion. But...would a little more social pressure on parents to encourage them not to teach their kids that they were born sinful not be a good thing?

Please learn to question your own assumptions. You appear to be carrying around a lot of misinformation and preconceived prejudices.

Cheers

Other Comments by Graham

42. Comment #95488 by Mr DArcy on December 8, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Some of us may not know that David Robertson "The Wee Flea" and author of the flea book which Louise above is recommending, has been banned from posting on this site. He came back under another name and was banned again. I personnally didn't see why he should be banned, whilst I disagreed with most of what he wrote. Again personnally I have no objection to Robertson making any kind of statement about the characteristics of the posters on this site. In his wisdom Josh has decided not to allow Robertson back on this site. There's nothing I can do about that.

Louise accuses Dawkins of:

Dawkins would prevent today's parents teaching their children what they want.

Where on Earth does Louise get this idea from? Certainly not from TGD, but maybe from "The Dawkins Letters".

Louise says she has "no firm opinion" about the existence of God. The rest of her post suggests otherwise.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

43. Comment #95634 by John Pritzlaff on December 8, 2007 at 9:22 pm

I understand that most of these books are probably devoid of real arguments, and thus would not deserve our respect, however I am a little weary of insulting them without reading them first, as many of us have done. Also, the ones that only reference "The New Atheists" in the title don't seem to be too parasitic at first glance, and so maybe they shouldn't be disrespected at first glance. It looks childish, and it makes it look like we aren't open to criticism, which is of course something we all should be open to as we're rationalists. Of course, most of us are very open to criticism, but we have to be mindful of how we appear, and we have to be mindful not to become even a little irrational and tribal in talking about the opposition.

Other Comments by John Pritzlaff

44. Comment #95942 by Tarsen on December 9, 2007 at 2:06 pm

I'm a big fan of RDs books on pop-Biology, and I've enjoyed his debates with people like Alister Mcgrath etc. I though he made some good arguments and whilst I havent read his most recent book yet, I might at some point in the future. So I'll try to be as untroll-like a possible when I make this point about the 'flea' label.

Phil defines a flea as a writer of a book where "Any sales potential depends on the fact of the existence of the "original"", and Steve99 comments "authors feel they can at least attempt to get book sales by mentioning his name on the front cover".
Can I just ask that you take a look at the front cover of RDs most recent book and see which word's written in the largest font?

God.

Now I recognise y'all might debate the originals existence in this case; but surely you must acknowledge that the books sales depend on the pre-existence of Religious thought and Religious writing.
So my question is: Is RD Gods flea?
/troll

Other Comments by Tarsen

45. Comment #96289 by robotaholic on December 10, 2007 at 9:57 am

sorry Tarsen- not so fast, you have to agree that calling the belief in god a Delusion- that's pretty original (relatively)and therefore the book is not a flea-
in your reasoning using the english language could be considered flea-like since other books use english...

Other Comments by robotaholic

46. Comment #96292 by steveroot on December 10, 2007 at 10:03 am

44. Comment #95942 by Tarsen on December 9, 2007 at 2:06 pm

So my question is: Is RD Gods flea?
/troll

Which god?

;-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

47. Comment #97012 by Tarsen on December 11, 2007 at 9:15 am

45. Comment #96289 by robotaholic on December 10, 1507 at 9:57 am
you have to agree that calling the belief in god a Delusion- that's pretty original (relatively)

...just correcting that for you :-)

in your reasoning using the english language could be considered flea-like since other books use english...

...But its not my reasoning robotaholic, it's Dawkins'. I don't think he's a flea for commenting on religions any more than I think these authors are fleas for commenting on him.

46. Comment #96292 by steveroot on December 10, 2007 at 10:03 am

Which god?

;-)

Well he didn't call his book The God Delusions, so I guess you'd have to ask him. ;-)

Other Comments by Tarsen

48. Comment #101122 by JazzX on December 19, 2007 at 11:57 pm

It must be hugely flattering for Dawky that his book has spawned so many unwanted sequels. 11.5 according to the latest count!

That shows just how influential this book has become - and rightly so. It's like a skillful boxer who is outclassing his opponents left, right and centre - so they resort to a flurry of clumsy last ditch punches in order to win by an unlikely knockout when, really, they should just throw the towel in.

Other Comments by JazzX

49. Comment #101126 by Dr Benway on December 20, 2007 at 12:17 am

So my question is: Is RD Gods flea?

Traditionally, when a man insults you, you do not then respond with a request for further insult. Unless you're into that sort of thing.

Other Comments by Dr Benway