1. Comment #102721 by _J_ on December 23, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Wow, a meta-flea. This one perches on McGrath's title, leaning over to sink its little teeth into Dawkins.

Can we expect any future author to step up the challenge of surpassing this new feat of unoriginality...?

Other Comments by _J_

2. Comment #102722 by black wolf on December 23, 2007 at 1:13 pm

This week's? Hardly, the book is half a year old.

Publisher's note: "This ebook is an important and convincing response to the conclusions of Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. The author believes that the concept of a transcendent entity as the source of morality and ultimate justice, is an essential foundation of rational human life and society.

Without a transcendent authority and standard, the numerous pursuits and values of humans are merely peculiar delusions characteristic of the human species. Keeran points out that although Dawkins does not believe in the existence of God because of the supposed lack of scientific or factual evidence, he and like-minded others inconsistently assert the existence of numerous other non-scientific realities elaborated by the author in 55 chapters.

Atheism claims to be simply the absence of belief in a god or gods and therefore contributes nothing to human value, meaning of life, or moral conduct. These must be borrowed from other arbitrary non-scientific beliefs which then become the gods and religions of atheists ranging from nihilism to humanism and even buddhism and wiccan."

Dear Mr. Keenan, please summarize for us the pain and suffering caused by the moral codes which we pray to. You may conveniently add up the figures of those mentioned above.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do so, I need to clean up my altar of humanism now and pray a while.

Other Comments by black wolf

3. Comment #102723 by Diacanu on December 23, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Jayzus, these things multiply like a Gremlin in a swimming pool.

Other Comments by Diacanu

4. Comment #102724 by Pilot22A on December 23, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Why don't you just prove all of those wild ideas you present in this book Keeran?

Otherwise, it is just "blah, blah, blah" and no facts to support you suppositions, as usual Mr. Theist.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

5. Comment #102726 by Diacanu on December 23, 2007 at 1:21 pm

4 bucks for 201 pages, though.

That ain't bad.

Bargain toilet paper.
:P

Other Comments by Diacanu

6. Comment #102730 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 1:29 pm

The perfect Xmas present for someone you really, really hate.

Other Comments by SurfDude

7. Comment #102731 by Steve Zara on December 23, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Without a transcendent authority or standard, the numerous pursuits and values of humans are merely peculiar delusions characteristic of the human species.

I am normally a calm and polite person, but if I see this kind of thing one more time, I will be sorely tempted to stomp angrily up to the person concerned and demand to actually meet the transcendent authority or be shown the actual transcendent standard, or request that they please shut up. I am fed up with claims of perfect moral maps that none of us can read. A map we can't read is exactly as useful as no map at all.

Keeran points out that although Dawkins does not believe in the existence of God because of the supposed lack of scientific or factual evidence, he and like-minded others inconsistently assert the existence of numerous other non-scientific realities elaborated by the author.

"If you believe something without evidence, then you don't need evidence for anything" is not a useful argument, I am afraid.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

8. Comment #102732 by Rtambree on December 23, 2007 at 1:32 pm

I'm just editing the proof pages to my counter counter counter response, THE DAWKINS DELUSION DELUSION DELUSION DELUSION.

Other Comments by Rtambree

9. Comment #102733 by Diacanu on December 23, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Steve-

Hear hear!!!

Other Comments by Diacanu

10. Comment #102734 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 1:41 pm

It's reduced to $3.20 on amazon.com(and not even available from the .co.uk variant).

Says a lot about the popularity of this particular flea that there is only one review, and this one states:

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars "Bad logic", December 5, 2007

By: Dane Jasper (Santa Rosa, CA USA)(REAL NAME)
This is not a well written response, and not really worth the paltry $4 cost either.

Other Comments by SurfDude

11. Comment #102738 by SilentMike on December 23, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I wonder if there is such a thing as second order plagiarism. If there is then Alister McGrath may have a case against this gifted spinner of words.

Other Comments by SilentMike

12. Comment #102741 by fides_et_ratio on December 23, 2007 at 2:05 pm

And the 'oasis' grows ever murkier.

Let's observe the process.

Step 1: Belief in God is widespread and ancient, many books have been written about it.

Step 2: Richard Dawkins et al write books critiquing this belief and some of the books about belief.

Step 3: Some people read the aforementioned books critiquing belief in God and religion, and critique them.

Step 4: RD is asked in an interview what he thinks of some of these books and produces a rather amusing quote from Yeats about a dog not praising his fleas.

Step 5: Some people on the RD forum get a little carried away and in their excited state fail to realise the irony of belittling a critique of a critique for being a critique.

Step 6: Some of the critiques of Dawkins et al are very intelligent people who have read his work.

Step 7: Many posters on RD's forum criticise the critiques of RD saying they haven't read TGD, again failing to recognise the irony inherent in a situation brought about by their non-reading of the aforementioned critiques and their brief critiques of them.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

13. Comment #102742 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Silent Mike,

Given the publication date, the reverse may even be true!

Other Comments by SurfDude

14. Comment #102745 by Steve Zara on December 23, 2007 at 2:12 pm

And the 'oasis' grows ever murkier.

Look, what you have posted here has been discussed elsewhere. You don't score any points by simply posting it again here as if those discussions had not taken place. Others have tried that ploy, and it has not received a favourable reception. In fact, it may seem to many to be the behaviour of a troll.

The issues about the failings of the "Fleas" have been made clear to you. The failings of the themes of this this particular book have been discussed here. I suggest you respond to the postings made here.

Do you have some apparently unique ability as to give us objective independent evidence of some transcendental authority to whom we can go for guidance?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

15. Comment #102746 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 2:12 pm

fides-et-ratio,

You are trotting out the same points on every flea post. These multiple "critiques" (the fleas) are the publishing world's version of Dinesh D'sousa's scattergun approach to rationality, i.e. throw in so many non-sequiters in an argument that responding to them individually will take for ever.

On the other hand, it might be worth simply ignoring the more obscure ones (like this one) in order that they receive zero oxygen at all.

Other Comments by SurfDude

16. Comment #102747 by SilentMike on December 23, 2007 at 2:13 pm

13. Comment #102742 by SurfDude

Well OK. Guess I just assumed that McGrath was first because I've heard about his book a lot sooner.

Too bad. It was a pretty good joke. I think.

Other Comments by SilentMike

17. Comment #102748 by HeathenAngel on December 23, 2007 at 2:15 pm

I got a C-Note in my pocket that says this idiot, Keeran never even read Prof. Dawkins' book. Any takers?

Other Comments by HeathenAngel

18. Comment #102750 by Steve Zara on December 23, 2007 at 2:22 pm

throw in so many non-sequiters in an argument that responding to them individually will take for ever.

Actually, the arguments that fides makes are so trivially wrong that they can be quickly dismissed, as follows:

Step 1: Belief in God is widespread and ancient, many books have been written about it.

Which bears no relation to its truth or utility in the area of ethics.

Step 5: Some people on the RD forum get a little carried away and in their excited state fail to realise the irony of belittling a critique of a critique for being a critique.

There is no irony, as they are not belittling a critique of a critique for being a critique. They are belitting the critiques for being, on the whole, poorly written, all saying the same thing, and using parasitic marketing techniques such as mentioning a "New Atheist" in the title or subtitle, or using the same cover style.

Step 6: Some of the critiques of Dawkins et al are very intelligent people who have read his work.

The supposed intelligence of the critics is irrelevant. We are discussing what they have written.

Step 7: Many posters on RD's forum criticise the critiques of RD saying they haven't read TGD, again failing to recognise the irony inherent in a situation brought about by their non-reading of the aforementioned critiques and their brief critiques of them.

That is not ironic, as many of the critiques raise the very same falsehoods that Dawkins is criticising in TDG. You don't need to read TDG to know that an argument from complexity is wrong, or that an argument from morality is wrong, or that an argument from the beauty of creation is wrong (all these have been used by the "fleas"). Much of what Dawkins was doing in TDG was summarising well-known scientific and philosophical arguments.

There. All your points answered, fides. It was the work of a few minutes typing. Stop posting this nonsense.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #102751 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Steve Z,

I was referring to the multiple fleas, not fides "steps", but thanks for dealing with them anyway!

Other Comments by SurfDude

20. Comment #102754 by Steve Zara on December 23, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I was referring to the multiple fleas, not fides "steps", but thanks for dealing with them anyway!

Apologies. When you said "these multiple 'critiques'" I assumed you where talking about fide's post.

I have been posting too much and too fast. A reaction to being swamped with too much Christmas propoganda.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #102755 by epeeist on December 23, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Comment #102721 by _J_

Wow, a meta-flea. This one perches on McGrath's title, leaning over to sink its little teeth into Dawkins.

To quote that great theist Jonathon Swift:

So, naturalists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bite 'em;
And so proceed ad infinitum.

Other Comments by epeeist

22. Comment #102756 by Blue Lithium on December 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm

"Step 7: Many posters on RD's forum criticise the critiques of RD saying they haven't read TGD, again failing to recognise the irony inherent in a situation brought about by their non-reading of the aforementioned critiques and their brief critiques of them."

Okay, I counted up the "flea" books above and there's about 22 of them. Even if we assume these fleas are fairly cheap at £5, £5 *22 is A LOT of money. I simply can't afford to buy every single reply book to Dawkins and the New Atheists, not to mention i have a HUGE to read list without adding all of these books to it. I have read the "Deluded by Dawkins?" and read McGrath's "Dawkins' God", and "Darwin's Angel" is coming into a library near me so I'll try to read that as well. I don't think I'm being completely unreasable on this, I am prepared to read the "other side" so to speak, but because there's so many I'll probably be able to read a few, mostly the ones that turn up at the library. To be honest, there's so many replies I can't see them all making original points anyway, there's only so much to disagree with in TGD, and in fact some theists might agree with some of TGD anyway(eg. they might think Pascal's Wager is a copout argument, or that there shouldn't be faith schools etc.)
Other atheists on this board have actually read some of the critiques aswell, it ain't just me.

Other Comments by Blue Lithium

23. Comment #102762 by Dr Benway on December 23, 2007 at 3:09 pm

fides, I suspect your compulsion to sneer at the regular posters here is down to constipation. Try more fiber in your diet.

Once you've sorted something like e=mc2 in relation to Maxwell's equations, it's easy to spot when someone is talking bollocks about the matter-energy relationship.

Likewise, once you understand the method of rational thinking, involving the four tests of logic, parsimony, falsification, and verification, atheism becomes the obvious, most rationally justified position. That's all there is to it.

One book, three books, twenty books in support of theism change nothing. What's required is corroborative evidence clearly showing that an interventionist God involves himself with reality in some manner.

Anyone who can produce such evidence will win the Nobel, James Randi's prize, the Templeton, a few Hollywood deals, and the adoration of the world.

We're still waiting.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

24. Comment #102769 by home8896 on December 23, 2007 at 3:35 pm

On a sidenote about fleas. I saw a book at Barnes and Noble two nights ago. It was a finance book, of all things. It was yellow with the small-to-large one word per line called something like "Good to Great" - now what the fuck is that??? A finance book drawing its cover from God Is Not Great?

As for the flea chosen for the week, again, with this trying to market to people who do not want to think about Mr. Dawkin's book and just want to be reassured that there are publishers responding to his book, instead... It's actually rather sad to me.

Other Comments by home8896

25. Comment #102771 by smithyboy on December 23, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Fides, comment 102741

Wow, insightful. Thanks a lot fides. Don't know whether you've noticed, but this is a place where people come to discuss stuff. We're not too interested in swapping knitting patterns, so amongst other things we offer opinions about other peoples' opinions. However, in my view there is also a great deal more thoughtful, interesting and substantive discussion than on, say, theist sites. But I imagine you disagree and can point me to some truly enlightening ones?

Other Comments by smithyboy

26. Comment #102773 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Silent Mike,

It was a damn good joke! Perhaps all the fleas can sue each other for plagiarism?

In fact, I wonder if it would be possible for a bystander to institute a class action suit on behalf of all the fleas against each other? We can get Judge Jones to preside over the case.

Other Comments by SurfDude

27. Comment #102785 by Matt H. on December 23, 2007 at 4:27 pm

You know what? This guy can fuck off. I'm serious. I'm sick about reading about this same old shit week after week; Fleas and parasites having a free ride off books by intelligent people such as Professor Dawkins, Professor Dennett and Sam Harris, who's works are really quite educational and thought-provoking. It's incredibly irritating and quite offensive to the reasonable mind that these charlatans can seek to plagiarise atheist works time and time again with the same straw men and illogical arguments.

It might be the 4 pints I've drank tonight talking, I don't know. But I doubt I'll feel any different about the matter in the morning.

Other Comments by Matt H.

28. Comment #102795 by kaiserkriss on December 23, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Dr. Benway wrote: "fides, I suspect your compulsion to sneer at the regular posters here is down to constipation. Try more fiber in your diet."

ROFL...

AS for fides -non -ratio, PUHLEESE come up with something more original than the same tired old arguments that are shoot down week after week by several of the more intelligent contributors to this site you ALWAYS ignore such as STEVE Z, Dr. Benway and BrianWorldcitizen..jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

29. Comment #102815 by Satanburiedfossils on December 23, 2007 at 5:28 pm

It always depresses me to see yet another flea raking Richard Dawkins over the proverbial coals (this sort of colorful language is reminiscent of bygone days when the Church rarely lost an argument, especially when its primary debating tools were the thumbscrew, the rack, and the burning stake). Consequently, in light of that sentiment, it is worth reading the words of a Dawkins defender (and the link to the accompanying review is definitely worth a look, too):

"Richard Dawkins is hated. He is hated by the scientifically illiterate as an arrogant and know-all scientist, and he is hated by the believers in God as a confounder of their dishonest cant and specious 'truth'.

[In] the one thousand years that Christianity was unchallenged in Europe[,] the best [it] could produce was S Thomas Aquinas and his Schoolman philosophy, a tortuous convoluted compendium of all the ways that the world depended on the supernatural. Learning was dead, and Christianity had all the responsibility for its murder because it began itself in the splendour of classical civilization, but destroyed it all as being demonic in less than two hundred years. A thousand years later, it all had to be relearned.

The only credit Christianity can take is that it never killed off everyone in Europe, although it got close to it at times, its sheer filth being a breeding ground for plagues, and its own terrifying beliefs in the soul and its demonic possession leading to countless cruel deaths by burning, torture and starvation in dank, rat infested dungeons.

We have people whose concern with the universe is that it is a metaphorical vale of woe, delaying their advent into a much more desirable, if less material world, suggesting that a scientist has no curiosity about it. At best, for a Christian, the world is a clever artefact made by the supreme being to impress us, or scare us, and since He made it with His supernatural skills, it follows that it is no concern of ours how it was put together. We are supposed merely to be grateful. It is, of course, the way of thinking that dominated Europe for the Dark Age millennium, and it is returning."

-- Dr M D Magee, "The God Delusion—Review of Reviews" (January 2007)

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/950GodDelusion.php#Robinson

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

30. Comment #102816 by Naughty Mr Crocodile on December 23, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Matt 7895 - I too am hammered and I too am ANGRY!
Though in all seriousness does anyone even buy these books? Has anyone in this forum EVER seen these in the shops? Or anywhere but here?

Other Comments by Naughty Mr Crocodile

31. Comment #102820 by Matt H. on December 23, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Though in all seriousness does anyone even buy these books? Has anyone in this forum EVER seen these in the shops? Or anywhere but here?

In the bookshops where I live (Borders, Waterstones, WHSmith) the only flea books I have ever seen have been those by Alistair McGrath. They are always outnumbered by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, who are in turn outnumbered by the numerous versions of the Bible, Qu'ran and Kabbalah :(

Other Comments by Matt H.

32. Comment #102824 by Naughty Mr Crocodile on December 23, 2007 at 5:42 pm

Thanks - just got back from a reunion with friends - one of them had just returned from a year in the US and I'd just been hearing about the fundies with billboards - and this in Colorado as well - so not feeling particually well disposed to religion at the moment...

Other Comments by Naughty Mr Crocodile

33. Comment #102867 by dragonfirematrix on December 23, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Just a few general comments on the article purely as written:

I do not think it matters much the criticisms of one upon another as does the proofs required to justify criticisms of one upon another.

Personally, I like scientific proof using universally approved analytical procedures, empirical evidence, and repeated testing to justifiably confirm conclusions. This is just a simple "best practice."

A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE SAYS:

"The author believes that the concept of a transcendent entity as the source of morality and ultimate justice, is an essential foundation of rational human life and functioning."

HOW SHOULD I TAKE THE QUOTED TEXT LIKE ABOVE.

1) The first problem with the text is "The author believes."

2) The second problem is that a "transcendent entity" sounds like another attempt to sneak in under radar like "intelligent design?" What is this inspiring entity?

3) What happens if I take the quoted text "source of morality and ultimate justice" and evaluate against the 50 proofs against god listed in website www.godisimaginary.com? Will the inspiring ("transcendent") entity kill non-believers, kill disobedient sons, kill those who work on Sunday, oppress women, and keep slaves, etc?

4) Lastly, if the premise that a god is the "essential foundation of rational human life and functioning," then how is it that the all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all perfect Christian God screwing up so much stuff all over planet Earth and hurting so many people? Is the Christian God incompetent?

We have gods all over the Earth. However, the Earth is not exhibiting "rational human life," nor is the Earth properly "functioning." I think I will stick with being a non-believer.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

34. Comment #102904 by cowalker on December 23, 2007 at 9:07 pm

It is interesting that critics of atheist arguments against God seem to assume that an atheist has to be familiar with all the arguments for God, and to be able to refute them, before they have the "right" to be atheists. Yet they find it sweet and wholly appropriate to teach the littlest tykes to pray and participate in religious rituals. They love to see simple old women telling their beads, or natives of non-Western countries singing about Jesus when said natives haven't the vaguest idea of what Aquinas wrote in his Arguments for the Existence of God.

According to them, you have to be one impressive intellectual to be a good faith atheist, but it requires no brains at all to be a believer. And then believers complain that atheists have an arrogant belief in their own superior intelligence.

Sheesh.

Other Comments by cowalker

35. Comment #102912 by Styrer- on December 23, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Dear Professor

I have a little money.

Is there any way I can buy some shares in your company?

You seem a hot ticket.

Serious question.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

36. Comment #102930 by Styrer- on December 24, 2007 at 2:07 am

Learning so much from this site, I make this the first and the last place I visit every day.

Josh and Wayne do wonders - I learn things every day.

When we are greeted with the dispicable, hateful, anti-human propositions and actions of the faithful, we all make our voices heard. I love this site for this.

When I hear the likes of a loon like Romney attempting to gain the most powerful position in the world, when I see Blair as Middle East envoy move from one imaginary friend to another, when I see the totalitarian quasi-religious regime of North Korea untouched and unchallenged, I think about how much power our words have here.

It's not looking good to me, on this basis.

I suppose we know that this is not simply a war of words. Nevertheless, I think we should start at words. In the same way that I have had countless numbers over years knocking on my door attempting to save my soul and giving me industry-standard prints with photos supporting their message, I submit we all up the ante. I want clothing, I want cutlery, I want films and screenplays, I want signs everywhere counteracting the faith-based indications manifest everywhere on the planet.

There must, on this site, be members of every sort of industry. Some may even have a hand in public speaking policy for a particular industry. May I urge you to participate commercially, when you can?

I guess I am asking for a a little more than a free 'ATHEIST' T-shirt. I will gladly pay for it if a freebie is not forthcoming, of course.

But the enemies of reason need a more cohesive, a more organised, a more 'in their face' smack round the head, over time. Why can we not borrow from the lessons learned from the faithful here? Why can we not ignore notions of 'fundamentalism' and fundamentally do what the faithful have always done to muster support? Dawkins is on record as saying atheists have never been very good at getting themselves together, as a political force. Why must we be satisfied with simply spouting here and not actually doing anything but spout?

As much as I think the Hitch is a miserable scrooge in his public protestations that Christmas time intimates existence in North Korea, I love his Dawkinsian attempt to 'raise consciousness'.

Do tell me what you think.

Anyway, rant over. And if anyone knows where I can buy an 'ATHEIST'-labelled pullover (don't wear T-shirts), please PM me.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

37. Comment #102932 by Paula Kirby on December 24, 2007 at 2:12 am

Step 7: Many posters on RD's forum criticise the critiques of RD saying they haven't read TGD, again failing to recognise the irony inherent in a situation brought about by their non-reading of the aforementioned critiques and their brief critiques of them.

Well, I for one have read a number of the Flea books and have written reviews of them (which I believe are going to be appearing on this website at some point, so ADH and others can then critique my critique of the critiques to their hearts' content).

However, I can't say I found much evidence of either the first or the second claim contained in ADH's 6th point:

Some of the critiques (sic) of Dawkins et al are very intelligent people who have read his work.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

38. Comment #102936 by jam007 on December 24, 2007 at 2:26 am

Cosmos, Galxies...
Agruments for their stupid god?!

Other Comments by jam007

39. Comment #102937 by Paula Kirby on December 24, 2007 at 2:27 am

I guess I am asking for a a little more than a free 'ATHEIST' T-shirt.

I'm with you, Styrer. I love this forum and look in and take part as often as I can (though I find I occasionally need a mini-break from it, as reading the same old same old theist nonsense in the featured articles, and the same old same old theist nonsense in some of the posts in response to them gets a bit wearying sometimes). But I agree wholeheartedly that we could be a lot more effective if we could somehow co-ordinate ourselves in some way. It's great to have a place to discuss, argue and vent - but it's going to take more than that to change the balance of power between religion and rationality in the world in any really meaningful way.

If anyone has any ideas as to how it might be done, I'd love to hear them.

PS. I'd like an "Atheist" pullover too. Or sweatshirt. Just not a t-shirt. Do you have any idea how often it's warm enough to wear a short-sleeved t-shirt in the north of Scotland?!?!

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

40. Comment #102940 by bitbutter on December 24, 2007 at 2:35 am

@Radesq

where do I find the good pro-theist arguments?

Floating in orbit between the earth and mars, recorded in a book too small to be detected by our most powerful telescopes.

I've been looking too but so far i couldn't find any. The best i got was a thought-provoking argument, that of presuppositionalism (Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius van Til). I learned a lot while looking into that. But it's not a good argument for the existence of God by any stretch.

Other Comments by bitbutter

41. Comment #102970 by aodh on December 24, 2007 at 4:43 am

Can anyone tell exactly what a flea is?

Other Comments by aodh

42. Comment #102971 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 4:49 am

12. Comment #102741 by fides_et_ratio -

Not even wrong.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

43. Comment #102973 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 5:02 am

bitbutter, you could try this one:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

Other Comments by ADH

44. Comment #102975 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 5:08 am

44. Comment #102973 by ADH -

I suspect that bitbutter was taking the piss out of trolls like you. Pathetically repeating 'I believe goddidit' is not an argument, it's symptomatic of a mental illness.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

45. Comment #102976 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 5:13 am

"Some of the critiques (sic) of Dawkins et al are very intelligent people who have read his work."

Did I say that? I don't remember. Sorry for my mutilation of the English language.

Anyone who insists, with Dawkins, that Christians must produce empirically verifiable evidence are obviously going to find the arguments of these "fleas" unconvincing. But Dawkins, like most of the rest of you, is trapped in a philosophical time-warp. This Logical Positivism paradigm à la Bertrand Russell has been superseded and is now regarded as old hat by most philosophers. That's why Alvin Plantinga (among others - not all of them Christians) regards Dawkins as a rather mediocre sophomore as regards his philosophical reasoning.

Other Comments by ADH

46. Comment #102979 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 5:16 am

Response to comment 44 by irate_atheist

Other Comments by ADH

47. Comment #102981 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 5:23 am

46. Comment #102976 by ADH -

Anyone who insists, with Dawkins, that Christians must produce empiriacally verifiable evidence are obviously going to find the arguments of these "fleas" unconvincing

And anyone who professes to believe anything so patently absurd in the absence of empirical evidence is either a liar or an idiot.

Case closed.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

48. Comment #102983 by Verylee on December 24, 2007 at 5:28 am

.....or deluded.

Other Comments by Verylee

49. Comment #102985 by ADH on December 24, 2007 at 5:33 am

Another flea for you to swipe at without a second thought

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1681002,00.html

Other Comments by ADH

50. Comment #102987 by Corylus on December 24, 2007 at 5:48 am

ADH

You could try this one:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

Groan.

Not another one taken in by that slimy little weasel Lane Craig!

ADH – you seemed sensible at times. :(

I hereby cut and paste a post I made a little while back to a similar statement (what can I say: I'm lazy!)

For a start his association with the Discovery Institute demonstrates a great deal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute

I personally would not want to be associated with any organisation that took money from Howard Ahmanson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson%2C_Jr

Oddly enough Lane Craig has just been mentioned in another thread - I have been reading an article by him linked by a poster called Steven Carrwork see below

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

I have to say I find his defence of genocide frankly nauseating.

I share your dislike of christian fundamentalists, however, there are times when I appreciate their honesty. Moderates can be lovely people, but it can be frustrating trying to get them to state precisely what they mean.

Lane Craig is the worst of both worlds - he is a fundamentalist who pretends to be a moderate. I suggest you do further research on him. This man talks about 'reasonable faith' in one breath and makes unjustifiable and frankly peculiar assertions in another. He has spent money on dentistry and a shiny suit, but I feel I know what manner of man he is.

Generally, I am beginning to realise something about 'reasonable faith'.

Unlike some on here I actually have time for the 'Yes, it's not rational, but I believe anyway. That's why it's faith!" line.

Yes, it's vexing, but at the same time you can at least have a sensible discussion about whether making political or legislative decisions on the basis of it is a good thing.

I find myself wondering whether there are two types of people who talk about 'reasonable faith' those who are peeved at the 'delusion' charge... and those that wish to repackage the whole deal in order to chip away at the separation of powers.

The second group worry me. Please do some research on the man.

Anyway,

This Logical Positivism paradigm à la Bertrand Russell has been superseded and is now regarded as old hat by most philosophers.

Oh come on! Yes, logical positivism is a dead duck. However, understanding that the verification principle is self-refuting does not a proof of God make. (Many on here understand this perfectly well – why do you think that we talk about falsification and parsimony as well??)

Anyway #2. What is a Christian doing arguing on an atheist website on Xmas Eve?? Are we corrupting you?? :D



Other Comments by Corylus