Wednesday, March 12, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Two More Fleas

by RichardDawkins.net

The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement–one that now includes much of the scientific community.

"The attack on traditional religious thought," writes David Berlinski in The Devil's Delusion, "marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion."

A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community's cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be–indeed must be–the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.

Second New Flea:

http://www.amazon.com/GOD-QUESTION-Response-God-Delusion/dp/B0013VHC0G/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1205351261&sr=1-5
[No Image Available]

'The God Question: A Response to The God Delusion' by Rev. John Edgell

Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion attempts to debunk the God Hypothesis, but does he cover all the pertinent points? Are his arguments valid? What are the reasons to believe in the existence of God? This paper gives a brief but cogent response.

Past Fleas:

The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

http://www.amazon.com/Delusion-Disbelief-Atheism-Liberty-Happiness/dp/1414317085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203958557&sr=8-1
delusion disbelief

http://www.lulu.com/content/605271
"The Confutation of Dawkins' The God Delusion" by Malcolm McLean
flea

Richard Dawkins' book is systematically refuted. Dawkins' arguments are analysed, and invariably found wanting. However the confutation is charitable in tone, and sometimes allows that Dawkins may have a constructive point. A must read for anyone who has read "The God Delusion".

http://www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/BookDetails.asp?BookID=35163&Origine=1718
rd delusion

http://www.cokesbury.com/forms/ProductDetail.aspx?pid=654057
God and the new atheism

Read an interview with the latest flea author John Haught at Salon.com here (thanks to Richard Prins)

PZ Myers has done a nice breakdown of the above interview here

Suggit

"Challenging Richard Dawkins: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About God"
Kathleen Jones Flea

God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins

UPDATE: This looks like it is actually the SAME book as you see in Richard's flea-orbit below titled "A Catholic Replies to Professor Dawkins (UK)" (they have the same blurb). This must be a case of them trying to hype it up for the US market.

Sam's Fleas

And some general fleas:

The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith
by Becky Garrison

The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity

"The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason & The War on Religion"
by Tina Beattie

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 589 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #142397 by Capt.Jon on March 12, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

As if religion can provide any meaningful answers to these questions.

Other Comments by Capt.Jon

2. Comment #142399 by Mishakal on March 12, 2008 at 12:49 pm

The first question that our flea asks could be rewritten as: "Has anyone provided a proof of God's existence?"

The answer would be: Not even close.

Other Comments by Mishakal

3. Comment #142404 by dogg724 on March 12, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Do these people ever read the books before they ask the dumb ass questions?

"Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?"

Lets pull out the same card they do...Just look around!!

Other Comments by dogg724

4. Comment #142405 by Olliedog on March 12, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Has anyone provided a proof of God's existence?
Not even close.

Has religion explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Has religion explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are faithheads willing to believe in anything so long as it is "religious thought"?
Absolutely.

Has religion provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not even close.

Has religion in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within religion?
Absolutely.

Does anything in religion justify the claim that religious belief is rational?
Not even ballpark.

Is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

Other Comments by Olliedog

5. Comment #142408 by Steve Zara on March 12, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.

Oh dear. I am afraid we really have. We have all the proof anyone rational should need that a miracle-working, sea-parting, resurrecting God does not exist. Our understanding of the mind does not show any evidence that a "voice in the head" God exists, quite the opposite.

Of course, the homeopathic deist God could still exist, but is effectively diluted beyond detection, so is not there in any meaningful sense.

So, saying this is a bit naughty, in my opinion.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #142413 by Matt7895 on March 12, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Funny how the religious are still bringing up the sodding devil.

Who created the Devil? Who allows him to continue causing leukemia in children, paedophilia, and all the other wretched things in this world? Yes, the same god they claim is a loving and merciful one.

Other Comments by Matt7895

7. Comment #142414 by Quetzalcoatl on March 12, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Has the synopsis proved that Berlinski has some valid points?

Not even close.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

8. Comment #142428 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 1:25 pm

We should all see a pattern by now. For many believers their idea of evidence is the absence of knowledge. So they claim they have "evidence" for God whenever science cannot explain xyz.

"We don't know, therefore God exists." Cartomancer should translate this important theological principle into Latin to make it sound more impressive and less stupid.

With such laughably stupid definition of "evidence" no wonder you keep hearing them saying that their faith is based on evidence.

Other Comments by Bonzai

9. Comment #142435 by Camsaint on March 12, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Long time lurker, first time poster etc. I really like the Q&A format. Thought I'd try to do something similar.

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?

Sorry, I assumed only a fool would ask us to. Unicorns, teapots near Mars, burden of proof, ad bloody infinitum.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?

Nope, not conclusively. And your point is? Has anything else? For a given value of 'explained', of course.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

I think the key phrase is 'seems to be'. And 'explained', again. I must admit I am reminded of Douglas Adams' puddle.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?

Easy enough to test. Any physicists or biologists out there prepared, nay 'willing', to believe that I've just sawn my own arse off and flown to Swindon on a camel called Steve? Is that 'anything' enough for you? It's not religious. I haven't, by the way. But you can believe it if you like.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?

Yes, if you mean what I think you mean. You have expressed it very badly. Ask Epicurus.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?

Yes. Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Well, I know what you think you're getting at. But you haven't done it very well, probably because you've used the word 'secularism'.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?

No. Can anyone be a good boy or girl and point out another bunch that has a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of opinion?

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?

Define your terms. Or don't bother. Either way the answer is 'yes'.

Bet the book's great.

Other Comments by Camsaint

10. Comment #142436 by NewSkeptic on March 12, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Why don't the pro-religious group understood that the burden of proof falls upon them?

Berlinski's 'arguments' demonstrate that he has not heard any of the very simple, very clear, very logical messages in The God Delusion.

It's depressing that they choose to ignore common sense. :-(

Other Comments by NewSkeptic

11. Comment #142437 by Mango on March 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm

We are not this book's target audience -- it is people who have not read any new book by an atheist yet still feel threatened by the success of those books.

This book is meant to be the only book they read on the matter and entrench them in their beliefs.

Other Comments by Mango

12. Comment #142439 by room101 on March 12, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Great. 2 new fleas.

Paula - you're on the clock ;o)

Other Comments by room101

13. Comment #142440 by Verylee on March 12, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Why do they keep trotting out these books? It's so unfair, the way they keep attacking Atheism, Atheists and Science like this. They know we don't have the numbers to fight them, only reason and evidence based around sound practice. There's no hope. (At least that's what they told David before he went out to face Goliath!)

Other Comments by Verylee

14. Comment #142441 by Steve Zara on March 12, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Comment #142435 by Camsaint

Welcome!

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

I think the key phrase is 'seems to be'. And 'explained', again. I must admit I am reminded of Douglas Adams' puddle.

I hate to complain about anything Adams wrote, but I wonder if this analogy has been misunderstood. We look around and see how wonderful the Earth looks to us... because we evolved here! The little blue folk who live on Neptune probably think the same.

But that isn't really the fine-tuning argument, I don't think. That argument is about how the universe got started so that there are any planets or stars at all, indeed, even the formation of atoms seems (to some physicists) to be a matter of a delicate combination of some physical constants.

A puddle could not wonder how well it fitted the ground if there were no atoms to form the ground...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

15. Comment #142442 by jeepyjay on March 12, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Just published, there is also a "benevolent flea" (what would that be zoologically?) namely The Dog Allusion by the cartoonist Martin Rowson.

http://www.foyles.co.uk/display.asp?K=9780099521334&aub=martin rowson&m=10&dc=12

'As with dogs, so with gods - by and large, you should blame the owners.'

Other Comments by jeepyjay

16. Comment #142443 by Apathy personified on March 12, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Will this book be worth the loss of the trees that were used to make the paper to print it on?

Not even Close

When will somebody stand up and say, 'Of course Science doesn't have all the answers now, THAT'S WHY THEY DO RESEARCH, however, it doesn't mean that science won't or can't provide answers in the future'

Other Comments by Apathy personified

17. Comment #142447 by Inferno on March 12, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Maybe not a "proof", but damn if the evidence isn't against him!

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Ummm, yes? There's still alot of work to do, but we're working on it.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
The universe is not fine-tuned for life. If life cannot exist in 99% of the universe, how is this fine-tuned?

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
If there is sufficient and compelling evidence, then yes. When the evidence shows something is true I tend to agree with the evidence. What do you do?

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
But doing a better job than religion!

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
If you count secularism as conduct not motivated by religion - then yes! Raised education standards for ALL, ending enslavement of women (at least in the West), massive improvements in health care (eg elimination of small pox).....

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Sorry about that. We do get a bit picky about the demanding evidence thing.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Don't need a scientific experiment to tell me that an invisible man sitting in the sky controlling everything going on is a nutty idea.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
With of course applies to anyone who should dare stand up and say: "What a minute. This religion is all a bit silly, isn't it?"

Other Comments by Inferno

18. Comment #142450 by Animavore on March 12, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Do I care?

Do I fuck.

Other Comments by Animavore

19. Comment #142458 by Teratornis on March 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm

In reply to comment #142441 by Steve Zara:

But that isn't really the fine-tuning argument, I don't think. That argument is about how the universe got started so that there are any planets or stars at all, indeed, even the formation of atoms seems (to some physicists) to be a matter of a delicate combination of some physical constants.

I'm still waiting for someone to suggest there is even a hypothetical possibility that these "finely-tuned" constants could have any different values.

All we know about these constants is that they appear to be constants.

If they are tunable, then they are not "constants," but "variables."

The notion that these constants are really variables which are tunable seems to presuppose the existence of a god to do the tuning. I think the whole line of argument is meaningless until someone comes up with a credible mechanism whereby the electron could have a different mass and so on.

Do we have any empirical reason at all to suspect that these constants can be "tuned"? If not, then I wouldn't want to be the God whose existence hinges on such a shaky argument.

There might be a virtual God of mathematics who exists in the made-up world of equations where we can treat constants as variables. Using that to argue for the existence of a real God makes about as much sense as finding a real God in a game of Grand Theft Auto.

In any case, the huge problem for this kind of God of the Gaps argument is that it simply ignores the steady loss of gaps throughout history.

Before about 1850, probably close to 100% of Christians were special creationists, and most were probably young-earth creationists. For thousands of years, the notion that God created Man separately from animals was fundamental to Judaism and then Christianity.

Then along came Darwin, who gutted that pillar of
Judeo-Christian theology.

For the first 1800 years of Christianity, Christians could rightly ridicule anyone who doubted the special creation of Man, from which naturally followed all of Christian theology.

For 1800 years of Christianity, Christian apologists had an argument that defied a good answer. Now we have the remaining young-earth creationists to illustrate just how intellectually bankrupt the historic argument of Christianity was all along.

So pardon me for waiting until all the facts are in before leaping to conclusions about the supposedly "fine-tuned" universe.

Other Comments by Teratornis

20. Comment #142459 by Diacanu on March 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Teapot, motherfucker.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Doesn't mean God automatically plugs the hole.
Fuckin' idiot.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Has religion?
And "Goddidit", doesn't cut the mustard.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Oh, fuck you!
Anything?
Yeah, because they're atheists, they'll believe in unicorns instead.
Oh, but that "close enough", cancels it out.
Nice verbal slight of hand.
It's all these people have.
They really think a verbal shell game is logic.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has religion?
Fuck no.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Stalin shit. Sam Harris was right, they're never gonna stop this, are they?

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Y'mean, logic and evidence?
Yeah, "boo", to those fuckin' scientists for not allowing superstition.
Narrowminded tyrants!

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

...okay, that's just fuckin' retarded, and a lie.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

Um, well, some things deserve contempt.
Y'know, like grown adults believing in Santa.

This brilliant, incisive, and funny book...

Always the same vomitous superlatives.
What an ugly business marketing is.
Second only to politics.
Which is tied neck and neck with religion.

Other Comments by Diacanu

21. Comment #142462 by Vaal on March 12, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence

What!!!?? Bl*dy idiot. That is the start to his book? Zeus help us. Those straw men are charging off the cliffs like a herd of lemmings.

Have any of these books got anything new to add, or is it just complete bollocks. Excuse the French. Anyone getting bored with this incessant dross?

Other Comments by Vaal

22. Comment #142466 by alexlg on March 12, 2008 at 2:25 pm

An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?

Er...proving a negative doesn't seem very scientific.

I can't wait for Paula to put the boot in.

Other Comments by alexlg

23. Comment #142467 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Well, this is all I need to know from this guy to know he is an idiot.

Negative proof fallacy.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?

Argument from ignorance/god of the gaps/red harring. Take your pick.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

As Sagan brilliantly argued in "Pale Blue Dot" the anthropic principle is crap, there is no more reason to believe that the universe is more fined turned for one thing that exists in the universe than any other. Unless perhaps if you wanted to add up how much of each exists, in which case the universe seems far more "fined tuned" for gases and rocks. Not people.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?

Huh? Incoherent dribble.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?

Incoherent question/category mistake/red harring. Those are value judgements. Like asking if math has prove what flavour ice cream is the best.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?

Red harring, but it unquestionably has. He must forget that medicine and science has secular. They don't involve religion belief. It is unquestionably so that secular endeavors have produced far more for humanity than religion and superstician ever has. This is however a non-issue. Supposing every secularist was a raging murdering child rapist, bent on world domination through ethnic cleansing, and country music (*shutters*) that holds absolutely no sway over where there is or isn't a sky daddy.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?

Clearly no, but again, this is a red harring.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?

This is perhaps the most absurd statement I've ever heard in my life. Faith precludes reason by definition, and is unchallengable by it. Religious believe is at the very least nonrational, and almost always irrational. As in about 95% of believers belief something that is demonstratably false, and believe it no matter what the evidence is against it. (i.e. creationism/young earth/angels and demons among us/miricles.) when you take away the irrationality from theism, all you have left is a wishy woshy deism at best.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?

Are you a stupid dick? Dead on!

Another foolish book, full of foolishness, and cookie cutter long refutted arguments (pffft, "arguments (*rollseyes*)).

Give it a rest, or come up with something new.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

24. Comment #142472 by Steve Zara on March 12, 2008 at 2:36 pm

I can't wait for Paula to put the boot in.

It would be worth a read, but I do have to wonder how many of these books we need to deal with!

Berlinksi has written some books on mathematics and philosophy, but has been a long-term critic of evolution. It is astonishing that someone who should be familiar with the rigour of mathematical proof should be so apparently ignorant of the scientific method of starting with simple axioms and working up.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #142475 by Diacanu on March 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I think these fuckin' idiots really are going for the bombardment tactic.

They'll churn out all this toilet paper, and then point to TGD, then their STACK of books, and go, "look how much religion has to say! We've murderlized him!".

And the fuckin idiot masses who don't read will nod, and go "duh-huhhrr! Well, that wraps it up for Dawkins then! Let's go back to watchin' Gladiators! Pass the Funyuns, maw!! A-hyuck!".

Other Comments by Diacanu

26. Comment #142478 by Steve Zara on March 12, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Comment #142475 by Diacanu

They'll churn out all this toilet paper, and then point to TGD, then their STACK of books, and go, "look how much religion has to say! We've murderlized him!".

Perhaps we need a general response.

I suggest "Why the f*cking morons are all f*cking crazy" by Diacanu (with colour illustrations)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #142479 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm

I'm sick of people acting like atheists are science worshippers or something. I don't think science will answer all the questions, not even close. I would like to know how we would even know that we know everything? It doesn't seem possible to me.

I just accept the fact that I don't know, and almost certaintly never will. I don'r reject religion because I think I have all the answers from another source, and reject it because it is almost certaintly wrong. I just have to deal with the fact that I don't, and almost certaintly never will know the answer to many, many questions.

I don't think these people can't wrap their heads around just admitting that you don't know, and being content in your ignorance, instead of pretending that we know stuff that we clearly do not know.

Bahh!

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

28. Comment #142482 by notsobad on March 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Insecurity is growing!

Has someone quoted Gandhi yet?

Other Comments by notsobad

29. Comment #142484 by SRWB on March 12, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race.

Berlinski would have been better off to stop there, but on he goes...

But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

Of course, we now want to know what those "questions that religion asks" are. My gut tells me they are of the "why is there air" ilk, such as:
- why is there evil?
- where did morality come from if not as an edict from Daddy?
- why are we here, if not for some greater purpose?
- why is the earth so perfect for life if it was not specifically designed for us?

I'm sure this book will provide answers to all those thought-provoking queries. Not.

Other Comments by SRWB

30. Comment #142488 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 2:48 pm

It is astonishing that someone who should be familiar with the rigour of mathematical proof should be so apparently ignorant of the scientific method of starting with simple axioms and working up.

I think the best explanation I heard from this was from the mathematician that gave a lecture at beyond belief 2007 (don't remember his name). He thought that the reason people in the formal sciences, were more likely to be believers than those in the natural sciences, is because in formal science you don't actually discover things about the world, or work to justify your premises, that is the job of natural science. It generates the data, and formal science uses it to construct abstraction. So they are far more likely to be fooled by valid arguments that are unsound, than people in the natural sciences.

I am not in either, so I wouldn't know. Though it sounded like the best explanation I've heard.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

31. Comment #142492 by Diacanu on March 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Mitchell Gilks-

I'm sick of people acting like atheists are science worshippers or something.

I really don't think the religious mind can fathom not worshiping something.

You tell 'em you believe in evolution, they think evolution is our God.

You tell 'em evolution isn't a God substitute, it's merely a series of natural processes, they say science is our God.

You tell 'em "no!! No fucking Gods!! That's the point!", they're like "duhr...so...you pray to a big nothing?...Hey, this guy's crazy! He prays to a big nothing!! *Writes a flea book*".

I dunno what it is.
I guess they've assumed God so thoroughly, like the existence of their arms and legs, that you taking God away is like cutting off an arm, and refusing a prosthesis.
They just can't wrap their little minds around it.

Well...come to think of it, they CAN, but then their faith would be shaken, so they don't WANT to.
So, it's really PLAYING stupid as a way of going "*ears plugged* lalalalalaa!!!".

Other Comments by Diacanu

32. Comment #142495 by Mitchell Gilks on March 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Well Diacanu, I honestly can't wrap my mind around being a theist. I don't understand what they're talking about even when they say God. That fact that they only ever hum and haw when you ask them, tells me that they don't know either.

So what do their direct their prayers at? What are they thinking of when they think it created the universe?

I need a referent before I can even think of something existing.

I am a life-long atheist, despite being raised in a fundementalist christian family, I've never been able to wrap my head around it.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

33. Comment #142497 by Steve Zara on March 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Well Diacanu, I honestly can't wrap my mind around being a theist. I don't understand what they're talking about even when they say God. That fact that they only ever hum and haw when you ask them, tells me that they don't know either.

It might help to read some of the essays and books by Dan Barker - http://ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php

Preacher turned atheist - he explains just what it was like to believe, and to know that God was talking to you.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

34. Comment #142499 by Diacanu on March 12, 2008 at 3:06 pm

That fact that they only ever hum and haw when you ask them, tells me that they don't know either.

Well, that's where the "lalalalaa!!", effect comes in.

To really, really, know, they'd have to be thinking about it hard.
But thinking about it hard might jostle something loose.
And then they might go to Hell.
Or, by not believing in it, the afterlife might poof away.
As if believing put it there to begin with.

That's what it was like for me as a little kid.
Even when I deeply felt the Bible might be bullshit, I still hung on into my teens the whole Heaven/Hell spiel.

It's a deliberate walling off of certain thought paths.
Like repressing an unpleasant memory.

Luckily, I always had a "but why...", kind of mind, and that facade finally crumbled.

But really, if you chase it around, it all traces back to that "lalalalaa!! Mommy and daddy scared me, shutup, shutup, lalalalaa!!".

Other Comments by Diacanu

35. Comment #142506 by scottishgeologist on March 12, 2008 at 3:16 pm

How many of these books have been churned out now?

This merely shows that RD rattled their cages big time with TGD

They must feel really, really threatened and insecure

Almost , almost feel sorry for them....]

Mind you, must say, I quite like the Devil Horns on the cover of that first one. Got a distinctly "heavy metal" look to it.

Sort of like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corna#Rock_and_Heavy_Metal

Yeah!

\m/ \m/

;-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

36. Comment #142508 by ft77 on March 12, 2008 at 3:18 pm

'Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.'

Mr. Berlinski, let me introduce you to my invisible dragon...

Other Comments by ft77

37. Comment #142510 by Jack Rawlinson on March 12, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Didn't take this one long to get to the direct shameless lie, did it?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

38. Comment #142511 by Richard Morgan on March 12, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Steve Zara

I suggest "Why the f*cking morons are all f*cking crazy" by Diacanu (with colour illustrations)

You really shouldn't have said that, Steve!!!
Because of you,I've just started f*cking working on the f*cking musical version.
F*ck.
The Title will be:
Requiem for Reason in Quote Minor."

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

39. Comment #142514 by Diacanu on March 12, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Steve/Richard-

Heh, well, there'd be no shortage of material for a book like that.

I was just thinking to myself last night, that the majority of the people on this planet are in the grips of the religion delusion, or some kind of similar superstition.

Then, you have all the political ideologies and opinions that are unworkable wackaloonism.

And then, you have all the plain awful bad ideas that are unclassifiable that pour out of the average person's head day in day out that lead them to idiotic Dr. Phil/Jerry Springer guest behavior.

Lump it all together, and 98% of this planet is absolutely fucking bonkers!

Bonkers!

The planet is a fuckin' loony bin!

And yet, in the midst of this chaos, you have these self appointed leaders of government, business, and religion, who dress up in their stupid little costumes (and they are costumes, every last one, I've even always thought the business suit looked retarded), and put on their masks of sanity, and tell you they have all the answers, and people feel relieved that all these authorities have it all figured out, meanwhile, the Washington crooks are stealing everyone's money, the business crooks are bribing the Washington crooks, and the religious crooks are getting skim from everybody, and on top of all THAT, the Washington crooks are starting WARS for...MONEY!!

And you're told, that if you reject all this,...you're a nihilist and quite possibly a sociopath...

.....shit, there's my opening fucking chapter.

Other Comments by Diacanu

40. Comment #142519 by Steve Zara on March 12, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Lump it all together, and 98% of this planet is absolutely fucking bonkers!

I am sure it is far closer to 100% than that. Aren't we all bonkers in some ways? I certainly am.

.....shit, there's my opening fucking chapter.

Go for it!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #142523 by Apathy personified on March 12, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Ha
'The Diacanu Delusion'
Well, that's the title of the first flea.

My favourite defense of religion is when someone I know told me I was an athiest because i hadn't seen enough of the world, so i've never had the opportunity to be moved by the works of god/allah/zeus/yahweh.
Have fun with that one, I did.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

42. Comment #142525 by HourglassMemory on March 12, 2008 at 3:57 pm

When I looked at the cover of the first of the new two fleas, I thought to myself: "Don't tell me that someone has actually come out and claim that reason and science have been the Devil's plan all along to get people into Hell!"

Actually I woudln't be surprised if a large group of people started claiming that, in their to keep their beliefs, and wonder about celestial conspiracies.
Oh well...More free publicity for Dawkins' book I guess. What worries me is that half the people might actualy be convinced by one of these books and go back to the "Agnostic 50/50 position", not to mention go religious again.
I don't want to think about it...

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

43. Comment #142526 by dloubet on March 12, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Even if we granted this idiot's implication that secularism is a force for evil, and got down to arguing numbers, Norman Borlaug kicks Stalin's ass around the block.

Other Comments by dloubet

44. Comment #142527 by Richard Morgan on March 12, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Or perhaps a bilingual French/English thing:
"Baiser late:
Fuck tard

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

45. Comment #142529 by KiwiInOz on March 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Comment #142408 by Steve Zara on March 12, 2008 at 12:55 pm

"Homeopathic deist god" - I love it.

Other Comments by KiwiInOz

46. Comment #142530 by room101 on March 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm

"With high style and light-hearted disdain, David Berlinski deflates the intellectual pretensions of the scientific atheist crowd. Maybe they can recite the Periodic Table by heart, but the secular Berlinski shows that this doesn't get them very far in reasoning about much weightier matters."

-Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, bestselling author of Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution

/begin sarcasm here:

Come on, people, back off. This Berlinski dude has his book endorsed by one of the great scientific minds of our time...

/end sarcasm here:

Other Comments by room101

47. Comment #142531 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Room101: Great. 2 new fleas. Paula - you're on the clock ;o)

Aaaaaarrrrgghghghghghghgghhghhhhgh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I've suffered enough, truly!

Seriously, that's over 20 fleas now. It seems that pesky God Delusion takes an awful lot of refuting. 20 flea books and STILL the Christians feel the need to keep kicking it: so despite all the fleas to date, they clearly don't think Richard's arguments have been defeated!

Now, here's a thought. Since God has already revealed himself definitively and inerrantly in the Bible, why don't they just refer us to that instead of writing more books that, by their own reasoning, can't possibly be as good as the one God wrote? Perhaps they think God needs a helping hand? An interpreter? A good editor? They don't seem to have a very high opinion of God or his book when it really comes to it, do they?

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

48. Comment #142535 by Richard Morgan on March 12, 2008 at 4:06 pm

...can't possibly be as good as the one God wrote?

You're right Paula.
Have a good rest.
Save your energy.
Take you vitamins regularly.
We're all waiting for your review of God's book.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

49. Comment #142537 by Steve Zara on March 12, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Paula:

They don't seem to have a very high opinion of God or his book when it really comes to it, do they?

Excellent!

You know, I hadn't thought about it like that :)

The more "flea" books, with different (and often) inconsistent arguments, the more evidence that God is a highly individual delusion.

The God of Robertson's delusion is not the God of Day's delusion, or (I suspect) McGrath's delusion...

We should insist they flipping well get their story straight and stop wasting paper.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #142539 by LorienRyan on March 12, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Looks like 'The God Delusion' has hit the mark beautifully!

Now with this new flea, 'The Devil's Delusion', we have the theist's whole repertoire of rebuttals...

Goddidit.
Devildidit.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

Reload Comments | Back to Top