1. Comment #160135 by ukvillafan on April 13, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Not only is his argument "rational" but it seems to be perfect too!

Perhaps I will pack up and go home right now and just give in to that fundamental urge to believe the rational content of the bible.

Maybe not ....

Other Comments by ukvillafan

2. Comment #160137 by Gymnopedie on April 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm

OK, so finally this guy proves Dawkins wrong and almost certainly proves there is a god. Took enough books.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

3. Comment #160138 by Steve Zara on April 13, 2008 at 5:32 pm

a perfectly rational case can be made that there, almost certainly, is a God.

If there was such an argument, it surely would have taken the world by storm. Religious leaders would proclaim it at every opportunity. I am just a bit sceptical.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

4. Comment #160139 by Thurston on April 13, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Here is a video of the author Keith Ward getting nicely picked apart by Gore Vidal from a few years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRSL03fCwLM

I shouldn't think his arguments are anything to worry about.

Other Comments by Thurston

5. Comment #160141 by SPS on April 13, 2008 at 5:47 pm

If there is a god, can he also tell us when we can be expecting his apology? Or, alternatively, how everything is actually our fault?

Other Comments by SPS

6. Comment #160145 by riki on April 13, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Can I suggest a title for Richards next book "Christianity Insanity"

Other Comments by riki

7. Comment #160146 by Patrick McArdle on April 13, 2008 at 6:02 pm

"But when Dawkins enters this world, his passion tends to get the better of him, and he descends into stereotyping, pastiche, and mockery."

Given the mass-murdering tendencies of the Judeo-Christian god, wouldn't one "ascend" into mockery? (One of my favorite partsof TGD is his description of Catholics' patron saints -- they have a demigod for everything!)

"...perfectly rational case can be made that there, almost certainly, is a God. "

But we indoctrinate children 'cause it's cheaper? Quicker? Let's put this idea to the test. Forbid indoctrination of children in religious belief, and instead argue rationally to adults. I'm sure our author will abide by the eventual result, right?

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

8. Comment #160147 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Geez, these guys really must hate trees.

Other Comments by Diacanu

9. Comment #160150 by Stephen Maxwell on April 13, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Thurston,

Any idea why British theologians like Alister McGrath and this Keith Ward chap have really annoying voices? Is it just me?

Gore Vidal dealt with the topic rather well in that clip, although I disagreed with him complementing the deluded bereavement counsellor in the audience. I can see his point as to why he did it. As an atheist, even I would prefer to think that, for example, my mother had not simply disappeared, though I would feel a compulsion to argue against a third-person in the equation's reasoning for believing in such an idea.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

10. Comment #160151 by Grantaire of JC on April 13, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Let the books come. Let the "perfectly rational case" be made. Pick a public forum for all to see, and let's watch what I'm sure will be the most interesting debate. And as for all those books trying to refute Dawkins, keep them coming. The more they attack the man the more credibility he has to the average person in the local bookstore. When the book tables in spiritual sections are flooded with attacks on Dawkins, hundreds will want to know why. The best they could have done, was to leave us alone. Instead they give us a soapbox to shout from!

Other Comments by Grantaire of JC

11. Comment #160155 by Teratornis on April 13, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Ward welcomes all comers into philosophy's world of clear definitions, sharp arguments, and diverse conclusions. But when Dawkins enters this world, his passion tends to get the better of him, and he descends into stereotyping, pastiche, and mockery.

Conspicuously absent from that rogue's gallery of pejorative labels is "error."

Surely if Ward is a philosopher he won't descend into the style over substance fallacy:

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

Wouldn't it be impressive if Prof. Dawkins could summon God into being merely by seeming rude to someone who believes (some) God already exists?

The self-absorption of people who make the style over substance fallacy is as breathtaking as anything routinely offered up as breathtaking in science and the arts. Self-absorption always goes hand-in-hand with a lack of self-awareness.

In this stimulating and thought-provoking philosophical challenge, Ward demonstrates not only how Dawkins' arguments are flawed, but that a perfectly rational case can be made that there, almost certainly, is a God.

This might be the first post-Dawkins apologetic worth reading, since one would hope that a philosopher who had read his Aristotle would at least know to avoid the most glaringly obvious fallacies, and might write as if having some awareness of what the atheistic arguments are.

But the tiny snippet above does not sound promising. Consider the pejorative labels describing Dawkins' work:

1. Stereotyping: yes, and so? The God Delusion is too brief to treat every variety of religious belief in detail. For humans to talk about anything remotely complex, they must begin by stereotyping it. The fact that someone stereotyped is not inherently meaningful; it only begins to matter if it led to some erroneous conclusion. Indeed, calling an argument an instance of "stereotyping" is to stereotype it, as it evokes the stereotype of stereotyping which most people have, namely, that stereotyping is a bad thing only done by people we dislike, and against us or against people we sympathize with.

2. Pastiche: this has two competing meanings: a hodge-podge or an imitation. If we were to present a hodge-podge of arguments against the claim that the Earth is flat, or an imitation of previous arguments against that claim, would the Earth become flat, as a consequence of our grab-bag approach or unoriginality? Calling Richard's work a "pastiche" might be a valid style criticism, for example when invoking the "these are old charges" excuse, but style critique has nothing to do with whether a particular concept of God exists. Everyone knows - or should know - that the theological debate has gone on for centuries, which means truly original ideas are rare, but most people haven't heard much about it yet, so a great need exists for accessible introductions. In any case, what religion presented in what church is not also a pastiche? To see a real hodge-podge, read the Bible from cover to cover. For some reason, it reads like a book written by over 40 people. If Ward values originality, well, a religion with lots of originality is a cult.

3. Mockery: style over substance all the way on this one. Complaining about mockery - indeed, even noticing it - is not just not an argument, it means conceding one has no argument.

Other Comments by Teratornis

12. Comment #160157 by Thurston on April 13, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Stephen Maxwell,

Perhaps the irritating voices of the theologians is a strategy to help them get heard in an age when most people rightly ignore them. I'll take the dulcet tones of Hitchens and Vidal anyday.

Other Comments by Thurston

13. Comment #160165 by Stephen Maxwell on April 13, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Haha, Thurston.

Since you mentioned Hitchens, I can't help but remember the painstaking whistling 's' of Peter Hitchens in the Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate.

Let's add Dinesh D'Souza, John Lennox to the list. Also, although not a theologian, why not add Madeleine Bunting to the list too. :P

I can't help but appreciate the soothing voices of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris. :D

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

14. Comment #160166 by Pieter on April 13, 2008 at 6:52 pm

This parade of anti-Dawkins books seems reminiscent of the pamphlet "100 Authors Against Einstein" to which he famously retorted; as should we; "If [we] were wrong, one would be enough."

Other Comments by Pieter

15. Comment #160168 by KiwiInOz on April 13, 2008 at 6:53 pm

#160145 Riki

How about Christ-inanity?

Other Comments by KiwiInOz

16. Comment #160170 by Elles on April 13, 2008 at 6:57 pm

I count 28 total on this page but I've seen at least two more at Barnes & Noble that aren't on here.

1. The Reason for God (the best argument it has is that you can't trust your reason. Great title for a book like that, eh.)

2. I Don't Believe in Atheists (mostly ad hom about how Atheists are fundamentalist and yadda, yadda, yadda.)

Other Comments by Elles

17. Comment #160171 by Quine on April 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm

According to this posting the following is coming up:

DEALING WITH DAWKINS That may, or may not, be what we eventually call an evening
lecture on Wednesday December 3rd to be given by Keith Ward, but Richard Dawkins has
questioned both the truth and the morality of Christian faith and Keith Ward has written responses to him. Keith Ward was Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. He is Joint President of the World Congress of Faiths, Professor of Divinity at Gresham College in London, and a fellow of the British Academy. He is also an excellent communicator and well worth listening to. This evening is aimed particularly at Christians who want to think about some of the critiques of Christian faith made by Dawkins and others and how to respond to them. The lecture will be chaired by the Bishop of Bedford, Rt Revd Richard Inwood, and be held at Priory Methodist
Church, Newnham Ave, Bedford.

Anyone in the area willing to read the book and be ready to go after them in December?

Other Comments by Quine

18. Comment #160172 by Teratornis on April 13, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Comment #160139 by Thurston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRSL03fCwLM

I shouldn't think his arguments are anything to worry about.

If that clip fairly represents Ward's thinking, then I'd pity the God whose existence depended on Ward to prove it. Since theology seems to have nothing remotely like Moore's law going for it, it's probably safe to suppose little progress has occurred in the meantime.

Comment #160150 by Stephen Maxwell:

Any idea why British theologians like Alister McGrath and this Keith Ward chap have really annoying voices? Is it just me?

Annoying as he is, Ward is almost mellifluous by comparison to McGrath, who in turn is nearly soothing next to Dinesh D'Souza. When I played back the YouTube clips of D'Souza's ill-advised attempt to debate with Daniel Dennett, I found myself trying to drag the volume slider as close to zero without hitting it as I could. The mouse resolution made the minimum nonzero volume setting I could manage still uncomfortably loud, such was the volume and grating penetration of D'Souza's voice. At the same setting, I could not make out one word by Dennett, so I had to ride the gain each time the mic changed hands. That was one presentation I will be eternally grateful I did not attend live.

We should collect the prominent theologians into a men's chorus, and see if blindfolded listeners can tell them apart from a packing crate filled with angry cats trying to negotiate their differences. Or we could sell the tapes to the Homeland Security Department, which could use them to break prisoners, I mean detainees, under interrogation at Gitmo. So, what will it be today, Hamid? An hour of waterboarding, or ten minutes of D'Souza at full volume?

Other Comments by Teratornis

19. Comment #160174 by Teratornis on April 13, 2008 at 7:09 pm

These attempts by theologians to provide satisfactory arguments for the existence of God call to mind a classic tune:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_can't_get_no_satisfaction

Other Comments by Teratornis

20. Comment #160176 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 7:14 pm

I've pointed it out for the last 3 of these, but there's also "Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith".

http://www.amazon.com/Chance-Purpose-Creation-Evolution-Rational/dp/1586172123

Other Comments by Diacanu

21. Comment #160178 by monkeyluis on April 13, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Don't these people need nothing more than their precious bible to refute our rational warriors. How sad....

Other Comments by monkeyluis

22. Comment #160182 by MaxD on April 13, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Thruston,
Gore Vidal is quite a fascinating character. I had not thought much of him one way or the other before, but your clip did make me sit up and take notice.

The similarities between he and Hitch are somewhat unmistakable.

Other Comments by MaxD

23. Comment #160208 by dragonfirematrix on April 13, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Maybe I am not simple minded enough to believe in god(s).

According to my imagination, a god has to be all-powerful, all knowing, all capable, all loving, a lover of freedom and democracy, to name a few things. I imagine many Christians would say that I just named their god. However, I would not jump hastily to any conclusions just yet.

Based on my observations of god(s) revealed attributes, I think this worldly known imaginary person (including the Christian version) to be weak, stupid without the ability to learn, incompetent and incapable of competency, hateful and often times barbaric, revengeful, and a close-minded authoritarian.

I find none these attributes acceptable for the kind of person I wish to seek and follow. If a businessperson delivered on the job as these imaginary gods deliver on our planet Earth, that person would very quickly end-up on unemployment.

I want to follow something better. I will stick with science.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

24. Comment #160229 by Spinoza on April 13, 2008 at 8:37 pm

This fellow is not a philosopher.

He needs to disabuse himself of that title.

I die a little every time I hear someone use the words "philosophy" or "metaphysics" or even "epistemology" in such bastardized ways.

Other Comments by Spinoza

25. Comment #160235 by Mitchell Gilks on April 13, 2008 at 8:42 pm

A rational case that something exists without empiricle evidence for its existence? The man is a professional philosophy and be boasts such a thing? I'd like to see him prove a rabbit exists without appealing to empiricle evidence.

From what I've seen of that video that was linked, he is going to ask you to presuppose his base assumptions. Assert some unjustifiable claims, and then ad hoc, ad hoc, ad hoc, until everything fits nicely into his pretty little hypothetical world where he is king.

Perhaps note a fair analyses from how little he got to speak...though it is troubling that how little he got to speak revealed all of the above about how his mind works. Perhaps he has gotten infinitely more rational and logical since then however. It could happen!

I think some people here don't grasp the concept of Fleas. They aren't Flea books for writing a book supporting, in favor, or even arguing against criticisms unless they are riding the coat-tales of one of the four horsemen by using them as marketing tools. By way of using titles similar to theirs, or mentioning their names in the titles.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

26. Comment #160246 by Mitchell Gilks on April 13, 2008 at 8:53 pm

According to my imagination, a god has to be all-powerful, all knowing, all capable, all loving, a lover of freedom and democracy, to name a few things. I imagine many Christians would say that I just named their god.

Why? None of the hundreds of gods I am aware of fit that description, they are still gods. Are you say they need to fit that description before you will believe in them? If so, then you grounds for atheism are no more rationally defencible than a theists grounds. Our imaginations and preferences don't dictate reality, there is no more reason to believe in a god so decribed than there is to believe in an evil one.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

27. Comment #160247 by hopeful on April 13, 2008 at 8:56 pm

As a student of philosophy it concerns me to see these statements by Ward. As far as I can tell the "clear definitions, sharp arguments and diverse conclusions" of philosophy are not at all supportive of religion and god-belief - in fact quite the opposite.

Other Comments by hopeful

28. Comment #160285 by MelM on April 13, 2008 at 10:12 pm

#160170 by Elles

THE REASON FOR GOD, by Timothy Keller has been on the NYT bestseller list for 7 weeks and is now at 13th, down from 7th last week. This was the guy who filled Wheeler auditorium at U.C. Berkeley just 4 days before Richard came (Richard filled it too).

From the book description at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/0525950494/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208144371&sr=1-1

For years, Tim Keller has compiled a list of the most frequently voiced "doubts" skeptics bring to his Manhattan church. And in The Reason for God, he single-handedly dismantles each of them. Written with atheists, agnostics, and skeptics in mind, Keller also provides an intelligent platform on which true believers can stand their ground when bombarded by the backlash

I'm seriously considering reading this book. He seems to be a big deal in the U.S. I can't find the link, but I read something about some philosophical viewpoints he considers in this book; I'd like to take a look at it to see if any "presuppositional apologetics" is involved. We see this put forward by theists quite often but I've not seen an atheist debater take up the challenge.

As for "not trusting your mind", this basic argument comes up very often. Religionists seem to know that if they can convince people of the basic impotence of the human mind, they--the religionists--can get away with their fantasies. "Atheism is a religion"--although not as direct--is just another variation. If everything is faith, believers can't be challenged. It's really kind of pathetic; a theist gets on TV and informs us that an atheist's ideas are just as worthless as his.

Other Comments by MelM

29. Comment #160306 by ADParker on April 13, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Here's a few more I found on Amazon:

Dawkins' GOD: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life

Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God

Why Monkeys Are Monkeys and People Are People: The Case Against Dawkins, Hitchens and Hawking

Dawkins' Dilemmas

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

Other Comments by ADParker

30. Comment #160324 by fides_et_ratio on April 14, 2008 at 12:26 am

There's many books in this realm I wouldn't bother with too much, having just glanced at this chap's career though, I find it sad that people who claim reason so firmly as their standard, dismiss him so quickly, seemingly without investigation. To someone of faith, it's this attitude which seems most at odds with the supposedly rational claims of athiests. It's a close minded position and begs the question why won't athiests engage with intelligent faith rather than loons on the fringe. The answer seems to be that it can't, hence this continual concentration on evolution, even though most people of faith I know have no problem with it.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

31. Comment #160327 by The Truth, the light on April 14, 2008 at 12:35 am

I would love to see Paula Kirby write a book called "Dawkin's Fleas Bite Back"

Other Comments by The Truth, the light

32. Comment #160330 by Steve Zara on April 14, 2008 at 12:50 am

Comment #160324 by fides_et_ratio

This book makes an astonishing claim. It says it contains a rational case that God almost certainly exists. That is a world-shattering finding if it is true. It would change all of science and philosophy for ever. It would be far more significant than, say proof that we had been visited by aliens.

If such a case existed, and it had been subject to scrutiny by many wise and rational people, and found to be a solid argument, we would have heard by now.

So, as I said, I am sceptical.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #160344 by Adam Morrison on April 14, 2008 at 1:16 am

Fluff.

These books are only selling due to being antagonist responses against the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, etc.

If they had anything new or reasonable to contribute to the debate it'd be just like Steve says, with the reason and scientific community drastically altered.
For now its just more Sophistry.

(PS: Steve were did you get that shirt? It's fantastic)

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

34. Comment #160347 by nalfeshnee on April 14, 2008 at 1:23 am

"This is his response. Ward welcomes all comers into philosophy's world of clear definitions, sharp arguments, and diverse conclusions. But when Dawkins enters this world, his passion tends to get the better of him..."

Yeah, right. So, Mr. Ward, you have such a low opinion of Dr. Dawkins that you subtitle you book after him?

Lackey.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

35. Comment #160351 by Tyler Durden on April 14, 2008 at 1:33 am

Comment #160324 by fides_et_ratio:

It's a close minded position and begs the question...

Logical fallacy alert! Logical fallacy alert! Logical fallacy alert!

Try again fides.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

36. Comment #160352 by foxfire on April 14, 2008 at 1:36 am

Well-known broadcaster and author Keith Ward is one of Britain's foremost philosopher-theologians.

Never hear of the dude across the "pond"

Ward demonstrates not only how Dawkins' arguments are flawed, but that a perfectly rational case can be made that there, almost certainly, is a God.

Yeah, right. Blah, blah from yet another yahoo that wants to make a buck from the gullible. Try preaching...it pays better.

Other Comments by foxfire

37. Comment #160353 by PJG on April 14, 2008 at 1:37 am

I am waiting for a book that supports the notion that there are ALMOST certainly such things as fairies. I expect it would be just as convincing as this one. I very much doubt there would be anything in it that would make me live my life as if there WERE fairies.

Isn't it just simpler to assume there is no God and have done with it? It makes for a very happy and fulfilled life to be good to other people because it is a nice thing to do and to live life to the full just in case this really is all we get? (A sort of reverse Pascal's Wager).

I think it is EXTREMELY unlikely that there is a god (or fairies) so I make it irrelevant. If I am wrong, and there is a God, and there is a day of judgment... be assured of one thing... God won't be the only one asking questions!!!! :o)

Other Comments by PJG

38. Comment #160376 by Logicel on April 14, 2008 at 2:14 am

Fides et Rationalizing wrote: ...having just glanced at this chap's career though, I find it sad that people who claim reason so firmly as their standard, dismiss him so quickly,...
_____

And I find it sad that a mere glance through his theological credentials is enough for you to equate his work with of anything of import.

Other Comments by Logicel

39. Comment #160378 by Szymanowski on April 14, 2008 at 2:17 am

Isn't this the generic description for every flea's book?

[Insert name of flea here] demonstrates not only how Dawkins' arguments are flawed, but that a perfectly rational case can be made that there, almost certainly, is a God

Someone should buy it, read it, and see whether the publisher can be reported to Advertising Standards :)

Other Comments by Szymanowski

40. Comment #160380 by Logicel on April 14, 2008 at 2:18 am

Fides et Rationalizing wrote: "...begs the question why won't athiests engage with intelligent faith rather than loons on the fringe."
_____

You mean the kind of intelligent faith that takes the following nonsense seriously: A cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father wants you to telepathically acknowledge him as your master so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that was put there when a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat the fruit of a magical tree.

Other Comments by Logicel

41. Comment #160381 by epeeist on April 14, 2008 at 2:26 am

Comment #160353 by PJG

I am waiting for a book that supports the notion that there are ALMOST certainly such things as fairies. I expect it would be just as convincing as this one.

Yes, these books do not make the case for a god (or gods). They make the case for their specific interpretation of a Christian god. How is it that they never consider the rational case for Zeus? Are they not implicitly assuming the non-existence of all other gods. To make their argument secure should they also not be proving the non-existence of all other deities?

In fact, are they not simply begging the question?

Other Comments by epeeist

42. Comment #160385 by Vaal on April 14, 2008 at 2:36 am

Paula. Another one for you to review, or have you had enough?

Let me guess, ad-hominem attacks, enough straw men to make the south of England abound in crop circles, all amounting to the same tedious inane arguments, and zero evidence.

I am still waiting for the knock out blow from the theists books, but it all amounts to the same smokes and mirrors, and as Irate said not so long ago, still no evidence of the emperors clothes, or even the emperor himself?

Do you ever think these authors are just jumping on the bandwagon to make themselves some easy money, as I am sure these books will end up on the religiously infected bookshelves. Maybe I should write one myself as a spoof?

Other Comments by Vaal

43. Comment #160391 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 3:05 am

Fides,

I find it sad that people who claim reason so firmly as their standard, dismiss him so quickly, seemingly without investigation. To someone of faith, it's this attitude which seems most at odds with the supposedly rational claims of athiests.

No need to feel sad, Fides. If you know the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf then you'll understand the Atheist' response. Would you feel sad every time the boy cried wolf, people didn't come running and there wasn't a wolf? If you still insist on feeling sad, precisely who would you be feeling sad for? The lying boy? The people who refuse to be taken in by his lies?

After 2,000 years of coming running every time someone cried wolf, I'm sure that you'll see that it can get a bit tiring. And I'm sure you'll also understand that life is simply too short to read every book that claims to contain irrefutable proof of God's existence. Until now those books have never kept their promises. Why should this one be any different?

There, I hope I've cleared things up for you and you can now banish your sadness and cheer up a bit.

Other Comments by keith

44. Comment #160404 by mmurray on April 14, 2008 at 3:23 am

wikipedia gives us this gem

I am a born-again Christian. I can give a precise day when Christ came to me and began to transform my life with his power and love. He did not make me a saint. But he did make me a forgiven sinner, liberated and renewed, touched by divine power and given the immense gift of an intimate sense of the personal presence of God. I have no difficulty in saying that I wholeheartedly accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.[6]

and more at

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

He has also been highly critical of Materialist philosophers of consciousness such as Daniel Dennett as well as social scientists such as Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx,

I wonder if Karl knew he was a social scientist?

Given this guy also works at Oxford you would think he might have done the Christian thing and nipped over and told RD what this proof is so he could avoid the embarrassment of publishing TGD.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

45. Comment #160407 by babrock on April 14, 2008 at 3:34 am

Steve
My wife and I have a standing joke.
That we come to this site so often just so, if that evidence that dog exists does materialise, that Richard will be t 1st to be aware of it and let everyone know.

So we come here just so as to get t news quickly.

Other Comments by babrock

46. Comment #160408 by mmurray on April 14, 2008 at 3:37 am

He has a response to `The root of all evil' here

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/501/

I like this bit: after he talks about the misuse of science in war and explains it is not the scientists fault (gee thanks) we get to

So it is with religion. Religion can be used by those with a blind will for power (though the religious need scientists to make their bombs). But religion is also the source of immense good hospitals, hospices, relief organisations, universities and schools, great cath-edrals, music, art and literature and philosophy. Would the world be better without such things?

How can you pride yourself on being a philosopher and not ask why religion is the `source' of these things and why they would not still be there without religion. He also forgot to say after hospitals `(though the religious need scientists to create the medical treatments)'.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

47. Comment #160415 by MrPickwick on April 14, 2008 at 3:57 am

And another new flea trying to get some blood... and with an amusing twist:

I quote the moron, a guy named Rzeppa:

"I'm offering the doctor [Richard Dawkins] $64.000 of my very own money if he will join me before a live audience to answer a single question from my little poem. I'll read the history aloud and pose the mystery query. He'll answer and walk away with the loot. Simple as that."

This is the link with the challenge:
http://www.rzeppa-vs-dawkins.com/
And this is the flea:
http://www.someofthepartsbook.com/
48 pages, $14!!


PS: I've found this information in William Dembski weblog [http://www.uncommondescent.com/]; side column. Its' clear that he takes the thing seriously...

Other Comments by MrPickwick

48. Comment #160416 by bluebird on April 14, 2008 at 3:58 am

Deja Moo, we've seen this bull before.

"Chance or Purpose..."

From C-Span BookTV recently:
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9096&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

Other Comments by bluebird

49. Comment #160424 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 4:44 am

"... And as for all those books trying to refute Dawkins, keep them coming. The more they attack the man the more credibility he has to the average person in the local bookstore. When the book tables in spiritual sections are flooded with attacks on Dawkins, hundreds will want to know why. The best they could have done, was to leave us alone. Instead they give us a soapbox to shout from!"---Grantaire

Only one problem with that...every Barnes and Noble I've ever been in has at least 5 times the shelf space devoted to religious writing as they do to science. That's not including a section titled "Religious Fiction" (talk about your oxymorons).

On the upside, it gives me lots of aisles to loiter in as I read books that I have no intention of buying...like the one discussed here.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

50. Comment #160427 by Incredulous on April 14, 2008 at 4:52 am

Comment #160151 by Grantaire of JC

And as for all those books trying to refute Dawkins, keep them coming.

I think this is the point that disturbs me most about these fleas. They're all trying to refute Richard and I really don't see that there is an awful lot to refute.

Surely the point is that these fleas are simply avoiding the fact that there is no rational evidence to support god and prolonging us in pointless debate about evidenceless ideas merely attests to this sad state of affairs.

These people continually accuse us, especially those of us who contribute regularly to this site, of the ridiculous 'crime' of hero-worshipping Richard Dawkins.

To me it seems that it is these flea authors who are absolutely obsessed with Richard and seek to target him and not the fact that he has simply exposed the lack of observed evidence, the poor logic, the infantile mania and the negative consequences behind the idea of god and religion.

Rather than waste time picking on Richard, maybe it would be better that they stopped making exaggerated and untestable claims for their invisible father and started providing the evidence for their belief.

While I'm here, I'd like to add that it might be an idea for them to stop lying about Richard or indeed anyone else's atheism.

This nonsense about religion, god and art being attacked by atheism is such bullshit and no-one in their right minds who has listened to the arguments put forward by Richard, Christopher, Sam and Daniel, would believe that is what atheism is all about.

How repetitive, boring, deaf or simply plain thick headed are these people?

I would definitely prefer they stopped keeping it coming.

Enough already!

Other Comments by Incredulous