151. Comment #69190 by pewkatchoo on September 9, 2007 at 11:51 pm

flying goose, I am not out to win converts. Your arrogance in assuming that I am is astonishing. And I think you will find that many people agree with my approach. I am not randomly rude. It is very carefully targetted.

Russell Blackford is totally correct, there is no plagiarising involved here. Plagiarising is where you pass off someone elses work as your own. These people are very clearly not doing that. However, I would submit that Mr Cornwell's effort does stray into the region of libel! He has clearly misrepresented Prof Dawkins texts and in some cases he has deliberately misquoted them to try and give an impression that is not there. These are not just strawmen, they are plainly deliberate lies designed to tarnish Dawkins reputation. It could be time to fire a shot across their bows by bringing a libel case against one of them. The danger is that you might lose, so a lot of careful study would first be necessary. But it certainly would not be a bad idea to consider. Pour encourage les autres.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

152. Comment #69193 by Veronique on September 10, 2007 at 12:38 am

91. Comment #68774 by heathen2 and Lauregon (90)

I agree. I have never been subject to any religious cant in my life. I now have more books on religion in my bookshelves than I would have thought possible a couple of years ago.

Ahh. Such is the desire to learn. If only my religious and new-age friends had the same desire…

Their inherited faith leaves them as unmoved as did my previous atheistic stance – it is only now in times of potential global dire straits that I NEED to know what it is that the religiously inclined believe in. My friends can't really tell me because their belief was absorbed through the layers of their minds when they were children with no critical capacity at all.

The majority of them can't even address religiosity as a topic of discussion. It has always been with them and they can't intellectually distance themselves from it long enough to approach a critical analysis of what they have been led to believe from the year dot.

When I try to talk about the growing radicalising and politicising of the Abrahamic religions, they look bemused and amused and say: "Surely you don't believe that crap?" Their moderate religious armour is virtually impregnable. They certainly don't read anything that is likely to jolt their complacency in their own righteousness as believers in the god of their bibles.

This week's religi-board post is a quote from Seneca the Younger: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful.

I fear that my posts are just crying in the wind. I must, I must stay positive:-). Jonathan, excellent post:-).

Love to you all
V

Other Comments by Veronique

153. Comment #69195 by owen m on September 10, 2007 at 12:54 am

if the theists are so confident about their beliefs, then why are they so scared of Richard's book?

Other Comments by owen m

154. Comment #69197 by Veronique on September 10, 2007 at 1:13 am

153. Comment #69195 by owen m

They're not. It is the few who have a public page voice who are able to push their views.

The average christian doesn't give a shit. That's why the extremists have a foothold. The average christian doesn't see RD et al as a threat at all.

As RD and others have pointed out, that IS the problem. The religious moderates give a sort of credence to the extremists and won't gainsay them.

The moderate muslim doesn't give a shit either. The Wafa Sultans of the world are few indeed. Unfortunately her diatribes will have a counter-productive effect. The thing is that she is right and is game to say so. There are not many game people in this world. More's the pity.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

155. Comment #69205 by flying goose on September 10, 2007 at 2:18 am

Pewkatchoo, point taken.

Owen M and Veronique,

...then why are the theists so worried about Richard's book?


...They're not...

some are

me for one, imagine you've believed something from childhood, sometimes hanging on by your fingernails, but hanging on none the less.
Now Richard's book comes along, you feel compelled to read it. Dare you, the book might be nail clippers.

'Knight: I call out to Him in the dark but no one seems to be there.'
Death: Perhaps no one is there.
Knight: Then life is an outrageous horror. No one can live in the face of death knowing that all is nothingness.' Ingmer Bergman

It is all very uncomfortable, my heart races as I write.

existing universe,

absent god,

and yet,

and yet.

Other Comments by flying goose

156. Comment #69294 by Serdan on September 10, 2007 at 11:11 am

fides_et_ratio

An argument is much more interesting when you listen to both sides.

Only problem being that there is no argument. The existence of God is a nonissue, and always has been.

Other Comments by Serdan

157. Comment #69295 by dave on September 10, 2007 at 11:17 am

They missed one:

http://www.lulu.com/content/605271

Other Comments by dave

158. Comment #69298 by Northern Bright on September 10, 2007 at 11:48 am

155. Comment #69205 by flying goose on September 10, 2007 at 2:18 am
I like this post, flying goose. I get a real sense that you are thinking, pondering, weighing up - and that is great, even if you and I would reach different conclusions.

Whilst you're in a contemplative frame of mind, may I ask you something?

Knight: Then life is an outrageous horror. No one can live in the face of death knowing that all is nothingness.'

Do you really share the sentiment expressed in that quote?

Can you think of nothing in your life that would make life worth living in and of itself, even if it ended in nothingness? No husband/ wife/ lover/ children/ friends/ interests/ music/ art/ literature/ knowledge/ landscapes/ starscapes/ sunsets/ travels/ laughter/ tears/ pleasure/ pain that would make you feel that it had been a joy and a privilege to be part of the universe for your 70 or 80 years, even if that was it? Would it really be better not to have lived at all, than to live life to the full and then die?

And what is it about eternal life that would have inherent meaning, if this life has none?

I am genuinely interested in your reply and, although I suspect I'll disagree with it profoundly, I'm truly not asking with a view to pouncing on you!

(I have just glanced out of my window and seen the light of the setting sun catching the clouds; there is no wind and the sky is like an oil painting with gaudy daubs of blue and grey and white and yellow. How can a day in which that happens be a day of "outrageous horror", just because it will soon be over? And I haven't even touched on the Saint-Saen violin concerto playing in the background, or the laughter in the office today, or the pleasure of seeing a friend who is at last looking less haggard after the death of his son earlier this year, or my ridiculous dog, who has just dropped a disgustingly drooly toy in my lap and is looking hurt that I haven't greeted it with more enthusiasm. This is the stuff of life and it's a mixed bag - but it is worth having. Isn't it?)

Other Comments by Northern Bright

159. Comment #69302 by VanYoungman on September 10, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Veronique,

Far from "crying in the wind..", your posts sing with intelligence and wisdom. I might add "ditto" to the posts of Northern Bright. You ladies are the fresh cool waters of this oasis in the desert of ignorance. I alsways look forward to your well reasoned words.

Other Comments by VanYoungman

160. Comment #69306 by dave on September 10, 2007 at 12:50 pm

And yet another (this one more of a general flea):

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0736922121/ref=ord_cart_shr/002-5359609-1850410?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

Other Comments by dave

161. Comment #69307 by flying goose on September 10, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Thanks for your response Northern Bright, no I don't feel like this most of the time I have plenty of things to live for spouse, children, it is great to be alive, I shouldn't be so maudlin.
That is how I felt this morning.
That said I do find myself in that marginal space between belief in God and unbelief in God. An interesting yet uncomfortable place to be.

Enough of existential angst, here are two poems about today.

Green drained,
Brittle browns,
Eddy silently
To rest.

Their crackled dance,
Waits

anticipates
Lovers' feet?

Or earth's embrace?

A humble union,
With death

Giving life.






Look,
Listen,
Taste,
Touch,
Scent sensing.

Then think,
Reason,
Question
Receive
Share.

Stop

Sense again,

Wonder.

Enjoy.

Other Comments by flying goose

162. Comment #69319 by diamat1 on September 10, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Shouldn't we be referring to the authors of these books as "The New Christians"?

Other Comments by diamat1

163. Comment #69320 by heathen2 on September 10, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Here is the book description of the latest flea:

The popular and bitter attacks on Christianity continue to escalate in the form of national bestsellers such as The God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, and others. Given the momentum these "new atheists" have gained, it seems as though they are making a powerful case against Christianity. How can those who are believers respond?

In The Truth Behind the New Atheism, author David Marshall examines the wrong concepts of God that are being promoted today. Among the questions he deals with are...

Is the God of the Bible a cruel savage?
Has science refuted the Christian faith?
Has the Bible hurt the human race?
Is the Christian life based on nothing more than blind faith?
As he refutes the critics, Marshall offers powerful arguments in defense of Christianity—arguments that will enable readers to respond to this new confusion with great confidence and biblical accuracy.

Too funny. Especially the part about "Is the God of the Bible a cruel savage?" I can tell you the answer based on the christian bible: a resounding yes. Plus Dawkins already answered that with a lovely description of the OT god in TGD.

Other Comments by heathen2

164. Comment #69335 by flying goose on September 10, 2007 at 11:52 pm

Northern Light
further to my last which was a rather hurried response.

Richard Dawkins says something similar to you about the privalage of existence, in his new preface to TGD and at the very end of the 'Root of Evil'.

I do not disagree either with you or him on this. More of that in a moment.

It may helpful to know, and I can write this because nobody knows who I am. I am suffering from a mild depression. I think the Knight/death dialogue is more an expression that, then of my true position on life and death. Your post has helped me to begin to retrieve this.

So back to it.

I think what I believe about death is summed in Phillip Pullman's 'Dark Materials'. Lyra the main character of the book releases the dead from the world of the dead in to this world. They experience the world for a moment then become dust. This is a great joy to them to be back in the world even as dust with no consciousness.
I take this as metaphor. What I am made of has always been here, and always will be even surviving the heat 'death' of the universe. For all the time that I am alive, this stuff can eat drink love, listen to Bach, think and understand. When I die it stops. If resurrection happens, it is a bonus I do not expect. I cannot begin to understand how that might happen.
This belief is found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
(I don't like the term Old Testament, it arises out Christian antisemitism. It also implies a single coherent body, which it isn't.)
Until about 200BCE the Jews didn't believe in life after death. You got your 70 or 80 years and that was enough. Witness the end of Psalm 39. 'For I am but a stranger with you, a passing guest as all my forebears were, Turn your gaze from me that I may be glad again, before I go my way and am no more." It is of course speaking to God, It might just as easily be speaking to the cosmos.

Got to go now, school run work etc.

Other Comments by flying goose

165. Comment #69348 by Nuclearman on September 11, 2007 at 12:44 am

NMcC,

Last time I checked, these forums weren't for the purpose of self-aggrandizement and blowing one's trumpet.

For a person whose words go to great lengths to paint oneself as some sort of prim and proper member of the intelligentsia, you instead resound like a pompous ass who has a razor sharp burr up it besides.

A few milliliters of common sense would have revealed that JemyM's first language is not English; thereby rendering your tirade about his/her grammar almost laughable were it not such a boorish affront to civilized discourse -- to say nothing of its ad hominem nature.

Really, do you think behaving like a juvenile school yard bully, hurling personal insults at a person who, by your own words, you know nothing of, is the best means to encourage JemyM to read any books about socialism, as when you make the following suggestion and recommendations:

...to 'understand socialism' you only have to read a few works by socialist writers. For a no-nothing like JemyM, a good start would be Frederick Engels' pamphlet 'Socialism, Utopian and Scientific' for the historical and philosophical ideas, or Marx's Value, Price and Profit or Wage Labour and Capital for the economics of the subject.

Does the word, "disingenuous" come to mind?

(By the way, it would be "know-nothing", but then, you already knew that, right?)

Of course, JemyM is, like the vast majority of us on here, an atheist who, like the vast majority on here, is seeking an outlet for sharing ideas and opinions, in addition to making some allies along the way. That he/she, along with the rest of us, be world experts on the innards of socialistic doctrine and theory was not, so far as I know, a requirement for being in these forums. Moreover, sir, from what reading I have made of your responses to JemyM, you sound as much a "foaming at the mouth" socialism idealogue as the Bible thumpers we all so disdain.

I suggest you read your own posts again. Whilst reading the vindictive of your words, it takes no stretch of the imagination to caricature someone foaming at the mouth as they smash on their keyboard.

Perhaps, being the smart guy you tout yourself to be, you could try firing off future cannonades JemyM in his/her native language and, thereby, learn from EXPERIENCE (rather than theory) the challenges of communicating, with 100% accuracy, the concepts and ideas of the mind in a tongue that is not your own. It is clear you have never lived outside the confines of your own nation (and, I suspect, you probably hate the idea of such with every fiber of your being if your rants here paint your personality with any degree of accuracy).

In sum: knock off the prissy school yard bullying: it's insulting to us all, and it does nothing but undermine your own integrity.

Other Comments by Nuclearman

166. Comment #69393 by NMcC on September 11, 2007 at 4:58 am

NUCLEARMAN

As a matter of fact, genius, if you read all the posts between JemyM and myself, you'll see that we ended the thing reasonably amicably.

I'll not bother replying to all your silly nonsense, one thing I will say though, is that it's not very sensible to comment on the motivations of people you don't even know, especially, as in this case, when you are completely wrong.

What's that crap about me probably hating 'my nation'? Oh dear, you didn't read my posts at all, did you?

I'd take you more seriously if you had the common decency to check up on something before shooting your big mouth off.

Now go back and read all the posts and stop being a dickhead.

Other Comments by NMcC

167. Comment #69424 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 8:02 am

diamat1:

Shouldn't we be referring to the authors of these books as "The New Christians"?

Good point, diamat1. Except it's not clear to me that the authors are Christians in the traditional sense. Many seem to disavow God as described in the Bible. They themselves may not believe all the nonsense in the old scriptures, but they feel others ought to go on believing without being bothered by the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc.

Perhaps they're the "New Condescenders" or the "Newer Atheists."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

168. Comment #69425 by matt_shute-07 on September 11, 2007 at 8:04 am

Has Christopher Hitchens picked up any fleas yet?

I can imagine a possible "imaginitive" titles.

"Yes, Mr. Hitchens, God IS Great, you silly Atheist."

Maybe that's a bit long, though...

Other Comments by matt_shute-07

169. Comment #69430 by The Wee Flea on September 11, 2007 at 8:23 am

Sorry that I have not been able to comment for some time. I can't even remember what threads I was involved in but doubtless all the arguments will come up again. Having read through all these posts I almost lost the will to live but, leaving aside socialism and all the other red herrings, perhaps you would allow me to make a couple of points.

1) All those who say that they know what is in these books without ever having read them, just serve to illustrate the arrogance and ignorance of some atheist fundies.

2) Doubtless there are some people who are trying to make money/a living out of responding to the New Atheist Publishing. However to state that everyone is doing so is again both ignorant and arrogant and completely misses the point that there are as many atheist books, as there are theist. Ask how much money RD is making out of gullible atheists – 2 million books at $20 each? I just wonder why this website has not accused Hitchins etc of being a flea? Could it be because he is singing from the same hymn sheet and therefore MUST be ok?

3) 'The responses are ALWAYS from the scientifically illiterate'. Really? So McGarth's PhD in biology from Oxford counts as scientific illiteracy? Again ignorance and arrogance.

4) I must have missed the 'crushing' debates that Erik speaks of. I would be more than happy to debate any of the atheist authors but, apart from Hitchins, most don't debate. And they certainly don't debate fleas.

5) And again it is deliciously ironic that the atheists on this site seem to think that TGD is original, whereas any response (even those you have not read) MUST be repeating arguments that are hundreds of years old. I read TGD and there was not ONE original argument in it (apart from the parallel universe with the green moustache!). In fact I would be disappointed if a sixth form school boy could not use the same arguments. Still it reassures the faithful so it must be worth the money.

6) To coin a phrase – for an atheist maintaining faith is the most important thing there is. Not exploring it, not opening it up to challenge, not questioning it. Just keeping it safe. That's why you don't read or even consider any other point of view. You just know that you are rational and the only ones who are right. The rest of us are fools and fleas.

7) Jaytee – wait no longer. The Dawkins Letters is your answer! And The Dawkins Delusion does a great job on at least three of TGD's arguments.

8) "You have clearly not read The god Delusion. Now be a good chap and fuck-off before I click the Troll button." I love it. This site never disappoints. Anyway makes an intelligent point against TGD and the fundies come out with gems such as the above. Rattles getting thrown out of prams…

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

170. Comment #69431 by Northern Bright on September 11, 2007 at 8:33 am

168. Comment #69425 by matt_shute-07 on September 11, 2007 at 8:04 am

Has Christopher Hitchens picked up any fleas yet?

I can imagine a possible "imaginitive" titles.

"Yes, Mr. Hitchens, God IS Great, you silly Atheist."

Maybe that's a bit long, though...

Years ago I went to a Peter Ustinov one-man show in London, and he told a story (that he swore was true) of a conversation between 2 middle aged women that he'd overheard on the bus.
"'E was at it again last night, 'e was, shoutin' an' swearin' at me. 'E sez to me, "You're a bloody old bitch, you are". But this time I was ready for 'im. Oh yes. I'd got my answer planned and I drew myself right up an' I told him straight: "Ooooh no I'm not!"

Remind you of anything? ;-)

Other Comments by Northern Bright

171. Comment #69432 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 8:44 am

Off topic

David/Wee Flea: I'm not really 'here' anymore (through sheer willpower) but since my dropping in to see what's been going on has coincided with your re-emergence (spookily), I'd just like to say thanks for getting up to date with posts on your own site. I happened to look in there a couple of days ago and saw that the last of my interminable screeds have finally appeared. Cheers and well done.

I'm off before I succumb to the temptation to argue with you again. Have fun provoking the other faithless.

Other Comments by _J_

172. Comment #69433 by Galactor on September 11, 2007 at 8:44 am

I must say that the whole set of threads about fleas is my least favourite on the site. Apart from the beautiful poetry found within this thread and the picture of the good lookin' NorthernBright, reading it fills me with a hint of dismay.

Surely, given the emotive nature of the TGD, it is to be expected that others should be respected when providing what to them may be genuine rebuttals of the subject material, and that it is not fair to immediately cast them into to the limelight of the flea circus when we are patently unable to know what the motivation of the authors are. It's worse, or so it seems to me, given that many of us, most of us perhaps, have not read the books and even when it would be justifiable to trash their content, this still says nothing about the author's intentions and motivations.

Other Comments by Galactor

173. Comment #69438 by Northern Bright on September 11, 2007 at 8:53 am

164. Comment #69335 by flying goose on September 10, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Hi flying goose - I've sent you a PM in reply to this.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

174. Comment #69442 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 9:09 am

Galactor, 172

I agree with you, there. 'The Flea Circus' seems stylistically inconsistent with advertising the paperback TGD alongside the phrase 'Join the debate'. A debate has (at least) two sides; it feels a little contradictory to support the idea of a debate whilst disparaging all contributions to one side of it.

Sure, we're all free to say 'I reckon such-and-such a book is a worthless cash-in', but the site itself might be better off presenting them in a more value-neutral way - 'Responses to TGD' or whatever. We can all then love them or (more probably) slate them as we wish.

Mind, derogatory language aside, I think Josh is doing a sterling job in keeping track of these books and displaying them all here. The site is definitely supporting the debate in its actions (which, I gather, speak louder than words). It'd be the easiest thing in the world to just hide from and ignore the responses to TGD.

(Damnit, I'm not supposed to be posting.)

Other Comments by _J_

175. Comment #69447 by epeeist on September 11, 2007 at 9:29 am

Comment #69430 by The Wee Flea

1) All those who say that they know what is in these books without ever having read them, just serve to illustrate the arrogance and ignorance of some atheist fundies.

Agreed, but there again does it deserve the ad hominem "fundies"?

2) Doubtless there are some people who are trying to make money/a living out of responding to the New Atheist Publishing. However to state that everyone is doing so is again both ignorant and arrogant and completely misses the point that there are as many atheist books, as there are theist. Ask how much money RD is making out of gullible atheists – 2 million books at $20 each? I just wonder why this website has not accused Hitchins etc of being a flea? Could it be because he is singing from the same hymn sheet and therefore MUST be ok?

Also agreed, however all of these books refer to TGD or Sam Harris' books. And again, the usual ad hominem - "gullible" atheists. And equivocation, though the books may sell for $20 a pop this isn't what RD will be getting.

4) I must have missed the 'crushing' debates that Erik speaks of. I would be more than happy to debate any of the atheist authors but, apart from Hitchins, most don't debate. And they certainly don't debate fleas.

Not even the Dawkins/McGrath debate?

6) To coin a phrase – for an atheist maintaining faith is the most important thing there is. Not exploring it, not opening it up to challenge, not questioning it. Just keeping it safe. That's why you don't read or even consider any other point of view. You just know that you are rational and the only ones who are right. The rest of us are fools and fleas.

I was waiting for this one.

To bring up one of the previous threads. I pointed out that all that atheism says is that the class of gods is empty, and that this is testable and falsifiable using the classical modus tollens. You came back and said that this couldn't be all that was involved and that atheism included other "tenets" (your word). You have still to produce what you think those tenets are.

8) "You have clearly not read The god Delusion. Now be a good chap and fuck-off before I click the Troll button." I love it. This site never disappoints. Anyway makes an intelligent point against TGD and the fundies come out with gems such as the above. Rattles getting thrown out of prams…

I presume that you are going to take this and other juicy quotations and use them to show how militant, irrational, and fundamentalists atheists are as you did in a recent article.

Other Comments by epeeist

176. Comment #69448 by irate_atheist on September 11, 2007 at 9:31 am

Wee Flea -

Who's saying who's throwing their toys out of the pram?

Once again you completely miss the point about atheism v. faith. Faith is belief in something without evidence or proof. Atheism is saying - you want me to believe it, prove it. If you can't, it ain't real and it isn't worth considering.

A lot of us have been there and done it. We were just smart enough to see through the ignorance that was being pushed on us. Your arrogance is plain for all to see.

If you think we're deluded because we demand proper verifiable evidence before we believe something, you'd better check your dictionary definition of deluded.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

177. Comment #69453 by pewkatchoo on September 11, 2007 at 9:54 am

Irate_Atheist
I don't even bother with the wee flea any more. Life is just too interesting to waste time debating with total fools.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

178. Comment #69457 by steve99 on September 11, 2007 at 10:12 am

3) 'The responses are ALWAYS from the scientifically illiterate'. Really? So McGarth's PhD in biology from Oxford counts as scientific illiteracy? Again ignorance and arrogance.

Oh come off it David. If you knew anything about science you would know that a PhD is only the start of a potential scientific career. It is the scientific equivalent of passing your driving test! And if things stop there you can indeed be left with someone who of limited experience. (I have a PhD in biology myself, so I know what I am talking about).

The point about scientific illiteracy is sound. It is positively painful to read the amount of nonsense 'armchair science' that is put forward by some of the faithful in defense of their faith. So many seem to think they are qualified in matters of maths, biology and physics, so that they can proclaim what is supposedly impossible so that their God has to step in. Theirs is the ignorance and arrogance.

Other Comments by steve99

179. Comment #69459 by VanYoungman on September 11, 2007 at 10:18 am

Oh flea...
If Epeeist and pewkatchoo come
Can Billy be far behind?

Other Comments by VanYoungman

180. Comment #69460 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 10:23 am

steve99, 178

Well, that's nonsense. I have a double-GCSE in combined Biology, Chemistry and Physics (from 1996) and have read several popular science books (plus occasionally watching Horizon). I don't see how I could be better qualified to talk confidently about siense.

Other Comments by _J_

181. Comment #69466 by BillySands on September 11, 2007 at 11:00 am

Hey Flea,
Just thought you would like to know, I spent last thursday evening in the company of a bunch of homophobic YECs. Where I hear you ask? Well, it Was Dowanvale free church of Scotland in Partick. Tell me, are all wee frees like this? I went to see that that purveyor of gospel truth Ken Ham there. It was disgusting - all those aproving grunts at his homophobic teachings. Is this what they teach in your church? All I can say is I'm glad I wasn't wearing a celtic top - what with them believing the pope to be the antichrist and all that. Ehy weren't you there puting them right/ Oh that's right, you agree with them.
Catch you later dude.
VanYoungman You must have the second sight :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

182. Comment #69468 by Quetzalcoatl on September 11, 2007 at 11:20 am

Wee Flea-

To coin a phrase – for an atheist maintaining faith is the most important thing there is. Not exploring it, not opening it up to challenge, not questioning it. Just keeping it safe. That's why you don't read or even consider any other point of view. You just know that you are rational and the only ones who are right. The rest of us are fools and fleas.

Once again, atheism is not a faith. If it were, if we were so intent on keeping it safe, then why would any of us be on this site, why read the comments of theists, listen to their arguments, debate them, challenge them? Many on this site have read one or more of the "flea" books. If we were not interested in considering other points of view, what would be the point of that? Surely we would just sit at home, feeling smug that we are "the only ones who are right". I have never yet read anyone on this site saying that they had all the answers. I'm currently debating a religious person on another site, you are well aware that _J_ has done the same on YOUR OWN WEBSITE. Your point does not hold up.

And it is a crass generalisation you make when you imply that all atheists consider the religious to be fools. Surely you do not believe that.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

183. Comment #69471 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 11:43 am

BillySands, 181

I went to see that that purveyor of gospel truth Ken Ham there. It was disgusting

Billy, you have my pity. And if you'd let me know before you went along, you could have had my Masai spear. (I'm not advocating violence of course, sensitive reactionary theistic quote-miners. I have nothing but love, sympathy and deep intellectual contempt for Ken Ham.)

My own major attempt to embrace counter-atheistic literature was to have a shot at Ken Ham's magnificent work of nonsense prose, The Lie: Evolution. I lasted fifty pages, after which it was abundantly obvious that he planned to spend the rest of the book constructing additional layers of unreason on top of the uniformly risible arguments from absurdity that he had outlined in the initial chapters. I hate to quit a book halfway through, but carrying on was transparently a waste of my life.

I (tried to) read it after discovering that a gentleman who was touring the churches of my green and pleasant land preaching to the faithful had been life-changingly inspired to do so by Ken's book. This frightens me. I can't understand how Ken himself can think it's a decent book, let alone how any other sentient creature could share his opinion. It's awful. I can't exaggerate how bad it is. It's awful. Put it like this: I've increased the literary value of my copy by orders of magnitude by writing the word 'Bollocks!' in the margin. Yes, it's that bad. Wait, no - it's worse.

When Ken Ham ultimately dies - if he isn't magicked away to heaven, of course - whatever it is that's standing in for his brain ought to be preserved for scientific study. In millennia to come, our simian overlords may look upon it and laugh at the ridiculous suggestion that they are related to us. I know I would.

Other Comments by _J_

184. Comment #69473 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 11:50 am

By the way, Quetz:

And it is a crass generalisation you make when you imply that all atheists consider the religious to be fools. Surely you do not believe that.

The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.'
Psalm 53

I'd say the sandal's on the other foot.

Other Comments by _J_

185. Comment #69474 by Quetzalcoatl on September 11, 2007 at 11:54 am

_J_-

I don't just say it in my heart. Wonder what that makes me?

And so much for you not posting here any more!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

186. Comment #69478 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Quetz -

Temporary backsliding, merely. Besides, I made it for over two weeks.

(I found that when I promise to go away, it never happens. You've got to just do it. (Could sell trainers with a motto like that.))

Other Comments by _J_

187. Comment #69479 by scottishgeologist on September 11, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Billy, yes the lovely Ken Ham and hios choice of Scottish venues. Venues like: Culduthel Christian Centre, Inverness. Gilcomston South Church, Aberdeen. Carrubbers Church Centre, Edinburgh. Dowanvale Free Church, Glasgow

In other words, trendy, middle class, "fish on the SUV" evangie churches.

Going back a year or two, you will find Ken Ham speaking at Charlotte Baptist church in Edinburgh, the ultimate middle class, wealthy social club style church.

All of these churches are the respectable face of evangelicalism. These arent the rabid, Phelps-esque extremists. This is absoulte mainstream evangelicalism.

And they endorse Ken "6000 year old Earth" Ham.

Says it all.

Bye the way, any of the Scottish readers of this site seen the Alister McGrath article in the latest issue of the Church of Scotland's "life and work" magazine? No? By someone called Thomas Baldwin, heres a taster:

"A Champion of Christianity" One of the stronger irritants involved in being a Christian over the last couple of years has been putting up with Richard "how can God exist when the world revolves around me" Dawkins (if you think that sounds harsh, read the God Delusion and count the "I's") and his disciples telling us not only that our beliefs are wrong, but that in holding these beliefs we are providing succour to the sort of extremist to who we wouldnt give the time of day.

Thats just for starters. It goes on to state:

"Alister was also interviewed for Dawkins much maligned TV series, "The Root of all Evil (sic, no ?)" but presumably ddint fit the ravening extremist profile of religion Dawkins was trying to present, so his contribution ended up on the cutting room floor (it has since been retrieved and posted on the internet - both men obviously thought they got the better of the exchange because they both post links from their websites)"

And on it goes and goes.

Now I'd just like to adda point here. Alister McGrath comes over as a basically decent sort of fellow, in that "pipe and slippers" sort of way. His exchanges with Dawkins are quite friendly. I amsure these guys get on just fine. But the writer of this article is just a twat. I am sure this must be a bit of an embarassment for Alister McGrath

See if you can get a hold of the article - it isnt available online unfortunately.

Just one final point, near the end of the article, McGrath is quoted as saying "I have written 2 books on Dawkins and I wont be writing any more - I have made my contribution and its time to move on"

SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

188. Comment #69482 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 12:37 pm

SG -

...Richard "how can God exist when the world revolves around me" Dawkins...

What rubbish. It can hardly revolve around both of us!

Other Comments by _J_

189. Comment #69483 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Wee Flea said,

1) All those who say that they know what is in these books without ever having read them, just serve to illustrate the arrogance and ignorance of some atheist fundies.

That is spectatularly unfair David. I spent some time writing a review of one of those books (I even mentioned yours) in a polite response to someone who I was pretty sure wasn't really listening. Others on here have mentioned reading some of these books.

You powers of selective reading and quote mining never cease to astonish.

:-((

Incidentally, I seem to recall you mentioning having bought Grayling's book on a previous thread.

You might want to check out Chapter Three entitled Can an Atheist be a Funadamentalist?

Why do you continually come on here only to throw insults about??

I saw a sign while swimming the other day that amused me - it read:

We don't swim in your toilet - please don't wee in our pool.

Please, show some manners!

Other Comments by Corylus

190. Comment #69485 by USA_Limey on September 11, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Comment #69471 by _J_ wrote:

Put it like this: I've increased the literary value of my copy by orders of magnitude by writing the word 'Bollocks!' in the margin

_J_ old chap, please be a good sport and do give a fellow some warning when you are about to drop a funny bomb like that into your discourse. I am at WORK. I am meant to be WORKING. I am not meant to be reading Richard Dawkins website.

Now as dumb as some of my colleagues at work are they are all smart enough to know that when I burst out laughing at my screen I am NOT working since nothing I should be doing could possibly be that funny. As for my smart colleagues, they just feel I am letting the team down and drawing unnecessary attention to our activities.

Your cooperation on this important matter regarding my continued employment is appreciated.

Lime.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

191. Comment #69486 by Northern Bright on September 11, 2007 at 12:57 pm

187. Comment #69479 by scottishgeologist on September 11, 2007 at 12:16 pm

'One of the stronger irritants involved in being a Christian over the last couple of years has been putting up with Richard "how can God exist when the world revolves around me" Dawkins ...'

You've got to laugh at comments like this. Atheists believe that humans just happen to be the most recent species to have emerged along one of the various branches of evolution that have occurred over billions of years. We believe that we have no special place of significance in the universe. We believe that when we die, we die (just like ants and earthworms and ticks). Christians believe that God created the entire universe because he wanted a relationship with us. That we are the only species to be able to have a relationship with him. That we have dominion over all the plants and other animals on earth. That, alone of all of "creation", we have eternal life. That God takes a personal interest in our concerns and cares and, provided we ask him with enough faith, will intervene to grant our requests. That he monitors our every thought and word and that not a hair falls from our heads without his knowing about it. Yet, according to them, we're the self-important ones.

"Alister was also interviewed for Dawkins much maligned TV series, "The Root of all Evil (sic, no ?)" but presumably ddint fit the ravening extremist profile of religion Dawkins was trying to present, so his contribution ended up on the cutting room floor...

Hmm, someone used virtually these exact words on a Christian Beliefs forum a few weeks ago, which always makes me suspicious: it conjures up pictures of Christians standing around after morning worship, practising their anti-Dawkins catchphrases.

See if you can get a hold of the article - it isnt available online unfortunately.

Ugh, SG, I'm currently doing battle with the John Cornwell book, Darwin's Angel, and there's only so much pain I can take.

McGrath is quoted as saying "I have written 2 books on Dawkins ..."

Why, I wonder? Anyone would think the world revolved around him ;-)

Other Comments by Northern Bright

192. Comment #69493 by The Wee Flea on September 11, 2007 at 1:29 pm

172. Galacto- thank you. You have restored my faith in atheists! Wise and helpful comments.


174. Comment #69442 by _J_ Again I agree with you. There is a delicious irony in Josh continuing the 'flea' jibe whilst at the same time running a counter telling us all to exult (and buy) TGD so that it stays in the NYT for one whole year.



175. Comment #69447 by epeeist -

The term fundies is used because those who are prepared to comment on things they have never read, and will never read, are behaving basically as fundies.

I agree about the $20 - he will probably get 10% of net. So perhaps $1 per book. Still a lot of money.

And yes - I am tired of the constant reptition of the atheist creed - w'we don't believe nothing guv'. You don't seem to realise that it is the basis on which you don't believe in God which is itself a faith. Empirical science as all, and logical positivism are two of the basic tenets of most atheists.


176. Comment #69448 by irate_atheist on September 11, 2007 at 9:31 am

Telling people to F off because you do not like what they say or you will report them as a Troll IS behaving like a baby.


178. Comment #69457 by steve99 on September 11, 2007 at 10:12 am

If you seriously think that someone having a PhD in biology from Oxford makes them scientifically illiterate then there is not much more I can say!


179. Comment #69459 by VanYoungman on September 11, 2007 at 10:18 am

Can Billy be far behind?

- Doubt it. I'll lay odds of 1/100 that within a few minutes we will have the Pope, I once went to a Scottish Church meeting which was terrible etc. It used to be sweet. Not its just become obcessive. Best ignored.


182. Comment #69468 by Quetzalcoatl

Fascinating post. You think that your being on this site is proof of your open-mindedness to other points of view. You have the faith virus worse than I thought! Of course there are some, like J and yourself who read what we have written - but the overall tenure of this thread is don't bother, we KNOW they are wrong and just in it for the money!


183. Comment #69471 by _J_

I hate to say this but I agree with you. I only heard Ken Ham once and it terrified me. He is actually one of your best allies - he will split churches and make fools of many of us. Let me put it this way - this is one Free Church he will never be allowed to speak in (at least not without someone sensible to give a rebuttal). I actually think that the majority of Free Churches would not allow him.

If possible could you do me a big favour. Send me your refutation of his material? I am editor of our denominations magazine and I would like to run a whole issue on the creation/evolution debate. If I am to critique Ken Ham I need as much real info as I can get.


189. Comment #69483 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:43 pm
"Wee Flea said,
1) All those who say that they know what is in these books without ever having read them, just serve to illustrate the arrogance and ignorance of some atheist fundies.

That is spectatularly unfair David. I spent some time writing a review of one of those books (I even mentioned yours) in a polite response to someone who I was pretty sure wasn't really listening."

Please read what is written and don't go by what you feel or expect. I did not say that this was true of all atheists, nor even of all atheist fundies (hence the word 'some'). I did say it was true of those who refuse to read what is being said. By definition that does not include those who do. Take a chill pill.

And yes I read Grayling. In my view the worst of the New Atheist publishing. If ever anyone is a flea then a man who rehashes six short essays and puts them in a book charging $15 is one. His chapter three is wrong on almost every count.

Sorry that you think I am rude. This whole thread is a self righteous, pompous attempt to belittle and mock people and books most have not read, nor are likely to read. As such it does your cause, and the claim for this site to be an 'oasis of clear thinking' no good at all. There is not much point pissing in a pool that is already full of filth.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

193. Comment #69496 by Dinah on September 11, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Wee Flea implies that because Professor Dawkins has made money out of TGD that this somehow taints or invalidates its contents. No it doesn't. Writers deserve to be paid for their work as much as anyone else, and as Dr Johnson once remarked 'No man except a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.' And I very much doubt Wea Flea's assertion that 'there are as many atheist books, as there are theist'. Over the centuries thousands of writers of religious tomes have made a pile of money out of the pious. Only if Wea Flea goes away, sells everything he has and gives it to the poor as his religion demands will he be in a position to claim the moral high ground on monetary reward.

Other Comments by Dinah

194. Comment #69497 by USA_Limey on September 11, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Comment #69493 by The Wee Flea:

There is not much point pissing in a pool that is already full of filth

Sounds like the perfect pool to piss in. The addition of a little extra wee won't make much difference either way and will be nicely camouflaged by the rest of the stink and off color water. We don't claim to be pure here just realistic. We are all in the shit together and no sky fairy is going to pull us out. So piss all you want in my pool.

On the other hand pissing in the crystal clear waters of religious piety will always look like a dye marker in the ocean I suppose. But at least it will get your attention.


Other Comments by USA_Limey

195. Comment #69500 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 1:49 pm

weeflea:

You don't seem to realise that it is the basis on which you don't believe in God which is itself a faith.

I don't believe in Yahweh fo the same reason you don't believe in Neptune.

Empirical science as all, and logical positivism are two of the basic tenets of most atheists.

Shouldn't you be churning some butter or something? Interwebs is kinda sciency business.


Other Comments by Dr Benway

196. Comment #69501 by steve99 on September 11, 2007 at 1:50 pm

If you seriously think that someone having a PhD in biology from Oxford makes them scientifically illiterate then there is not much more I can say!

Talk about twisting words. You know full well that is not what I meant. I means that having a Ph.D. in science does not mean that someone is necessarily scientifically literate; especially not in areas they have not studied. Of course it does not make them scientifically illiterate - what a silly thing to say!

This kind of word twisting is illustrative of the kind of half-truth missing-the-point writings that we have been discussing in recent threads here.

Other Comments by steve99

197. Comment #69502 by Quetzalcoatl on September 11, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Wee Flea-

Fascinating post. You think that your being on this site is proof of your open-mindedness to other points of view. You have the faith virus worse than I thought! Of course there are some, like J and yourself who read what we have written - but the overall tenure of this thread is don't bother, we KNOW they are wrong and just in it for the money!

The irony of a Reverend using the words "faith virus" is subtle but nonetheless pleasing to my jaded atheist palate. And of course this site is a good place to hear other points of view- were it not for my being here, I would probably not have heard of you and your views!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

198. Comment #69503 by epeeist on September 11, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Comment #69493 by The Wee Flea

Comment #69447 by epeeist -

The term fundies is used because those who are prepared to comment on things they have never read, and will never read, are behaving basically as fundies.

You only commented on a couple of incidental issues I raised.

Please answer the major questions - do you understand the simple proposition I made about atheism and its implications?

What are these other "tenets" that you think apply to atheism?

Other Comments by epeeist

199. Comment #69504 by epeeist on September 11, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Comment #69496 by Dinah

Wee Flea implies that because Professor Dawkins has made money out of TGD that this somehow taints or invalidates its contents.

What he also does not know is what RD actually does with the money.

Other Comments by epeeist

200. Comment #69507 by BillySands on September 11, 2007 at 2:09 pm

- Doubt it. I'll lay odds of 1/100 that within a few minutes we will have the Pope, I once went to a Scottish Church meeting which was terrible etc. It used to be sweet. Not its just become obcessive. Best ignored.

HA HA HA Wee flea, you are sooooo funneee, please stop it, by nuts have expoloded.
Nice to see you using the time honoured biblical tradition of making predictions after the event. Gosh, If I'm obsessive, maybe I should be writing a book about David's book and posting on his site - despite the censoring!
Hey Dave, I heard you met a rude atheist once (that you provoked) and haven't shut the fuck up about it since

It's quite disturbing the levity with which you treat your church's involvement in these matters. Still, you have made homophobic comments here before, so I'm not suprised

SG does raise an interesting point, these churches are facilitating the teaching of frothing mouthed fundie hate - quite disgusting really and David is allowing it.

I hate to say this but I agree with you

Very telling comment on David's anti Atheist prejudices.

this is one Free Church he will never be allowed to speak in (at least not without someone sensible to give a rebuttal). I actually think that the majority of Free Churches would not allow him.

Ah, censorship, imagine RD saying he wont lets creationists post on this site. The problem is David, Ham reads the bible properly. Where on earth does the bible talk of evolution?
Convince me that the bible is evolution friendly, and I'll even help you refute it - shame you dont do proper debate like Mark T does.

If possible could you do me a big favour. Send me your refutation of his material? I am editor of our denominations magazine and I would like to run a whole issue on the creation/evolution debate. If I am to critique Ken Ham I need as much real info as I can get.

That what I like to see, someone who has clearly investigated what he claims to believe and is able to defend it himself. Too stupid to do it yourself? If you cant rebut it, how do you know he is wrong? And the bible does say nothing about evolution. Can it be reality is finally dawning? Science good, bible shit. I say keep up he good work Ken, you are preaching the true biblical message and showing its absurdity

How about puting your money where your mouth is then and present some evidence for God. i guess if you refuse, you are disobeying god : "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect," 1 Peter 3:15. You can look up the definitions of the last couple of words on line if you want, because I dont think they mean what you seem to think they mean.

And yes I read Grayling. In my view the worst of the New Atheist publishing. If ever anyone is a flea then a man who rehashes six short essays and puts them in a book charging $15 is one. His chapter three is wrong on almost every count.

$15? have they got a different currency in Dundee? It's only about £5-6. DOES ANYONE ELSE SUSPECT dAVE HASN'T READ IT AND HAS ONLY READ AMAZON REVIEWS?

J
Funny that you improved his book by writing the word bollocks, I improved his vitriolic rant by mumbling the word bollocks.

Really suprised the Flea wasn't there burning crosses and stuff

Other Comments by BillySands